If Pacquiao really believe that the commission test was good enough for his past bouts orginally why did he cave, appease, and pacify to MAYWEATHER demands of extra drug testing?
Pacquiao went from no test, to 3 test only, to 30 days, to 24 days, and now to 14 days?
Will he go to 7 days next? If so Why?
Did Pacquiao come to the realization that he was wrong on this issue?
What in the Negotiations made Manny Pacquiao "Fighter of the Decade" compromised his values???
Is Manny Pacquiao compromise a Fair one ? If so how? and to who?
So this brings me to a topic I want to discuss,
If two individuals from two different places of the world came together to decide on a contract,
What principles should they used? Because deciding on principles for negotiation is really determining whose values and belief system gets checked!
If they try to meet in the middle, where is the middle? Is middle left or middle right?? If you notice the patterned the true test of these deciding factors comes when one of those two individuals decides to cave, appease, satisfy, or pacify first. Then the question is how far is that person willing to cave, appease, satisfy, and pacify, and what made that person give up on his values and principles in the first place?
Now we have an interesting situation, because not only as one person compromise their position, but they have just ceded control to the other individual. They let their opposition frame the conversation, and therefore frame the reality, more important the perception of reality.
The one who controls perception controls reality.
So say now the individual with the control decides to tell the other individual that the only fair way for us to determine and finalized the contract is for both of them to undergo a test to solidify that both of them believe in integrity, fairness, and justice to each other and the contract. and the other individual doesnt agree.
Now a problem naturally arises from the other individual side, what kind of test? and why is this test the deciding factor of integrity, fairness, and justice to each other and the contract.
BUT HERE IS THE PROBLEM, the time to ask those questions are over, because that individual agreed to the other individual principles by caving, appeasing, satisfying, and pacifying to the other individuals framework of the conversation,
So I ask the question how do you Negotiate fairness? Simple. YOU DON’T !!
Because once you do, what you think is fair based on your values, and principles will soon be determine be someone else as soon as you Negotiate it.
So once again is Manny Pacquiao compromise a Fair one? to "himself"
Pacquiao went from no test, to 3 test only, to 30 days, to 24 days, and now to 14 days?
Will he go to 7 days next? If so Why?
Did Pacquiao come to the realization that he was wrong on this issue?
What in the Negotiations made Manny Pacquiao "Fighter of the Decade" compromised his values???
Is Manny Pacquiao compromise a Fair one ? If so how? and to who?
So this brings me to a topic I want to discuss,
How do you Negotiate fairness?
If two individuals from two different places of the world came together to decide on a contract,
What principles should they used? Because deciding on principles for negotiation is really determining whose values and belief system gets checked!
If they try to meet in the middle, where is the middle? Is middle left or middle right?? If you notice the patterned the true test of these deciding factors comes when one of those two individuals decides to cave, appease, satisfy, or pacify first. Then the question is how far is that person willing to cave, appease, satisfy, and pacify, and what made that person give up on his values and principles in the first place?
Now we have an interesting situation, because not only as one person compromise their position, but they have just ceded control to the other individual. They let their opposition frame the conversation, and therefore frame the reality, more important the perception of reality.
The one who controls perception controls reality.
So say now the individual with the control decides to tell the other individual that the only fair way for us to determine and finalized the contract is for both of them to undergo a test to solidify that both of them believe in integrity, fairness, and justice to each other and the contract. and the other individual doesnt agree.
Now a problem naturally arises from the other individual side, what kind of test? and why is this test the deciding factor of integrity, fairness, and justice to each other and the contract.
BUT HERE IS THE PROBLEM, the time to ask those questions are over, because that individual agreed to the other individual principles by caving, appeasing, satisfying, and pacifying to the other individuals framework of the conversation,
So I ask the question how do you Negotiate fairness? Simple. YOU DON’T !!
Because once you do, what you think is fair based on your values, and principles will soon be determine be someone else as soon as you Negotiate it.
So once again is Manny Pacquiao compromise a Fair one? to "himself"
THE POINT
Originally posted by Horus
View Post
Comment