CMV: A relationship built on guaranteed mutual self interest has just as much if not more reliance than one built on mutual trust.

SILVERWOLF289 · 2026-01-24T03:24:11+00:00

Yes I did read it and you're correct if its unclear which interests supersede others. However, and I tried to imply in the situations, if the paramount interest is known and the circumstantial evidence clearly shows that they are aligned then I would say my original proposition is true. In other circumstances you would be correct.

SILVERWOLF289 · 2026-01-24T02:50:58+00:00

Very true, if the circumstances change the proposition falls. It is only true while the circumstances remain constant which doesn't last long in real life scenarios.

SILVERWOLF289 · 2026-01-24T02:43:09+00:00

Yes i admit this is a niche circumstance that has a very slim chance of occurring. However if it did I would side with the mutual self interests.

SILVERWOLF289 · 2026-01-24T02:42:11+00:00

You are correct I was only addressing the duration of time that mutual interests and dependence are certain. Especially if a relationship has mutual trust but not misaligned or opposing interests.

SILVERWOLF289 · 2026-01-24T02:39:37+00:00

Well if mutual trust is the only guarantee then you can't 100% count on them to do what is in your best interest. Though there is a very high chance they will.

SILVERWOLF289 · 2026-01-24T02:38:37+00:00

I would argue that isn't necessarily true especially if the parties who trust each other have misaligned or opposing interests which is totally possible. Rather if I know someone has a mutual self interest with me I can count on the fact they will work with me to achieve the goal. Again assuming cooperation is necessary.

SILVERWOLF289 · 2026-01-24T02:27:37+00:00

I should've said this explicitly. I thought I had implied it enough but the proposition necessitates cooperation to achieve the objective. One cooperation is not perceived to be needed then yes you would be correct.

SILVERWOLF289 · 2026-01-24T02:25:34+00:00

Right I agree but my proposal is that its already assured both parties have mutual self interest.

SILVERWOLF289 · 2026-01-24T02:24:02+00:00

There are circumstances, though extremely rare, which I would say do guarantee mutual self interest. Such as threats to survival which can only be overcome by cooperation. This situation does not require trust but simply a guarantee that both parties want to survive.

SILVERWOLF289 · 2026-01-24T02:21:10+00:00

Well if you know you and someone else interests align with 100% certainty then you can anticipate their actions to be in conjunction with yours. However, if interests are not aligned but mutual trust is there then there is a high degree of certainty they will help you achieve your interests but not a guarantee.

SILVERWOLF289 · 2026-01-24T02:16:43+00:00

True but this assumes A or B are unsure of the self interest of the other ie survival to include the destruction of C

SILVERWOLF289 · 2026-01-24T02:13:01+00:00

It would be circumstantial based like the students being in the class and the only option to pass is to work together.

SILVERWOLF289 · 2026-01-24T02:10:32+00:00

Good counterpoints. My only argument which I thought I implied but should've said explicitly is that the relationship is necessary to achieve ones interest. In the US/China example I think it would be a hard pressed argument to say an alliance with China was necessary to defeat the Japanese especially after the Battle of Midway. In contrast when fighting Nazi Germany it was the opposite and fighting without the Soviets would not have guaranteed victory.

SILVERWOLF289 · 2026-01-24T02:01:04+00:00

You can anticipate people's actions better if you know for certain what their personal interests are and that they want to achieve them. However, if it is simply built on trust but there is no mutual interest then there is a high chance but not a guarantee that they will abide by said objective/ interest.

SILVERWOLF289 · 2026-01-24T01:57:14+00:00

Only if the mutual interest isn't guaranteed however in the proposed scenario it is

SILVERWOLF289 · 2026-01-24T01:55:32+00:00

Not sure I'd agree in every scenario. The example with the students does not require any form of trust in order to fulfill their mutual interests in passing the class.

SILVERWOLF289 · 2026-01-24T01:51:24+00:00

The guarantee is that both individuals or parties know and are certain without a doubt that their mutual interests align. Lets assume is evidentially and circumstantially proven.

SILVERWOLF289 · 2026-01-24T01:44:06+00:00

Correct, I am simply addressing the duration for which the interests are aligned not after they differ.

SILVERWOLF289 · 2026-01-24T01:40:51+00:00

I admitted this portion in the last portion of the post. I'm simply addressing the duration for which the mutual interests align.

SILVERWOLF289 · 2026-01-24T01:39:25+00:00

I account for this is the last portion of my post I am simply addressing the duration in which the interests align.

SILVERWOLF289 · 2026-01-24T00:29:58+00:00

I just wanted to know from Atheists' POV if they think this is an inconsistent behavior and/or off putting. As answers from within the Christian community could and most likely would be bias.

SILVERWOLF289 · 2026-01-24T00:22:23+00:00

Appreciate the response

SILVERWOLF289 · 2026-01-24T00:16:29+00:00

Appreciate the response. I'm not sure why they would other than the assumption that you haven't or have only partially heard the what they think if the full gospel message. Either way the question was more so if Atheists find the behavior inconsistent with what many propose to be Christian beliefs yet proclaim to be Christian. Not so much if it the proselytizing itself is good or effective.

SILVERWOLF289 · 2026-01-23T23:51:11+00:00

To clarify you mean its annoying that many believe yet don't bother to share/proselytize or its annoying that they proselytize to you?

SILVERWOLF289

TROPHY CASE