Oh no, game outlets are talking about the the XB2 being potentially more powerful than the PS8. I totally forgot about that possible aspect of hardware upgrades.
I really do not want to go through months of fanboy dickwaving about hardware, again.
I would concede and call it 'intrinsically' dickish in a monogamous culture, despite my reluctance to consider any attribute intrinsic, because the pursuit perhaps necessarily clashes with the established culture in conjunction with deceitful, usurpous, and covetous undertones, but there are narrowly constructed justifications and excuses, arguably
erm, that is to say, as it were, like,
I disagree. For it to be intrinsically dickish it requires a necessarily detrimental outcome for the pursued or at the very least malicious intent.
I would say there'd need to be enormous caveats for me to be convinced someone stealing another's girlfriend isn't malicious.
One relationship ends and another begins.
or alternatively someone has sex with someone else and a third person never finds out about it.
What is malicious in either instance?
1. If that true this wouldn't be "stealing," she;'d have broken up before hooking up with another person. That's why it's cheating.
2. If it was a nice thing to do, why did it have to covered up in the first place? Relationships can get broken from this, which is why you want to keep it a secret. Right?
Because she's not your girlfriend (and/or boyfriend) when you're doing it.
If this was on the up-and-up why would she be keeping this from her boyfriend?
1. The fuck are you stealing? You don't have to break up with someone to spend time with someone else.
2. It's not a nice thing or a bad thing. Why does it have to be either?
It could happen independent of the knowledge of the person who has been cheated on and nothing would change.
1. That's friendship, which is fine - but we're not talking about friendship, are we?
2. Because it does, and you know it or what you're doing it wouldn't be a secret.
Cheating is still cheating. The difference is that the person being cheated on actually knows about it.
This whole argument rests on her bf not knowing anything, thus he'd disprove of what's happening behind their back.
I noted the tri-corner hats but they seemed a bit too colonial, not enough victorian for me. Is that The Captain's Hat or whatever it's called, or another one?
My avatar is slowly turning into a hipster porn star (this is her about to go to town on that hot little robobrain in the hotel)
Eddy on
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
I would concede and call it 'intrinsically' dickish in a monogamous culture, despite my reluctance to consider any attribute intrinsic, because the pursuit perhaps necessarily clashes with the established culture in conjunction with deceitful, usurpous, and covetous undertones, but there are narrowly constructed justifications and excuses, arguably
erm, that is to say, as it were, like,
I disagree. For it to be intrinsically dickish it requires a necessarily detrimental outcome for the pursued or at the very least malicious intent.
I would say there'd need to be enormous caveats for me to be convinced someone stealing another's girlfriend isn't malicious.
One relationship ends and another begins.
or alternatively someone has sex with someone else and a third person never finds out about it.
What is malicious in either instance?
dude are you fucking for real?
Is that weird? It seems kind of morally clear cut.
I must disagree with your construction of dickishness: I think that malicious intent is not required to be a dick; only, as milski said, a reckless or callous disregard for another person's considerations. I also wouldn't agree with the alternative explanation that there must be a necessarily detrimental outcome for the pursued as a requirement, because that would require that the morality of an action is determined only by its outcome, which discounts intent, social expectations, and so on entirely, and we're left entirely without common measurements of propriety because I believe that in social interactions the journey is just as important as the outcome, otherwise why do we regard emotions with such importance?
As to your second post, I would say that keeping someone in the dark to something that they may have the right to know for a bevy of reasons is in itself dickish and we don't even have to reach the analysis of whether the covered-up action was dickish
We do regard emotion with importance but is not that not a flaw? They are arbitrary, crass, unpredictable, and often destructive in nature.
Reckless and callous disregard is indeed dickish. I cannot deny that. However, if you and another consenting adult enter into an agreement of particular details is that not between the two of you?
To make my point more clear if any person were to have a one night stand with another person and then never speak to that person again what wrong has been done?
If you were to later find out that that person was in a relationship but never told their partner have you suddenly done harm?
I would concede and call it 'intrinsically' dickish in a monogamous culture, despite my reluctance to consider any attribute intrinsic, because the pursuit perhaps necessarily clashes with the established culture in conjunction with deceitful, usurpous, and covetous undertones, but there are narrowly constructed justifications and excuses, arguably
erm, that is to say, as it were, like,
I disagree. For it to be intrinsically dickish it requires a necessarily detrimental outcome for the pursued or at the very least malicious intent.
I would say there'd need to be enormous caveats for me to be convinced someone stealing another's girlfriend isn't malicious.
One relationship ends and another begins.
or alternatively someone has sex with someone else and a third person never finds out about it.
What is malicious in either instance?
1. If that true this wouldn't be "stealing," she;'d have broken up before hooking up with another person. That's why it's cheating.
2. If it was a nice thing to do, why did it have to covered up in the first place? Relationships can get broken from this, which is why you want to keep it a secret. Right?
Because she's not your girlfriend (and/or boyfriend) when you're doing it.
If this was on the up-and-up why would she be keeping this from her boyfriend?
1. The fuck are you stealing? You don't have to break up with someone to spend time with someone else.
2. It's not a nice thing or a bad thing. Why does it have to be either?
It could happen independent of the knowledge of the person who has been cheated on and nothing would change.
1. That's friendship, which is fine - but we're not talking about friendship, are we?
2. Because it does, and you know it or what you're doing it wouldn't be a secret.
Cheating is still cheating. The difference is that the person being cheated on actually knows about it.
This whole argument rests on her bf not knowing anything, thus he'd disprove of what's happening behind their back.
1. You can fuck friends. So, I don't understand why that distinction is important.
2. If cheating is still cheating and cheating requires knowledge of a third party to divulge the secret to for it to be bad then you're saying that cheating is only bad if you get caught. Otherwise it's just a thing without consequence.
I would concede and call it 'intrinsically' dickish in a monogamous culture, despite my reluctance to consider any attribute intrinsic, because the pursuit perhaps necessarily clashes with the established culture in conjunction with deceitful, usurpous, and covetous undertones, but there are narrowly constructed justifications and excuses, arguably
erm, that is to say, as it were, like,
I disagree. For it to be intrinsically dickish it requires a necessarily detrimental outcome for the pursued or at the very least malicious intent.
I would say there'd need to be enormous caveats for me to be convinced someone stealing another's girlfriend isn't malicious.
One relationship ends and another begins.
or alternatively someone has sex with someone else and a third person never finds out about it.
What is malicious in either instance?
dude are you fucking for real?
Is that weird? It seems kind of morally clear cut.
I must disagree with your construction of dickishness: I think that malicious intent is not required to be a dick; only, as milski said, a reckless or callous disregard for another person's considerations. I also wouldn't agree with the alternative explanation that there must be a necessarily detrimental outcome for the pursued as a requirement, because that would require that the morality of an action is determined only by its outcome, which discounts intent, social expectations, and so on entirely, and we're left entirely without common measurements of propriety because I believe that in social interactions the journey is just as important as the outcome, otherwise why do we regard emotions with such importance?
As to your second post, I would say that keeping someone in the dark to something that they may have the right to know for a bevy of reasons is in itself dickish and we don't even have to reach the analysis of whether the covered-up action was dickish
We do regard emotion with importance but is not that not a flaw? They are arbitrary, crass, unpredictable, and often destructive in nature.
Reckless and callous disregard is indeed dickish. I cannot deny that. However, if you and another consenting adult enter into an agreement of particular details is that not between the two of you?
To make my point more clear if any person were to have a one night stand with another person and then never speak to that person again what wrong has been done?
If you were to later find out that that person was in a relationship but never told their partner have you suddenly done harm?
The emotion point was a bit weak on my part so I'll just concede that bit
I think that the idea of it being a contract btwn two adults leaves out significant and essential elements of the larger social network around the two of you - that is to say, the trust placed into one of the parties by a third party; this line of regarding relationships as isolated contracts opens up a lot of moral issues in other transactions as well
To follow that point, the wrong for both your third and fourth lines is this violation of trust, which some may say is an essential component of an intimate relationship - and thus to knowingly violate it is to be a dick. A corollary being that if in the one night stand you did not know and did not have reason to know about their monogamous relationship then you are cleared from all liability now and forever
If my definition of dickishness departs from y'all's then I am going to fuck or fight right now
Eddy on
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
I would concede and call it 'intrinsically' dickish in a monogamous culture, despite my reluctance to consider any attribute intrinsic, because the pursuit perhaps necessarily clashes with the established culture in conjunction with deceitful, usurpous, and covetous undertones, but there are narrowly constructed justifications and excuses, arguably
erm, that is to say, as it were, like,
I disagree. For it to be intrinsically dickish it requires a necessarily detrimental outcome for the pursued or at the very least malicious intent.
I would say there'd need to be enormous caveats for me to be convinced someone stealing another's girlfriend isn't malicious.
One relationship ends and another begins.
or alternatively someone has sex with someone else and a third person never finds out about it.
What is malicious in either instance?
dude are you fucking for real?
Is that weird? It seems kind of morally clear cut.
I must disagree with your construction of dickishness: I think that malicious intent is not required to be a dick; only, as milski said, a reckless or callous disregard for another person's considerations. I also wouldn't agree with the alternative explanation that there must be a necessarily detrimental outcome for the pursued as a requirement, because that would require that the morality of an action is determined only by its outcome, which discounts intent, social expectations, and so on entirely, and we're left entirely without common measurements of propriety because I believe that in social interactions the journey is just as important as the outcome, otherwise why do we regard emotions with such importance?
As to your second post, I would say that keeping someone in the dark to something that they may have the right to know for a bevy of reasons is in itself dickish and we don't even have to reach the analysis of whether the covered-up action was dickish
We do regard emotion with importance but is not that not a flaw? They are arbitrary, crass, unpredictable, and often destructive in nature.
Reckless and callous disregard is indeed dickish. I cannot deny that. However, if you and another consenting adult enter into an agreement of particular details is that not between the two of you?
To make my point more clear if any person were to have a one night stand with another person and then never speak to that person again what wrong has been done?
If you were to later find out that that person was in a relationship but never told their partner have you suddenly done harm?
The emotion point was a bit weak on my part so I'll just concede that bit
I think that the idea of it being a contract btwn two adults leaves out significant and essential elements of the larger social network around the two of you - that is to say, the trust placed into one of the parties by a third party; this line of regarding relationships as isolated contracts opens up a lot of moral issues in other transactions as well
To follow that point, the wrong for both your third and fourth lines is this violation of trust, which some may say is an essential component of an intimate relationship - and thus to knowingly violate it is to be a dick. A corollary being that if in the one night stand you did not know and did not have reason to know about their monogamous relationship then you are cleared from all liability now and forever
Now do the version where the human you're pursuing is super hot. Like both cute and hot, in an aloof punk sort of way, but you know they can get down.
I would concede and call it 'intrinsically' dickish in a monogamous culture, despite my reluctance to consider any attribute intrinsic, because the pursuit perhaps necessarily clashes with the established culture in conjunction with deceitful, usurpous, and covetous undertones, but there are narrowly constructed justifications and excuses, arguably
erm, that is to say, as it were, like,
I disagree. For it to be intrinsically dickish it requires a necessarily detrimental outcome for the pursued or at the very least malicious intent.
I would say there'd need to be enormous caveats for me to be convinced someone stealing another's girlfriend isn't malicious.
One relationship ends and another begins.
or alternatively someone has sex with someone else and a third person never finds out about it.
What is malicious in either instance?
dude are you fucking for real?
Is that weird? It seems kind of morally clear cut.
I must disagree with your construction of dickishness: I think that malicious intent is not required to be a dick; only, as milski said, a reckless or callous disregard for another person's considerations. I also wouldn't agree with the alternative explanation that there must be a necessarily detrimental outcome for the pursued as a requirement, because that would require that the morality of an action is determined only by its outcome, which discounts intent, social expectations, and so on entirely, and we're left entirely without common measurements of propriety because I believe that in social interactions the journey is just as important as the outcome, otherwise why do we regard emotions with such importance?
As to your second post, I would say that keeping someone in the dark to something that they may have the right to know for a bevy of reasons is in itself dickish and we don't even have to reach the analysis of whether the covered-up action was dickish
We do regard emotion with importance but is not that not a flaw? They are arbitrary, crass, unpredictable, and often destructive in nature.
Reckless and callous disregard is indeed dickish. I cannot deny that. However, if you and another consenting adult enter into an agreement of particular details is that not between the two of you?
To make my point more clear if any person were to have a one night stand with another person and then never speak to that person again what wrong has been done?
If you were to later find out that that person was in a relationship but never told their partner have you suddenly done harm?
The emotion point was a bit weak on my part so I'll just concede that bit
I think that the idea of it being a contract btwn two adults leaves out significant and essential elements of the larger social network around the two of you - that is to say, the trust placed into one of the parties by a third party; this line of regarding relationships as isolated contracts opens up a lot of moral issues in other transactions as well
To follow that point, the wrong for both your third and fourth lines is this violation of trust, which some may say is an essential component of an intimate relationship - and thus to knowingly violate it is to be a dick. A corollary being that if in the one night stand you did not know and did not have reason to know about their monogamous relationship then you are cleared from all liability now and forever
You're assuming a shared social network. I do agree that if you are actively trying to fuck the partner of someone you know that it's weird and not "dickish" but a total dick move beyond redemption.
How can you violate the trust of a person that you do not know? If Person A (tethered to a person C) comes to Person B at night and asks for solace of the more carnal sense then who are they to deny that moment?
Person C has been betrayed by person A
But B has no responsibility to C. If you can depict a clear chain of responsibility connecting those unknown parties then I will concede.
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
I put it to you that it isn't cheating if it is an alternative reality
i guess i should say i'll cede that monogamy is weird to me in theory
but in practice it is unfathomable to me that polygamists don't feel intense jealousy or feelings of exclusion or inadequacy
i'm not saying those feelings- which form the backbone of monogamy, in a negative-space sense- are good or optimal or w-e
but i regard myself as a pretty thoughtful person who tries to be honest with himself and i can't imagine the emotional headspace necessary to transcend those things
+1
Options
Orphanerivers of redthat run to seaRegistered Userregular
I would concede and call it 'intrinsically' dickish in a monogamous culture, despite my reluctance to consider any attribute intrinsic, because the pursuit perhaps necessarily clashes with the established culture in conjunction with deceitful, usurpous, and covetous undertones, but there are narrowly constructed justifications and excuses, arguably
erm, that is to say, as it were, like,
I disagree. For it to be intrinsically dickish it requires a necessarily detrimental outcome for the pursued or at the very least malicious intent.
I would say there'd need to be enormous caveats for me to be convinced someone stealing another's girlfriend isn't malicious.
One relationship ends and another begins.
or alternatively someone has sex with someone else and a third person never finds out about it.
What is malicious in either instance?
dude are you fucking for real?
Is that weird? It seems kind of morally clear cut.
I must disagree with your construction of dickishness: I think that malicious intent is not required to be a dick; only, as milski said, a reckless or callous disregard for another person's considerations. I also wouldn't agree with the alternative explanation that there must be a necessarily detrimental outcome for the pursued as a requirement, because that would require that the morality of an action is determined only by its outcome, which discounts intent, social expectations, and so on entirely, and we're left entirely without common measurements of propriety because I believe that in social interactions the journey is just as important as the outcome, otherwise why do we regard emotions with such importance?
As to your second post, I would say that keeping someone in the dark to something that they may have the right to know for a bevy of reasons is in itself dickish and we don't even have to reach the analysis of whether the covered-up action was dickish
We do regard emotion with importance but is not that not a flaw? They are arbitrary, crass, unpredictable, and often destructive in nature.
Reckless and callous disregard is indeed dickish. I cannot deny that. However, if you and another consenting adult enter into an agreement of particular details is that not between the two of you?
To make my point more clear if any person were to have a one night stand with another person and then never speak to that person again what wrong has been done?
If you were to later find out that that person was in a relationship but never told their partner have you suddenly done harm?
The emotion point was a bit weak on my part so I'll just concede that bit
I think that the idea of it being a contract btwn two adults leaves out significant and essential elements of the larger social network around the two of you - that is to say, the trust placed into one of the parties by a third party; this line of regarding relationships as isolated contracts opens up a lot of moral issues in other transactions as well
To follow that point, the wrong for both your third and fourth lines is this violation of trust, which some may say is an essential component of an intimate relationship - and thus to knowingly violate it is to be a dick. A corollary being that if in the one night stand you did not know and did not have reason to know about their monogamous relationship then you are cleared from all liability now and forever
You're assuming a shared social network. I do agree that if you are actively trying to fuck the partner of someone you know that it's weird and not "dickish" but a total dick move beyond redemption.
How can you violate the trust of a person that you do not know? If Person A (tethered to a person C) comes to Person B at night and asks for solace of the more carnal sense then who are they to deny that moment?
Person C has been betrayed by person A
But B has no responsibility to C. If you can depict a clear chain of responsibility connecting those unknown parties then I will concede.
The violation is not B-C, it's A-C and B is an aiding and abetting conspirator, someone who knows someone will get hurt, that norms and expectations that people have invested in (emotionally, financially, etc) will be subverted. It is the knowledge and the disregard of that knowledge and its accompanying social framework that constitutes dickishness
One argument would be that the presumption that there is a violation implies that there are socially accepted rules, and to break them without a narrow justification or excuse is to be a dick (e.g., cutting in line disrespecks not only the people you are cutting, but the very institution of queues)
Eddy on
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
One of my biggest problems with T-Pain was the bar "Bartender" which was about having sex with a bartender that you met that night. I did not think that was possible until I saw one of my friends do it.
I still don't think it's possible and I kind of thought his song was a fabrication. But after tonight I do believe that he did have sex with the bartender.
oh sweet. after working 10 days straight i actually have off fri-sun.
i feel vaguely guilty because i don't have family here and i'm not gonna go out and drink or whatever. any of the other managers would probably make better use of a whole weekend off. lel.
0
Options
Dark Raven XLaugh hard, run fast,be kindRegistered Userregular
This still a temp visit Broar
We ain't actually applied for a fiancé visa yet, since the immigration lawyer said visits are probably no go while it's processing. So this one last long visit before the long winter wait times
I would concede and call it 'intrinsically' dickish in a monogamous culture, despite my reluctance to consider any attribute intrinsic, because the pursuit perhaps necessarily clashes with the established culture in conjunction with deceitful, usurpous, and covetous undertones, but there are narrowly constructed justifications and excuses, arguably
erm, that is to say, as it were, like,
I disagree. For it to be intrinsically dickish it requires a necessarily detrimental outcome for the pursued or at the very least malicious intent.
I would say there'd need to be enormous caveats for me to be convinced someone stealing another's girlfriend isn't malicious.
One relationship ends and another begins.
or alternatively someone has sex with someone else and a third person never finds out about it.
What is malicious in either instance?
dude are you fucking for real?
Is that weird? It seems kind of morally clear cut.
I must disagree with your construction of dickishness: I think that malicious intent is not required to be a dick; only, as milski said, a reckless or callous disregard for another person's considerations. I also wouldn't agree with the alternative explanation that there must be a necessarily detrimental outcome for the pursued as a requirement, because that would require that the morality of an action is determined only by its outcome, which discounts intent, social expectations, and so on entirely, and we're left entirely without common measurements of propriety because I believe that in social interactions the journey is just as important as the outcome, otherwise why do we regard emotions with such importance?
As to your second post, I would say that keeping someone in the dark to something that they may have the right to know for a bevy of reasons is in itself dickish and we don't even have to reach the analysis of whether the covered-up action was dickish
We do regard emotion with importance but is not that not a flaw? They are arbitrary, crass, unpredictable, and often destructive in nature.
Reckless and callous disregard is indeed dickish. I cannot deny that. However, if you and another consenting adult enter into an agreement of particular details is that not between the two of you?
To make my point more clear if any person were to have a one night stand with another person and then never speak to that person again what wrong has been done?
If you were to later find out that that person was in a relationship but never told their partner have you suddenly done harm?
The emotion point was a bit weak on my part so I'll just concede that bit
I think that the idea of it being a contract btwn two adults leaves out significant and essential elements of the larger social network around the two of you - that is to say, the trust placed into one of the parties by a third party; this line of regarding relationships as isolated contracts opens up a lot of moral issues in other transactions as well
To follow that point, the wrong for both your third and fourth lines is this violation of trust, which some may say is an essential component of an intimate relationship - and thus to knowingly violate it is to be a dick. A corollary being that if in the one night stand you did not know and did not have reason to know about their monogamous relationship then you are cleared from all liability now and forever
You're assuming a shared social network. I do agree that if you are actively trying to fuck the partner of someone you know that it's weird and not "dickish" but a total dick move beyond redemption.
How can you violate the trust of a person that you do not know? If Person A (tethered to a person C) comes to Person B at night and asks for solace of the more carnal sense then who are they to deny that moment?
Person C has been betrayed by person A
But B has no responsibility to C. If you can depict a clear chain of responsibility connecting those unknown parties then I will concede.
The violation is not B-C, it's A-C and B is an aiding and abetting conspirator
One argument would be that the presumption that there is a violation implies that there are socially accepted rules, and to break them without a narrow justification or excuse is to be a dick (e.g., cutting in line disrespecks not only for the person you are cutting, but the very institution of queues)
Socially accepted attitudes? Implications?
Queues as an institution?
I cannot consent to any of those things as more than formalities.
Posts
I really do not want to go through months of fanboy dickwaving about hardware, again.
1. That's friendship, which is fine - but we're not talking about friendship, are we?
2. Because it does, and you know it or what you're doing it wouldn't be a secret.
Cheating is still cheating. The difference is that the person being cheated on actually knows about it.
This whole argument rests on her bf not knowing anything, thus he'd disprove of what's happening behind their back.
well done sir very fashion souls
I noted the tri-corner hats but they seemed a bit too colonial, not enough victorian for me. Is that The Captain's Hat or whatever it's called, or another one?
My avatar is slowly turning into a hipster porn star (this is her about to go to town on that hot little robobrain in the hotel)
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
I'm with you on dril
I don't really understand the appeal
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Yes, who have you done chu? Was she hot?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
We do regard emotion with importance but is not that not a flaw? They are arbitrary, crass, unpredictable, and often destructive in nature.
Reckless and callous disregard is indeed dickish. I cannot deny that. However, if you and another consenting adult enter into an agreement of particular details is that not between the two of you?
To make my point more clear if any person were to have a one night stand with another person and then never speak to that person again what wrong has been done?
If you were to later find out that that person was in a relationship but never told their partner have you suddenly done harm?
It was probably just Castle again
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
Perhaps the same could be said of all relationship styles
Oh snap @Tav you are here too? Anywhere near NuHams?
We just saw Louis CK at a casino, it was awesome. He was wearing a suit tho. Also simulated sucking a dick for 20 full seconds.
Then Lady Raven won a buncha dollars playing Blackjack while I blew on her dice for good luck
I don't know how Blackjack
1. You can fuck friends. So, I don't understand why that distinction is important.
2. If cheating is still cheating and cheating requires knowledge of a third party to divulge the secret to for it to be bad then you're saying that cheating is only bad if you get caught. Otherwise it's just a thing without consequence.
The emotion point was a bit weak on my part so I'll just concede that bit
I think that the idea of it being a contract btwn two adults leaves out significant and essential elements of the larger social network around the two of you - that is to say, the trust placed into one of the parties by a third party; this line of regarding relationships as isolated contracts opens up a lot of moral issues in other transactions as well
To follow that point, the wrong for both your third and fourth lines is this violation of trust, which some may say is an essential component of an intimate relationship - and thus to knowingly violate it is to be a dick. A corollary being that if in the one night stand you did not know and did not have reason to know about their monogamous relationship then you are cleared from all liability now and forever
If my definition of dickishness departs from y'all's then I am going to fuck or fight right now
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
One point for Robot House.
*dancehall airhorn*
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
i only brought this up because y'all were talking about a love triangle plot on the office
i am a totally unfuckable 55 gallon drum full of rotten root vegetables, don't worry
Now do the version where the human you're pursuing is super hot. Like both cute and hot, in an aloof punk sort of way, but you know they can get down.
i attribute this feeling to you, mostly, and to my other poly friends at a lesser degree (i met them after you so)
but i literally cant watch any tv drama with any sort of love triangle without going WHY DONT ALL THREE OF YOU FUCK
know only the trust of hattori steel and know only the intimacy of its burial into one's enemies
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
You're assuming a shared social network. I do agree that if you are actively trying to fuck the partner of someone you know that it's weird and not "dickish" but a total dick move beyond redemption.
How can you violate the trust of a person that you do not know? If Person A (tethered to a person C) comes to Person B at night and asks for solace of the more carnal sense then who are they to deny that moment?
Person C has been betrayed by person A
But B has no responsibility to C. If you can depict a clear chain of responsibility connecting those unknown parties then I will concede.
But it is cheating if it is a lucid Dre!
what is thousand-folded steel to a true waifu's glance. . .
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
but in practice it is unfathomable to me that polygamists don't feel intense jealousy or feelings of exclusion or inadequacy
i'm not saying those feelings- which form the backbone of monogamy, in a negative-space sense- are good or optimal or w-e
but i regard myself as a pretty thoughtful person who tries to be honest with himself and i can't imagine the emotional headspace necessary to transcend those things
sharp
The violation is not B-C, it's A-C and B is an aiding and abetting conspirator, someone who knows someone will get hurt, that norms and expectations that people have invested in (emotionally, financially, etc) will be subverted. It is the knowledge and the disregard of that knowledge and its accompanying social framework that constitutes dickishness
One argument would be that the presumption that there is a violation implies that there are socially accepted rules, and to break them without a narrow justification or excuse is to be a dick (e.g., cutting in line disrespecks not only the people you are cutting, but the very institution of queues)
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
this is great
I still don't think it's possible and I kind of thought his song was a fabrication. But after tonight I do believe that he did have sex with the bartender.
no
since I am among the consulted
i feel vaguely guilty because i don't have family here and i'm not gonna go out and drink or whatever. any of the other managers would probably make better use of a whole weekend off. lel.
We ain't actually applied for a fiancé visa yet, since the immigration lawyer said visits are probably no go while it's processing. So this one last long visit before the long winter wait times
Socially accepted attitudes? Implications?
Queues as an institution?
I cannot consent to any of those things as more than formalities.
to which i would say you did not cock block bro
you just didnt have a room.
much like how if you let two people have sex in one of your rooms you would not be consenting to adultery.
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin