5 ms·

Absolutely agreed, but I'd go further and say you shouldn't have to hang onto everything you've ever done and get a few chances to reset in non-criminal situati

Absolutely agreed, but I'd go further and say you shouldn't have to hang onto everything you've ever done and get a few chances to reset in non-criminal situations too. I handled some previous relationships like shit in my early twenties, and upon years of reflection have formed what I'd consider a completely different sense of who I am and how I treat people; me at 23 is not me at 32, but it scares me a bit that my apparent integrity would be called into question should I have to dig into it, despite authentically having no part of me that could see life from those eyes again

xyzelement 3y ago
I don't think these things are at odds, if I understand you correctly. To use religious terminology - repentance makes up for the sin. In other words, the explicit reflection on your past and determination to do better is indeed a transformational thing. The thing is, "repentance" is not a given and I would say that most people do not go through the introspection and evolution process, so there's no reason to assume that mere passage of time has transformed one into a different person than he who has transgressed. In your case, the thing that would make me not worry about your "apparent integrity being called into question" is the fact that you yourself are calling yourself out for having done badly. That would be quite different than someone who's done the equivalent amount of aging but didn't recognize and evolve from their past. Of course there are some things where mere recognition is not sufficient. For example where the misdeed can be correct or otherwise accounted for, they ought to be. EG if one has the opportunity to go back and undo/apologize/repay/whatever but they don't, then their repentance is itself in question (if you don't go back to fix the thing, are you really beating yourself up for having done it, etc?) At most extreme cases, it can mean confessing to a crime and throwing yourself at the mercy of the court or whatever.
- jonathanlydall 3y ago
  Unfortunately it can be hard or impossible to differentiate between the two, but people are sorry for what they did for one of two reasons: - They have empathy for the person they harmed and recognise that they should change their actions to avoid doing such harm again. - After being caught, they regret how their own freedoms are now jeopardised by their past actions. So they regret their actions, but mostly (or only) because of how it affects them (now) and not how other people may have been harmed. The problem with latter is that they are sometimes irredeemable, they may pay back their victims, but they see it kind of like losing a bet, they got caught this time so need to pay up and the lesson they internally learn is to not get caught.
wpietri 3y ago
I get where you're going, but I think it depends a lot to me on what somebody did. If it's all water under the bridge, fine. But if the people are still recovering from the harm, I have more questions. If they haven't apologized or made amends, same deal. And I think it's always reasonable to keep an eye out for the extent to which patterns are still repeating. Some of us become better people over time, and some of us just get better at covering up.

xyzelement 3y ago

I don't think these things are at odds, if I understand you correctly. To use religious terminology - repentance makes up for the sin. In other words, the explicit reflection on your past and determination to do better is indeed a transformational thing. The thing is, "repentance" is not a given and I would say that most people do not go through the introspection and evolution process, so there's no reason to assume that mere passage of time has transformed one into a different person than he who has transgressed. In your case, the thing that would make me not worry about your "apparent integrity being called into question" is the fact that you yourself are calling yourself out for having done badly. That would be quite different than someone who's done the equivalent amount of aging but didn't recognize and evolve from their past. Of course there are some things where mere recognition is not sufficient. For example where the misdeed can be correct or otherwise accounted for, they ought to be. EG if one has the opportunity to go back and undo/apologize/repay/whatever but they don't, then their repentance is itself in question (if you don't go back to fix the thing, are you really beating yourself up for having done it, etc?) At most extreme cases, it can mean confessing to a crime and throwing yourself at the mercy of the court or whatever.

jonathanlydall 3y ago
Unfortunately it can be hard or impossible to differentiate between the two, but people are sorry for what they did for one of two reasons: - They have empathy for the person they harmed and recognise that they should change their actions to avoid doing such harm again. - After being caught, they regret how their own freedoms are now jeopardised by their past actions. So they regret their actions, but mostly (or only) because of how it affects them (now) and not how other people may have been harmed. The problem with latter is that they are sometimes irredeemable, they may pay back their victims, but they see it kind of like losing a bet, they got caught this time so need to pay up and the lesson they internally learn is to not get caught.

wpietri 3y ago

I get where you're going, but I think it depends a lot to me on what somebody did. If it's all water under the bridge, fine. But if the people are still recovering from the harm, I have more questions. If they haven't apologized or made amends, same deal. And I think it's always reasonable to keep an eye out for the extent to which patterns are still repeating. Some of us become better people over time, and some of us just get better at covering up.