Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward
I resist the imposition of other standards on me, and when I really spell it out in unmistakeable language, the person who does the imposition suddenly gets bent out of shape, denying that that's what they're doing, when it's blatantly obvious that is what they're doing. They're upset that they got their hand caught in the cookie jar, so to speak...
|
This is interesting to me, because it begs the question(s): Do you resist change for a reason, or do you simply resist? IOW, do you refuse to change something because you are fully convinced that your way is simply right?
Or, do you simply refuse because you believe that no man has a right to tell you what to do, under any circumstances?
Here's a real world example: I used to ride a motorcycle to work, and I did it with the conviction that I was improving the world, because I was using less gas (and, of course, saving me money). Then it was pointed out to me one day that, although I was indeed saving gas, I was also riding a carbureted V-twin engine based on 1950s technology, with no electronic fuel injection or catalytic converters, etc... and that mile per mile, I was actually polluting the air more than the average SUV!
This information forced me to re-evaluate my commuting choices. Now, I take the train to work, and I'm selling my bike. I have already vowed that, if I get another bike, I will only get one that runs cleanly and efficiently. Because I learned something new, I was willing to change.
So: Under the same circumstances, would you have changed? Would you have accepted the new information given to you? Would you replace the bike, or would you continue to ride it? Would you say that your enjoyment of riding would outweigh the new downside you'd just learned about, so you'd just decide to ignore it?
Or, would you simply take the stance that this person has no right to expect you to stop riding (or replace your bike), and ignore him?