Quote:
|
Originally Posted by high_jinx
i don't think much about my "standing" with people, but yes, i remain mum because of my concern that it would jeopardize my friendship.
as an example, i have a friend who is constantly smoking in his car, including when we're going anywhere together and i'm in there with him. I can tell its part of his daily m.o. to always have a cigarette going when he's driving anywhere. I can also tell that if i objected to him doing it, that he'd be uncomfortable and obsess about it the whole time we were on the road together. It's to the point that I make a strong bid to be the one driving when we go somewhere, but he insists on driving so he can smoke.
i know he'd abstain if i asked for my sake because he's a considerate guy, but then i would be a seed for some serious psychological distress on his part because of his addiction and routine.
|
This is what we call enabling. Don't be an enabler. It makes you a bad person. ;P
No, but seriously. You're preventing your friend from experiencing the consequenses of his actions. He might surprise you. Or he might be asked to refrain from smoking by someone else very important down the road, and he's never had to do it 'cause you've created an artifical protective environment...yeah, it's a little rediculous, and I'm using hyperbole to emphasize the point. If you're not going to be honest (uh oh, bad person alert) and tell him you don't want him to when he asks, at least tell him why you don't feel that you could ask him to refrain.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by high_jinx
and roachboy, i again apologize for my op being too slippery to have a dialogue upon it. i respectfully withdraw my "good person" analogy. And i would love a thread along these same lines about people driving and talking on their cell phones at the same time... i don't understand that either.
I do notice however, you've peppered 4 responses among this thread about it being so much drivel.... if thats the case, why do you torture yourself by continually coming back?
|
You've admitted (gracefully and repeatedly) that your OP wasn't worded well. But people continue to focus on that rather inflamitory (great pun!) section, and I think that roachboy's input is reflecting *on* that focus.
And I'd have to agree with roachboy that just because your provocactive and poorly-worded OP flushed some "zealots" out of the bushes does not in any way justify...a provocactive and poorly-worded OP.
Not trying to jump your case or anything, but I don't see value or merit in singling out roachboy.