Oh my, what have i started
SimpleThunda said:
YOU're a rat. Be a man, tell the guy what's up. Face the consequences, but atleast be a man.
It is physically impossible for a human to become a rat.
He does not have to tell anyone anything, it is none of his business.
Vegosiux said:
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.
oh, so your point of view is not "i think its wrong" but "society thinks its wrong therefore i have no choice to but agree"
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.
No. you dont know that. maybe this is the only woman he will ever be able to get in his whole life (extragarating ofc). This is as good as an excuse as "i dont like salad becuase its raining".
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?"
he seems different opinions, which is commendable, and is instead met with rage and condemnation. how appropriate.
SimpleThunda said:
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.
the fact that you are presenting this as a bad thing already proves you are trying to be better. so your fail your own logic here.
Johnny Impact said:
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.
No. the notion was "i dont like what you did by stealing my meat". there was no right or wrong notions. wrong or right formed with the jugdical system (not nevessarely laws, a shaman could have been judge jury and executioner all at once). But if you look deep enough everything is a "like" or "dislike".
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.
But the victim does not exist without definition of a crime. the caveman who lsot his meet was not a victim. victims did not exist back then. maybe his loss was fair and maybe his own moral code said that him being slapped is good? it all depends on perspective. We do not know morality of the female in question therefore we do not know whether she violated it or not.
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?
That is a risk you have accepted when you went on to follow the map. Treasure maps are great example, because this situation would happen in real life too. You equally accept a risk, when you get into a relationship, that another person may be a liar.
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.
it could be my lack of english expression knowledge, but i really did not udnerstand what you were tryign to say here.
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.
oh, seriuosly, were back to square one of sex = love?
Don't people in relationships have some claim on each other? Don't they deserve anything for their devotion?
no they do nto have any claim on eachother. they do not "deserve" anything for their devotion. their devition is a charity that they do to reach certain goal - emotional satisfaction.
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.
requirement? no.
Posibility of concensus? certainly.
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.
no. The cheree makes a choice to hace sex with a woman, which in no way ties to her current friendship status. The faul does not extend to the person.
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.
how have he Aided it? sleeping with a woman that has a boyfriend is aiding her in cheating as much as me not killnig thos guy next door is aiding in him robbing a bank 5 years from now.
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.
He is not pulling a lever that automatically makes her a cheater. She is doing that by chosing to have sex while pretending not to. He has no obligation to be moral as morals are subjective.
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.
if you say fuck oaths, then noone is at fault. Oath is the ONLY thing that makes her in the wrong. He is not "helping her betray", she did it all on her own. it was her choice and her choice alone.
Bocaj2000 said:
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.
so as long as your stupid its ok and as soon as you gain knowledge it somehow magically starts to become bad? what has changed physically? nothing. then why does youer judgement changes?
If it's any consolation I'm equally if not more disgusted with your post.
well, at least your honest, even if wrong.
game-lover said:
If his company has a rule about fraternizing with coworkers, a nice chat with HR can probably do wonders. Especially if they have those moral clauses that can be popular.
wikipedia said:
Fraternization is "turning people into brothers"?conducting social relations with people who are actually unrelated and/or of a different class (especially those with whom one works) as though they were siblings, family members, personal friends or lovers.
Im sorry, i dont really follow.
game-lover said:
But as far as the accepting violence aspect... this is probably because doing such a thing can and often is considered to be an emotional/mental assault. The OP did more than just "fulfill a spouse's desire for affection and adventure." He enabled something that's so much worse than a regular lie. Hell, they're coworkers. You wanna bet how much lying and deceiving they had to do to keep this from the boyfriend? This kind of shit fucks people up.
Erm, No. He commited no mental assault. He did just fulfill the girls wishes and NOTHING MORE. one has to remember that this is a "Friends with benefits" situation, so it is JUST SEX. He was an instrument in the girls unfaithfulness, which does not put the blame on him. Coworkers or not, has nothing to do with it.
But make no mistake, the anger is about the agent too. In my opinion, anyone who chooses to be an agent is pretty much saying they have no respect for relationship sanctity. They don't respect relationships of anyone at all. And that makes them terrible people.
Whoa, so relationships are somehow saint now and anyone that does not see relationship as "owning the woman" is terrible person?
SHE wouldn't have been able to cheat on the boyfriend--at least not in this specific instance--if the OP hadn't decided it'd be a good idea to sleep with her.
and i woulnt be able to be stabbed if knives were banned. lets ban knives because its obviuosly their fault some punk decided to stab me (true story btw).
