I do public speaking shit and I'm asking this in a hope that I can get a better idea of how to differentiate the two to my audience. These are simply general trends I've encountered so I'm working from that as a basis.
>I feel like you're mixing up things. When men speak about loyalty, they mean not cheating on their girlfriend. So yeah, women do consider that an obligation. To me, loyalty just sounds like a looser term for obligation, meaning that a man might more quickly renounce his loyalty, since they don't consider it an obligation? I am a 21 year old female and I seem to agree that loyalty implies obligation. I don't understand where I am wrong?
This anon isn't that far off from what my message is.
What I try to get across is that Loyalty is different from Obligation. As we use the word in modern society obligation usually refers to something you are contractually or otherwise bound to do. Something conditional so to speak. Such as abiding by certain rules at work to keep your job, paying rent so you have somewhere to live, or paying taxes.
Loyalty is pure obligation. Which would be someone doing something without being bound to do so. Things like paying tithes, having someone's back as a friend without expecting anything in return, or even donating because they feel like it. I want to avoid using "pure obligation" if possible since it seems to add to confusion.
Using comparisons such as a patriotic person being drafted for a war vs a non-patriotic person sometimes work but it sucks being so ineffectual at times.
And on top of all that I have more difficulty explaining things to women because of things like what that femanon said. People do shit like that which isn't really a display of loyalty and it ends up distorting what it actually means in the eyes of others.
The anon in this pic gave me some insight, but I'm still at quite a bit of a loss at how to proceed writing this next speech I'll have to give.
Also I have noticed that when people come to me after the session saying they don't understand even if I get an average of the same amount of men and women coming to me the guys seem to get it without me having to go that far into the differences, but the women don't. So I was thinking it might be more of a society based thing and as this anon made clear to me if it IS I have no clue what the reason is. I don't get why a good number of the guys seem to get it so easily either but they oftentimes take the rest of the explanation out of my mouth.
To be honest it seems like you're just mixing up this soup of vague semantics and extended metaphors.
I'm afraid that your audience members who "get it" are probably just filling in the gaps of your vague ideas with their own confirmation bias. Anyone who is actually listening and trying to understand your underlying idea is confused because it sounds thought provoking, but there's not really much substance behind your words.
loyalty is a positive feeling of wanting to give to someone else/a cause. You have loyalty to things because you love them.
obligation is the sense of owing a debt to someone/a cause. You have an obligation to things out of duty or fairness.
>Loyalty is pure obligation. Which would be someone doing something without being bound to do so. Things like paying tithes, having someone's back as a friend without expecting anything in return, or even donating because they feel like it. I want to avoid using "pure obligation" if possible since it seems to add to confusion.
This is wrong. Loyalty IS obligation. Loyalty is standing by whatever sides and choices you have made. That is why treason is only punished by execution.
Loyalties are simply obligations of the highest order, things that you are expected to do because you have implied or explicitly made clear that you are allied to a cause, or dedicated to a relationship.
They are one in the same thing, simply to different degrees. An obligation is something small, something important but not overly so. A loyalty is a dedication, a more solemn obligation to adhere to the only thing of true worth a person has, their word, their allies, their loves, et cetera.
To seperate the two in a way that implies some dont require loyalty, or to tell yourself it is okay to break obligations but not loyalties (assuming it is done on purpose)
...Is only a mental gymnastic you afford yourself to feel better about what you are truly doing, being disloyal when you have no cause or justification to do so. It is simply a mere excuse to slide away from the fact that you have done something that devalues you entirely as a human being.
I'd suggest not lying to yourself, or teaching anyone else to. Tell them not to give their word if they aren't keeping it, and not to build loyalties or make obligations they wont keep instead.
I dunno man. I was really not trying to go too far into explanations or anything. Loyalty is a feeling of wanting to give to a person or a cause. A sort of faithfulness or allegiance. It's all I try to get out and I usually say that directly then expand on the aspects of it.
Whereas obligation is something you either feel you owe or are bound to for one reason or another. I went into explanation this time because last time I got a lot of this >>16759733 because I didn't bother explaining and asked in a rather crude manner.
This anon >>16759779 pretty much hit the nail on the head for what I say usually. The problem I still face, however, is that regardless of how I say what I just said or this anon just said I have people coming to me for explanations after to the point my bosses want me to revise it to better reach out to people. But ll I've found it does is complicate it further.
We are both correct.
Pure obligation is when one is to act without condition mandated by law while conditional is the opposite.
>An obligation is something small, something important but not overly so. A loyalty is a dedication, a more solemn obligation to adhere to the only thing of true worth a person has, their word, their allies, their loves, et cetera.
This. I ask about women specifically b/c from the few times its happened its always more women that come in the end, they understand it but at the same time say that obligations are higher than loyalty which is not the case and I have difficulty explaining why to them.
How is the image wrong?
>How is the image wrong?
the image is stating personal observations. these may or may not be generalized. if these can be generalized is as i understand the topic VERY important if you want to say anything meaningful. but for this you need to cite studies on this topic. else you are just talking out of "your ass". if i was in the audience hearing you i would not take you serious.
No, an obligation doesnt require legal backing to be an obligation. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
In anycase, these days, obligation is a term that is actively and commonly used, loyalty is just something you see in fantasy novels and marine ads on television.
To most people an obligation would be more important than loyalty simply because, like you, they incorrectly believe obligation implies legal backing or legal standing tied into it.
Or alternatively for many reasons, as the words have only a semantic difference in common-use. Most of what I've said really only applies in work requiring a law degree or an english masters.
The two words are only different based on opinion or semantics to 99% of common use these days.
That is something you cant really account for to a full extent so I wasn't gonna place too much weight in it. I'm not the one who wrote that though. It does make a good point about the way people having unrealistic expectations, but I can't really say that is the reason that all the misunderstandings occur.
But in regards to Obligation and Loyalty?
>>16759779 This anon here has all that matters. It's not a question of opinion, this is similarly a fuller definition than what is in a dictionary.
And this as well>>16759791
That's not how I think at all.
Loyalty holds a higher place because its something an individual would have to hold themself to. A commitment, their honor, their word.
Obligations are something you are bound to do, morally or legally, regardless of if you want to so yes there is that overlap with loyalty. But loyalty is still somewhat of a choice. It's based purely on you holding yourself to whatever your commitment is, not something else.
And that s the issue. My job is to point out semantics to give an idea of the "proper" usage.
Loyalty and obligation are juxtapositions. An obligation might require you to be loyal, but it's still an obligation if it does not derive from the individual. Likewise, one cannot consider loyalty as an obligation.
In simpler terms it comes down to whether it is a belief that comes from oneself, or an outward source enforcing it. That is the difference between loyalty and obligation.
All me. As i said, honestly, the majority of what i said holds no weight outside of editing novella, or anything that needs exacting definition.
Like it or not, people just consider things they tell themselves they need to do obligations, whether those are contractual, or just plain promises. There is no functional difference between the two for almost everyone.
Loyalty is just the word that gets used when Jim retires after 45 years at the office because it sounds better, it has a better ring to it. Otherwise, you wont hear the word and it isn't really a word to use in any business environment, outside of advertising or fishing for charity money in the most scumbag ways possible.
Im going to bed, but honestly you sound like you're making shit up as a 'job' to avoid saying why you're really arguing the two words, but that is neither my care, nor my problem.