Goliath wrote:
David S. wrote:
I really wish you would, because replying to YOU is no picnic for me, either! And I really don't have much time for this right now.
Well, nobody is forcing you to reply to me! You've been nothing but hateful and angry ever since a few pages back. Basically, you've been insulting me for not sharing your world-view; you've portrayed me as a heartless cold emotion-less being just because I'm not high on "magic" and "spirit". And now your saying *my* posts aren't a "picnic"?!

"Hateful" and "angry"?

Who's being a melodramatic drama queen now?
I didn't say reading your post wasn't a picnic. I said REPLYING, meaning finding the time and energy to reply to them wasn't a picnic. But I have to do it to defend myself and clarify my position, because of the snarky things you've said, and unflattering ways you have tried to portray me, based on your own misinterpretations of my statements. (which I discuss in greater detail below). If I did "portray" you in the way you described, it was not intentional as that is how your words made you seem, and I was only trying to defend myself.
Goliath wrote:
I've always enjoyed your posts and have always liked you. You know that, as we've exchanged more than a couple PMs. But if you want to change all that because I don't want to indulge in your childish fantasies, that's fine with me, pal! Just say so and I won't bother you anymore!
I DID say so (not to bother me anymore). I asked you SPECIFICALLY to reply via PM, if you had to reply at all. And "Fantasy" is NOT "childish". And I never asked you to "indulge" in them. I could care less what you believe in.
Goliath wrote:
David S. wrote:
If so, and if you can't understand, and FEEL, the SPIRIT of that editorial (one of the most beautiful things I've ever read), then yes, I would feel you are cynical, and truly feel sad for you.
And I feel sad for you that you can't face the world through the eyes of a grown-up, which you are *supposed* to be, but instead chooses to deny it by pretending you're still a pre-teen.
I'm not "pretending" or "denying" anything, Mr. Fact-twister. I freely admit to being over 30. And the man who wrote that editorial I cited was, in fact, an "adult" - a hardened newsman, no less. And no one is "supposed" to be anything.
Goliath wrote:
David S. wrote:
It isn't as much about whether Santa is literally an old man with a white beard who lives at the North Pole, as much as it is about the SPIRIT of what he represents. And yes, I believe that spirit is real, and therefore, I believe in Santa Claus.
'Santa Claus' is an Americanized rip-off from the Dutch Saint Nicholas and it only represents Coca Cola and other forms of commercialism, which has gone way overboard the past few decades and has trumped the original meaning of Christmas.
Cynic!
Goliath wrote:
David S. wrote:
If you don't agree with a word of that editorial, it really seems odd to me that you are into Disney. SO many of the iconic Disney movies, and the theme parks, have a recurring theme of innocence, magic, wonder - getting in touch with your inner child, and of believing in things that can't be seen or proven. The ability "to see past the end of your nose" as it was put in Mary Poppins.
I *LOVE*
Mary Poppins! That's one of my favorite Disney-movies! Surprised you there, didn't I? See? I am not as black-and-white as you paint me. I'm into Disney because of everything you just summed up. I love that about Disney. But that doesn't mean I have to feel that way all the time! There are moments when I choose to, when I put on a Disney movie. But whenever I'm not watching them, I prefer to see the world a whole lot more realistically. Because the world is not a movie, and certainly not a Disney-movie! Disney is fiction, nothing more, nothing less. What it presents isn't real and will never be real.
And you are jumping to conclusions that I see it that way "all the time". The point you are missing is, while the STORIES themselves may be "fiction", and the Magic might by "fantasy", the IDEALS represented in these movies (including the benefits of being able to see the world through the eyes of your Inner Child) are neither fiction nor fantasy. They are very REAL and can exist in the REAL WORLD, and in the heart and soul. If more people embraced these ideals, the world would be a better place. But if you shut them out and call them "fantasy" and "fiction", cynicism will win and the world will always be exactly the way it is today.
Goliath wrote:
David S. wrote:
And the way you are makes you cynical and a slave to it. But it is ridiculous to say that anyone who wants to stay in touch with their Inner Child and sense of wonder is "naive" and "out of touch". And I'm not as "naive" as you think. Believe me, I've been exposed to all that "realistic' stuff, and it bores me to no end, and brings me down. In fact, the things "adults" consider "realistic" is a *distortion* of reality, heavily biased towards the negative. Just watch the evening news. All it is, is an endless litany of negativity. Murders, shooting, robberies....
Yes, David, that's what you see on the news, because it is *happening*. It is there and it's real. And that's only a very, very tiny portion of all the evil, depressing things going on in the world. And it's not going to go away by simply putting your fingers in your ears and singing "nanananana", like you seem to do. What you're saying about "staying a child" and all that stuff, is just hiding from reality. It's playing a game. And how ironic that you would say *I'm* "a slave" to anything. Aren't *you* the one who's hooked on a drug called 'fantasy'? You basically just admitted you're indulging in child-like fantasies, because reality "brings you down". So you pretend it's not happening. That's make-belief.
You missed my point, AS USUAL. I mentioned being in touch with my Inner Child, not "staying a child". Two entirely different things.
And the other point you missed - The news might not report ALL the bad that goes on, but it basically reports NONE of the good, aside from the occasional "human interest" story. I'm not "pretending" the bad stuff isn't happening, I just don't feel the need to be reminded about it, once every 24 hours. It is incredibly biased towards the NEGATIVE and is a very "half-empty" way of viewing the world.
Goliath wrote:
David S. wrote:
To truly be "realistic", the news would have to dwell on the positive as much as (or more) than the negative. Because not everyone's life is actually as negative as the news would have you believe.
That's certainly true, but "news" is only news when it deviates from the ordinary. Hence why positive news is no news at all.
Cynic!
Goliath wrote:
David S. wrote:
Meaning, "Reality" is RELATIVE to the eyes of the individual. You choose to live in a world where you are constantly aware of the grime in the world, and I choose to live in a world that TRANSCENDS it.
Now that's not true. It's simply not factual. Reailty is not "in the eye of the beholder". Reality is what's actually happening. So when you choose to not look at reality and to pretend it doesn't exist by pretending your still a "child", that doesn't mean reality *is* that way. You've simply shut it out, that's all.
Yes, it IS true, no one has time to simultaneously comprehend all of the "reality" of human existence. There is always good to be found, as well as the bad. If you live in a world of 10 PM news, you will be more conscious of the bad. Tuning out the news is not the same thing as "pretending" it does not exist. It's just adjusting your focus to have a more positive view of the world. I could just as logically say that you are pretending POSITIVE reality does not exist, by focusing more on the negative reality. You did, after all, say elsewhere in another thread that you believe humanity is inherently bad. If that isn't a negative and cynical (and arguably UNREALISTIC) worldview, I don't know what is.
And again, being in touch with your Inner Child is NOT the same thing as "pretending to still BE a child."
Goliath wrote:
David S. wrote:
I didn't mean that people couldn't be in touch with both. I was referring to an earlier post (which you may not have seen, because I added this part in later) where I referred to the Myers/Briggs personality test, which I enjoy taking for fun, from time to time.
Sounds like fun; let me try it. I will post the result here.
Why not post that in the appropriate Off-Topic thread instead. I think it's about 10 + pages back, and was started by Prudence. I'll be putting mine there, eventually.
Goliath wrote:
David S. wrote:
So that's all I meant by pitting one against the other. I was just trying to give you some perspective on how I am naturally inclined to look at things. And that might explain why we see things very differently.
I don't even mind that we see things differently!
Remember that this whole melodramatic 'fight' (which we *both* engaged in) started when I simply asked you why you think less of a movie when it has a sad ending, and I stated my own opinion on the subject. That's all. I never asked you to "defend" yourself. I explicitly told you so.
WRONG! Check your "facts" carefully, Mr. Factual! That part of the discussion ended long ago, with my reply about that. What we are discussing now, about "reality" and "fantasy", started because you just HAD to get that condescending remark in there, quoting what I said about meeting Lotso in my critique of Toy Story 3, asking me if I really believed that the Lotso I met at WDW was "real", and even laughing at me with an emoticon, just because I posted a conversation I had with him. Maybe you don't go to the parks, but "adults" who meet the characters talk to them all the time, often "in character", and NO ONE questions their "grasp on reality". (If I had only thought to word it like that the first time, maybe all of these other replies could have been avoided *sigh*)
Goliath wrote:
David S. wrote:
Actually, I looked it up. Apparently he was referencing John Adams' quote " Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence", which is actually in DEFENSE of facts, and he simply got confused and misplaced "stubborn" with "pesky". Although if this is the case and IF you were aware of it, I'm not surprised you left this part out, given your politics. I'm not a conservative or Republican by any means, but if you are going to praise "facts" so much, please at least get them straight!
I left nothing out deliberatly. It's one thing to give a speech supposedly in defense of facts, but when you don't *act* upon them, you're being a hypocrite. Reagan could sell incredible lies and inaccurate or false statements without batting an eye (maybe because he was used to it from his actor days). So it strikes me as very hypocritical of him to abuse one of the Founding Fathers like that.
But the FACT is, Mr. FACTUAL, you stated as FACT that he said "Facts are pesky things" because "he was PROUD" (of not caring about facts)
But the FACT is, whether you feel he cared about facts or not, this was an honest mistake caused by using the word "pesky" instead of "stubborn", when citing a quote in defense of facts. So, whether you knew the origin of the quote or not, the FACT is that you did not present these FACTS, and instead your words twisted the FACTS to say he said it because he was "proud" of not caring about FACTS:
Goliath wrote:
But the point I was trying to make, was that he wasn't, and he was proud of it too. That's why he said "facts are pesky things".
Goliath wrote:
David S. wrote:
Ah, EVERYTHING is political for you, isn't it. I am not harming ANYONE by not regularly following political topics I don't enjoy. [...] And I am NOT "harming" others simply by inaction, and mirroring the natural state of an object at rest to remain at rest, and exercising my own natural right to do so.
No, not *everything* is political with me, but your attitude toward it *does* affect other people. Or are you going to deny that? Again, I'm not singeling you out, because millions of people share your view that "politics is boring", and each of them is at least partly responsible for what goes wrong in politics. And politics *does* affect people's lives. Just look how nervous disneyboy20012 has been the past couple of weeks because of the debt ceiling negotiations. Because if no agreement is reached, the US will default and that will *directly* impact him. And maybe some of the extremist, crazy nut-bags who *want* to see the US default wouldn't have been in Congress in the first place if more people had actually paid a little more attention to politics!
But YOU were the one who flew off the handle, lectured me, and got all preachy about how I am "harming" others, assumed I don't vote, and don't have opinions on issues, just because I said "Politics BORE me". And I only said that to tell you I didn't know the context of that Reagan quote. Meaning, it bores me too much to follow EVERY minute detail, every last little speech, EVERY last squabble between the Republicrats and the Democans. And even if I did, that doesn't mean I would REMEMBER the context of a Reagan quote from the 80's!
Goliath wrote:
David S. wrote:
I could turn that around on you and say that if you buy a DVD tomorrow, or simply do nothing with your leisure money, you are "harming" the poor by not giving them that money instead, since it would have helped them and you didn't need it for a "neccessity". Of course, I don't believe that, but it's the same kind of logic you are using.
No, it isn't, not even remotely.
YES, IT IS. Everything you DON'T DO is theoretically "harming others", by the same logic you are using. Again, I don't agree with that logic. We have no obligation to do ANYTHING.
Goliath wrote:
David S. wrote:
I certainly feel like I contribute more good to the world than "harm", through voluntary charitable donations and such.
I commend you for that! That's a very noble thing to do! My compliments gon out to you!
And for the record, I didn't mention this to toot my own horn, but to give an example of that I do what I can, in my own way. It might be too draining for me to dwell on politics on a REGULAR basis, but I do my part in OTHER ways by donating money to organizations that help sick children, the poor, no-kill animal shellters, etc.
And I also mentioned it to illustrate that I am NOT the delusional way you are painting me as "pretending" all the problems of the world do not exist, and being "out of touch" with reality. If that were the case, I wouldn't be aware of the causes that I try to help; I would pretend they didn't exist.
Goliath wrote:
David S. wrote:
And who says I'm not "informed"? I am in many ways apolitical, but I do pick up enough here and there to know that I don't care for either major party, except perhaps the third party Libertarians, which you dislike because they aren't socialist. So you probably wouldn't want me getting involved in politics!
It's better to be involved than to be apathethic. Look at Bill Maher: he was a libertarian 10 years ago, and now he's strongly in favor of socialistic government measures!
Nobody's perfect, I guess! (referring to being in favor of socialism now)
Goliath wrote:
David S. wrote:
And again, the political scene BORES me and brings me down. It's a drag, man. Too much negative energy. It's not that I don't care, because I do care about certain issues. I just prefer to not DWELL on them in a day-in, day-out basis like you do.
Now, now... who says I do that? You seem to have a very selective view of me.
You give that impression because the level of details you know are the type known by people who follow these things in a very detailed, "micro", basis. But my quote wasn't as much saying that YOU do that, as much as it was explaining that just because I DON'T do that, and am not HYPER-informed like you come across as, it doesn't mean I don't have well thought-out opinions about important issues (such as being pro animal rights, pro gay rights, pro gender equality, pro privacy rights, pro environment, pro peace, and pro small government).
Goliath wrote:
David S. wrote:
And you are more "thick-skinned" than I am. So instead of criticizing people who are different than you and preaching how they should care about your beloved politics, why not accept that not all people have the same interests and temperaments.
I couldn't care less about other people's interests. I don't care which books you like to read, what music you like to listen to, or what movies you like to watch. But you treat politics like it's just like one of the three categories I just listed; you talk about it like it's a hobby, and it's not. Like I said, it affects people's lives on a daily basis. And it's a shame so many people are too "bored by it to care, while people on the other side of the world are fighting and DYING in the streets to have a say in the way they are governed.
But that's the problem. You ASSumed that because I said I was too bored by it to know the context of that Reagan quote, or to dwell on it on a regular basis, that I was too bored by it to care about political issues in their ENTIRETY. Which should be obvious by now, is simply not true.
And that "other side of the world" bit is really melodramatic. In college I went to see a Christmas light display with another student, and they suddenly started going on and on about how they just couldn't enjoy it, because it was morally wrong because people in the third world were starving and dying, and how the money paying for the electricity should go to them, instead. Talk about laying on the "guilt trip"!
Goliath wrote:
David S. wrote:
In closing, I leave you with a song (audio below lyric excerpt), and the heartfelt wish to not discuss these things publically with you ever again. (But if you keep replying, I will keep defending/clarifying, and unfortunately, I suspect you'll be back. But if you wish to reply further, I am requesting that you take this to PMs, as it will be more private, and this is also derailing the topic.)
I feel bad you don't want to discuss things with me publicly ever again. As you know (and I've stated it above), I've always thought highly of you. Just because we disagree, is no reason to hate each other. And yes, I'm replying in public, because that's where this conversation started. Just like I always apologize in public whenever I did any wrong-doing in public. I just think that's the decent thing to do.
Who said anything about "hate"? Who's being the "drama queen" now?
And you're twisting the "FACTS" again, Mr. Factual! I didn't say I don't want to talk to you in public again. I said I don't want to discuss THESE things in public with you ever again. I am a private person, and to properly explain myself in the topics being discussed, I have to present a bit of info about the way I think about things, and I'd rather not do that. And you are twisting (or misinterpreting) my words to make me look bad, painting me as one-dimensional and delusional, when that is simply not the case.
But if you are truly sincere about wanting to remain "friends", you will NOT continue this discussion in public, as I already politely requested. And I would even further request that if you are willing to delete all of your replies to me in this thread, I will be MORE than happy to delete all of mine to you - starting from around the place where you questioned my grasp on "reality" simply because I talked to Lotso in the parks, like a lot of people do with the characters, including "adults" (That way the endless cycle of having to defend ourselves will end, and any negative things said by both of us will be stricken from the record). If you are not willing to do this, I will ask the moderators to do it for both of us. It really is derailing this thread, anyway.