This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Does the Internet Create Lynch Mobs?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Lombax
one infidelity in a serious relationship
A serious relationship doesn't have one infidelity.
Who decides this?
Post by
MyTie
one infidelity in a serious relationship
A serious relationship doesn't have one infidelity.
Who decides this?
You are right. Serious is relative. Someone might consider a relationship serious if the person they are in a relationship with just passed them on the highway.
I think I'm one of the few people here who is married, and probably has been in the longest relationship of anyone in off-topic (6 year relationship). I know what it takes to make a relationship successfull, and how people who act seriously about each other act. If a person is not serious enough about someone to engage in sexual acts with other people against the will of the former, then they aren't at all serious about that former person. Similarly, you aren't at all serious about fire safety if you build a bonfire in your living room with all your furniture and 15 gallons of gasoline. This just aren't the actions of a person serious about something they are actively destroying.
Post by
FatalHeaven
I think I'm one of the few people here who is married, and probably has been in the longest relationship of anyone in off-topic (6 year relationship).
I know I'm newer here; but I'm currently sitting at 6.5 years in mine.
Post by
Magician22773
I think I'm one of the few people here who is married, and probably has been in the longest relationship of anyone in off-topic (6 year relationship).
I know I'm newer here; but I'm currently sitting at 6.5 years in mine.
hmmm....I am wondering if MyTie missed a number there.
My wife and I will celebrate our 18th anniversary this August. We have been dating on and off all throughout high school and college, so you could say that we have been together for almost 25 years.
Also, my wife and I have talked about infidelity, and while I would not want to test the theroy, we have both agreed that it would not likely end our marriage (assuming something like a 1 night stand or brief affair). For starters, we have commintted ourselves before God 'til death do us part, and we both intend to keep that pledge. My wife more than proved this by sticking with me through my addiction, which I think was way worse than a sexual trist would have been. We both agree that our commitment to each other, and to our kids, would take more than a momentary lapse of reason to break that bond.
Post by
MyTie
I think I'm one of the few people here who is married, and probably has been in the longest relationship of anyone in off-topic (6 year relationship).
I know I'm newer here; but I'm currently sitting at 6.5 years in mine.
hmmm....I am wondering if MyTie missed a number there.
My wife and I will celebrate our 18th anniversary this August. We have been dating on and off all throughout high school and college, so you could say that we have been together for almost 25 years.
No, 6 years. I'm glad to see that you two are in good strong relationships. Back me up here. Would you say someone who isn't sexually faithful is at all "serious" about the relationship they are in?
Edit: And, FatalHeaven, your time here has nothing to do with this. If this were your first post, or your 60 thousandth post, I'd still regard your post as equally important.
Post by
Magician22773
Back me up here. Would you say someone who isn't sexually faithful is at all "serious" about the relationship they are in?
On the surface...and maybe even a little deeper than that, yes. I could not imagine being with another woman other than my wife, or imagine her being with another man.
But at the same time, I realize how "stupid" a person can be, if only for a moment. At one point in my life, I never thought I would even try drugs, let alone become an addict. So I can see where someone could let themselves slip up, and end up cheating. Loneliness, Anger, Alcohol, or just good 'ol temptation, could cause even the best of us to do something stupid. So I can't just rubber stamp it as "anyone" that cheats isn't really committed. I have to leave it open, and say the entire situation would have to be examined before I would judge them.
Post by
392412
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
and no, it's not morally wrong to use violence when words fail, as long as you at least tried to be civil.Disagree there: It's always morally wrong to attack someone who has just been saying words and hasn't been physical back.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@Sold- I believe that your opinion that you have the right to respond to verbal harassment with violence is immoral. I find it objectionable, and enough other people agree with me that the law favors my opinion. I think that I can understand that someone would lose their temper and not be able to restrain themselves, but if you in calm circumstances believe that it is justified to beat someone for verbally berating you, I believe that you are immoral in that belief.
I think the bad person vs. bad action argument is valid up to a point. I think good people do things that are bad, in the heat of the moment, without thinking, or without understanding what the consequences will be, and then regret it later. I think bad people do things that are bad and then justify why it was alright for them to do it, which sets the stage for them to do it again.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
....Because it just means in the future, rather then verbally abuse you, he'll start attacking you on sight for laying hands on him. Also: If you are attacking someone like that, you have no idea what kind of condition he has; for all you know, that blow to the head just set off an aneurysm and you killed him. Well done giving in to your rage.
Also: Violence never solves a single thing, it just makes things worse. The best answer is still the most simple: If people are trying to get your goat by verbally abusing you, just walk away and ignore it. Who gives a flying $%^& what anyone says to you; they are just words.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@Sold- Violence will stop almost anything- you can't justify violence simply because it's the only way to get something to stop. If I wanted people to stop parking in my parking spot, and the only way to get them to stop was to hit them, that wouldn't justify me hitting them because getting them to stop isn't worth violence. The end result of them not stopping must be bad enough that violence is justified, not just unavoidable without it.
The end result of someone verbally harassing you is that they keep speaking. It doesn't physically harm you, restrict your freedoms, damage your property, etc. The end result of them not stopping isn't bad enough to warrant violence. It can warrant them being restrained by the police, banned from an establishment or fined if they continue to harass you, but not beat up. That's what the law says. that's what most reasonable people believe.
EDIT: I have noticed that you tend to use the argument "Who gives a damn," a lot. In case you haven't noticed, the answer seems to be "Almost everyone who isn't you." If you want to make a statement, say that you don't give a damn. Clearly, the rest of us, and much of our society, finds your ideas about violence contrary to morality, unreasonable and damaging to society if they were practiced. Most people do give a damn.
Or, to turn your reasoning around on you- Will his verbal harassment hurt you? Will it kill you? Will it inflict a life-altering injury you'll never heal from? No? So who gives a damn how he speaks to you?
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
So you think that violence is justified by someone being annoying? Do you know how much brawling would be going on? Do you know how many people I can think of who would be getting beaten right now?
I'd personally classify a number of your prior posts as verbally harassing. Do you believe that since repeated moderator action hasn't been enough to keep you from posting in an aggressive manner, and using profanity (as evidenced in your first post here today) then we have the right to use violence against you in an effort to stop you from posting verbally harassing things on the forums?
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
So...does that mean if any of us met you in person, we'd be perfectly justified beating you to a pulp?
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
As I've said multiple times in this thread: the only time I believe violence to be the answer is when it's to defend someone being physically assaulted, since there are so many simpler ways of getting away from verbal abuse.
Anyone who goes right to the fists to face method for dealing with 'bullies' like that aren't any better then they are.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.