(no subject)

[andrewducker]

If I don't like doing something, but it doesn't really cost me anything significant and it doesn't really cause me pain to do it, I just find it pointless and it would make the person I'm doing it for feel appreciated and happy...

[Poll #135875]

Comments

[ex-digitalis869.livejournal.com]

It so, so depends.

[andrewducker]

Everything depends.

I mean, if it was "Swearing at black people." then obviusly, no. But I was kinda assuing that it was something that I had no moral problem with.

[gwenix.livejournal.com]

I don't think you should be held responsible for thinking it up on your own, but if you know it exists, it doesn't cost you anything (emotional, moral, or whatever), and it makes someone else happy then by all means do it!

[dapperscavenger.livejournal.com]

Well, I'd say yes, but I'm also aware that if you give too much you sometimes feel like you're the one doing all the giving. If the recipient gives too then definitely. If not, you might want to mention how much you dislike doing it in the hope you won't get asked again.

Unless its the laundry, in which case I have no sympathy :p

[laurelei.livejournal.com]

Er, I kind of thought that one of the main things seperating adults from children is the fact that we all have to do things we don't want to do. (I'm not wording that exactly right, but I'm tired.) Like going to work. Like paying taxes. And on and on.

I actually find it kind of absurd that you'd ask this question in a poll. If you care about the other person, making them happy should be enough for you to just go ahead and do it without any great dilemma, especially if it's none too taxing on you...

[guyinahat.livejournal.com]

*translation*
Of course you should swallow

Re:

[laurelei.livejournal.com]

*snicker*

[andrewducker]

I wasn't asking for my own sake.

It was more a general question aimed at the world to see what people's opinions were...

Re:

[laurelei.livejournal.com]

I was kind of guessing that. You don't strike me as the selfish type...

[andrewducker]

Me? I'm evil.

Eeeeeeeeevil.

Of course I'm only saying that cos evil guys get all the chicks.

[spaj.livejournal.com]

I say no. Mainly because doing the thing without full disclosure of the fact that you don't like it, it's kinda dishonest...

Adam

[autodidactic.livejournal.com]

Would they be willing to do the same for you without giving you endless amounts of shit? Then, yeah.

A.

[octopoid-horror.livejournal.com]

Yes, you should go out to the pub and drink alcohol

And you should also let Erin wear a strap on and f**k you silly.

[andrewducker]

Well, obviously.

[tisme.livejournal.com]

Did you think that was _me_ making all the noise?

[kimberly-a.livejournal.com]

I answered "yes" (after some hesitation) because of the wording of the question, but -- as someone else mentioned above -- it definitely depends on the situation. And no matter what the situation is, I don't think that someone else's potential happiness makes anyone else obligated to do anything for them.

There are plenty of things I don't do for other people, just because I don't like to do those things. If that makes me selfish (as one of your other readers strongly implies), then so be it. I'm not going to live my life for other people.

[kimberly-a.livejournal.com]

Upon further thought in my own journal, I've changed my answer to "no". I don't think we are responsible for other people's happiness, and so if we want to do something to please them, then that's great. But I don't think it's a "should" sort of situation.

[kpollock.livejournal.com]

If you feel like it at the time, has got to be the only answer.

I think 'normal' folks would mainly say yes (in fact they'd be surprised you have to ask).

I'd probably try to work out why they didn't find it pointless and if they were right (and it's not) or I am right (and it is).

I don't think it's healthy for anybody to depend for their happiness on stuff someone else does .

[andrewducker]

Everything's pointless. Things have function only according to their goals and all goals are emotion based and subjective.

And you're right in some ways - total reliance on other people is not good. But total independence and cutting yourself off from others also isn't good. Naturally speaking, we're social creatures.

This came up in the first place because Kimberly's mum was unhappy because Kimberly didn't send her a mother's day card. Kimberly's response was that she doesn't do cards. Now, it costs Kimberly (nearly) nothing to send the card and it would keep her mother (who she cares about) happy. Should she send her the card or not? Is this putting her on the slipper slope to pandering to her mother's every whim? Or is it just doing a little thing for her mother on Mother's day? Should her mother just accept the phone call that she does get represents a lot of love in the first place, or is she justified in wanting her daughter to show her love in the way that she likes it?

I don't think it's a simple question, myself.

[kpollock.livejournal.com]

I'm not even going to get into this topic. I only do birthday cards, no others (I am aware that this may be slightly illogical). Mother's day (and all the rest) are 'commercial rubbish'.

I really cannot understand why people seem to want cards or phonecalls all the time. My parents have had a long battle of it over phonecalls, as you may recall, and I'm still the same. If there is a problem or a party or something that requires organisation then people will call or I will call them. Otherwise I really have nothing whatsoever to say - I don't do trivia/gossip, I don't generate it and I'm not interested in it. I cannot understand why other people are.

Why on earth do people seem to correlate how much contact you have with them with how much you care about them? I trust people can get on with their lives quite happily most of the time and I don't worry about them or need to check up on them. As I said, if they have a problem, they will call. the same goes for me. If you don't hear from me I am doing fine (or if I do have a problem then it's nothing that you can help with).

[diffrentcolours]

Do it if you want to; don't feel obliged to act out of character for somebody else's benefit.