For those who like to party, here's a guest for your list...

[tazzieterror]

https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/283270458880

There's a good chance they'll bring you a gift wrapped in red-dotted wrapping paper!

[tazzieterror]

---

@joztamps wrote:

---

@tazzieterror wrote:

---

This person was *very* busy buying things in 2014/15, seemingly much of it for their boat judging by the sellers showing up.  If you've ever wondered how people afford boats, this is one method to bring the costs down!

---

---

Going by his feedback, he's a very unlucky person.

I wouldn't go out in a boat with him.

---

Some are born unlucky, while others have to work very hard to invent their own misfortune.

[digital*ghost]

---

@springyzone wrote:

I can't see how such a whinger could not understand why the buyer gave him a neg.

He himself gets mad if someone doesn't send fast enough or cancels an order or... anything, really.

---

People have a tendency to judge themselves by their intentions, and judge others by their actions, probably because they are the two most evident things about people, respectively. 

You (as in general 'you') cut someone off in traffic? It was an unintentional mistake, due to significant stress being experienced and you would never do that on purpose. Someone cuts you off? Absolute maniac driver who did it on purpose and should be shot. 

[tazzieterror]

The human condition, explained succinctly and completely on an eBay community forum about a troublemaking buyer!

This internet thing is a glorious mess I have to say!

[digital*ghost]

---

@tazzieterror wrote:

The human condition, explained succinctly and completely on an eBay community forum about a troublemaking buyer!

This internet thing is a glorious mess I have to say!

---

Unfortunately I can't take any credit for that little bit of insight. I read it elsewhere (on the 'net), and it was one of those little flickering lightbulb moments at the time (as in a slow, dawning, a lot of things make way more sense now  ).

The quote itself (“We judge ourselves by our intentions and others by their behaviour.”) is attributed to Stephen M.R. Covey, and a book called The Speed of Trust: The One Thing that Changes Everything, which I have never read. o.o 

[springyzone]

It's a great quote & very true.

But I think sometimes a person has to be able to put themselves into someone else's shoes and be able to say eg I know my intentions were honest when I listed the ad, but the feedback is true, I did succumb & accept an offer elsewhere and I can see why the ebay bidder is disappointed. I probably would be too. Not happy with the red dot but I understand how I got it.

I actually think most people are capable of doing this.

What worries me more is that instead of justifying himself or just letting it go, he went further than that, he actually was quite abusive I thought. 

This is a man with absolutely no empathy, not for buyers, not for sellers. Very self-centred.

[tazzieterror]

---

@springyzone wrote:

It's a great quote & very true.

But I think sometimes a person has to be able to put themselves into someone else's shoes and be able to say eg I know my intentions were honest when I listed the ad, but the feedback is true, I did succumb & accept an offer elsewhere and I can see why the ebay bidder is disappointed. I probably would be too. Not happy with the red dot but I understand how I got it.

Springy, that's 256 characters - much too long - you only get 80!

I actually think most people are capable of doing this.

What worries me more is that instead of justifying himself or just letting it go, he went further than that, he actually was quite abusive I thought. 

This is a man with absolutely no empathy, not for buyers, not for sellers. Very self-centred.

---

[springyzone]

LOL

I meant think it in their mind, not write it as a response in feedback.

They didn't need to write anything really, unless they just wanted to put "Sorry for my mix up, it sold after I had listed."

[digital*ghost]

---

@springyzone wrote:

It's a great quote & very true.

But I think sometimes a person has to be able to put themselves into someone else's shoes and be able to say eg I know my intentions were honest when I listed the ad, but the feedback is true, I did succumb & accept an offer elsewhere and I can see why the ebay bidder is disappointed. I probably would be too. Not happy with the red dot but I understand how I got it.

I actually think most people are capable of doing this.

What worries me more is that instead of justifying himself or just letting it go, he went further than that, he actually was quite abusive I thought. 

This is a man with absolutely no empathy, not for buyers, not for sellers. Very self-centred.

---

One of the other things I've learned is that empathy is as much a learned, practised skill as it is an innate, emotive response that most human beings possess, because while it can involve emotion, it also requires objectivity and logical reasoning, plus the willingness to see things from somone else's point of view, and i think even the most empathetic people can have their limits. 

I personally value objectivity and look for things in most cases where another perspective can be useful, regardless of the initial situation, and would like to consider myself quite empathetic (I've been accused of being too empathetic at times), but I've also lost count of the number of times I've started a sentence with "I'lll never understand...." and followed it with a certain type of behaviour that baffles me, which if I'm being honest, is actually more like 33% disagreement with the behaviour, 33% judgement, and 34% refusal to understand something I diagree with and judge so that I don't have the discomfort of finding myself in a position where I can empathise with behaviour I disagree with, despite the fact that logically and objectively, I recognise the vast majority of human behaviour is relatable in one way or another, even if it's unlikeable.

I, uh... got a little lost, forgot the point I was trying to make, though. I guess I'm in an existential mood tonight, but I'm waffling, lol. 

I figured I'd hit post anyway, in case it prompts me (or someone else) later. 

[countessalmirena]

You're right; we do tend to use the "I'll never understand" or the "I'd never do" preambles as a way of distancing ourselves from behaviour that we've already judged as being on the red side of our scale (aka our own personal negative feedback system which recognises good and evil, acceptable and unacceptable, admirable and unadmirable, etc.).

I am not willing to delve into the mindset of serial killers, or people who torture others for pleasure, no matter how admirable a quality empathy is. I suppose that's because empathy, like many a quality, doesn't stand in isolation, and isn't necessarily always an admirable quality. I'm thinking of the sort of person who would say something along the lines of "If a torturer gains pleasure from torturing, isn't that part of who he is? And shouldn't we recognise his right to satisfy that essential need? Isn't it judgemental and selfish to get all hoity-toity about that person's basic human need? Wouldn't that make us concruciophobic and self-righteous?" - yes, I've taken that to ridiculous lengths to illustrate what I mean!

I've been giving this some thought. My view is that "good" ought to be the standard against which we set commensurate or antonymous qualities, notions, etc. If we use a metaphorical standard, like the PK artefact at Sèvres, for our metaphorical "good measure", it's going to change over time. It will probably change over circumstance. If the definition needed changing, that's good - but did it? Sometimes we change the base or core standard because we're being moved by the emotional arguments of someone we know, or by changing social pressures, or by our own experience (a sort-of special pleading).

It reinforces for me the notion that whatever our underlying touchstone is, we'd better be certain that it's bigger than the approval of peers, bigger than socially popular behaviours and words, bigger than emotional blackmail, bigger than blandishments that would try to erode its measure. (Stockholm syndrome, radicalisation, brainwashing, any sort of conditioning - or persuasion against one's better judgement...)

[davewil1964]

---

@countessalmirena wrote:

You're right; we do tend to use the "I'll never understand" or the "I'd never do" preambles as a way of distancing ourselves from behaviour that we've already judged as being on the red side of our scale (aka our own personal negative feedback system which recognises good and evil, acceptable and unacceptable, admirable and unadmirable, etc.).

I am not willing to delve into the mindset of serial killers, or people who torture others for pleasure, no matter how admirable a quality empathy is. I suppose that's because empathy, like many a quality, doesn't stand in isolation, and isn't necessarily always an admirable quality. I'm thinking of the sort of person who would say something along the lines of "If a torturer gains pleasure from torturing, isn't that part of who he is? And shouldn't we recognise his right to satisfy that essential need? Isn't it judgemental and selfish to get all hoity-toity about that person's basic human need? Wouldn't that make us concruciophobic and self-righteous?" - yes, I've taken that to ridiculous lengths to illustrate what I mean!

I've been giving this some thought. My view is that "good" ought to be the standard against which we set commensurate or antonymous qualities, notions, etc. If we use a metaphorical standard, like the PK artefact at Sèvres, for our metaphorical "good measure", it's going to change over time. It will probably change over circumstance. If the definition needed changing, that's good - but did it? Sometimes we change the base or core standard because we're being moved by the emotional arguments of someone we know, or by changing social pressures, or by our own experience (a sort-of special pleading).

It reinforces for me the notion that whatever our underlying touchstone is, we'd better be certain that it's bigger than the approval of peers, bigger than socially popular behaviours and words, bigger than emotional blackmail, bigger than blandishments that would try to erode its measure. (Stockholm syndrome, radicalisation, brainwashing, any sort of conditioning - or persuasion against one's better judgement...)

---

Nevertheless, societal norms are the touchstones upon which civilisations are based.

I'll Godwin myself here and say that ordinary everyday 1940's Germans were probably, in the main, decent people. Yet the society in which they lived (and fear of retribution) caused them to support the Nazi machine.

In many preindustrial civilisations (and some postindustrial ones - think England and Germany) inbreeding, especially within the nobility, was considered normal. Desirable even. Hence the prevalence of haemophilia in the royal houses of Europe.