Truth/Honesty

The irony of Polonius' speech was that he was not in any way true to himself.  He betrayed his own daughter Ophelia's trust. He had spies follow Laertes, the very son he spoke those words to, to learn what the son did while he was away at school.  He spied on Hamlet and his mother - that one got him killed.

At his every speech he gave away his own lack of self-awareness through an extreme sense of pompous self-importance, while his own behavior was frequently foolish, including those actions that led to his death, and eventually to the deaths of both of his children in the aftermath of his choices and actions.

I would hardly call him a role model.

Sometimes it is wisest to just mind one's own business.

Just my opinion.

del.

Thanks DK.  I agree.  We often hear Gospel preachers say one thing, yet they don't live by it.  I think truth is truth no matter who says it.  We often look at the source to form an opinion and that is natural.  Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, truth may or may not be viewed in the same manner.  I think being truthful to oneself is important - at least it is important to me.

Each embrace their own opinion of truth. Some can be proven, some can not. Our downfall is we know we are smart. When the truth is known, when we become smart. It is then we find how little we really know.

When one speaks of the importance of being truthful, and then asks for an opinion, one ought to understand that the opinions given will represent the truth as the responder sees it.

For each of us, "truth" is based on our individual perceptions, and our opinions can never be more than the result of those perceptions. Our judgements of others are always based on those personal perspectives.

For instance, when we are judging certain individuals as being fat, especially where "fatness" is obviously being used in a pejorative sense, it is a reflection on the accuser, rather than the accused. The same holds true for any and all criticisms, whether they concern one's physical appearance, one's intelligence, or one's writing skill. our judgements are a part of our own way of seeing the other, rather than on any actuality in the other's existence.

If we are going to proclaim, "to thine own self be true," it is wise to know oneself, and be aware of where their perspectives are coming from.

Just sayin'

I know what I know.  I also know that there is much I don’t know and still learning.  Yes we do make judgments based on our perspectives.  Just to clarify, I relayed information about someone who wrote to the CNN person and made his comment that she was fat and relayed her response.  I didn’t think that it would be misconstrued.
 
It may be best all around if I kept my observations, opinions and thoughts to myself.  I shall give that a try beginning now.

No, Abe, You are free to give your opinions and you are free to withhold them as well.
No one will kill you if you don't bother to tell your brother and his friends of their overweight condition.
They have scales, mirrors and doctors  who harp at them.
Save yourself the angst of addressing this issue.
Just my unsolicited opinion.

Ann's point is well taken, but I agree with D.K. that wisdom can be gleaned by imperfect people. Though Polonius was no less flawed than Hamlet himself (a prince who cannot make up his mind is a fatal flaw then and now and can lead to devastating consequences to himself, his kingdom and everyone around him--even to tertiary players like Rosencrantz and Gildenstern, not just the fair Ophelia literally driven nuts by "our hero"). 

To Abe's point, I am always uncomfortable about people who use their "truth" to bludgeon others. Speaking truth can, in fact be bullying when one repeatedly, purposely and without justification uses truth to demean, belittle or hurt another human being. Pointing to a fat person and saying "hey, buddy, lighten up on your food intake lest you be mistaken for a grounded Goodyear blimp" is mean, antisocial and unwarranted. But it is not bullying, however. Following someone around and constantly making comments about their weight, of course, would be bullying. There is no clear line of demarcation between merely "mean" and "bullying" behavior, save that bullying by definition is (or should be) repetitive conduct intended to cause harm.

Truth is always a defense to libel and absolutely protected conduct. Truth is not always a defense to bullying, however, which can be seen both legally and ethically as a form of harassment. You have the right to say I'm fat, but not to harangue me about my weight constantly--especially if you know it hurts me. In fact, if someone "bullies me" about being fat (read: tells me repeatedly or in a mocking toine that I'm fat) I'd probably say something like, "I can lose 20 pounds and be back at my ideal weight in a couple of month if I chose to. Fat or skinny, though, I'll be a genius from the cradle to the grave and you will be an idiot until the day you die, and there is not a thing you can do about it." Would that constitute bullying on my part? I think not. It certainly would violate no state or federal law at present. Nor, I think, would it violate any ethical standard.

Having said all of this, I am generally opposed to "anti bullying laws" and think the issue has been taken too far afield of a reasonable discussion about the physical and psychological abuse of children by other children and/or adults, which is a serious issue that deserves serious consideration. Laws protecting us against harassment more than adequately cover the issue in both criminal and civil contexts.

Unfortunately, bullying has become tangled up in the usual soiled wrappings of political correctness and is increasingly being used as a tool to stamp out debate or dissent and to clamp down on speech anyone finds offensive. Thus, telling someone "you're an idiot" is bullying (it makes idiots feel bad about themselves) even if the person is, in fact, well, and idiot or behaving in a patently idiotic manner. Words like "retarded" are banned even when applied to someone with an IQ of 50. Stupid, which, unlike retarded, has no objective measure, is also banned because it makes people feel bad about themselves. Genius and gifted are banned too (as are most programs intended to support such people in public schools), because it makes "normal" people feel inferior. The language police come in and create new standards that "right thinking people"  must use and citations are issued liberally for transgressions from "wrong-headed people" who are instantaneously accused, convicted and sentenced as "bullies" (Bullies are often also convicted of being racist, misogynistic, sexist, homophobic, and, worst of all, Republicans for good measure).

Examples: You don't like Reverend Wright and think him a wingnut? You're a bully (and a racist); You believe Obamacare to be unwise, too expensive, and believe it should be repealed (you're a bully, a racist and a misogynist [because you oppose faith based institutions being forced to offer contraceptive coverage for women]); You believe only heterosexual couples should be allowed to marry? You're a bully (and a homophobe).

Interestingly enough, bullying generally applies only to people who espouse points of views from the left. An MSNBC commentator who says things about Sarah Palin that even FOX refused to air (involving her deserving someone defecating in her mouth, I believe, among other vile things) is, of course, not fired but allowed to resign with warm and fuzzy words from the head of MSNBC in praise of his wonderful years of service. He was not a "bully" or a misogynist. He was just properly castigating a Republican who happens to be a woman (and a human being, doubtless, In Name Only). All's good. No sweat.

Nor is there bullying OR racism involved when young black men across multiple cities in the U.S. take up the fun game of knocking down white men and women by administering blunt trauma to the head that makes them lose consciousness. Many of the victims are elderly, and in New York at least mostly Jewish in predominantly Jewish neighborhoods). These fun-loving thugs videotape themselves knocking down victims and put the results on the web for all to enjoy. The usual "protectors of civil rights" and "spokespersons for the disenfranchised" are as silent as the tomb on the issue. And, despite ample video evidence the issue is poorly covered and quickly dies away in the popular media. Racism? Antisemitism? Ageism? Sexism? All trumped by political correctness.

How did this conversation become political??  

Everything is political now.

I guess.

Ann,

Any discussion about restricting speech--voluntarily or coerced--which is what Abe originally alluded to and I responded to--is an inherently political discussion. I don't think I strayed too far from his original point, but if I'm wrong about that, my apologies to Abe.

Aside from the fact that Abe's reporter worked for CNN, I don't see anything remotely connected to politics in his OP.

Nor do I understand the statement that "bullying generally applies only to people who espouse points of views from the left," especially at a time when right-wing politicians are making a habit of attacking women for not being able to control their libido and using that as a reason for denying them birth control.

See this post.

Just me, though.

Abe,

You ask about telling the truth in reviews of someone else's work. Reviews serve several purposes, so there isn't one answer that fits all. An unsolicited review of a book that you paid for and read is different from a review that a fellow author asked for in order to improve the work.

If you bought the book on Amazon and didn't enjoy it, don't bother to write a review. The book wasn't to your taste, but it might be an excellent read for others. If you thought it was average or good, write the review and point out all the positive aspects of the book and don't dwell on the negative. 

If asked to give an honest opinion about a WIP, expect a knee jerk reaction to anything negative that you might have to say. This is a normal, human reaction, and it would be odd if authors didn't feel protective of their work. That said, if you pinpoint weaknesses that are accurate, those who genuinely want to improve their work will find your words nagging at them. They won't go away, because the author knows that the reviewer was correct and had spotted something that would lead to improvement if changed. 

So, tell the truth if that truth is sought, otherwise be tactful. If you can't be nice, be as nice as you can.

I am not defending, “Saying things that hurt others,” but, making laws that shut peoples mouths…is that not the loss of free speech?

Lets turn the coin around: A black person can say what they want about white people, but white people break the law if they say the very same thing about black people.

I am a smoker. I am offended with all the TV ads the make smokers look like bad people.

This is a scientific fact…”They don’t know what causes cancer, if they did they would have cured it fifty years ago.” It’s not from second hand smoke.

Take this scenario; “A doctor can tell a person they are to fat. That would be good because the doctor is an expert on health.” I tell somebody they are fat, and I am a bully.

A doctor tells a smoker they should quit…that’s okay, he is an expert. Those who are not doctors who tell others they need to quit smoking…are they not bullies?

The point I am trying to make is the scales on what can be said, and who can say what, is a lose of free speech. Them, (Somebody) has made free speech a crime.

I have the freedom of religion. I believe in the Bible. It is my right. I can not read from the Bible Gods view on same sex marriage…have I not lost the freedom of religion?

Who is to defend slime people who are white, smoke, and believe in God? I am a fiction writer…it is in fiction I can write the truth. If you are overweight, and you see me standing across the street looking at you, take care, you just might become a FAT character in one of my fiction stories.

Good thread Abe…and yes, I have put on five pounds this last year. “Don’t call me fat, you bugger.” And if you don’t know what bugger means, look it up…if you think the word FAT is bad…it’s nothing alongside bugger, but bugger is okay to say.

del.

del.

del.

Some things to think about, based on the last few posts:

Quote :

"There is no problem so big that it cannot be run away from."... "You're quoting Snoopy the dog, I believe?" "I'll quote the truth wherever i find it thank you."
Richard Bach "Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah"

Add this one:


And this one:


And, speaking of truth, if the Christ was a Jew in 33AD, how is it that he has green eyes?

dkchristi wrote:

I don't want to get started on smoking or dog rights - both are my pet peeves.  I believe in civil society we make agreements to reduce certain rights so that they do not by their existence deny a set of rights to others.  It's a system of give and take.  

Smokers are welcome to smoke and kill each other; they are not welcome to dirty up my environment with their refuse and make the air so that my lungs cry out and I gasp.  They have options to go elsewhere to smoke and smoking is not necessary to life.  Breathing clear air is necessary to life.  My right to breath is a higher level right then theirs to kill themselves.  Yes, not only does a person susceptible to lung cancer give themselves a death sentence other cancers have been linked to the poisonous effects of the ingredients smoke inhaled to other parts of our precious, God-given body, given with the resources to keep it healthy.

They have found nothing to link smoking to cancer. Exhaust fumes from the gas engine does cause lung problems…All the other junk about second hand smoke is nothing but BS.

It is the fumes from gasoline that is destroying this earth. That is a proven fact. You want to clean things up, get a different type fuel…why do you think they are going to electric cars?

Most of our air pollution is now from CHINA…what are you doing to stop that? Are you still buying things made in CHINA?

It disgust me when people start on this second had smoke crap, then drive their car ten miles, and make more pollution than 1,000 smokers make in one year.

You can take this to the bank, “They do not know why people get cancer, or even where cancer comes from. Yes, some people who have died were smokers. Others who were not smokers also died from cancer. Some who have never been around areas were there are smokers have died from cancer…so I guess that must mean the second had smoke has filled all the air around the world…that would be stupid to assume.

Have you made test to see how far cigarette smoke goes before its partials fall to the ground?

Do you drink tap water? Here is a news flash: What you drink in the afternoon, somebody flushed down their toilet that morning. Would you like a list of how many bugs, and rat droppings are allowed in your food?…the amount would make you stop eating.

Have you ever driven past high wires? You car radio stops working. What do you think that is doing to your electrical system…yes, your body is an electrical system also.

The list goes on, and on, and on…America is trying to save the air. Other countries are not. Other countries are throwing tones of stuff into the air every minute. You think that stuff stops at the American boarders? Give me a break. Excuse me, I’ll be right back…I have to go smoke a cigarette.

del.

My grandfather was a smoker, he died...of old age at 83. Me, I'm 78. I have been a smoker since the age of 13...My last check up, (Dec 2013) my lungs were as good as a twenty year old.
If second hand smoke bothers you, see a doctor...your system has something wrong. Perhaps you have weak lungs. Whatever it is, you, and others don't own the air. Perhaps all you non smokers should all move to an area of your own...leave the rest of us alone.
If you need a soap box, go after drunk drivers, those who sell drugs to kids, or people who make war.
Non smokers are over weight, have bad teeth, and pass wind around other people...and they do it with out making a sound so we don't know who they are. I can spot a wind passer a mile away. You always look at the person next to you like they did it. If you don't think passing wind is harmful, hold a match near your butt next time...it will make a big flame...what do you think that does to peoples lungs? It could be the cause of cancer.

How about heart attacks?  Smoking constricts arteries and nicotine is bad for the heart.

del.

alice wrote:

How about heart attacks?  Smoking constricts arteries and nicotine is bad for the heart.

I had a heart problem last year. It was not from smoking, but a kidney infection that went into my upper chest, and threw the top part of my heart out of rhythm with the lower part. My doctor fixed that with medication.

The major problem people have with heart attacks comes from stress. Me, I don’t stress out. The second major problem comes from the junk they put in food. In 1956 I was in Japan. All the people were very short. Today they eat the same stuff we eat. Girls are six foot, and taller. Here is a medical fact. The heart of tall people grows no larger than that of a short person. A tall persons heart has to work harder…that is why short people live longer. Today heart attacks are the major problem in Japan. They claim it is from stress.

If you watch what age groups are going to the grave, it is those born in the 1920’s, and the second group is the 1940’s.

People born in the 1920’s are living longer than those born in the 1940’s…does that tell you something?

The public thinks people today are living longer. That is not true, People born seventy plus years ago are living longer, Those born in the 1940’s are not. Most of those born between 1920-1940 are smokers. If people die from second hand smoke, why are all the first hand smoke people out living the non smoker?