Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
That's what I said, either neither are valid or both are valid.
But your example wouldn't apply to the picture I posted. If you are looping looking for a spot you're not looping up and down empty isles. Or if you're looking for a windbreak, a single car isn't as good as a bunch of cars. But the windbreak one does make some sense, so on -40 windchill days that might mitigate the eyeroll to someone parking next to my red arrow parking spot.
There's tons of people out there who would do it, just like there's people on this forum who's intent is antagonistic and malicious for their own entertainment. I think jerk is far higher on the probability list than windbreak. You have to admit that jerk is going to constitute a percentage of the incidents if we could measure them all, be it 1%, 25% or 75%.
I think you're being a bit disingenuous because while you might not put the same value to the appearance of your car as others, or the same value to money to repair your car as others, you DO understand the principle because you have something in your life that you value, and abstraction and perspective taking are human skills so abstracting the value you place on whatever it is you value and being able to see someone else's perspective about what they value even if it's a different thing being valued is something you are capable of.
Well first your attributing a lot of things to me that I haven't claimed or expressed... overstating what I've said doesn't undermine it.
But I'm not having trouble accepting anything, I'm trying to find out what it is that I'm supposed to be accepting, the reason I am to relate to. I'm willing to accept reasonable things. So far windbreak is the only reasonable one I've seen, and that's tenuous since many rows of proximity to the entrance would far outweigh the benefit of a car-length windbreak.
Where did I say I'd be mad??
I'll never understand your reasons because I had reasons? That doesn't follow. Every action has reasons, even if they aren't conscious.
My entire point is trying to understand why, and now you're telling me I'll never understand why? That's nonsense, even if I wouldn't agree I'm perfectly capable of understanding a explanation. Or if there is no reason, well people who act with no reason at all are usually classified as insane. There's always a reason.
No, and telling someone what they feel or think is confrontational, it doesn't facilitate communication.
As I've already said, I don't care if I relate to a reason, as long as there is a reason and it actually is reasonable (which is kind of a requirement for it being a reason, reason being part of the word reasonable).
|
I went off on a more general tangent, not necessarily everything was directed at you specifically, so I apologise for the confusion.
I've given you reasons. They are my reasons, and there are people like myself that have those reasons. I assumed you may never understand because I've explained them several times, and still, nothing. Maybe that's my fault. You've even said you'll accept any reasonable reason, but claimed the ONLY acceptable reason this far is "windbreak". I cannot speak for everyone. Jerks exist, people who are out to get you exist, but that's not EVERYONE. I also can't speak to every diagram or example posted in this thread, and I'm not trying to.
I come from the belief that you give the benefit of the doubt, which is what I think you should do. To me, that's part of common courtesy. If someone parked beside me and there was a 88% they were just a jerk, I'm going to take the 12% and give them the benefit of the doubt. If you think 88% are jerks, well then I speak for the 12% and ask "Hey, can you not lump us in?" It's a simple ask. Not meant as anything more than that.
I value things, true. Do I value anything material? Not in the same way you do at all. I have a car, if it gets dinged up or damaged, oh well, that happens. I have a house, if a window gets smashed or a light fixture breaks, that happens (though, rarely! lol). I have a nice camera, if a friend knocks it off the table and marks it up, oh well, that happens. Someone spilt food over a $300 jacket of mine once. I wasn't upset, I simply got it cleaned. I don't fret over imperfections that can occur on material goods. Nothing. I also don't blame people for accidents. I value goods for what they provide, and so long as they continue to provide them, they are perfect. There's nothing wrong in you putting value in aesthetic perfection, but I don't in anything. I'm not materialistic in any way. I enjoy things, but "things" don't matter to me, you can't take them with you when you go. Does that mean I don't understand that some people do? No, but I don't spend time thinking about the aesthetic values of others when I'm out to grab laundry soap. I still respect your car, but perhaps we don't equate a showing of that respect in the same way.
I'm not trying to argue with you at all, so I'm not sure of your desire to dissect everything I'm saying and combat it. I'm just trying to explain a different side, not that you're wrong. As I've said before, if all anyone takes from this is that not everyone who parks beside you is a jerk or worth your ire, and that's all I wanted.
Accusing me of being confrontational, disingenuous, bringing notions of "insane" or generally unreasonable into the mix when I'm giving you a simple, honest account of a guy who occasionally parks next to other vehicles without ever having malicious intent doesn't seem to facilitate conversation either. If that's my fault, then I'll leave it be, and apologise because I certainly didn't intend to come off like any of those things.
That's it, take it or leave it, I can't explain it better than that. If it's not enough, then I'm upset I wasted as much time as I did! lol.