In the case of the pain caused by the cheater to his spouse, that is collateral damage. It is an accidental result of the action he has chosen to take. While it is possible that someone might cheat and flaunt it against the spouse, usually they go to some trouble to try to hide the affair.
Sorry put these two points are just ridiculous.
"I didn't mean to hurt anyone" can be said for practically any crime done in the country... it is NOT a valid position to warrant a lessening of the offence's assessment...
Furthermore one can almost always make this claim, no one can second guess what was going through the person's mind when they violated someone's marriage
Such a position is pointless.
Originally Posted By: Lotus
In the case of public humiliation, that is a deliberate action, intended to cause pain and embarrassment to the other person. It cannot be construed as unintended.
Again you bring up intention.
You ASSUME that the cheater's intentions are non-destructive, but you ASSUME the CONTRARY for the WS who exposes an affair.
BOTH cases are just that, assumptions.. the FACTs are that one person is cheating and damaging their marriage and their family, and the other is REVEALING that to the public.
Which one is the lesser evil here? The answer is blantaly obvious.
I am NOT suggesting exposure is fun by any means for the WS to have to do, it is a necessary evil...
When faced with the choice of watching your family be secretly violated by a third party or revealing that third party's behaviour to the public my vote will almost always be for the latter.
There was a film done by Harrison Ford that came out in the 80's called Witness. In that film the policeman at the beginning of the film was murdered becasue he was going to REPORT a fellow cop was dealing drugs.
The bulk of the film involved Harrison Fords character struggling to PROTECT the one and only witness to this crime.. the other cops hunted him for over an hour of film to silence him and keep the drug dealing a SECRET.
So... because the cop was going to REPORT the drug dealing He is the bad guy because HE was deliberately trying to hurt someone and the DRUG DEALERS were innocent and weren't trying to harm anyone?
This is just silly.. your argument above can be applied to almost many offensive crimes and exonerate anyone...
Let's look at a rape shall we? Why report the rapist after the fact... He wans't trying to HURT anyone... But the REPORTING of the rape is a deliberate attept to cause pain and embarassment?
This is just silly...
Yes I know you didn't suggest this for other crimes, but the logic when applied to other offences just sounds ridiculous... I see no reason why it should carry any less ridiculousness when applied to infidelity.
Sometimes the cheater doesn't want to hurt the spouse.
Your speaking from one side.
I agree with you.. on the first point, but in both cases the INTENTIONS are in the MIND of the actors... one can make some assessmetns of behviour to suggest some conscience be here, but in the case of Lotus' full argument she is assuming the BEST CASE for the cheaters and the WORST case for the WS exposing the affair.
Sometimes the cheater doesn't want to hurt the spouse.
Your speaking from one side.
I agree with you.. on the first point, but in both cases the INTENTIONS are in the MIND of the actors... one can make some assessmetns of behviour to suggest some conscience be here, but in the case of Lotus' full argument she is assuming the BEST CASE for the cheaters and the WORST case for the WS exposing the affair.
THAT is NOT one sided.. its basic logic.
If you are going to cut the CHEATERs some slack you had damn well better cut the ABANDONED SPOSUE the SAME AMOUNT of SLACK...which is NOT being done here, the best and worst cases are assumed to be the truth... this is your idea of FAIR?
Allen, there really is no point in arguing with you. You have a closed mind. You love your opinion and you will continue to pound it home on every thread on this bulletin board. But that doesn't make what you say right. It just makes you annoying.
Allen, there really is no point in arguing with you. You have a closed mind. You love your opinion and you will continue to pound it home on every thread on this bulletin board. But that doesn't make what you say right. It just makes you annoying.
Allen, there really is no point in arguing with you. You have a closed mind. You love your opinion and you will continue to pound it home on every thread on this bulletin board. But that doesn't make what you say right. It just makes you annoying.
I challenged the logic in your argument, you have no counter-argument so you reduce yourself to this level... AGAIN
Allen, there really is no point in arguing with you. You have a closed mind. You love your opinion and you will continue to pound it home on every thread on this bulletin board. But that doesn't make what you say right. It just makes you annoying.
You may not like the way I express my thoughts Lotus, but that fact alone is not a counter-argument.
It is how you feel. It says nothing about the logic expressed in the argument.
If you challenged my writing style I would probably agree with you that I could be gentler. But when the logic in your argument is exposed as seriously flawed you resort to mud-slinging and name calling instead of simply saying
"OK, you got me, but you could be more delicate about the way you put that.."
When you find the time to swallow your pride and acknowledge the logic I put up is SOUND and exposes a flaw in yours I will be more than happy to find a more gentler way to challenge you.
But as it stands, when you don't like the WAY I put something, so you toss the baby out with the bathwater.. The logic IS sound here, and yours has a problem with it... that's an exposed fact.
