If that's true, it gives the impression that people dislike people, and only enjoy what is in agreement with themselves.
It might be a typological difference, but if some part of a person is bad, it doesn't corrupt the whole person in my perspective.
What she said. And that it would be too easy and not meaningfull to say it here (for me).
Aye, my point exactly. But does it go the other way around too? If a person who feigns to be morally incorruptable proves to be very corruptable in one minor way (e.g. an official who has been bribed with but did a terrific job on the whole) proves not to be so honest and upright, does your esteem-o-meter give extra weight to it? Because I tend to believe most people do.
Also I wonder about the practical relevance of finding nice things to say. Personal feelings are largely irrelevant in a lot of cases.
What people do doesn't make me think less of them. I would have no issues with being friends with St Francis of Assisi, Stalin, Hitler, a Mass Murderer, a kindly homemaker, Trump, Sanders, etc.
It's not important to me. I often wonder if I even want friends... but I guess the fact that I have friends sort of implies that I do. People are interesting to me: they're kind of awesome. The more resilient, insightful, simple, complex, passionate, etc., the more interesting they are to me. It can get to where I am fascinated with extraordinary people.
