About Relationship Sanctity....

[Thyunda]

Alright now this is just plain weird. Are you sure you weren't just messing with me in the other thread?

Eh? How'd you mean?

 

[senordesol]

Alright now this is just plain weird. Are you sure you weren't just messing with me in the other thread?

Eh? How'd you mean?

In the post I quoted, you said everything I wanted to say.

 

[Kathinka]

i wasn't trying to imply some mystical nonsense here, sorry for the confusion.

what i meant was that if someone can be convinved to cheat or leave his partner, then their relationship was obviously not a very good one. hence my oppinion: go for it. other peoples loyalty is not your responsibility.

I hear you, but still respectfully disagree. People are complicated. Social dynamics are complicated. Sexual dynamics are EXTREMELY complicated. Perfectly healthy relationships can be momentarily vulnerable for reasons that have nothing to do with the quality of the partnership.

Honestly, it would be good if more people were cognizant of just how unbelievably fragile even strong relationships can be. We might take them for granted less. Of course, then the stress and worry would kill us, so maybe not...

true, people and how they interact are incredibly complex and complicated. but there is stuff that you just don't do, like sleeping with people without consent of your partner. and really, it is not that hard, if you really want to.

so i still think; if you are interested in someone, and that someone is in a relationship, his or her fidelity is not your problem or responsibility.

 

[Thyunda]

Alright now this is just plain weird. Are you sure you weren't just messing with me in the other thread?

Eh? How'd you mean?

In the post I quoted, you said everything I wanted to say.

But why would I be messing with you? That's the confusing part.

 

[senordesol]

Alright now this is just plain weird. Are you sure you weren't just messing with me in the other thread?

Eh? How'd you mean?

In the post I quoted, you said everything I wanted to say.

But why would I be messing with you? That's the confusing part.

I was being sarcastic. It's rare for me to find someone I so vehemently disagree with on one issue to be totally in synch on another. Your post on the other page practically took the words out of my mouth (keyboard?).

It's just a curious inconsistency (not that you're being inconsistent, but that it's rare.) I was really doing little else than making a lame joke to preface my elaboration.

 

[Thyunda]

Alright now this is just plain weird. Are you sure you weren't just messing with me in the other thread?

Eh? How'd you mean?

In the post I quoted, you said everything I wanted to say.

But why would I be messing with you? That's the confusing part.

I was being sarcastic. It's rare for me to find someone I so vehemently disagree with on one issue to be totally in synch on another. Your post on the other page practically took the words out of my mouth (keyboard?).

It's just a curious inconsistency (not that you're being inconsistent, but that it's rare.) I was really doing little else than making a lame joke to preface my elaboration.

I'm living proof that one person does not fit into the left or the right, so to speak. In that thread, I feel that the police fumbled the ball and wound up with a dead suspect. In this thread, I feel that men who have no respect for other men and their relationships are cowards. I figure, if the boyfriend is a bad person, then go to him and tell him his girlfriend will leave him if he carries on. Any further counts of dickishness are perfectly acceptable causes of violence, if you feel it's necessary, but at no point will fucking a guy's girlfriend EVER prove anything.

I found a beautiful quote for this on a wall in an Irish bar. I don't know who the original author is.

"A brave man defeats his enemy with the sword. The coward does it with a kiss."

Or something like that. It was years ago.

 

[Athinira]

Your point was a weak one. It was a claim, nothing more. So simply make the opposite claim.

(...)

It's people's job to be ethical.

Is it? Since when?

And if so, why are you contradicting yourself considering you made this statement earlier (which is even in your current post):

I don't care why people do it. Nor did I say that people doing it has any link to needing to do it. I'm simply saying those who don't do it are unethical. Didn't say they need to. Just if they want to be decent people.

Like i said earlier: Unless you can point me to some law that requires me to be ethical in this case, then it's NOONES job to be ethical in this situation.

It's simple wishful thinking on your part. Your point is the weak one, not mine, because you still seem to live in a world where people are required to conform to those "rules" you think exist (hint: they aren't, because they don't exist).

They take the responsibility for that. However aiding it is itself something blameworthy.

Arguable. I'm going to disagree, but this is something we likely aren't going to agree on at any point.

No, approval is relevant. What someone approves of reflects on them. Approving of unethical actions is itself unethical.

Not really. If it was, then having "unethical thoughts" would likely be a crime (and indeed has been, especially in times of heavy religious belief where you did well to keep your opinion to yourself). There is a reason we have the right to free speech in most modern countries.

Also you can't divorce it from action completely. Showing approval or disapproval is a way of applying pressure socially.

Nope, but cheating on your partner and sleeping with someone elses partner is still two different things that CAN be divorced.

Social pressure is just that: pressure. It's not enforcement. Sure there can be consequences by your choice, but noone forces you. All you have to do is ask yourself: Is it worth it?

If it's your best friends girlfriend or something, then it's likely not worth it.
However, if it's just a random girl who happens to have a boyfriend, it's much more likely to be worth it (unless her boyfriend is the type to show up at your door with a 12 gauge or a baseball bat).

Bad argument. Just because said bad action would occur later with someone else does not justify participation. For instance, corruption is not justified by saying "Oh well, if they didn't buy me off they'd buy someone else off"

If you take a bribe, that makes both you and the briber corrupt.
Sleeping with someone who has a partner, however, does not make you unfaithful/cheating.

Bad example, not bad argument.

Not really. 'like a man' is nonsense. Enforcing of outdated gender roles.

No, it's an expression with REFERENCE. It's used because people know what it means, not because it expresses that the man is superior to the woman or something similar. It's like saying that someone "has balls". Reference to the male body, yes, but the expression can be used on both genders to signify doing something bold.

It is not the 'job' of the interested party. It is their choice. And they can be blamed for their choices.

If your goal is to get laid (or perhaps find a future girlfriend/wife) and you believe the girl in question is a potential/good candidate, then yes, it is your job. If you don't do your job, you don't reap the benefits. That's how the world works.

And yes, people can be blamed for their choices. They can also avoid it. It depends entirely on the circumstances, and if you evaluate the benefits to outweigh the negatives, then you go for it.

Like i said, sometimes it can be advantageous to be egotistical rather than respectful. That's generally how the most successful people in the world move forward: By perfectly varying their act between being egotistical and respectful.
And let me tell you that the biggest players in the love-game care very little about their rivals. Might seem harsh to you, but it brings them success and respect among their peers ("Wow dude, you're a machine. How do you go home with a woman every night out?"), so why wouldn't they?

You can sit and whine about it being unethical from now to Armageddon, but fact is that those who pusher harder typically get first in line. And they enjoy it.

 

[peruvianskys]

his or her fidelity is not your problem or responsibility.

That is absolutely true, in that if you saw him or her flirting with another stranger, you would not be required to leap in and tackle them in order to stop the infidelity.

However, that's very different from the situation here, where you ACTIVELY AID in the breaking of that commitment. It's not like you're just some passive bystander; you're making the choice to interact with someone who is in a relationship, a choice that you know will cause emotional distress for others.

 

[senordesol]

It's people's job to be ethical.

Is it? Since when?

Since the OP asked 'is it wrong to..?' He's asking whether it's an ethical predicament, not whether it is 'advantageous', not whether it's legal, not whether you'd do it yourself, but if it's ethical.

If you are acknowledging that finding yourself in such circumstances is unethical, how can it therefore not be 'wrong'?

So when you ask 'Since when [is it someone's job to be ethical]?', the answer should be obvious. It is your job to be ethical if your goal is to be ethical. If you don't want to be ethical: fine. But it doesn't mean you're in the right.

 

[Maze1125]

Y'know, the argument here is whether you'd sleep with somebody who is currently in a relationship. Your arguments are based on encouraging them to separate. The two are completely different things.

For one, I've got nothing against a guy who sees a problematic relationship, sits down with the girl and says "Look, you need to leave." If she chooses to leave and then the guy sleeps with her, whatever. That's fair game.

What's NOT fair game is saying "Oh, they've got problems" and then fucking her. What have you done for her? You've made things worse. The 'Not my problem' attitude is abhorrent. We're all people, we're all in the same community.

You spend most of the post criticising a point that wasn't even the crux of my argument.
My point was never "It must be a good thing to sleep with her." it was "It might be a good thing, you don't know." The "you don't know" was a very significant part. Your alternative solutions wouldn't work, because they would require you knowing about the issues, which you don't.

And, like I say, it was only an example anyway. The point is that it is her life, not yours. She is the one who's choice it should be.
Sure, if you're scared to retribution, or think anyone who cheats is someone you don't want to sleep with, then back off. But those are selfish reasons to refuse to do it, not moral ones.

She is the one who should get to choose if her relationship is worthwhile, not you. There is absolutely nothing moral about taking her choice away from her. Yeah, sure, make the choice for her for selfish reasons, that's fine, we all do that all the time, but don't ever pretend that making a choice for another adult is a "moral" thing to do, because it isn't.

You might not know the guy, but he might be your best friend if you met him under different circumstances.

And? Again, every one of us screws over strangers, in ways we wouldn't with friends, all the time. "He might be a good friend if you knew him." is meaningless.

Course, you didn't treat him like a person and nailed his girlfriend,

That's just hyperbole.

and then you walk off with a 'not my problem'.

When did I walk off again? I pretty sure you just made that up.

This goes to anybody who has ever treated a situation with 'Not my problem'. If you're being held at knifepoint for your wallet, I hope that the cops who show up are on the take, and walk off with a 'Not my problem'.

Wow, you do realise that goes for you too, right?
Either that, or you're working in Africa building mud huts. Or, is that "not your problem"?

I mean, wishing death threats upon everyone who disagrees with you in a discussion on-line? How old are you?

The only thing I have to add (read: emphasize) is that you are not helping anyone by sleeping with this girl, and you are only hurting her (and someone) else in the long-run.

You don't know that. There's already people in this thread who've given examples of long-term relationships coming from situations like this.

This whole "only bad can come of it" line is a demonstrable falsehood that you're clinging onto as though your life depended on it.

Whether or not you 'owe' someone anything is immaterial. Honoring an obligation is the least you can do.

Yes, and it's her obligation, not yours.
As you have absolutely no obligations in her relationship the "least you can do" is anything you want. That's exactly my point.

Making the right decision when it's no skin off your nose either way is the noble and honorable thing to do.

No, that's the obvious thing to do. The noble and honourable thing is to do what is right when it is skin off your nose.

Knowingly making someone else's life worse for your own personal pleasure is immoral. I don't know how anyone can argue otherwise. Just because you enjoy it, or don't care, or don't know the person you're hurting doesn't make it any less so.

So, imagine a scenario, you're applying for two different jobs, both pay the same and have the same prospects. The first you've already been given an offer and, in fact, there were no other candidates, the second you've got the interview for tomorrow and there are several other people going for it. However, you would enjoy the work in the second job much much more than the first.

What would you do? Surely, by your standard, you would simply not turn up for the interview for the second job, as the only thing you were lose is personal pleasure and, if you got it, you could be fairly sure you would cause pain to the other candidates. You've already got the job you need, so you would never even think to try for the more enjoyable one, as that would put someone else out, right?

 

[Thyunda]

-snip-

Nope, I'm not in Africa building mud huts. I have to put my own needs first and start locally, and become a worker with the homeless, finding them work and housing. Putting myself at risk around violence, alcohol and drug abuse for their benefit.

And I don't tend to screw people over because I don't know them. That's not really the sort of thing that everybody does - just you.
And it wasn't a death threat, just hand over your wallet and they'll go away. I mean, it's nothing serious, right? It's just possessions. You can make more money. Everybody screws somebody over at some point, right?

And just because a long-term relationship came of it doesn't make it any more right. Does editing your dying father's will to give you the entire estate suddenly become morally right because you got an estate out of it? No, it's still a despicable act.

Your last example makes no sense. What WOULD be more fitting is if another candidate had already been offered the job, and you quietly slipped a criminal conviction into his resumé and hinted at the employer that he should take another look at it.

 

[Maze1125]

-snip-

Nope, I'm not in Africa building mud huts. I have to put my own needs first and start locally, and become a worker with the homeless, finding them work and housing. Putting myself at risk around violence, alcohol and drug abuse for their benefit.

Ignoring the very significant chance you've just made that up on a spot: You do realise that most people don't do that, right? And, therefore, fall under your "deserve to be held at knife-point" category, right?

And I don't tend to screw people over because I don't know them. That's not really the sort of thing that everybody does - just you.

No, it really is the sort of thing most people do. I've already given examples, you conveniently ignored them.

And it wasn't a death threat, just hand over your wallet and they'll go away. I mean, it's nothing serious, right? It's just possessions. You can make more money. Everybody screws somebody over at some point, right?

Uh, it's practically a death threat by definition.
By holding someone at knife-point for their wallet, the threat is "Give me your money, or I'll take your life." That's 'threatening someone with death', ya know, a "death threat".

If he's not actually threatening me with the knife, what incentive would I have to give him my wallet?

Just a thought, have you ever watched an anime called "Death Note"? You'd probably really like the main character in that.

And just because a long-term relationship came of it doesn't make it any more right. Does editing your dying father's will to give you the entire estate suddenly become morally right because you got an estate out of it? No, it's still a despicable act.

I did not say "It's good because good came from it." I said "It's not true that only bad things comes from it, here's a counterexample."

Manipulating my words like that just makes you look like you don't have a response to what I actually said.

Your last example makes no sense. What WOULD be more fitting is if another candidate had already been offered the job, and you quietly slipped a criminal conviction into his resumé and hinted at the employer that he should take another look at it.

Again, I never said I was making an analogy. I was giving an example where most people would violate senordesol's "golden rule of morality".

 

[Thyunda]

-snip-

Nope, I'm not in Africa building mud huts. I have to put my own needs first and start locally, and become a worker with the homeless, finding them work and housing. Putting myself at risk around violence, alcohol and drug abuse for their benefit.

Ignoring the very significant chance you've just made that up on a spot: You do realise that most people don't do that, right? And, therefore, fall under your "deserve to be held at knife-point" category, right?

And I don't tend to screw people over because I don't know them. That's not really the sort of thing that everybody does - just you.

No, it really is the sort of thing most people do. I've already given examples, you conveniently ignored them.

And it wasn't a death threat, just hand over your wallet and they'll go away. I mean, it's nothing serious, right? It's just possessions. You can make more money. Everybody screws somebody over at some point, right?

Uh, it's practically a death threat by definition.
My holding someone at knife-point for their wallet, the threat is "Give me your money, or I'll take your life." That's 'threatening someone with death', ya know, a "death threat".

If he's not actually threatening me with the knife, what incentive would I have to give him my wallet?

Just a thought, have you ever watched an anime called "Death Note"? You'd probably really like the main character in that.

And just because a long-term relationship came of it doesn't make it any more right. Does editing your dying father's will to give you the entire estate suddenly become morally right because you got an estate out of it? No, it's still a despicable act.

I did not say "It's good because good came from it." I said "It's not true that only bad things comes from it, here's a counterexample."

Manipulating my words like that just makes you look like you don't have a response to what I actually said.

Your last example makes no sense. What WOULD be more fitting is if another candidate had already been offered the job, and you quietly slipped a criminal conviction into his resumé and hinted at the employer that he should take another look at it.

Again, I never said I was making an analogy. I was giving an example where most people would violate senordesol's "golden rule of morality".

Except Senordesol never even implied that competition was in any way immoral. And as for what you actually said, I'm having major issues concentrating on one thing at a time, so I may need you to give me a numbered list. This happens sometimes.

And I didn't make up the support work. It started as part of a scheme to get me work experience - they offered me for English Heritage. I wound up at an old church, which doubled as a homeless shelter. Course, I didn't realise this till after the voluntary work started, but I grew to love it. And yes, there were dangerous times, and in the end, I like to think I've done a lot of good.

And, well, maybe he's bluffing. Maybe it'll be okay. But then, it's not his problem if you leave in an ambulance. You chose to gamble with your life. It's not his responsibility to make sure you survive the ordeal. You were the one with the choice - lose your money or your life - and you made your choice. He's got what he wanted, and you've been fucked over. Why should he care?

 

[Kathinka]

i wasn't trying to imply some mystical nonsense here, sorry for the confusion.

what i meant was that if someone can be convinved to cheat or leave his partner, then their relationship was obviously not a very good one. hence my oppinion: go for it. other peoples loyalty is not your responsibility.

I hear you, but still respectfully disagree. People are complicated. Social dynamics are complicated. Sexual dynamics are EXTREMELY complicated. Perfectly healthy relationships can be momentarily vulnerable for reasons that have nothing to do with the quality of the partnership.

Honestly, it would be good if more people were cognizant of just how unbelievably fragile even strong relationships can be. We might take them for granted less. Of course, then the stress and worry would kill us, so maybe not...

true, people and how they interact are incredibly complex and complicated. but there is stuff that you just don't do, like sleeping with people without consent of your partner. and really, it is not that hard, if you really want to.

so i still think; if you are interested in someone, and that someone is in a relationship, his or her fidelity is not your problem or responsibility.

Encouraging them to not be faithful is something you would be responsible for though. You are encouraging them to do something that would be wrong for them to do.

his or her fidelity is not your problem or responsibility.

That is absolutely true, in that if you saw him or her flirting with another stranger, you would not be required to leap in and tackle them in order to stop the infidelity.

However, that's very different from the situation here, where you ACTIVELY AID in the breaking of that commitment. It's not like you're just some passive bystander; you're making the choice to interact with someone who is in a relationship, a choice that you know will cause emotional distress for others.

all well and true. but if i want to pursue a relationship with someone, i merely offer them the option. he or she has to make the choice, be faithfull to their current partner, or be with me. her or me, it's simple. the person i approached always has the option to make the decision as he sees fit. if he thinks i'm the better choice and i'm also interested in him, why would i say no?

 

[Maze1125]

Except Senordesol never even implied that competition was in any way immoral.

I never said he did. Again, you're ignoring what I actually said.
I gave an example where most people would cause suffering to others for their own pleasure. Which is precisely what he said was always immoral.

And as for what you actually said, I'm having major issues concentrating on one thing at a time, so I may need you to give me a numbered list. This happens sometimes.

You have the list, just read over my posts again and pay attention, the only thing missing are the numbers, but I'm sure you can cope with that.
If you still have problems, take your time and read over them again rather than presuming you know what I'm talking about after a skim read.

And I didn't make up the support work. It started as part of a scheme to get me work experience - they offered me for English Heritage. I wound up at an old church, which doubled as a homeless shelter. Course, I didn't realise this till after the voluntary work started, but I grew to love it. And yes, there were dangerous times, and in the end, I like to think I've done a lot of good.

Good for you, I'm still not obliged to believe it, but that doesn't matter, as you're still ignoring my main point, that most people don't do that, and so fall under your "deserve a death threat" situation.

And, well, maybe he's bluffing. Maybe it'll be okay.

Immaterial, it still a fucking death threat either way.
Stop trying to weedle out of the fact you wished death threats on the majority of the human race Mr "Moral High Ground".

But then, it's not his problem if you leave in an ambulance. You chose to gamble with your life. It's not his responsibility to make sure you survive the ordeal. You were the one with the choice - lose your money or your life - and you made your choice. He's got what he wanted, and you've been fucked over. Why should he care?

Well, he obviously doesn't care, and as you said, the Police are corrupt. So he's got no reason to.

As for the moral issue, he's either stolen from me, which I'm sure you'll agree is wrong, or he stolen from me and caused me serious injury, which I'm sure you'll agree is wrong as-well.

Neither of those things are true in the scenario of sleeping with a stranger's girlfriend, and so none of the morality carries over.

 

[Thyunda]

Except Senordesol never even implied that competition was in any way immoral.

I never said he did. Again, you're ignoring what I actually said.
I gave an example where most people would cause suffering to others for their own pleasure. Which is precisely what he said was always immoral.

And as for what you actually said, I'm having major issues concentrating on one thing at a time, so I may need you to give me a numbered list. This happens sometimes.

You have the list, just read over my posts again and pay attention, the only thing missing are the numbers, but I'm sure you can cope with that.
If you still have problems, take your time and read over them again rather than presuming you know what I'm talking about after a skim read.

And I didn't make up the support work. It started as part of a scheme to get me work experience - they offered me for English Heritage. I wound up at an old church, which doubled as a homeless shelter. Course, I didn't realise this till after the voluntary work started, but I grew to love it. And yes, there were dangerous times, and in the end, I like to think I've done a lot of good.

Good for you, I'm still not obliged to believe it, but that doesn't matter, as you're still ignoring my main point, that most people don't do that, and so fall under your "deserve a death threat" situation.

And, well, maybe he's bluffing. Maybe it'll be okay.

Immaterial, it still a fucking death threat either way.
Stop trying to weedle out of the fact you wished death threats on the majority of the human race Mr "Moral High Ground".

But then, it's not his problem if you leave in an ambulance. You chose to gamble with your life. It's not his responsibility to make sure you survive the ordeal. You were the one with the choice - lose your money or your life - and you made your choice. He's got what he wanted, and you've been fucked over. Why should he care?

Well, he obviously doesn't care, and as you said, the Police are corrupt. So he's got no reason to.

As for the moral issue, he's either stolen from me, which I'm sure you'll agree is wrong, or he stolen from me and caused me serious injury, which I'm sure you'll agree is wrong as-well.

Neither of those things are true in the scenario of sleeping with a stranger's girlfriend, and so none of the morality carries over.

You're the mugger, the girlfriend's the wallet, the money's the relationship, and your victim is a stranger. And you left the wallet in the gutter for him to find on his way home. You took the money of course.

 

[Maze1125]

You're the mugger, the girlfriend's the wallet, the money's the relationship, and your victim is a stranger. And you left the wallet in the gutter for him to find on his way home. You took the money of course.

Right, so what you're saying here is that women are property that can be stolen and I'm threatening the boyfriend's life to get his girlfriend.

Glad we're on the same page...

But you've pretty much confirmed what I already knew. This whole "it's immoral for you to even try" stance is based pretty much purely on the idea that women don't really have a choice of their own, and the act is wrong because you're stealing property from another guy.

 

[Maze1125]

Ya know what, I don't think I need to continue this, my point has been made for me far better than I could make it myself.