Total Posts:101|Showing Posts:61-90|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What are your thoughts on cheating?

Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 9:57:15 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/11/2013 12:05:07 PM, drafterman wrote:
The fact that you can make mistakes and still have a stable relationship (note that I've never implied or stated a requirement of perfection) doesn't mean that all possible mistakes are consistent with a stable relationship.
Nothing to do with my point. Whether the relationship changes or not has nothing to do with how it is prior to cheating.

For example, killing my wife would seem to trump the stability of any relationship... but I digress.
Uh, alright.

If you are cheating on your spouse then it's likely that: 1) there is some fundamental flaw with the relationship, and it is unstable; 2) there is some fundamental flaw with you, and any relationships you form are inherently unstable.
Whether it's likely or not doesn't matter. Not sure why you can't stick to my point -- but the fact is, stable relationships can turn ugly due to few mistakes. As I said, temptations happen, and you are obviously dismissing this very fact as if it's some never-heard-of fiction. Why a man or woman would cheat due to temptation can be for several reasons, such as being in a drunk state of mind.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 9:58:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/11/2013 11:44:01 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 1/11/2013 11:02:52 AM, Mirza wrote:
By the way -- the negative effects of fornication are well-documented, and they're severe. Long-term damage to relationships is thought to be noticeably affected by fornication. Whether cheating in particular is among the consequences is still not quite clear.

Didn't you once defend the death penalty for adultery? Do you?
Yes, limited to contracts only. It doesn't have to be state sanctioned. I realize the state should have a minimum say in almost everything.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 10:49:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/12/2013 9:58:28 AM, Mirza wrote:
Yes, limited to contracts only. It doesn't have to be state sanctioned. I realize the state should have a minimum say in almost everything.

So, what? Adultery should be a legitimate defense in a court of law, like self defense? Say if a husband kills his wife? Or, should executions be carried out by private firms? Who should do the killing if not the state?

I'm asking these questions because I'm curious, but I'm also utterly horrified by your point of view. Executing people for adultery is more barbaric than cutting off the clitoris of baby girls so they can't feel sexual pleasure, and that's saying something.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 12:13:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/12/2013 10:49:01 AM, Kinesis wrote:
So, what? Adultery should be a legitimate defense in a court of law, like self defense? Say if a husband kills his wife? Or, should executions be carried out by private firms? Who should do the killing if not the state?

I'm asking these questions because I'm curious, but I'm also utterly horrified by your point of view. Executing people for adultery is more barbaric than cutting off the clitoris of baby girls so they can't feel sexual pleasure, and that's saying something.
Contract means consenting parties agree to all terms of consequence. If the state carries it out, it's because the individuals agreed to enter a bond which they knew must not be broken, and which they knew would yield certain consequences if broken.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 4:52:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/12/2013 12:13:33 PM, Mirza wrote:
Contract means consenting parties agree to all terms of consequence. If the state carries it out, it's because the individuals agreed to enter a bond which they knew must not be broken, and which they knew would yield certain consequences if broken.

lol, stop beating around the bush. You're saying the death penalty should be written into the contract of all marriages - that it should be part of the meaning of marriage that having sex with anyone other than one's spouse will be punished with death. What an absurdly disproportionate punishment. Cheating is grounds for divorce, not grounds for execution. This is insane.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 4:56:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/12/2013 12:15:01 PM, Mirza wrote:
For your information, baby girls don't consent to having their clitorises modified. The comparison is nonsensical.

It's not a close comparison, but then 'barbaric' is a broad term. And, the only reason consent could be construed to be obtained in this scenario is if marriage documents contained a clause condemning adulterers to death. It's not a unity based on trust anymore in that case, it's a unity based on fear of the state. True love, huh? Be only mine, or the government will inject you to death.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 3:56:45 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Your problem is being a national statist. You want marriage laws to entail everyone equally, while I think they should come from ideologies only. For example, Muslims largely agree on what marital rules are, and therefore an ideological state would grant them the right to create their own contracts that fit their ideology (or religion). I think if such a large community deem adultery as completely horrific, then why take away their right to impose contracts that fit the ideologies of their group?
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 4:16:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/14/2013 3:56:45 AM, Mirza wrote:
Your problem is being a national statist. You want marriage laws to entail everyone equally, while I think they should come from ideologies only. For example, Muslims largely agree on what marital rules are, and therefore an ideological state would grant them the right to create their own contracts that fit their ideology (or religion). I think if such a large community deem adultery as completely horrific, then why take away their right to impose contracts that fit the ideologies of their group?

Because I'm a moral objectivist, and I think Muslims are factually wrong when they claim execution is an appropriate punishment for adultery.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 4:30:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/14/2013 4:16:06 AM, Kinesis wrote:
Because I'm a moral objectivist, and I think Muslims are factually wrong when they claim execution is an appropriate punishment for adultery.
That doesn't answer why you should take away their right to form their own laws.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 4:31:31 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/14/2013 4:16:06 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 1/14/2013 3:56:45 AM, Mirza wrote:
Your problem is being a national statist. You want marriage laws to entail everyone equally, while I think they should come from ideologies only. For example, Muslims largely agree on what marital rules are, and therefore an ideological state would grant them the right to create their own contracts that fit their ideology (or religion). I think if such a large community deem adultery as completely horrific, then why take away their right to impose contracts that fit the ideologies of their group?

Because I'm a moral objectivist, and I think Muslims are factually wrong when they claim execution is an appropriate punishment for adultery.

But it's not a punishment, it's what the contract-signer agreed to. It's a fulfillment of the contract.

(assume for the purposes of my post if not Mirza's, a state that in no way privileges marriage contracts that make death the consequence over other contracts, but just respects them like other contracts, such as those that say adultery is an occasion for treating the contract like it never happened).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 4:33:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/14/2013 4:30:14 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 1/14/2013 4:16:06 AM, Kinesis wrote:
Because I'm a moral objectivist, and I think Muslims are factually wrong when they claim execution is an appropriate punishment for adultery.
That doesn't answer why you should take away their right to form their own laws.

There is no "they." Only he and she and he and she and many other individuals, some of whom disagree. Muslims should be able to have their "adultery is death" contracts, and their neighbors next door should be able to have their "Free love for everyone in the contract" contracts. Don't like either, don't sign.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 5:25:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/14/2013 4:33:16 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/14/2013 4:30:14 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 1/14/2013 4:16:06 AM, Kinesis wrote:
Because I'm a moral objectivist, and I think Muslims are factually wrong when they claim execution is an appropriate punishment for adultery.
That doesn't answer why you should take away their right to form their own laws.

There is no "they."
If one ascribes to the same ideology as many other individuals, it becomes "they."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 5:36:59 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/14/2013 5:25:38 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 1/14/2013 4:33:16 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/14/2013 4:30:14 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 1/14/2013 4:16:06 AM, Kinesis wrote:
Because I'm a moral objectivist, and I think Muslims are factually wrong when they claim execution is an appropriate punishment for adultery.
That doesn't answer why you should take away their right to form their own laws.

There is no "they."
If one ascribes to the same ideology as many other individuals, it becomes "they."
Not when one is speaking of "their own laws" that will apply also to individuals who do NOT share that ideology.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 5:55:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/14/2013 5:36:59 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Not when one is speaking of "their own laws" that will apply also to individuals who do NOT share that ideology.
It won't -- I didn't claim such a thing either.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 7:35:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/14/2013 4:30:14 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 1/14/2013 4:16:06 AM, Kinesis wrote:
Because I'm a moral objectivist, and I think Muslims are factually wrong when they claim execution is an appropriate punishment for adultery.
That doesn't answer why you should take away their right to form their own laws.

It does if you believe, as I do, that rights are derivative from morality. A system of rights is a tool to promote what's best for society, so rights which are harmful to society shouldn't be legal.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 7:40:02 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/14/2013 4:31:31 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
But it's not a punishment, it's what the contract-signer agreed to. It's a fulfillment of the contract.

(assume for the purposes of my post if not Mirza's, a state that in no way privileges marriage contracts that make death the consequence over other contracts, but just respects them like other contracts, such as those that say adultery is an occasion for treating the contract like it never happened).

It's both. And people can willingly sign up to things that are not in their best interest because they have poor information (in this case, that Islam is the correct religion and requires them to sign into this deal).

Also, women are systematically oppressed in Islamic societies (especially ones that enforce laws like the death penalty for adultery), so I wouldn't surprise me if many women were coerced into signing contracts like this even when they didn't want to.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 10:26:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/14/2013 5:55:49 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 1/14/2013 5:36:59 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Not when one is speaking of "their own laws" that will apply also to individuals who do NOT share that ideology.
It won't -- I didn't claim such a thing either.

In any nation this is inevitable when you are speaking of making this "the law" rather than just an available option contracts might take.

It does if you believe, as I do, that rights are derivative from morality. A system of rights is a tool to promote what's best for society,
There's no such thing as "best for society." What's best for Bob may not be best for me.

It's both.
Only in different senses than "punishment" normally sounds.

And people can willingly sign up to things that are not in their best interest because they have poor information (in this case, that Islam is the correct religion and requires them to sign into this deal).

They have the information they have chosen. If you believe your disagreement with their information entitles you to deny their choices, you strip them of their very humanity and treat them instead as some endangered species in a zoo; as your property.

Also, women are systematically oppressed in Islamic societies (especially ones that enforce laws like the death penalty for adultery), so I wouldn't surprise me if many women were coerced into signing contracts like this even when they didn't want to
That's a matter to bring up evidence in court about, not for you "not to be surprised about." And since any country that's going to ignore such evidence is also one that's going to ignore your opinion for being that of an infidel, any country in which you can trust that your opinion matters is one in which you can trust the court to make these judgments.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 11:02:45 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/14/2013 7:35:03 AM, Kinesis wrote:
It does if you believe, as I do, that rights are derivative from morality. A system of rights is a tool to promote what's best for society, so rights which are harmful to society shouldn't be legal.
1 - Why is it immoral? You can spit about the issue, but you need substance. 2 - Why is it harmful if it is consensual?
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 11:05:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/14/2013 10:26:44 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
In any nation this is inevitable when you are speaking of making this "the law" rather than just an available option contracts might take.
If it is an ideological law, it applies to people who align toward the ideology. The state enforces contracts for the individual by what ideology he subscribes to. A Muslim by definition aligns toward the Islamic ideology, so marital contracts will apply to him like for all other Muslims.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 12:40:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/14/2013 11:05:49 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 1/14/2013 10:26:44 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
In any nation this is inevitable when you are speaking of making this "the law" rather than just an available option contracts might take.
If it is an ideological law, it applies to people who align toward the ideology. The state enforces contracts for the individual by what ideology he subscribes to. A Muslim by definition aligns toward the Islamic ideology, so marital contracts will apply to him like for all other Muslims.
And is he free to declare himself non-Muslim (at least prior to signing such contracts) ?

Or is this decided by his parents for him?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 12:42:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/14/2013 12:40:21 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
And is he free to declare himself non-Muslim (at least prior to signing such contracts) ?

Or is this decided by his parents for him?
Prior to declaring Islam as his faith on his own, i.e., before being independent from parents, I believe he can.
innomen
Posts: 10,056
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 1:28:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Some of this depends on when it happens in the relationship. Too early means a probable pattern into the future, late in the relationship can mean that it's run its course. However, a one time error in judgment should be allowed, and slowly forgiven. Also, if it's just a sex thing, just a quick lapse in taking care of a need with someone that's obviously not important to the other person, that's much easier to forgive, than say someone who is a true relationship, and a viable alternative as a partner.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 2:22:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/14/2013 12:42:17 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 1/14/2013 12:40:21 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
And is he free to declare himself non-Muslim (at least prior to signing such contracts) ?

Or is this decided by his parents for him?
Prior to declaring Islam as his faith on his own, i.e., before being independent from parents, I believe he can.
Could be a lot worse, and is in most countries. But I don't think a mere profession of faith should be treated as an eternally binding countract.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 2:24:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Neither does an honest Muslim btw: let there be no compulsion in matters of religion.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2013 4:57:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/14/2013 11:02:45 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 1/14/2013 7:35:03 AM, Kinesis wrote:
It does if you believe, as I do, that rights are derivative from morality. A system of rights is a tool to promote what's best for society, so rights which are harmful to society shouldn't be legal.
1 - Why is it immoral? You can spit about the issue, but you need substance. 2 - Why is it harmful if it is consensual?
Mrs. Kinesis, Your turn.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2013 4:58:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/15/2013 2:22:37 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Could be a lot worse, and is in most countries. But I don't think a mere profession of faith should be treated as an eternally binding countract.
Sometimes the state can benefit from that. But I'm for the most part not in favour of endlessly-binding contracts.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2013 5:47:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/14/2013 10:26:44 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
There's no such thing as "best for society." What's best for Bob may not be best for me.

Why stop at humans as your referent object? You can split down humans still further - what's best for one aspect of Bob (say Bob's happiness) may be worse for another aspect of Bob (Bob's knowledge). We generalise because it's convenient. When I say something is better for society, I mean that if one was born into that society one would be more likely to be better off than without it.

Only in different senses than "punishment" normally sounds.

What evs.

They have the information they have chosen. If you believe your disagreement with their information entitles you to deny their choices, you strip them of their very humanity and treat them instead as some endangered species in a zoo; as your property.

Choice is far from the only means of acquiring knowledge. I learned about Liverpool football club because my dad supported the club and also raised me. Knowledge, probably the vast majority of it, is imprinted upon people without their consent. That's a disturbing thought when I consider it.

As for the latter half of your paragraph, I can't make out what it's even supposed to mean. Humanness isn't destroyed by preventing people from forming certain kinds of marriage contracts. wtf.

That's a matter to bring up evidence in court about, not for you "not to be surprised about." And since any country that's going to ignore such evidence is also one that's going to ignore your opinion for being that of an infidel, any country in which you can trust that your opinion matters is one in which you can trust the court to make these judgments.

You want to broaden people's freedom to write marriage contracts and deal with the consequences through a court of law. I want to prevent women having to challenge the marriage contract in court in cases where their life literally hangs in the balance. My position is preventative. Yours is to allow for these horrific contracts to take place and then for those women who were brainwashed or fooled into signing these contracts to have to fight for their lives in a court of law.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2013 5:55:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/14/2013 11:02:45 AM, Mirza wrote:
1 - Why is it immoral? You can spit about the issue, but you need substance. 2 - Why is it harmful if it is consensual?

1 - for a start, in practice adultery offenses have been used as an excuse to torture and murder women in many Islam countries - and yet, men who cheat on their wives are rarely afforded similar punishments. Obviously adultery is not a crime deserving of the death penalty, and only someone fueled by religious bigotry could possibly believe it is. You'd be slaughtering thousands of people per day if you enforced such a law, sexual attraction beyond one's partner is a universal part of human nature, and some large proportion of people feeling that attraction will act upon it, regardless of how insanely harsh the laws against it are.

2 - why can't a consensual thing be harmful? What's with that weird misallocation of the burden of proof?

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.