Have you cheated on your significant other?

[DonkeyMoses]

I don’t see that you have any argumentative or scientific advantage so don’t try to play one.

Yes, I do. So there.

[episode allah]

I've put forth plenty of 'argumentative advantage'; frankly, this is a bit of a cop-out. It's a simple enough matter of applied ethics; by no means an issue irreducible to anything but preference or culture. If you're disinclined to approach the issue in such detail that is, of course, your prerogative - but that doesn't warrant the conclusion that no one else did.

Not a cop-out at all. Just a polite exit.
I really don't see your point in general at all. Just because you think things should be one way it doesn't mean that they actually are, at this given time, like that for most people. You seem to admit that most people expect monogamous relationships but then say "well fuck them if they get hurt, after all there’s nothing to say that this should be the status-quo". But it is the status quo, for better or worse.

We are discussing the way things are at a point in history. This is subject to change over time. But it seems to me that your whole argument is like a restaurant manager that says 'while its true that most people seem to choose kidney pie every night, they can't say shit if I take it away while they're eating it since they didn't sign for it on the menu tonight".

If you want to make up your own rules or interpret common ones more strictly then fine. That would be interesting to me if it was put forth as such and not just as some finger to the world. My original point to you remains the same. I think a person is an ass if they don't tell their partner that they don’t play in the same ball court as most other people before they hurt their feelings. Even if that ball court is founded on false principles.

[episode allah]

Yes, I do. So there.

did i ever tell you that i hate people with orange hair?

[DonkeyMoses]

did i ever tell you that i hate people with orange hair?

It looks orange, but it's actually minty.

[episode allah]

It looks orange, but it's actually minty.

i hate mint

[DonkeyMoses]

So do I!

[Ubiquitress]

aww look yous guys have something in common

[DonkeyMoses]

Yea, but my hatred is better.

[episode allah]

my hatred is longer and harder and less minty

[DonkeyMoses]

Your hated is pure. I respect that. But my punctuation is better.

[Raza]

Not a cop-out at all. Just a polite exit.
I really don't see your point in general at all. Just because you think things should be one way it doesn't mean that they actually are, at this given time, like that for most people. You seem to admit that most people expect monogamous relationships but then say "well fuck them if they get hurt, after all there’s nothing to say that this should be the status-quo". But it is the status quo, for better or worse.

So you believe that ethics are culturally relative? That freedoms that an individual should, in a general sense, be entitled to could be withheld on conditions inherent to the opinions of the people surrounding him or her?

Cultures throughout history have had etiquettes restricting the most practically harmless behaviours fathomable; and because those etiquettes existed and people believed in them, those cultures have had populations ready to get upset should those behaviours be displayed anyway. You believe that the inclination of those populations, their beliefs and resultant sensitivity, should hold the power over individuals that find themselves in their presence to call their behaviour 'wrong' by virtue of being upset by it?

We are discussing the way things are at a point in history. This is subject to change over time. But it seems to me that your whole argument is like a restaurant manager that says 'while its true that most people seem to choose kidney pie every night, they can't say shit if I take it away while they're eating it since they didn't sign for it on the menu tonight".

Poor analogy; a restaurant manager's ethics aught to incorporate the practical objective of keeping customers happy, rather than just the freedoms the manager is entitled to as an individual. Besides, taking away someone's dinner is more an issue of private property, which is a condition of capitalism rather than any fundamental system of personal ethics I'm arguing here.

If you want to make up your own rules or interpret common ones more strictly then fine. That would be interesting to me if it was put forth as such and not just as some finger to the world. My original point to you remains the same. I think a person is an ass if they don't tell their partner that they don’t play in the same ball court as most other people before they hurt their feelings. Even if that ball court is founded on false principles.

The ball court isn't founded on any mutually accepted premises, false or otherwise. You cannot exceed an undefined limit; it's a logical impossibility.

[episode allah]

So you believe that ethics are culturally relative? That freedoms that an individual should, in a general sense, be entitled to could be withheld on conditions inherent to the opinions of the people surrounding him or her?

Cultures throughout history have had etiquettes restricting the most practically harmless behaviours fathomable; and because those etiquettes existed and people believed in them, those cultures have had populations ready to get upset should those behaviours be displayed anyway. You believe that the inclination of those populations, their beliefs and resultant sensitivity, should hold the power over individuals that find themselves in their presence to call their behaviour 'wrong' by virtue of being upset by it?

Things change gradually. I’m agnostic but I don’t walk into churches and line them with antitheist propaganda and I don’t engage in a relationship where my partner presumes I'm monogamous if im determinedly not. I believe that more often than not its better to treat people according to their own terms yes.
In saying that, If you have some particularly brilliant idea or plan that’s going to change the world run with it, but if you’re just going to break somebody’s heart coz you’re oh-so-special then I think that’s lame as hell.

Poor analogy; a restaurant manager's ethics aught to incorporate the practical objective of keeping customers happy, rather than just the freedoms the manager is entitled to as an individual. Besides, taking away someone's dinner is more an issue of private property, which is a condition of capitalism rather than any fundamental system of personal ethics I'm arguing here..

I like to keep my partner happy because I care for her. A restaurant owner likes to keep his customers happy because he gets paid. My analogy was an analogy of currency. Your personal ethics are just that: personal.

Also, Its kind of hard not to forfeit some freedoms in a relationship... Unless you're fucking a mirror.

The ball court isn't founded on any mutually accepted premises, false or otherwise. You cannot exceed an undefined limit; it's a logical impossibility.

I don’t know about you but I live in a representative democracy and I forgo some rights in order to gain some securities. I'm happy with that contract. You can go piss on some old ladies windshield if you want to but if I see you I’m calling the police….

[Raza]

Things change gradually. I’m agnostic but I don’t walk into churches and line them with antitheist propaganda and I don’t engage in a relationship where my partner presumes I'm monogamous if im determinedly not. I believe that more often than not its better to treat people according to their own terms yes.

Again, poor comparison. A better one would be to ask whether it would be wrong of you not to say grace when having dinner with christians on a neutral location, such as when eating out.

I like to keep my partner happy because I care for her. A restaurant owner likes to keep his customers happy because he gets paid. My analogy was an analogy of currency. Your personal ethics are just that: personal.

By this interpretation, both you and the restaurant owner are acting to their own interest, benign though they may be. The matter isn't one of morality, but one of sensibility. A few posts ago I already said that speaking up would be a nice thing to do and that if you care for a lover it'd probably be in your best interest, but you seemed to disagree when I said it wasn't a moral responsibility.

And there is a difference between 'a system of personal ethic', which is a type of ethical philosophy that is applied by the individual on themselves but can still be argued as desirable in an objective sense, and 'personal' in the 'doesn't apply to others' sense.

Also, Its kind of hard not to forfeit some freedoms in a relationship... Unless you're fucking a mirror.

Not really. The sacrifice of freedoms is a bizarre ritual human societies dreamed up to go with romance, but it's fairly redudant to the actual pursuit of love, provided both you and your lover have unlearned the urge to expect it.

You need to be willing to offer the same in return, obviously, but when you both do it's pretty much the only non-arbitrary and truly ethically clear-cut relationship structure.

I don’t know about you but I live in a representative democracy and I forgo some rights in order to gain some securities. I'm happy with that contract. You can go piss on some old ladies windshield if you want to but if I see you I’m calling the police….

I'll forgo the obvious Benjamin Franklin quote, and instead ask wtf that has to do with anything?

[VoltaireBlue]

yes. very straight. female

I should clarify here. It wasn't with my current SO, and it was over ten years ago. It was also the only time I've cheated, and I would not repeat it.

[mystoo]

Everyone has their moments. It's not something I was particularily proud of, it just sort of happened. I'll explain more later...maybe

[episode allah]

Again, poor comparison. A better one would be to ask whether it would be wrong of you not to say grace when having dinner with christians on a neutral location, such as when eating out.

Actually it wasn’t so much of a poor comparison as a facetious one. You describe yourself as an anarchist and it seems to me that the more we discuss this topic the more adamant you are to describe your whole meta-philosophy. You’ll excuse the stereotype. More importantly the analogy was actually chosen because it wasn’t set in neutral territory. You’ll notice the thread was asking about “significant others” and I don’t consider my lover’s centre of synapses and electricity to be neutral territory. I take it for what it is, with all the influences and foundations inherited from various spaces. In any case, I didn’t take you as the kind of person to draw the line at neutral territories.

And there is a difference between 'a system of personal ethic', which is a type of ethical philosophy that is applied by the individual on themselves but can still be argued as desirable in an objective sense, and 'personal' in the 'doesn't apply to others' sense.

Yeh that’s kind of the point isn’t it.

I'll forgo the obvious Benjamin Franklin quote, and instead ask wtf that has to do with anything?

Appeals to authority have never really impressed me so yeh, probably better you didn’t include the Benjamin Franklin quote. If you had, and if I was the kind of person to rely on other people’s ideas to support my opinions, I would have just started throwing back Rousseau quotes at you. I thought my point was fairly obvious really: what you’re talking about now is not stuck strictly in the romance sphere but in the sphere of general freedoms and forfeited freedoms. My point then was that at the expense of some small freedoms I am happy to gain some securities.

I suppose to be honest I’m finding this thread really dull at this stage and its starting to remind me of a political philosophy module I did in college last year. The excruciating boredom I suffered only ended when I vomited out several thousand names and terminologies onto my exam paper, passed with flying colours, and subsequently forgot all said terminologies. The other thing is that the only reason we’re still debating this is because you maintain that you are objectively right (you said that this is not a matter of preference) whereas what I see here is only a difference in ways of being. I have no problem with hedonism, anarchism or fruity alcopops per se but that’s not how I march. I’ll still continue to read the thread of course, but unless you provide another angle to your debate I’ll refrain from posting. Anyway, I’ve got to go and watch “the amazing story of the girl with two heads” on TV.

[Velvet-Tongue]

Theres no reason to be proud for lying and hurting another person. Even if you know the relationship is out the door make sure you verbally end it before diving into another person's pants.

That kind of stuff fucks with a person's head for years.

-

No, Straight Male.

[Velvet-Tongue]

so this means I shouldnt ask Lady Alias out on a date?



Jackass? sure maybe... but at least I dont pretend to understand other people's situations just so I can judge them. Good luck with your moral superiority though

Have fun being an emotional child your whole life then.

Grow a pair and end the relationship before moving to someone else. Saying you've cheated in almost every major relationship and then saying "lol evolution" as an excuse is horribly lame.

[Raza]

he other thing is that the only reason we’re still debating this is because you maintain that you are objectively right (you said that this is not a matter of preference) whereas what I see here is only a difference in ways of being. I have no problem with hedonism, anarchism or fruity alcopops per se but that’s not how I march. I’ll still continue to read the thread of course, but unless you provide another angle to your debate I’ll refrain from posting. Anyway, I’ve got to go and watch “the amazing story of the girl with two heads” on TV.

Well, everything is 'preference' if systems of fundamental ethics can be dismissed on account of not being 'how you march'. In order to argue anything as objectively superior, we're going to have to find some shared premises to start out from. Now, I'm fairly well-practised at arguing the virtues of non-monogamy from the 'a more enjoyable lifestyle is a superior one' perspective of hedonism, but if you don't agree that gaining enjoyable experiences while avoiding displeasurable ones is desirable, I'm really lacking the starting point for any angle, new or otherwise, at the issue in question.

If you're bored with the discussion and subject matter in general, you're quite welcome to leave it at that; but I'd be interested to hear how you define and quantify 'good' in the results of life choices, and try to argue my point from that perspective if I consider it doable. Since we're indulging in character assessments, I'll add that I would've taken you for a sufficiently down-to-earth fellow to have a tangible definition of value.

[drewblood]

Have fun being an emotional child your whole life then.

Grow a pair and end the relationship before moving to someone else. Saying you've cheated in almost every major relationship and then saying "lol evolution" as an excuse is horribly lame.

i'll strive to someday be the man you are.

[episode allah]

Now, I'm fairly well-practised at arguing the virtues of non-monogamy from the 'a more enjoyable lifestyle is a superior one' perspective of hedonism, but if you don't agree that gaining enjoyable experiences while avoiding displeasurable ones is desirable, I'm really lacking the starting point for any angle, new or otherwise, at the issue in question.

If you're bored with the discussion and subject matter in general, you're quite welcome to leave it at that; but I'd be interested to hear how you define and quantify 'good' in the results of life choices, and try to argue my point from that perspective if I consider it doable. Since we're indulging in character assessments, I'll add that I would've taken you for a sufficiently down-to-earth fellow to have a tangible definition of value.

Bored was the wrong word to use; I just like don’t like having to reiterate that I am not making a moral argument in this thread to all in sunder. In fact I am not comfortable justifying or incriminating anything at all in moral terms, from the most heinous of crimes to the most saintly of charities. At best I am somewhere between pragmatically moral and totally amoral but it irks me that some people will assume that just because you disagree with them on a socio-political issue that you’ve become some knight in crusader's amour come to wreak havoc on the secretly enlightened infidels. Another thing that irks me (admittedly very little or none of this has anything to do with you) is when people like things primarily because they smell of antidisestablishmentarianism or because they're reactionary/counter-intuitive. Admittedly I tend to dislike things when they become ‘cool’ anyway so maybe that’s a character flaw. As far as I’m concerned Fidel Castro and Henry Kissinger are butt-buddies: I don’t divide the world into the evil-right and the progressive-left: I see tossers and scat-smugglers on both sides spread out evenly over a great wheel of change.


I don't consider myself a judgmental person but I do like to deconstruct definitions and again, for the record, I consider polygamy and monogamy to be something akin to second cousins; same family but distantly related and occasionally with very different motivations and centers of gravity. While describing polygamy in terms of “"excess, overabundance and eventually debauchery" is admittedly kind of inflammatory, I fail to see it as incriminatory; in fact any self-satisfied hedonist would wear those terms as a badge of honor. You talk about pleasure in terms of quantity but there are different kinds of pleasures and different kinds of people; for example I get more pleasure from things i have to struggle with first than ejaculation and bubble baths. Other people take pleasure from the glass-slipper and prince-charming adaptation of love while others need mutual understanding and dedicated support.

Yeh so if you start a new thread at some stage discussing the ideas of right and wrong I'll definitely contribute and you may be surprised that morally, we're on the same wavelength. Or not as the case may be. I’d probably have difficulty giving you a tangible definition of value other than the commonly communicated utilitarian ones but I’d certainly give it a shot.

[Raza]

Well, there's really very little I care to argue with in there; in fact, I'm quite enjoying your take on the meta-discussion. It's only your portrayal of polygamy that I disagree with, since while I will cheerfully accept accusations of 'excess, overabundance and eventually debauchery' as carrying a sort of dark glamour when coming from the mouths of those compensating for a lack of understanding with entertaining doses of moral indignation, they do, strictly speaking, imply a certain negativity that is not actually a necessary part of it all. Some kinds of non-monogamous relationship ethic do strive towards ideals of selflessness and sustainability - in my opinion more reasonably than monogamy - and while as far as I'm concerned this is more of a practical than a moral consideration, it bears noting when you would otherwise characterise monogamy as being distinguished by these virtues.

With that said on the narrower topic, a discussion on ethics in general sounds like fun, but I'm guilty of a somewhat unreasonable aversion to starting threads, or proposing that others converse on a subject of my choosing in general.