Code Contemplation

There was a conversation that ended quite badly some weeks ago. I've mentally reviewed it and tried to look at it from both sides. My conclusions are inconclusive.

After experiencing events in which much alcohol was present, I thought maybe the other party was somewhat drunk; had reached that point of belligerence which happens sometimes when you drink, especially when talking to someone who makes or contemplates choices you wouldn't make.

That conversation was worrisome. If the other party is unaware how questions were put to me, then my answers probed for more detail, then when detail was offered I was assaulted with angry complaints about the topic, then there is a serious problem which needs to be addressed. I can't make it happen, and I suspect any direct suggestion would bring more rage.

Another case of a person getting super angry because I did not care to entertain unsolicited advice about matters which affect only me. The subjects came up in response to queries, not from me introducing the topics out of the blue.

It was either a conversation tainted with some mind altering substance, or possibly influenced by some health issue or outright mildly psychotic episode. All my experience with such interactions proved in the end to be the result of depression tempered by drinking.

Where the code comes in is this: I will not tell you how to spend your money unless you ask. If it makes you happy to buy an iphone for every day of the week, then I'm happy for you. That is not my business. I won't step in uninvited claiming I'm doing it because I care and am your friend. Some things are simply the result of how a person chooses to use time, resources, and whatever else life is offering. Ridiculing innocuous choices is just a way of raining on your parade because one refuses to accept that he is ignoring his own. Or her own.

My code differs from that of some people. Just like I am very hesitant to apply the concept of social cost in supporting measures which ban or require certain behaviors; like helmets, use of poppies or pot, sugar, and a host of other things. If I see a real and present danger to what a friend is about to do, I will speak up if I can. Sometimes it only sends them over the edge, so discretion is needed. Let it look like someone else's idea. There are times when giving up the credit for an idea is the surest way it gets implemented. I've used that trick many times. I was more interested in the result than getting my ego justly boosted. That's kind of an ego trip in itself.

The code is largely about boundaries. That is a form of respect. It has to do with knocking and waiting to be admitted before barging in. Not like they do in the medical profession--knock on the door as they open it. Why do they bother knocking if it is not a polite request for admittance?

Defining those boundaries and what constitutes respectful approach is kind of difficult at times. I know the rules when the situation arises. Sugar coating the breach does not change anything. You can't humiliate or ridicule a person's nature, then justify by saying you are only trying to help them, it is only because you are a friend, or that it is for his own good. It is a strange way of killing trust. It certainly does not ring of the respect the one offering the character assassination claims is the motive.

There are things one can not fix. I think it is when the personal code of one person is too different from that of another.

We see it all the time. There is a growing difference of opinion in this country over the definition of the word "right"--as in right to a free press, speech, etc. Some believe in a right to brain surgery, higher education, housing etc. Others believe in the right to earn or pursue such things;you have a right to buy a house if you can, as opposed to the right to have that house, regardless of purchasing power, willingness of the seller to sell it, builder to build it, etc. That bit with rights goes on and on. There are people who think their right to free speech includes the right to stop traffic and more. Sometimes I think semantics clouds the reality to which the discussion allegedly refers.

The point is, not everyone is on the same page, and that can be fine and dandy until one's understanding conflicts with another's in a way which makes it impossible for them to peacefully occupy the same space or conduct a pleasant conversation.

A perfect example would be the situations in which someone gets emotionally involved over whether someone else does or does not eat meat. If you don't do what I do in a situation which has absolutely no affect on me, then you are no good. People have been on this planet too long to be such idiots. No excuse for it.