The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
We now return to our regularly scheduled PA Forums. Please let me (Hahnsoo1) know if something isn't working. The Holiday Forum will remain up until January 10, 2025.
help saving a friend/in need of pro arguing skills
Posts
Either way, he has to get over it or dump the girl. She's being a pushover, which is probably why he likes her so much.
I wouldn't say that, many people around here mind not beleive in Abstinence, but respect people who uphold their beleifs.
He however is being a tool with his beleifs by being a judgemental prick to his girlfriend.
Hit gold earlier in the thread when they said either shit or get off the pot. As much as you think they are pretty much the ones for life. Life doesn't always rock, occasionally you get dealt a two and a seven offsuit and you have to deal with what you are given and wait for the next hand. If he wants to be a tool about this despite everyone telling him this it's his decision and you need to respect that. Whether you want to respect him after this decsision is your choice.
Satans..... hints.....
Wait a second. His Catholic beliefs are so firmly entrenched that he wants to break up with a girl he acknowledges is wonderful and whom he loves simply because she isn't a virgin...but he doesn't go to church much? You do realise that like 95% of Catholicism is face time in the old incense hut? Catholics who don't go for their Hail Marys, mass and confession aren't called 'devout', they are called 'lapsed'. Something does not compute.
Methinks the religion bit is being used as an excuse for either a) not really being so in love with her as you think or he claims, b) being really totally whackjob about the not-a-virgin thing from more of a jealous cunt perspective than a religious dogma one, or c) other.
But if you want an argument, you could probably do worse than pointing out that since he isn't following much of the rest of Catholic dogma, why should this be any different?
Oh, and...
Yes, let's all impose our own moral code on someone else because we think they are 'sucking at life'. That's totally different to what this guy is doing with his girlfriend. Really.
Honestly. Walking away from someone because you've grown apart, no problem with that. Constructing 'social censure' to try and change the bits about them that you don't like because you don't like them...? Makes you just as bad as the religios. Worse actually, since you don't even have the excuse that the book told you to do it. You are, however, right about one thing - if more people did that when faced with a friend they don't agree with, there would be a lot less friends going around.
PS You're all rather overstating the principle of 'forgive and forget' in Catholicism, and conflating it with more Protestant christian ethics. Catholicism is much more focused on God being the one who forgives and forgets, rather than Catholics themselves (who are all fucked from the day they are born anway because of Applegate). In fact, the emphasis is rather on gently chiding those who are breaking doctrine for their sins, and this includes all the poor non-Catholics out there.
Read Brideshead Revisited, explains it all pretty perfectly.
What she should have done from the start was demand respect for who she is. Who is he to demand something of her, something she can't change? And even if she could change it, what business of it is his? Maybe she thinks she made mistakes, and if so, his religion (and ya know, decency) ask that he forgives. Jesus made friends with whores and gamblers. She is blameless in this, except for not standing up for herself. It is his sin and his wrong-doing that is ruining his relationship. If he is not comfortable, then he needs to take some time away from her, and then maybe he will appreciate what she really is to him. She needs to be willing to give him this space to grow the hell up.
Yeah, this is pretty much what I'm saying. It sounds to me like he's lying to himself, and the OP, and his girlfriend when he says that the issue is virginity. I'd bet cash money that that's not the real issue - the issue is that he either doesn't actually love this girl very much, or he does love her but he's so scared of [insert any one of: intimacy, commitment, sexual inadequacy] that he's willing to sacrifice the relationship rather than face his fear. Talking to him on the virginity issue basically legitimizes his lie. If I were me, I'd cut him off when he starts to talk about virginity and say, "Don't give me that crap. What are you actually afraid of?"
Bullshit. People aren't infallible, sometimes people make mistakes and if they're lucky their friends are there to keep them from driving their personal life off a cliff. Part of being a friend to somebody is calling them on their shit - even if you have to apologize afterwards for being a bit of a dick.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
And also the bit where she holds to a different moral standard in terms of her individual sexuality. It's not like she tripped and fell on an erect penis in the parking lot. Jesus was friends with a lot of naughty people, but he did not do them, or marry them. You are right in that nobody should have to put up with a lack of respect though, so she does need to stand up and get rid of him if that's the case.
Forgiveness does not equal acceptance. You can not hold something against someone personally, and still disagree with what they did, or not be around them because of what they did. 'You're supposed to forgive' is not some sort of carte blanche removing all consequence from your actions. Even when there is complete forgiveness, there are still consequences. One consequence of having sex before marriage is that you remove yourself from being considered as viable marriage material to someone requires that their wife be a virgin. It's nothing personal, its just the way it is, forgiveness and all.
But to follow with Feral and Sarastro (notice the lack of 'c' in that one), I think it's probably just the issue he's bringing to light, and not the whole enchilada. It would make a great cop out (it's not me, it's the Good Book, honest.) for someone who is obviously at one with being so brutally passive aggressive.
!!!!▓▓▓▓▓Gravy?▓▓▓▓▓!!!!!!
!!!!!!▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓!!!!!!!!!
of doom
She just can't get over it, that he didn't save himself just for her. At minimum, he needs to stop touching himself immediately and not do it again. After all, the body is a temple, and sexual gratification is only a side effect of making babies.
Go on then Thanatos, Feral, Cat, Chemistry et al: explain how your imposition of morality is different to what this guy is doing [ostensibly; as I agree with Feral, don't think it's actually the deal]. In no more than 10,000 words, and without the sentiments 'because I'm right' or 'because most people agree with me'.
OP's friend: Go away girlfriend, I don't agree with your behaviour re: penises
You lot: Go away friend, I don't agree with your behaviour re: being a penis
By all means impose away in your own lives, I'm not going to stop you (see above) - just don't come posting here saying he's a dick for doing the same thing. What you should actually be saying is that he's a dick because you don't agree with the particular moral he's imposing.
It only takes a short skip and a jump to realise that actually all people are going to disagree with some part of someone else's morals, so telling other people how to live their life = not such a clever idea, because you aren't exactly a paragon of virtue in their eyes either. You don't have to condone or agree with them, like I said, feel free to walk away - but don't get all uppity about it and insist they change, because on some issue I guarantee you are mixing up a nice hot cup of Insta-Hypocrite.
Just about possible Jesus had something to say about this too, I forget. :P
Because faulting somebody for something that they are currently doing is inherently different from faulting somebody for something that they did in the past. OP's friend's girlfriend is not currently going out and sleeping with other men, it's something she used to do, so there's nothing left to do now but accept it and move on. You can't change the past, but you can change the future, and it's the OP's friend's future that's in jeopardy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Conversely, you are saying that in the past, he would have been quite justified to walk into her room while she was at it with someone else and berate her for having sex before marriage. What? Or, equally, that he's justified in telling one of his friends today that she dare not have the sex unless she's married because it's Wrong. Again, what?
PS Well, since you haven't so far. It's possible I'm missing something obvious that your keen mind has penetrated. It's also possible that you are missing my point, namely that if the OP goes to his friend saying 'I think it's wrong to drop her for this reason', his friend is going to say 'I think it's right to drop her for this reason'. You're just locking swords re: different beliefs, and it's not going anywhere helpful. Smart money would be on defusing or bypassing the religion / belief / rightwrong aspect entirely, and not letting the friend fall back on that as he is doing at the moment. To do that the OP cannot base his argument on any intimation of what is the Right or Wrong thing to do.
1: it's not tangental, it's the base of the issue
2: it's hardly minutae, it's the basic point that you can't argue with someone saying they are right by saying you are right
3: yes, I think it might help.
Anyway, unless someone can disprove the example I gave above (highly unlikely) the point is made. Avoid anything to do with right or wrong, don't let him fall back on the religion stuff.
That way, he's not a virgin either, so it'll be ok to be with a fellow non-virgin.
His friend is not saying 'I think it's right to drop her for this reason." The OP stated that he wont break up with her because he believes it would be the biggest mistake of his life. So what he continues to do is the equivalent of emotional abuse and in that sense what he is doing is wrong.
I don't need to justify condemnation of behaviour designed to actively cause harm/trauma to another for the purpose of pretending to be better than them and/or getting out of a relationship guilt-free. If you have a problem with that, Sarcastro, you can eat a dick. What you cannot do is debate it here.