(Untitled)

[myself0510]

This is in reply of Ashley's Definition post.

First thing to say: Ashley is someone I can be happy with and I am happy with him.

I said this from the beginning: I don't want him to change and I shall never ask this of him (or of anyone else). This is for serveral reasons (given in a random order):

1. It is not practical to expect someone to change and

Comments

[allsorts46]

There are some interesting points here. I know you don't really understand why I want to respond to this publicly, but it's because I like this - being able to hold an intellectual discussion about any subject, in the turn-based manner that a medium such as LJ provides. I know we could do the same thing by email, but it started here so it may as well continue. Also, unless you are actually against it, I like it being public. I enjoy reading things like this, so maybe others do to

[myself0510]

Let's make this public if you prefer it this way. As I previously told you, I have nothing against it.

You are right about the fact that changes can be temporary too, but I think that this type of change should be subject to further talk among those involved. Continuing the sea-side example, let's take persons A and B that form a couple. We know that B dislikes going to the sea-side, but that on a particular occasion person A wants to go. If A wants to go only because he/she likes it, but not going causes no real harm (just an ":-< I wish I were on the beach now..."), and person B has sun allergies for example, so going would cause harm (at least an annoying itch)then they should not go. However, even if we keep B's reason, but we say that A has to go there for a more serious reason, that requires B to be there (for moral suppost at least), then I wouldn't blame A for feeling dissapointed if B refuses to go. It's true that B should not be forced to go, however he/she would be at least insensitive not to