If disregarding formalities such as queues is not dickish then we are at an impasse
You were implying some sort of moral obligation to fuck with someone in a relationship.
That really ain't the same implication as not stepping in front of someone in Chipotle and getting your burrito a few seconds faster.
or if you're saying it is your argument just lost a whole hell of a lot of weight.
Theory's the same, the consequence is greater when found out.
I do not agree in theory. If relationships are to mean anything then they must have some greater sanctity that transcends that of a queue.
It doesn't matter what the relationship is like, it's a relationship - though the better it is the cheater doing it is more dickish.
Heh. Hilarious when you think about it. People in line for the queue. The queue is sex with you. Getting upset at the order in which the sex happened when everyone was going to do it anyway.
Which is a very human reaction, it's a betrayal. This is not a concept that's fringe, it's the norm. Especially when that someone is married.
I don't really get the bolded part to be honest. I mean I guess I get if you enter into a marriage and except to be in that marriage forever but I can't understand how anyone would like anyone else enough to want to spend their entire life with them either. Which is what marriage implies.
which i don't understand.
wait, how is the bolded part about marriage?
i guess you could replace that with relationship. i don't get that shit either way.
marriages are relationships but I still have no idea what the bolded means or how it refers to relationships
Your dick is an all you can eat buffet and people are arguing over getting the fourth helping when they thought they were the third.
or alternatively someone else dipping into the dick when they called dibs.
0
Options
Orphanerivers of redthat run to seaRegistered Userregular
Now you just sound like someone who wants to be fucked to death by a lifetime's worth of lovers
If disregarding formalities such as queues is not dickish then we are at an impasse
You were implying some sort of moral obligation to fuck with someone in a relationship.
That really ain't the same implication as not stepping in front of someone in Chipotle and getting your burrito a few seconds faster.
or if you're saying it is your argument just lost a whole hell of a lot of weight.
Theory's the same, the consequence is greater when found out.
I do not agree in theory. If relationships are to mean anything then they must have some greater sanctity that transcends that of a queue.
It doesn't matter what the relationship is like, it's a relationship - though the better it is the cheater doing it is more dickish.
Heh. Hilarious when you think about it. People in line for the queue. The queue is sex with you. Getting upset at the order in which the sex happened when everyone was going to do it anyway.
Which is a very human reaction, it's a betrayal. This is not a concept that's fringe, it's the norm. Especially when that someone is married.
I don't really get the bolded part to be honest. I mean I guess I get if you enter into a marriage and except to be in that marriage forever but I can't understand how anyone would like anyone else enough to want to spend their entire life with them either. Which is what marriage implies.
which i don't understand.
wait, how is the bolded part about marriage?
i guess you could replace that with relationship. i don't get that shit either way.
marriages are relationships but I still have no idea what the bolded means or how it refers to relationships
Your dick is an all you can eat buffet and people are arguing over getting the fourth helping when they thought they were the third.
or alternatively someone else dipping into the dick when they called dibs.
oh, like that
well yeah it's the latter thing, not anything to do with the order. And, hey, they called dibs, dick move to disrespect that.
To say that you find a relationship an unimaginable outcome due to people fundamentally being incapable of finding sufficient comfort in or liking for each other's company just sounds like you are ready to go Into the quiet dark alone
I accept that.
but i don't think i'm immoral or ethically bankrupt on a fundamental level.
To say that you find a relationship an unimaginable outcome due to people fundamentally being incapable of finding sufficient comfort in or liking for each other's company just sounds like you are ready to go Into the quiet dark alone
I accept that.
but i don't think i'm immoral or ethically bankrupt on a fundamental level.
Plus it could get the person doing the cheating into serious trouble in a divorce.
Australia's private investigators can recall the boom days of a seedy, sordid business, when a spouse would go to such extremes to get a divorce. Until the arrival of no-fault divorce laws in 1975, a marriage could not be dissolved unless one spouse was found, in effect, to be the guilty party. Commonly it was for adultery, more often for desertion. Otherwise cruelty, drunkenness, imprisonment or insanity might be grounds for divorce.
To say that you find a relationship an unimaginable outcome due to people fundamentally being incapable of finding sufficient comfort in or liking for each other's company just sounds like you are ready to go Into the quiet dark alone
I accept that.
but i don't think i'm immoral or ethically bankrupt on a fundamental level.
Plus it could get the person doing the cheating into serious trouble in a divorce.
Australia's private investigators can recall the boom days of a seedy, sordid business, when a spouse would go to such extremes to get a divorce. Until the arrival of no-fault divorce laws in 1975, a marriage could not be dissolved unless one spouse was found, in effect, to be the guilty party. Commonly it was for adultery, more often for desertion. Otherwise cruelty, drunkenness, imprisonment or insanity might be grounds for divorce.
That's not a matter of ethics. That's a matter of litigation.
why are you all talking in weird, protracted metaphors
because people get bogged down in irrelevant specifics otherwise instead of having a common understanding of what the subject is on a more basic level
n word you just did the thing you talked about
(. . .not even going to edit. that was stream of consciousness.)
no, misunderstand me right, I am praising the current discussion, because with every new dick-dressing-bowl metaphor we move away from the specifics and closer to the true nature of things, which is good!
0
Options
Orphanerivers of redthat run to seaRegistered Userregular
why are you all talking in weird, protracted metaphors
because people get bogged down in irrelevant specifics otherwise instead of having a common understanding of what the subject is on a more basic level
n word you just did the thing you talked about
(. . .not even going to edit. that was stream of consciousness.)
no, misunderstand me right, I am praising the current discussion, because with every new dick-dressing-bowl metaphor we move away from the specifics and closer to the true nature of things, which is good!
you're not an americarino so there was probably less of a knee-jerk when I dropped an N mentally.
To say that you find a relationship an unimaginable outcome due to people fundamentally being incapable of finding sufficient comfort in or liking for each other's company just sounds like you are ready to go Into the quiet dark alone
I accept that.
but i don't think i'm immoral or ethically bankrupt on a fundamental level.
Plus it could get the person doing the cheating into serious trouble in a divorce.
Australia's private investigators can recall the boom days of a seedy, sordid business, when a spouse would go to such extremes to get a divorce. Until the arrival of no-fault divorce laws in 1975, a marriage could not be dissolved unless one spouse was found, in effect, to be the guilty party. Commonly it was for adultery, more often for desertion. Otherwise cruelty, drunkenness, imprisonment or insanity might be grounds for divorce.
That's not a matter of ethics. That's a matter of litigation.
Actually, it's both. Both are good reasons not to do it to someone you are in a relationship with, because when it comes out there will be hell to pay for it.
Maaaaan more and more people are saying that X-Men: Apocalypse is bad. I dunno if I should see it then.
It is a serviceable popcorn flick. It's not like Fant4stic terrible or Civil War great, just mostly forgettable, albeit with a Magneto story that raises some eyebrows
To say that you find a relationship an unimaginable outcome due to people fundamentally being incapable of finding sufficient comfort in or liking for each other's company just sounds like you are ready to go Into the quiet dark alone
I accept that.
but i don't think i'm immoral or ethically bankrupt on a fundamental level.
Plus it could get the person doing the cheating into serious trouble in a divorce.
Australia's private investigators can recall the boom days of a seedy, sordid business, when a spouse would go to such extremes to get a divorce. Until the arrival of no-fault divorce laws in 1975, a marriage could not be dissolved unless one spouse was found, in effect, to be the guilty party. Commonly it was for adultery, more often for desertion. Otherwise cruelty, drunkenness, imprisonment or insanity might be grounds for divorce.
That's not a matter of ethics. That's a matter of litigation.
Actually, it's both.
Can't argue that but I think ethical considerations trump litigation. So, yes in some judicial systems you have an onus to help someone avoid litigation by not indulging in public of perceivable (i used a fake word to mean have sex with someone who is cheating)
Having exclusively watched the cartoon in the 90s and never reading the comics or playing any games, I have absolutely no emotional attachment to Psylocke
Maaaaan more and more people are saying that X-Men: Apocalypse is bad. I dunno if I should see it then.
It is a serviceable popcorn flick. It's not like Fant4stic terrible or Civil War great, just mostly forgettable, albeit with a Magneto story that raises some eyebrows
To say that you find a relationship an unimaginable outcome due to people fundamentally being incapable of finding sufficient comfort in or liking for each other's company just sounds like you are ready to go Into the quiet dark alone
I accept that.
but i don't think i'm immoral or ethically bankrupt on a fundamental level.
Plus it could get the person doing the cheating into serious trouble in a divorce.
Australia's private investigators can recall the boom days of a seedy, sordid business, when a spouse would go to such extremes to get a divorce. Until the arrival of no-fault divorce laws in 1975, a marriage could not be dissolved unless one spouse was found, in effect, to be the guilty party. Commonly it was for adultery, more often for desertion. Otherwise cruelty, drunkenness, imprisonment or insanity might be grounds for divorce.
That's not a matter of ethics. That's a matter of litigation.
Actually, it's both.
Can't argue that but I think ethical considerations trump litigation. So, yes in some judicial systems you have an onus of responsibility to help someone avoid litigation by not indulging in adulteress.
Sure, but they are a factor.
Just in case a P.I. is watching you.
but if there isn't.
If a good P.I. is watching how will you know about it before it's too late?
To say that you find a relationship an unimaginable outcome due to people fundamentally being incapable of finding sufficient comfort in or liking for each other's company just sounds like you are ready to go Into the quiet dark alone
I accept that.
but i don't think i'm immoral or ethically bankrupt on a fundamental level.
Plus it could get the person doing the cheating into serious trouble in a divorce.
Australia's private investigators can recall the boom days of a seedy, sordid business, when a spouse would go to such extremes to get a divorce. Until the arrival of no-fault divorce laws in 1975, a marriage could not be dissolved unless one spouse was found, in effect, to be the guilty party. Commonly it was for adultery, more often for desertion. Otherwise cruelty, drunkenness, imprisonment or insanity might be grounds for divorce.
That's not a matter of ethics. That's a matter of litigation.
Actually, it's both.
Can't argue that but I think ethical considerations trump litigation. So, yes in some judicial systems you have an onus of responsibility to help someone avoid litigation by not indulging in adulteress.
Sure, but they are a factor.
Just in case a P.I. is watching you.
but if there isn't.
If a good P.I. is watching how will you know about it before it's too late?
To say that you find a relationship an unimaginable outcome due to people fundamentally being incapable of finding sufficient comfort in or liking for each other's company just sounds like you are ready to go Into the quiet dark alone
I accept that.
but i don't think i'm immoral or ethically bankrupt on a fundamental level.
Plus it could get the person doing the cheating into serious trouble in a divorce.
Australia's private investigators can recall the boom days of a seedy, sordid business, when a spouse would go to such extremes to get a divorce. Until the arrival of no-fault divorce laws in 1975, a marriage could not be dissolved unless one spouse was found, in effect, to be the guilty party. Commonly it was for adultery, more often for desertion. Otherwise cruelty, drunkenness, imprisonment or insanity might be grounds for divorce.
That's not a matter of ethics. That's a matter of litigation.
Actually, it's both.
Can't argue that but I think ethical considerations trump litigation. So, yes in some judicial systems you have an onus of responsibility to help someone avoid litigation by not indulging in adulteress.
Sure, but they are a factor.
Just in case a P.I. is watching you.
but if there isn't.
If a good P.I. is watching how will you know about it before it's too late?
You've argued that the action in-of-itself is wrong and that the action is wrong because of how it relates to the litigation and perceptions that are applied to it.
You've argued that the action in-of-itself is wrong and that the action is wrong because of how it relates to the litigation and perceptions that are applied to it.
"now if i fuck this model. and she just bleached her asshole. and i get bleach on my t-shirt. i'm going to feel like an asshole. now. . .i was high when i met her. we was down at Tribeca. she'll get under your skin if you let her. . .I don't even want to talk about it."
the realest shit 2k16
+1
Options
Mojo_JojoWe are only now beginning to understand the full power and ramifications of sexual intercourseRegistered Userregular
You've argued that the action in-of-itself is wrong and that the action is wrong because of how it relates to the litigation and perceptions that are applied to it.
Yes? Something can be wrong in more than one way.
I don't agree
the ethics of an action and the legality of it are, at best, tangents
Abdhyius on
0
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
Having exclusively watched the cartoon in the 90s and never reading the comics or playing any games, I have absolutely no emotional attachment to Psylocke
: (
But she is the best
She's a posh English psychic ninja with all of the legs. Just so much leg
Posts
Your dick is an all you can eat buffet and people are arguing over getting the fourth helping when they thought they were the third.
or alternatively someone else dipping into the dick when they called dibs.
We have a corgi, two cows, and a shark.
oh, like that
well yeah it's the latter thing, not anything to do with the order. And, hey, they called dibs, dick move to disrespect that.
I accept that.
but i don't think i'm immoral or ethically bankrupt on a fundamental level.
Not sure what escape velocity is referring to.
Apparently 65 billion solar neutrinos per square centimeter of the Earth's surface perpendicular to the Suns rays pass through the Earth every second.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
because people get bogged down in irrelevant specifics otherwise instead of having a common understanding of what the subject is on a more basic level
n word you just did the thing you talked about
(. . .not even going to edit. that was stream of consciousness.)
people often allow them to grow unwieldy and then you obfuscate the conversation more than you would have otherwise
Plus it could get the person doing the cheating into serious trouble in a divorce.
This was actually a thing.
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life/private-eyes-dread-a-return-to-infidelity-on-camera-20090713-ditv.html
Honey, I Disproved the HIggs-Boson
That's not a matter of ethics. That's a matter of litigation.
Similies are easier to use, like using a fork over chopsticks
no, misunderstand me right, I am praising the current discussion, because with every new dick-dressing-bowl metaphor we move away from the specifics and closer to the true nature of things, which is good!
Would you say like a bonsai or more like a hedge fence
you're not an americarino so there was probably less of a knee-jerk when I dropped an N mentally.
but i see what yr goin 4
Actually, it's both. Both are good reasons not to do it to someone you are in a relationship with, because when it comes out there will be hell to pay for it.
Not bad, merely good.
It is a serviceable popcorn flick. It's not like Fant4stic terrible or Civil War great, just mostly forgettable, albeit with a Magneto story that raises some eyebrows
Can't argue that but I think ethical considerations trump litigation. So, yes in some judicial systems you have an onus to help someone avoid litigation by not indulging in public of perceivable (i used a fake word to mean have sex with someone who is cheating)
Just in case a P.I. is watching you.
but if there isn't.
Okay guess I will still see it on Sunday then.
Sure, but they are a factor.
If a good P.I. is watching how will you know about it before it's too late?
You've argued that the action in-of-itself is wrong and that the action is wrong because of how it relates to the litigation and perceptions that are applied to it.
Yes? Something can be wrong in more than one way.
They both end with "AHA! You have activated my trap card!"
"now if i fuck this model. and she just bleached her asshole. and i get bleach on my t-shirt. i'm going to feel like an asshole. now. . .i was high when i met her. we was down at Tribeca. she'll get under your skin if you let her. . .I don't even want to talk about it."
the realest shit 2k16
Not very much. Their mass is something like 0.5eV
Let me get back to my desk and I'll give you a number
I don't agree
the ethics of an action and the legality of it are, at best, tangents
: (
But she is the best
She's a posh English psychic ninja with all of the legs. Just so much leg