Am I just at fault?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

kalakashi:

You seem to be saying that is if it were a good thing. More violence may be more honest to our nature as animals, but isn't that somewhat the idea of humanity, that we're a bit better than the rest of them?

We shouldn't kid ourselves by thinking we're better than animals. "Humanity" has done some evil and is capable of evil FAR, FAR, beyond what an animal could ever think of doing. If anything, "humanity" is well below animals.

On top of that, the only reason we don't act out the violence we think of when someone wrongs us, is because the law hovers above our head like the sword of Damocles. That doesn't make us non-violent creatures. We're just too afraid of the law to act these things out.

Not only does the law uphold "order", which I do not necassarily see as a positive thing, but it also allows people to get away with things they'd never dream of, if the law wasn't there to protect them from the repercussions.

Violence is a part of our nature, it serves a purpose.

But... I feel like we're drifting away too far from the original topic... So let's not go any further. Atleast not in here.

Well, put it this way; if that were my girlfriend, I would probably knock yer bloody lights out.

You're both at fault. Maybe she's more to blame than you or whatever, but there's no doubting that you've screwed the pooch too.

SimpleThunda':

Abomination:
It's awesome to know that implied assault or the act of assault is apparently "acceptable" recompense towards infidelity of a workplace romance.

People have made posts about how depressed they are with humanity because of those who would view the OP as not having done much wrong. I find the idea that violence is a suitable punishment for a moral slight to be the true measure as to how deranged our society has become.

"Has become", implying it was ever any different?

We're all animals, don't you forget that.
Underneath that thin layer of fear for the law, there's a beast in every one of us.

We keep telling ourselves we're different, but we've all had the desire to pay back vengeance in spades at some point.
You may pretend to be righteous, but let's see how you feel when this happens to you.

The world would be a lot more honest with a little less laws and a little more violence.

I like to believe that as our society has grown more and more enlightened in that many a person can contemplate the philosophical nature of their actions and that we can reflect upon just what the cause for our decisions are - we can identify not just the what but also the why.

The OP has caused no harm, he has simply been an agent of the girlfriend's infidelity - it was she who has done any real potential harm. But for damage to pride only to be responded with damage of a physical nature when we are BETTER than this is saddening. It is not that I do not believe us to be subject to animal instincts but the fact we can identify them but allow them to rule us still shows just how little sentience some of us truly have.

Temporary satisfaction or vindication taken in spite of long-term consequence... vengeance directed at the wrong party and applied in excess of the slight.

Or maybe it's just because I've slept with a few women who have been in relationships at the time - some I knew about and some I didn't. I, however, was never in one during those forays. I have had the same done against me (before I engaged in being an agent of infidelity, so no claims of karma backlash) and even at the ripe age of 17 I knew who the true guilty party was - the one who claimed to be my romantic partner exclusively. Not the agent.

Abomination:

Temporary satisfaction or vindication taken in spite of long-term consequence...

How about temporary pleasure in spite of long-term consequence? I mean, sure there's the "Don't care, had snu-snu" sentiment, but willingly participating in a situation you know liable to blow up in your face quite impressively, while not necessarily immoral is simply dumb, and I've no sympathy for it.

As Katatori pointed out, I didn't clarify myself, but I'm looking at the situation from the practical point of view, rather than the moral one. And that's why I think what the OP is doing is "wrong". Not because it'd be "immoral", but because it just goes against all practical consideration.

SimpleThunda':
We shouldn't kid ourselves by thinking we're better than animals. "Humanity" has done some evil and is capable of evil FAR, FAR, beyond what an animal could ever think of doing. If anything, "humanity" is well below animals.

On top of that, the only reason we don't act out the violence we think of when someone wrongs us, is because the law hovers above our head like the sword of Damocles. That doesn't make us non-violent creatures. We're just too afraid of the law to act these things out.

Not only does the law uphold "order", which I do not necassarily see as a positive thing, but it also allows people to get away with things they'd never dream of, if the law wasn't there to protect them from the repercussions.

Violence is a part of our nature, it serves a purpose.

But... I feel like we're drifting away too far from the original topic... So let's not go any further. Atleast not in here.

Oh hell naw, you're not getting away that easy. My point about humanity is the attempt to be better than the rest, the effort to do away with violence and segregation. And I'm sure you're not sincere that the only reason we withhold violence is fear of punishment, that's absurd, there's a lot of people for whom violence is just an unpleasant thought.

And violence is one of the few things that serves zero purpose. It serves only the strong to dominate the weak, and is appropriate only in response to violence.

Vegosiux:

Abomination:

Temporary satisfaction or vindication taken in spite of long-term consequence...

How about temporary pleasure in spite of long-term consequence? I mean, sure there's the "Don't care, had snu-snu" sentiment, but willingly participating in a situation you know liable to blow up in your face quite impressively, while not necessarily immoral is simply dumb, and I've no sympathy for it.

As Katatori pointed out, I didn't clarify myself, but I'm looking at the situation from the practical point of view, rather than the moral one. And that's why I think what the OP is doing is "wrong". Not because it'd be "immoral", but because it just goes against all practical consideration.

The practical consideration being the potential violence directed at the agent by the dishonoured boyfriend?

Who is the say the OP isn't the larger, stronger or more martially able of the two? Perhaps he has no such fears or concerns.

Only the knowledge of an existing spouse makes this a matter of any question, what if she had the spouse but the agent did not know of it? Physically nothing is different between the two scenarios. The only non-physical constant is that the female in question was breaking her bond.

Abomination:
The practical consideration being the potential violence directed at the agent by the dishonoured boyfriend?

That could be one. Another one would be that since they're all coworkers that inevitably leads to tension at the work place which interferes with both quality of the job and quality of the work done, which ultimately affects more than just them, even. Another would be the fact that merely being in a love triangle like that puts a lot more stress into the fuck buddy relationship, even if only subconsciously.

The fourth would be that there are just so many women he could hit it off with without putting himself into such a situation in the first place.

And the fifth? The fact that the OP seems to have doubts himself, and actively seeking validation. That alone should raise a red flag. "Wait, I'm not even sure if I should be doing this, so why am I still doing this?"

Only the knowledge of an existing spouse makes this a matter of any question, what if she had the spouse but the agent did not know of it? Physically nothing is different between the two scenarios. The only non-physical constant is that the female in question was breaking her bond.

You can't be blamed for what you don't know, I agree. But that's just the thing, both moral and practical considerations take into account more than just the physical aspect of anything. Nobody gets away clean from such a foxtrot. It's never as simple as someone getting themselves punched square in the face and that's that.

As I said before in the thread, in the end my sentiment in this case is "Do what you want but don't come crying..."

kalakashi:

SimpleThunda':
We shouldn't kid ourselves by thinking we're better than animals. "Humanity" has done some evil and is capable of evil FAR, FAR, beyond what an animal could ever think of doing. If anything, "humanity" is well below animals.

On top of that, the only reason we don't act out the violence we think of when someone wrongs us, is because the law hovers above our head like the sword of Damocles. That doesn't make us non-violent creatures. We're just too afraid of the law to act these things out.

Not only does the law uphold "order", which I do not necassarily see as a positive thing, but it also allows people to get away with things they'd never dream of, if the law wasn't there to protect them from the repercussions.

Violence is a part of our nature, it serves a purpose.

But... I feel like we're drifting away too far from the original topic... So let's not go any further. Atleast not in here.

Oh hell naw, you're not getting away that easy. My point about humanity is the attempt to be better than the rest, the effort to do away with violence and segregation. And I'm sure you're not sincere that the only reason we withhold violence is fear of punishment, that's absurd, there's a lot of people for whom violence is just an unpleasant thought.

And violence is one of the few things that serves zero purpose. It serves only the strong to dominate the weak, and is appropriate only in response to violence.

"Humanity" isn't attempting to be better. None of the world leaders or countries, thus, the people who actually have power, are trying to make the world a better place. They, OUR representatives, are by far the WORST people in terms of morality and "humanity". They only care about getting more money into their pockets, as does most of mankind. We're not better than animals, and we, humanity as a whole, is not actively trying to be better either.

And with "a lot" of people who see violence as always unpleasant; You probably mean the minority, right? I refuse to believe that not everyone has had a moment in which his or her desire was to be violent.

Look at the world. Does violence serve no purpose? Hell, the world resolves around violence. Violence to get more money, thus power. And whenever we're not actively killing people, we'll be "violent" in others ways, agressive, if you will, without being physical. We'll use money instead of our fists to get what we want out of someone. Or words. Bribery, intimidation. It's all means to the same end as violence.

SimpleThunda':
"Humanity" isn't attempting to be better. None of the world leaders or countries, thus, the people who actually have power, are trying to make the world a better place. They, OUR representatives, are by far the WORST people in terms of morality and "humanity". They only care about getting more money into their pockets, as does most of mankind. We're not better than animals, and we, humanity as a whole, is not actively trying to be better either.

And with "a lot" of people who see violence as always unpleasant; You probably mean the minority, right? I refuse to believe that not everyone has had a moment in which his or her desire was to be violent.

Look at the world. Does violence serve no purpose? Hell, the world resolves around violence. Violence to get more money, thus power. And whenever we're not actively killing people, we'll be "violent" in others ways, agressive, if you will, without being physical. We'll use money instead of our fists to get what we want out of someone. Or words. Bribery, intimidation. It's all means to the same end as violence.

Of course everybody has desired to be violent, but we're trying to be better than that. Yes, we're using violence to get money, land, power. But should we be? No, obviously not. We should not be succumbing to evolutionary instinct, we should be trying to ascend it.

Money, words and bribery are not violence, even if they may be used to the same means. Would you rather have a forced sale of your land, or just be forced off it with violence? Money is the better solution. Would you rather be dissuaded from your beliefs, or know that practising them will incur violence? etc.

Intimidation does not fall under this, as indimidation is the threat of violence, so no violence, no intimidation.

I've learned, "If I have to ask myself and others whether something was wrong, it most likely was a bad thing to do."

Soooooo, yeah, you're as much at fault as she is. Less than her, but not by much.

kalakashi:

SimpleThunda':
"Humanity" isn't attempting to be better. None of the world leaders or countries, thus, the people who actually have power, are trying to make the world a better place. They, OUR representatives, are by far the WORST people in terms of morality and "humanity". They only care about getting more money into their pockets, as does most of mankind. We're not better than animals, and we, humanity as a whole, is not actively trying to be better either.

And with "a lot" of people who see violence as always unpleasant; You probably mean the minority, right? I refuse to believe that not everyone has had a moment in which his or her desire was to be violent.

Look at the world. Does violence serve no purpose? Hell, the world resolves around violence. Violence to get more money, thus power. And whenever we're not actively killing people, we'll be "violent" in others ways, agressive, if you will, without being physical. We'll use money instead of our fists to get what we want out of someone. Or words. Bribery, intimidation. It's all means to the same end as violence.

Of course everybody has desired to be violent, but we're trying to be better than that. Yes, we're using violence to get money, land, power. But should we be? No, obviously not. We should not be succumbing to evolutionary instinct, we should be trying to ascend it.

Money, words and bribery are not violence, even if they may be used to the same means. Would you rather have a forced sale of your land, or just be forced off it with violence? Money is the better solution. Would you rather be dissuaded from your beliefs, or know that practising them will incur violence? etc.

Intimidation does not fall under this, as indimidation is the threat of violence, so no violence, no intimidation.

"Should", "should", "should". But we don't, because we can't. Know why? Because we're animals.

We crave violence. If we're not doing it ourselves we're looking at it on the television or playing video games. It's an outlet.

And on your point about money/words being better to be forced off your land; If you're capable of defending yourself, violence would've been the better option, because then you wouldn't have lost your land. Yet, the law forbids.

She's the one in a (less than) committed relationship.

You're not responsible for her personal life.

SimpleThunda':

"Should", "should", "should". But we don't, because we can't. Know why? Because we're animals.

We crave violence. If we're not doing it ourselves we're looking at it on the television or playing video games. It's an outlet.

And on your point about money/words being better to be forced off your land; If you're capable of defending yourself, violence would've been the better option, because then you wouldn't have lost your land. Yet, the law forbids.

So jaded and edgy. Makes my own cynicism pale in comparison.

The difference between animals and us is that we have the ability to function against our instincts, rely on our better judgement and make rational decisions. Not all the time, of course, but we're not instinctual violent animals all the time either. So no, a human is not the same as a wolf, and even less the same as a jellyfish (why is it that when someone says "animals" they mean, almost without exception, the Carnivora order?), in that we do have higher cognitive functions that give us the ability to not be guided purely by instinct all the time, even in social confrontation. I don't know of any other species with the ability to settle disputes non-violently.

When people stop being violent instinct-driven creatures all the time, shit gets done.

Yoshi4507:
So, I'm currently seeing this girl quite often. Friends with benefits thing. Its amazing, dont get me wrong. The only problem though is that she has a boyfriend. To make it better, we are all coworkers. Luckily he doesnt know, but has suspicion. I know she is in the wrong for doing it, but whats bugging me is " how wrong am I in comparison"? At the moment all I can think of is I, m not the one cheating, she is, hes a real d-bag to her anyway, and me always coming to that conclusion is whats bothering me. Whos more wrong?

You're both equally wrong.

From a male perspective you just don't betray a bloke like that, we have it hard enough as it is. We don't need make it worse for each other.

SimpleThunda':
"Should", "should", "should". But we don't, because we can't. Know why? Because we're animals.

We crave violence. If we're not doing it ourselves we're looking at it on the television or playing video games. It's an outlet.

Speak for yourself, I've been in situations where violence would have brought me short-term satisfaction and no ill consequences other than my feeling bad, and so I have refrained. And you seem to not be arguing about the way things should be, and focussing only on how some people are. Maybe you are not one of those who is trying to be better than just an animal, in which case it is the fault of people like you that we aren't better.

Craving violence does not make violence good. I am making a distinction between the way things are, and the way things ought to be (as I see it), you seem to be focussing only on how things are. Do you not agree that if we could magically rid ourselves of violence altogether, that the world would be a better place?
And yes, this is a good purpose of violent media, to serve as an outlet for that nature without having to partake in real world violence, because eveyone generally agrees that that's a better way to do it.

SimpleThunda':
And on your point about money/words being better to be forced off your land; If you're capable of defending yourself, violence would've been the better option, because then you wouldn't have lost your land. Yet, the law forbids.

In the case of defending yourself, you are imagining that you have refused the bribe/persuasion etc. and are now defending yourself from violence. You're imagining being on equal physical footing, and are able to defend yourself from the violence. This highlights how violence is only appropriate in response to already existing violence, so in my scenario of a violence-free world, there is no need to introduce violence. It serves no purpose of its own.

I personally believe that the cheater is at fault, not the cheatee. It's the cheater's choice to cheat.

Katatori-kun:

Johnny Impact:
OP didn't ask whether it was legal.

True, but you called it a crime.

Crime existed before there were laws. The very first time one caveman slapped another and stole his meat, there was no written code drafted by stuffy legislators. There was only the notion of right and wrong.

For a crime to exist, all we need is a victim, a perpetrator, and some sort of unfair loss inflicted by one upon the other. The victim is the one being cheated on, who was treated unfairly. The perpetrator is the one doing the cheating, who took unfair advantage of another. The loss in trust, dignity, time, happiness etc might be intangible but it is no less real.

That's all criteria satisfied. Cheating is a crime, a violation in terms of morality rather than legal technicality.

It's equivalent to defrauding a person of everything they own,

This implies you think a person in a relationship owns the other person.

No, people do not own each other. I'm trying to establish equivalent loss for an intangible. Inevitably there will be some inaccuracy.

Try the notion of a treasure map. Get your tools and your sense of adventure, the map says, and proceed to the X. There you will find what you seek. So you hitch up your britches and get going. You invest deeply of yourself to reach that point. After much time and toil, the old wooden chest is ready to be opened. And what do you find inside but a note saying "Haha, fuck you, it was all for nothing, I lied to you the whole time." Is that the ending you're looking for? Do you feel at that point as if the guy who set the whole thing up has done right by you?

Or we could use sexual harassment as an example. Here we have two people who should get along, extending, if not friendship, then at least the quid pro quo attitude most humans have towards one another. Except one of them is taking what isn't offered, abusing trust, abusing authority, taking advantage of meek complacency, and so forth. There isn't any notion of fairness towards the victim. There isn't any quo or quid. There is only callous greed: "I want this, I'm taking it, ha ha, you can't stop me." Theft of dignity, theft of personal space, emotional damage -- however you categorize it, it is very much an intangible, and very much illegal. This is a crime on both moral and legal grounds.

You can apply the same sort of logic to relationships: I love you, and I give you the right to love me in return, or at least cordially decline my love. I do NOT explicitly or implicitly give you the right to sink a pickaxe into my heart by pretending to love me while you fuck some other guy behind my back.

Don't people in relationships have some claim on each other? Don't they deserve anything for their devotion? Love is uncommon. Trust is hard. Honesty is practically extinct. The reason for that is way too many of us just take advantage of anyone "foolish" enough to employ them. When we extend these things, we should get something other than spat on.

My opinion is if you don't think that's pretty bad, your morals are loose.

I never claimed cheating wasn't bad.

If I wished to, I could say you claimed exactly that. I could easily twist your statement that people don't own each other. If humans have no claim upon one another, as you say, doesn't that mean you believe there is no requirement to be decent, or repay trust in kind? We can just do whatever we want, without consequence, because hey, you don't own me.

Obviously that isn't what you meant. There's this little thing called sticking to the spirit of the argument.

Vegosiux:

SimpleThunda':

"Should", "should", "should". But we don't, because we can't. Know why? Because we're animals.

We crave violence. If we're not doing it ourselves we're looking at it on the television or playing video games. It's an outlet.

And on your point about money/words being better to be forced off your land; If you're capable of defending yourself, violence would've been the better option, because then you wouldn't have lost your land. Yet, the law forbids.

So jaded and edgy. Makes my own cynicism pale in comparison.

The difference between animals and us is that we have the ability to function against our instincts, rely on our better judgement and make rational decisions. Not all the time, of course, but we're not instinctual violent animals all the time either. So no, a human is not the same as a wolf, and even less the same as a jellyfish (why is it that when someone says "animals" they mean, almost without exception, the Carnivora order?), in that we do have higher cognitive functions that give us the ability to not be guided purely by instinct all the time, even in social confrontation. I don't know of any other species with the ability to settle disputes non-violently.

When people stop being violent instinct-driven creatures all the time, shit gets done.

I'm not being cynical. I don't loathe humanity for what it is. I think, of all things, atleast an animal has an excuse to be cruel, selfish, anything of the sort. And animals make rational decisions all the time, that's not exclusive to humans, by any means. If animals weren't rational, they would'v never survived. We call that instinct as though it is primitive and "so much less than what endless capabilities the human mind has". What's rational about a species sucking up everything a planet has to offer for money, eventhough it's obvious that we're going to run into trouble down the line? Nothing.

Rational thoughts may be thought, but rational decisions aren't made. Greedy decisions are made. A person can't think for an entire country, but only for himself and his wallet. Granted, there are selfless people out there, but none of them make it to a position where they can make choices that benefit humanity.

I didn't mean to argue that we're violent -all- the time, but we are more than we like to admit. Like I said, people like seeing death and destruction on television, whether it is a newsflash or a crime series, because we like violence. We need violence. It's an outlet, if nothing else.

Obviously I don't find humans similar to jellyfish. I compare them to mammals, and all that pack behavior mammals show, humans show aswell. You'll be amazed at the parallels there are between human and animal behavior.

"When people stop being violent, instinct-driven creatures all the time, shit gets done."

Like what?

Humanity builds up it's imperium, sucking the earth dry and enslaving animals, abusing them aswell, all the while we worry about the fact that our neighbour has gotten a new car and ours is old?

What kind of "shit" have we "gotten done"?

Name anything that didn't benefit either our health or our wallet.

Kurt Cristal:
I personally believe that the cheater is at fault, not the cheatee. It's the cheater's choice to cheat.

Cheating and rape are very different things. The person they cheat with also makes a choice to help someone do something immoral, thereby making them quite immoral as well.

Spinozaad:
She's the one in a (less than) committed relationship.

You're not responsible for her personal life.

Nope, but he is responsible for his choice to help someone.

I'm not sure what this crap is about pointing out things he isn't responsible for when what's relevant if anything he is responsible for is wrong. But I'm quite certain we're all smart enough to understand why this deflection occurs.

What? You're all at fault. You're sleeping with somebody's girlfriend, she's cheating on her boyfriend, and he's apparently so tuned out to his own girlfriend he has no idea what's going on (or he does and he's just not doing anything about it). And you work together, so when it all comes out into the open it's going to be drama at work every day. Best case scenario, nobody gets fired.

Moral of this story? Don't casually date people who can so easily wreck your life if the relationship goes south.

Takes two to cheat. just saying. Had this been some one night hookup where she tells you she has a boyfriend the next morning, fair enough, you didn't know and you have the chance to back off. I would assume you knew these two were dating before you started YOUR relationship with this girl (coworkers and all) meaning that you are just as much to blame as her.

Even if the guy is a jerk, you loose the moral highground because you are knowingly deceiving the other guy. He might not realize he's being a jerk to her, and even if he is, that's their issue. Sure you can be her friend and help her, but not with you penis.

Abomination:

The OP has caused no harm, he has simply been an agent of the girlfriend's infidelity - it was she who has done any real potential harm. But for damage to pride only to be responded with damage of a physical nature when we are BETTER than this is saddening. It is not that I do not believe us to be subject to animal instincts but the fact we can identify them but allow them to rule us still shows just how little sentience some of us truly have.

He participated in it. He aided it. He has helped someone cause harm. He is guilty as well. He's in the position a tool would be in, except he has a choice.

Temporary satisfaction or vindication taken in spite of long-term consequence... vengeance directed at the wrong party and applied in excess of the slight.

No, it's the right party.

Also:

People have made posts about how depressed they are with humanity because of those who would view the OP as not having done much wrong. I find the idea that violence is a suitable punishment for a moral slight to be the true measure as to how deranged our society has become.

Is that some kind of joke? History lessons much?

Dijkstra:

Abomination:

The OP has caused no harm, he has simply been an agent of the girlfriend's infidelity - it was she who has done any real potential harm. But for damage to pride only to be responded with damage of a physical nature when we are BETTER than this is saddening. It is not that I do not believe us to be subject to animal instincts but the fact we can identify them but allow them to rule us still shows just how little sentience some of us truly have.

He participated in it. He aided it. He has helped someone cause harm. He is guilty as well. He's in the position a tool would be in, except he has a choice.

So if he did not know the girl was in a relationship he would be just as guilty? If no then from a practical standpoint he has done nothing wrong. He is under no obligation to the boyfriend, he has cheated on nobody. The girlfriend however...

Temporary satisfaction or vindication taken in spite of long-term consequence... vengeance directed at the wrong party and applied in excess of the slight.

No, it's the right party.

He is the one deserving of physical punishment? First, he broke no oath, second the female was the one who decided to betray the boyfriend. But I guess since she's a woman she can't possibly be subjected to physical punishment for a worse crime.

People have made posts about how depressed they are with humanity because of those who would view the OP as not having done much wrong. I find the idea that violence is a suitable punishment for a moral slight to be the true measure as to how deranged our society has become.

Is that some kind of joke? History lessons much?

Yeah, history, something we have tried to become more enlightened than. You would think after a few hundred years, law changes and philosophical debate we would realise that violence should be the last resort and even then only employed to prevent further violence. What we are suggesting is that it is okay to commit a REAL crime in response to a moral one?

Abomination:

Dijkstra:

Abomination:

The OP has caused no harm, he has simply been an agent of the girlfriend's infidelity - it was she who has done any real potential harm. But for damage to pride only to be responded with damage of a physical nature when we are BETTER than this is saddening. It is not that I do not believe us to be subject to animal instincts but the fact we can identify them but allow them to rule us still shows just how little sentience some of us truly have.

He participated in it. He aided it. He has helped someone cause harm. He is guilty as well. He's in the position a tool would be in, except he has a choice.

So if he did not know the girl was in a relationship he would be just as guilty? If no then from a practical standpoint he has done nothing wrong. He is under no obligation to the boyfriend, he has cheated on nobody. The girlfriend however...

By this logic, if I pull a lever to kill someone then I'm not at fault. Because you know, if I didn't know if it would kill someone I wouldn't be guilty. Or in the real world, knowledge matters. From a practical standpoint you are wrong.

He has the obligation not to be immoral. Alas, helping someone else be immoral is immoral.

Temporary satisfaction or vindication taken in spite of long-term consequence... vengeance directed at the wrong party and applied in excess of the slight.

No, it's the right party.

He is the one deserving of physical punishment? First, he broke no oath, second the female was the one who decided to betray the boyfriend. But I guess since she's a woman she can't possibly be subjected to physical punishment for a worse crime.

I said he is the right party, I never specified magnitude.

Secondly, fuck oaths.
Third, to help betray someone else is wrong.
Lastly, who said she couldn't be punished too? But I guess since a guy got punished you have to cry discrimination when nothing was said about the female.

People have made posts about how depressed they are with humanity because of those who would view the OP as not having done much wrong. I find the idea that violence is a suitable punishment for a moral slight to be the true measure as to how deranged our society has become.

Is that some kind of joke? History lessons much?

Yeah, history, something we have tried to become more enlightened than. You would think after a few hundred years, law changes and philosophical debate we would realise that violence should be the last resort and even then only employed to prevent further violence. What we are suggesting is that it is okay to commit a REAL crime in response to a moral one?

If you're trying to be enlightened, why the hell are you missing the point so badly? 'how deranged our society has become' implies it's changed to be more deranged. It hasn't.

Furthermore, 'real' crime is BS. It is arbitrarily defined. Who cares if the law says it's a crime or not? That's not what makes it bad.

Johnny Impact:
Crime existed before there were laws.

Um... no. The very definition of a crime is that it is an action that violates a law.

No, people do not own each other. I'm trying to establish equivalent loss for an intangible.

You're still presuming things about other people's relationships, like that there is something that can be lost by cheating.

Try the notion of a treasure map. Get your tools and your sense of adventure, the map says, and proceed to the X. There you will find what you seek. So you hitch up your britches and get going. You invest deeply of yourself to reach that point. After much time and toil, the old wooden chest is ready to be opened. And what do you find inside but a note saying "Haha, fuck you, it was all for nothing, I lied to you the whole time." Is that the ending you're looking for? Do you feel at that point as if the guy who set the whole thing up has done right by you?

I'd certainly be annoyed if I put a lot of effort into finding the treasure, but I could hardly accuse the person who made the map of doing anything wrong to me unless we had some kind of explicit contract establishing that the map led to a genuine, quantified amount of treasure.

Besides, sometimes the adventure is it's own reward. I might enjoy looking for the treasure even if I don't find anything. Likewise, some people enjoy relationships even if they don't find committed fidelity.

Or we could use sexual harassment as an example.

Let's not. Because unlike cheating, sexual harassment actually is a crime. You know, what with it being illegal. So it's already completely inapplicable to this discussion.

Don't people in relationships have some claim on each other? Don't they deserve anything for their devotion?

Sometimes. People have different relationships for different reasons and different expectations for what they want to get out of them. You have no business telling other people what their relationship should be like.

My opinion is if you don't think that's pretty bad, your morals are loose.

I never claimed cheating wasn't bad.

If I wished to, I could say you claimed exactly that.

If you wished to lie you could say I claimed exactly that.

I could easily twist your statement that people don't own each other. If humans have no claim upon one another, as you say, doesn't that mean you believe there is no requirement to be decent, or repay trust in kind?

"Requirement?" No. That doesn't mean I said cheating was okay. All it means is I'm not going to force what I want out of a relationship on other people.

We can just do whatever we want, without consequence, because hey, you don't own me.

Even by internet message board standards, this is an absurd strawman. Hang your head in shame.

If you know she has a boyfriend, you're cheating. You're just as guilty as her. It takes two to tango and the only reason an issue exists is because you both let it happen and share equally in the blame. If you want to be together tell her to drop the other guy. If he is a douche then that's reason enough to do it anyways.

Of course you already knew that. People only ask if they are to blame when they feel guilty and they feel guilty because they know they did something wrong. I'm not going to reassure you, I'm going to reenforce what you know to be true.

Unless you enticed her your fault is basically just limited to enabling her. You have no obligations to this guy (unless hes your friend, in that case you're horrible) so you are not at fault for her failings.

Dijkstra:

Kurt Cristal:
I personally believe that the cheater is at fault, not the cheatee. It's the cheater's choice to cheat.

Cheating and rape are very different things. The person they cheat with also makes a choice to help someone do something immoral, thereby making them quite immoral as well.

Rape was NOT involved in the OPs post, so I don't know why you brought it up. And no, choosing to make someone feel good in bed is not immoral. Only cheating is, and that's just me. You're only doing wrong if you're cheating.

If you are ignorant to her relationship, then it's okay. But the very second you find out that she has a boyfriend, you are at fault. At that point, you're both sneaking around behind her boyfriend's back, not just her.

You're basically hurting someone for the sake of your own personal pleasure. Both of you are. It's not like you're ignorant, so yeah, there's no excuse for your behavior.

If you believe that cheating is wrong, then you're at fault, even though you're not the one cheating. Ask yourself- would you be upset if your girlfriend had a "friends with benefits" relationship with someone else while she was going out with you? If the answer is "yes", then you're a hypocrite.

And if he's such a douchebag to her, why is she still going out with him? Are you sure you're not just making excuses for yourself?

SimpleThunda':
-snip-

If that's how you see the world, who am I to stop you? I'd very much appreciate it if you stopped with the "cynical and edgy" act though (and no, "Loathing humanity for what it is" is not what "Cynical and edgy" means). But discussing opinions is like discussing wallpaper.

Poke me again when we have some facts backed up by some solid sources to talk about.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked