DVDizzy Forum

I found an interesting quote in reference to focusing on all the negative in the world. It's something to think about and makes a lot of sense to me. What do you think?

"You cannot help the world by focusing on the negative things. As you focus on the world's negative events, you not only add to them, but you also bring more negative things into your own life. " - Rhonda Byrne

The_Iceflash wrote:I found an interesting quote in reference to focusing on all the negative in the world. It's something to think about and makes a lot of sense to me. What do you think?

"You cannot help the world by focusing on the negative things. As you focus on the world's negative events, you not only add to them, but you also bring more negative things into your own life. " - Rhonda Byrne

I honestly think that quote is painfully naive. I'm no pessimist by any means, but turning your head from events that happen, because they make you feel bad isn't really a good thing. You need to be realistic and accept that both bad and good things happen in the world. Closing your eyes from either of them is a bad thing.

KubrickFan wrote:

The_Iceflash wrote:I found an interesting quote in reference to focusing on all the negative in the world. It's something to think about and makes a lot of sense to me. What do you think?

I honestly think that quote is painfully naive. I'm no pessimist by any means, but turning your head from events that happen, because they make you feel bad isn't really a good thing. You need to be realistic and accept that both bad and good things happen in the world. Closing your eyes from either of them is a bad thing.

I agree with this.

I tend to be positive most of the time, but I try to be as neutral and realistic as possible, everything is not as bad as they seem, but not everything is sunshine and lollipops either.

I think what this is saying that often there is TOO MUCH focus on the negative and not enough in the negative. Recently, I attended a seminal about emotional manipulation in the media. The speaker mentioned that news outlets will often change news around or focus on the really bad stuff, because that's what tends to sell the most. Problem is that with more and more people getting used to this kind of content, the worse and worse the news will be. This is why we have shocking news stories on places like CNN and such.

The speaker used as an example the story of a young girl who posted a video of herself brutally killing puppies for the fun of it. Problem is that the news stations showed the video COMPLETELY RAW AND UNCUT during the morning, afternoon and early evening editions. Why? Because it was shocking and people like to shock.

So when the news focuses soooooooo much on the bad stuff, people WILL start to develop the idea that things are bad.

I say the best way to combat this is to be a critical thinker about everything. Rather than accepting things as is right away, try to look beyond what the news and people tell you and come up with your own conclusions.

For example, I thought that ignorance is indeed bliss. However, people WILL abuse ignorant people. So with a little knowledge you can protect yourself and others from the ill intentions of other people.

So basically, being a realistic individual shouldn't be a burden. It means that you are the type of person that is looking at the world as it really use and making the most out of it.

I agree with KubrickFan. The world is a dirty, rotten place and there's no point in looking away. Looking away only grows people who are ignorant to what's happening in the world. In fact, I believe that's what our political and business leaders count on to continue to manipulate and exploit us.

Yes, as you might have guessed, I'm not a "the cup is half full" kind of person.

Goliath wrote:I agree with KubrickFan. The world is a dirty, rotten place and there's no point in looking away. Looking away only grows people who are ignorant to what's happening in the world. In fact, I believe that's what our political and business leaders count on to continue to manipulate and exploit us.

Yes, as you might have guessed, I'm not a "the cup is half full" kind of person.

That's not entirely what I said, though .

In any case, it's very interesting to see such a pessimistic person end up as a Disney fan .

KubrickFan wrote:That's not entirely what I said, though .

In any case, it's very interesting to see such a pessimistic person end up as a Disney fan .

I know, I added my own "unique" little twist.

Yeah, fascinating, isn't it? You'd be surprised when you saw my list of 'guilty pleasure movies'. You'd think it was Disney Duster's!

Some seemingly dark people have been classified as optimists.

Plus, remember that Disney is something that is usually ingrained in people during their childhood. How many children are pessimists? (Let it go on the record that: no, I don't know when people develop either as an outlook.)

Lazario wrote:Some seemingly dark people have been classified as optimists.

Plus, remember that Disney is something that is usually ingrained in people during their childhood. How many children are pessimists? (Let it go on the record that: no, I don't know when people develop either as an outlook.)

The true twist being, as we all know, that especially Walt's movies were pretty dark, while they're mostly regarded as kiddie fare these days. I mean, if Dumbo or Bambi were released now, I don't know if the reactions would be so positive. I mean that a lot of folks would probably deem it unfit for children.

Goliath wrote:I agree with KubrickFan. The world is a dirty, rotten place and there's no point in looking away. Looking away only grows people who are ignorant to what's happening in the world. In fact, I believe that's what our political and business leaders count on to continue to manipulate and exploit us.

Yes, as you might have guessed, I'm not a "the cup is half full" kind of person.

Looking away from the world's problems isn't good. Neither is only dwelling on the problems. Pessimism is far from a quality trait and doesn't lead toward a happy life. In fact, being a pessimist can make one pretty miserable their whole life.

Yes, the world has a lot of problems and it isn't a perfect place, doesn't mean one has to spend their life dwelling on the bad and the problems of the world and ignoring the good in it.

pap64 wrote:
I tend to be positive most of the time, but I try to be as neutral and realistic as possible, everything is not as bad as they seem, but not everything is sunshine and lollipops either.

I think what this is saying that often there is TOO MUCH focus on the negative and not enough in the negative. Recently, I attended a seminal about emotional manipulation in the media. The speaker mentioned that news outlets will often change news around or focus on the really bad stuff, because that's what tends to sell the most. Problem is that with more and more people getting used to this kind of content, the worse and worse the news will be. This is why we have shocking news stories on places like CNN and such.

The speaker used as an example the story of a young girl who posted a video of herself brutally killing puppies for the fun of it. Problem is that the news stations showed the video COMPLETELY RAW AND UNCUT during the morning, afternoon and early evening editions. Why? Because it was shocking and people like to shock.

So when the news focuses soooooooo much on the bad stuff, people WILL start to develop the idea that things are bad.

I say the best way to combat this is to be a critical thinker about everything. Rather than accepting things as is right away, try to look beyond what the news and people tell you and come up with your own conclusions.

For example, I thought that ignorance is indeed bliss. However, people WILL abuse ignorant people. So with a little knowledge you can protect yourself and others from the ill intentions of other people.

So basically, being a realistic individual shouldn't be a burden. It means that you are the type of person that is looking at the world as it really use and making the most out of it.

Some good points are made here. Thinking everything is sunshine and lollipops isn't good like you said. It's just that some would try to find the bad in anything and dwell on the bad and that can't make for a happy life. For example, look at the Royal Wedding. A wedding is supposed to be a positive event right? It's disturbing how many people were finding the negative in it.

I think there's a definite difference between a realistic person and a downright pessimist. A pessimist will find the bad in everything and turn any positive event or situation into a bad one.

As a final note, I firmly believe that we should hold on to a piece of our childhood innocence and bliss as that's where our souls come from.

The_Iceflash wrote:[...] It's just that some would try to find the bad in anything and dwell on the bad and that can't make for a happy life. For example, look at the Royal Wedding. A wedding is supposed to be a positive event right? It's disturbing how many people were finding the negative in it. [...]

I am appalled people are seeing the royal wedding as something positive. I'm absolutely horrified by all those dimwits who camped alongside the wedding route for three days just so they had a good spot on the 'big day'. To do what, exactly? To wave at a bunch of filthy rich people who never did anything to deserve their wealth or their positions? That whole wedding party has been paid for by taxpayers' money, yet the very same taxpayers are all ecstatic about it? While the country is in a deep economic crisis; people get laid off left and right; and severe and painful austerity measures are being taken that affect mostly the working people, those same working people are cheering on the squandering of millions of pounds? Why should we celebrate heads of states who were never elected in the first place? The monarchy is totally outdated; a relic from the Middle Ages which should be done away with as soon as possible.

No, I'm not a pessimist. What I've said above, is simply realistic. George Orwell once wrote: "if there's hope, it lies in the proles", referring to the proletariat. Seeing all those millions of ordinary people cheering on the monarchy, I don't have much hope.

<object width="480" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/NvF0p ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/NvF0p ... 1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="390" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

Goliath wrote:I am appalled people are seeing the royal wedding as something positive. I'm absolutely horrified by all those dimwits who camped alongside the wedding route for three days just so they had a good spot on the 'big day'. To do what, exactly? To wave at a bunch of filthy rich people who never did anything to deserve their wealth or their positions? That whole wedding party has been paid for by taxpayers' money, yet the very same taxpayers are all ecstatic about it? While the country is in a deep economic crisis; people get laid off left and right; and severe and painful austerity measures are being taken that affect mostly the working people, those same working people are cheering on the squandering of millions of pounds? Why should we celebrate heads of states who were never elected in the first place? The monarchy is totally outdated; a relic from the Middle Ages which should be done away with as soon as possible.

Couldn't agree more!

I'd also want to add that I really don't understand how people can be supportive of the 'royals' when their legacy is only that of imperialism and colonialism, and pain and suffering to a plethora of other countries they conquered and exploited. Not to mention the oppression they inflicted on their own people.

Goliath wrote:I'm absolutely horrified by all those dimwits who camped alongside the wedding route for three days just so they had a good spot on the 'big day'.

All those dimwits=600,000 people. All of whom spent $ while in London and to get to the city, enough to easily justify the cost of the wedding. Coupled with 12,000 reporters who visited too, broadcasters, 2 billion TV viewers, merchants etc. it all ads up.

Like the Olympics, it's a big hoopla that brings in big money to whomever can host it. Fortunately for London, it gets to do both that and the wedding.

The royal family and their ways encourage tourist and mechandise spending throughout the year for a mere 62 pence each year for each taxpayer. They're a cultural attraction that I don't see people (Royal or otherwise) giving up anytime soon. Their lack of power also ensures that they can never rule in the same way they did in the past, or the way other powers are doing now.

I'll quote some of Netty's post on the issue here:

"...but hey did you see the fuss caused when President Obama visited the UK? Every high-profile event, involving the monarchy or national elected officials has similar costs."

"It's really no different than our government (or your government) giving tax breaks to large successful businesses. The fact is the Royal family bring in more money per year than they cost."

"As for their Civil List payments (taxpayers money) did you know that annual earnings from the family's private holdings are paid directly to the UK Treasury.[?]"

"Democratically elected leaders and self-imposed dictators have and are doing terrible things to their countries today. I see no point in raking over past history when current issues of much greater magnitude exist in the world today."

@ Flanger-Hanger: oh, please, spare me those arguments that you make up as you go along. Somehow, London needs the royal family to attract tourists? That's laughable! Like there's nothing else to see there! Tourists have come there forever and they will continue to come long after that wedding. You think the income outweighs the expenses? Think again. One day of extra income for the businesses of London hardly makes up for the costs of the entire country of the royal family for a whole year. Yeah, a (visit from) a president or prime-minnister is not 'free' either, but you (and us Dutchies) get the royal family *on top* of that. We don't only pay for our prime-minister, but also our Queen. Who, may I remind you, was not elected, but got the position simply because she was born into the right family. I can't believe anybody who lives in the 21st century would defend such an outdated institution.

I don't care how many people still support the monarchy. Popularity is never an argument. People like the monarchy because it's a tradition and people cling to traditions, especially in a fast-changing global community. But that doesn't mean traditions are automatically good. I still say we should do away with all monarchies. It doesn't fit 21st century democracies. You wanna be enchanted by fairytale weddings? Pop in a Disney dvd.

Sotiris wrote:I'd also want to add that I really don't understand how people can be supportive of the 'royals' when their legacy is only that of imperialism and colonialism, and pain and suffering to a plethora of other countries they conquered and exploited.

Oh, we're just being negative! We should look on the bright side!

<object width="480" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/1loyj ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/1loyj ... 1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="390" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

This thread was about being negative/positive, may I remind you; not about the royal family.

At the risk of sounding naive I think a major responsibility in life, whether you're an optimist or a pessimist, is to find ways to make the world a better place. Even if it's something as small as helping someone that's dropped their groceries, or for something bigger like paying attention to political views so you can make an informed vote on election day. You don't even have to be an optimist in order to take care of others and do what's right.

Anyway, there's definitely a difference between dwelling on the negative, ignoring it, and getting off your ass to do something about it. I don't think the OP was implying that negativity needs to be completely ignored, just that no one should dwell upon it in a way that's not productive because that really does unnecessarily add to it.

Goliath wrote:I am appalled people are seeing the royal wedding as something positive. I'm absolutely horrified by all those dimwits who camped alongside the wedding route for three days just so they had a good spot on the 'big day'. To do what, exactly? To wave at a bunch of filthy rich people who never did anything to deserve their wealth or their positions? That whole wedding party has been paid for by taxpayers' money, yet the very same taxpayers are all ecstatic about it?

As I said before NO IT WASN'T. This Royal Wedding (unlike Charles and Diana's) was not a state occasion. The ceremony was mostly funded by the royals.

While the country is in a deep economic crisis; people get laid off left and right; and severe and painful austerity measures are being taken that affect mostly the working people, those same working people are cheering on the squandering of millions of pounds? Why should we celebrate heads of states who were never elected in the first place?

You know how much the Royal Family gets off the Taxpayer per year? Less than $1 (about 65p I believe). Do you know how much the Banks got in 2008-2009? About £850bn in direct handouts and conditional underwritings.

If you want to complain about Taxpayers money, then target the right people.

As for unelected, the Queen is head of not only the British state, but also the Commonwealth. How on Earth do you expect the entirety of the Commonwealth to vote in a elected head of the Commonwealth and for all nationalities and parties to be happy with the results. It's not as if the democratically elected heads of the European Union are without controversy is it?

And then, talking about waste of taxpayers money, every single democracy has a time-limit on each term of office. Just think how much taxpayers money would be wasted in the UK and throughout the Commonwealth if new heads had to be voted for every 4-5 years?

And of course, then there's the question of election funding. Nobody gets elected these days without the ability to spend considerable money on their campaigns. So really, if you're complaining about the Royal Family being too wealthy, having an elected President isn't really going to change the fundamental problem (as you see it). And of course, most of those election funds are augmented by "contributions" (some would say bribes) from companies and individuals. At least the Royal Family have complete political independence.

And even with elected officials, its not as if everyone to represents the country is elected. I mean, the very thought that ambassadors could be selected for their position not on merit or ability but on the simple fact that they happen to be friends and acquaintances of those in power is utterly unbelievable isn't it? And its not as if said ambassadors never waste taxpayers money is it?

The monarchy is totally outdated; a relic from the Middle Ages which should be done away with as soon as possible.

*Sigh* This isn't the 17th Century you know. I would say the only one outdated here is you, with your outdated views on who and what the Royal Family actually do. The English Civil War did actually abolish the Royal Family - the King was executed! If I recall correctly we didn't have a Royal Family for 20-30 years!

There's many reasons it was brought back - but the main reason is we are a kingdom of united nations. There was a feeling that many of the minorities voices weren't being heard. While not ideal, and despite having more and more of their political power stripped, having a Royal Family - an series of unelected figureheads brings us together. Even today, with more devolution for the nations than ever before, our regional politics are dragged down by petty bickering and competition between our regional nations. The Royal Family (while being German ) is held in regard by the majority of the people, in all corners of the UK. The Royals not only represent the English, but the whole of the United Kingdom, possessing traditional regional titles (such as the Prince of Wales).

It's who we are - The United Kingdom is a proud and happy amalgamation of several nations.

Oh and finally, all this talk of "Taxpayers" money, I suggest you read this:

http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalHouseho ... lList.aspx

n 2006-2007 the revenue surplus received by the Treasury from the Crown Estates was £200 million. Since 2001, The Queen receives a set amount of £7.9 million per annum.

About 70 per cent of the Civil List expenditure goes on staff salaries. It also goes towards meeting the costs of official functions such as garden parties, receptions and official entertainment during State Visits. The Queen entertains almost 50,000 people each year.

We make money off the Royal Family (as I said before).

Goliath wrote:@ Flanger-Hanger: oh, please, spare me those arguments that you make up as you go along. Somehow, London needs the royal family to attract tourists? That's laughable!

I never actually said that, just that there are those who benefit from still having the royals around.

Goliath wrote:You think the income outweighs the expenses? Think again.

I was quoting 2099net on that one, so if you don't agree with him you can question his logic in the appropriate thread.

Goliath wrote:I can't believe anybody who lives in the 21st century would defend such an outdated institution.

Well that's largely how I feel about organized religion, but I don't see that going away anytime soon either. Not all traditions are easily ended. At least the queen doesn't go door-to-door trying to convert me.

If the wedding can be deemed so unimportant so too can the royals. Don't we have bigger problems than a group of well-off ribbon cutters?

@ 2099net & Flanger-Hanger: I've never seen so many non-arguments grouped together, just to defend something that clearly has only sentimental value to you. If not, you would have come up with better arguments.

For instance, we can't elect the head of state because the 'Commonwealth' is too big for all those people to vote? Well, the 'Commonwealth' is an outdated notion as well. Do away with it and let all countries elect their own heads of state. Another non-argument: "I think organized religion, too" and "complain about the banks receiving taxpayer funding". As if complaining about one thing (royal family) therefore means one approves the other things that go wrong (religion & banks). Can't we agree that all of those things are bad? The other two were simply not topic of discussion here.

And then the 'argument' that the royal family pays it out of their own pockets. Wow, that is *still* taxpayers money! They're making themselves look good with money they didn't earn. And yeah, the amount of money they take from taxpayers may not look big if you bring it down to an individual level, but if you combine all of it, they take in millions --and that's each year. I would much rather pay for someone who was duly elected. I guess I don't understand why you two seem to take it so personally. (Or am I reading you wrong?)

Anyway, this is all off-topic.

"You cannot help the world by focusing on the negative things. As you focus on the world's negative events, you not only add to them, but you also bring more negative things into your own life. " - Rhonda Byrne

"If all were rain and never sun, No bow could span the hill; If all were sun and never rain, There'd be no rainbow still."
- Christina Georgina Rossetti

The world can be very depressing sometimes. Try walking a mile as a progressionist.

That's why I thank Goliath for giving us that wonderful Monty Python moment.

There was a 6-part documentary made on him that I'll have to watch once I get a few more movies and shows in.

ajmrowland wrote:The world can be very depressing sometimes. Try walking a mile as a progressionist.

That's why I thank Goliath for giving us that wonderful Monty Python moment.

There was a 6-part documentary made on him that I'll have to watch once I get a few more movies and shows in.

Him? I hope you mean "them"?

Anyway, that six-part documentary is definitely required for any Monty Python fan. The fact that they're all recent interviews (apart from Graham Chapman, obviously) is that they all seem honest, but not bitter at all. The "Story of Brian" documentary on the Life of Brian Blu-ray is also fascinating.