Other Random question of the day

[free2bealways]

Random question of the day:

What's the best vacation spot you've ever been to?

That’s an easy one. We’ve been camping at the same place nearly every year since I was about three. It’s gorgeous there and it feels like home.

 

[AlexneushoornTheGreat]

Random question of the day:

Has a friendship you had with someone ever become strained because of something you felt the other person did wrong?

 

[Onmyoji]

Has a friendship you had with someone ever become strained because of something you felt the other person did wrong?

Yes, and we're no longer friends.

 

[Daisie]

Random question of the day:

Has a friendship you had with someone ever become strained because of something you felt the other person did wrong?

Oh, totally. And it's gone the other way around, too... as it turns out, people make mistakes pretty often! Even really good people. I've done it, she's done it, we've all done it.

Us two have always managed to sort through it though with a calm, honest sit-down about how we both feel, and a lot of empathy/trying to figure ourselves out. Lots of self-discipline and not jumping to conclusions or engaging in knee-jerk reactions, though those happen sometimes too.

It happens! It's a significant part of life. It only becomes a big issue if one or both participants aren't willing to work it out (sometimes with very good reason).

 

[Idea]

Random question of the day:

Has a friendship you had with someone ever become strained because of something you felt the other person did wrong?

Well, yes, but never to the point of ceasing contact with the person or anything like that. The reverse has certainly happened though.

 

[AlexneushoornTheGreat]

Random question of the day:

Do you feel people do the right thing when they choose to be with people who accept them for who they are rather than trying to change to appease to one person?

 

[Idea]

To be honest I think that’s the wrong thing to ask. It’s not a question of morality to begin with, as you don’t owe it to anyone to be with them (unless you’re married to them, at which point unless a divorce takes place you do have a duty in that direction).

That said, there is always going to be an element of compromise when it comes to relationships if any kind. Knowing how to live with one another involves at times knowing to change ourselves, not out of moral duty, but out of a simple practical need to live in reality.

 

[Cosmo]

As idea said, not really about morality of right and wrong because you don't owe anyone a relationship just cause. If everyone became the NiceGuy/NiceGirl, it'd be a pretty... Awful world.

As for the 'love them for who they are' and 'know they could be more' is very subjective as it can go to the extremes in either direction and certainly not mutually exclusive. You can love someone for who they are but also know they have more in them to grow into something better while still very much being them.

So... People are complicated as are their relationships and rendering it down to a yes or no doesn't quite work well.

Also reminds me of that one saying: A man dates a woman hoping she will never change. A woman dates a man hoping he will change. In the end, both are disappointed.

 

[Hootle]

If you care about someone you should accept them for who they are despite their shortcomings and faults. I believe that the other person in question should want to change to be a better person for themselves, not for anyone else.

 

[Macintot]

I think it's case-specific. What's the thing the person wants to change? If it's something harmless along the lines of the one person saying, "Pokemon is for babies," or "girls have to wear makeup," then screw that person. If, on the other hand, they want you to stop smoking meth, then changing is a good thing. It's not necessarily that you're changing for that specific person, but they're the only one that has your best interest truly a heart. If your friends enable you and are okay with you destroying yourself and your potential, are they really your friends?

 

[AlexneushoornTheGreat]

Random question of the day:

Are you more into tricks or treats during Halloween?

 

[Idea]

Treats, almost exclusively. Mainly cause I don’t go (and don’t seem to recall almost ever going) trick or treating, Halloween is mostly having a bunch of candy, handing out some for the folks that come asking, and spending the next few months slowly consuming what remains.

 

[saniachan]

Random question of the day:

Are you more into tricks or treats during Halloween?

I normally don't even celebrate Halloween. But if I have to choose, treats.

 

[Macintot]

Treats. I'm not a horror fan by any stretch, so to me Halloween is all about dressing up in a costume and eating irresponsible amounts of candy

 

[Onmyoji]

No one is doing trick or treats where I live. I'm not even sure what I'd do if it was possible as I have no experience with either. Probably treat lol seems less dangerous.

 

[AlexneushoornTheGreat]

Random question of the day:

If you had the ability to go back in time to prevent someone from being born, who would you choose?

 

[saniachan]

Random question of the day:

If you had the ability to go back in time to prevent someone from being born, who would you choose?

*gulp*

Myself.

 

[Macintot]

Is it too cliche to say Hitler?
Pol Pot would be another good option, or Saddam Hussein. Really, I'd have to dig through the history books to figure out who's life had the most far-reaching negative consequences and choose them.

 

[Cosmo]

I'd be too afraid to mess with WW2 because it could end up better but it could end up way worse, so I wouldn't touch Moustache Man or Angry Bald Man. Killing the Japanese Emperor wouldn't really change much on that front. Wouldn't wanna touch Stalin as Trotsky likely woulda been worse on the political front and just as horrible to the Russian people as Stalin was. Wouldn't touch Lenin cause, again, just really afraid to mess with WW2 when its so close to happening as the Soviet Union certainly wasn't an inevitability. Maybe taking out a monster for a 'smaller' nation wouldn't be as bad like Pol Pot as I really don't see his removal as being that destabilizing to current state of the world outside of potentially saving a lot of lives.

Mmm, you know, think I'd just go for John Wilkes Booth. Assuming no one else assassinations Lincoln, the reconstruction of the south should go a lot better which, in theory, should help prevent jim crow laws and make the civil rights movement happen either much sooner or much smoother and to greater extent and effects. Also stops the walking, talking, pile of human garbage that was Andrew Johnson from becoming president.

 

[AlexneushoornTheGreat]

Random question of the day:

What are your views on bittersweet endings in media?

 

[Macintot]

There's nothing inherently wrong with them, if that's what's going to fit your story/artistic vision best. Bittersweet endings make your audience reflect and, I would say, are more true to life than either completely good endings or completely bad endings. Art sometimes makes us feel uncomfortable and confront realities we'd rather not think about, and it makes us better for it.

That said, I personally prefer my paragon heroes and happy endings, but that's just me.

 

[Daisie]

Aggggh I love a good bittersweet ending! They usually mean that things are happy and okay, but it took so much sacrifice to get there. I love that.

Never been a big fan of sad/suspenseful endings. Bittersweet or happy all the way.

 

[AlexneushoornTheGreat]

Random question of the day:

Do you feel that some people are too dirty minded for their own good?

 

[Daisie]

I'm a mod on RpNation. Yes. XD

 

[Macintot]

Do you know how many people come to the ER with stuff stuck up their butts or genitalia? It's a lot. The fell on it, of course. Right after they fell on a bottle of lube.