That's the premise of the thread.

Congratulations.

Drugs are bad, m'kay.

 

-----signature-----

If you give then it is freely. You don't abdicate control over anything. You always have the choice to walk away, sure you'll probably lose them as a friend if you do this too often or on something important, but there's nothing forcing you.

You and i have a relationship. It involves posting on a message board. There's nothing saying i have to respond to your post, even if you say, "Altra, i need your input!" I have many choices that i willingly engage in from turning on the computer, to getting on the outpost, reading a thread, down to clicking the Submit button.

The relationship actually builds on this, not the other way around. I might, after a time, see an Allstar thread and click the thread because you've created interesting topics before. You might like my responses and respond to one of my threads...but you don't have to.

Real life mirrors this. I'd argue you should never have obligations between friends. If one is in need, you help them out because you want to see them well, not because of any obligations, guilt, or supposed control they have over you.

*any gay undertones in this post are entirely unintentional but completely endorsed by this poster.

 

-----signature-----

Control is an illusion.

Let go and enjoy the ride imo.

 

-----signature-----

No one makes a thread to be ignored, but I can't compel you to respond beyond offering you the opportunity to do so.

If I want to be heard I have to risk being ignored because it is beyond my control.

Or I can choose to be silent and be in control.

You haven't given up control by posting. You never had control over others to begin with.

You actual gain (theoretical or potential or real) control by posting. If your choices are to not post and not be heard or to post and 1) be heard 2) not be heard, then by posting you altered your potential possibilities. As the recipient of the message, i have choices, again my first choice is whether to hear it or not.

 

-----signature-----

I agree that I never had control of others to begin with.

That is why the only thing I can control is whether or not I will try to interact with them.

Ok, but I'm arguing that you don't lose control upon interaction.

Maybe another example will help.
There's a computer. Let's pretend its self aware. It has control of whether it will connect with others (via internet) or remain in solitude (offline). If it remains in solitude, it gains nothing, it losses nothing. It made a choice and maintained its power over itself.

Let's say it chooses to connect. It sends out a burst of packets and then willingly accepts packets back. It's communicating now, but at any moment it can choose to refuse the packets or go offline. It continues to interact. Now, the computer can decide it wants to make a phone call. It doesn't have a program to do that, so it has to download one. Does it maintain control over itself when it allows another program to load? Considering, the computer made the action, it allowed the program access, maintains the power to remove it at any point, and wants to use the program, I'd say it gave up nothing.

Unless your argument is that you give up control of the choices you didn't choose every time you make a choice, which is a pretty stupid and self-defeating argument.

 

-----signature-----

You choose to interact or not to interact, and you can choose to stop interacting or start, but while you are interacting you are not in control.

You can choose what you offer them, but you can not choose what they offer you.

You will interact or you won't, but you will not be able to dictate the circumstances of that interaction.

For what? You set the rules that only allowed your conclusion.

I think hussein and jackson had the control that they desired/pursued.