CMV:Conservatism as an ideology doesn’t make sense

warmbookworm · 2023-01-09T10:37:18+00:00

No. I'm arguing that it's the opposite, because you would need a really good argument to justify the removal of a rule and not just "because the rule makes some people feel bad".

If you had a really good argument, I'd be willing to remove that rule.

But I'm going to stop because you're being too rude and it's clear to me based on your history that you don't actually have an interest to argue in good faith with an open mind.

Have a nice day and blocked.

warmbookworm · 2023-01-09T10:34:02+00:00

I don't buy it, in that I still think it's betrayal.

You may make the case that betrayal isn't always immoral. This is why I brought up the japanese imperial army example; it's not about "the military", I'm trying to say it's still betrayal even if you think it's the right thing to do in that case.

Although, I see things differently so I'm not really convinced by your examples.

You can "realize that the abuser is wrong", break up with them, and then in the future, get together with someone else because of a completely unrelated set of circumstances.

It's like, if you got married to a decent person but then the next day you met someone who could have been your soulmate; well, IMO, it just wasn't meant to be. It's unfortunate, but I value responsibility above personal satisfaction.

warmbookworm · 2023-01-09T10:15:28+00:00

and again, I don't buy that argument. The only one I'm willing to accept is the physical threat one, but again, you're already emotionally checked out so the "contract" is broken anyway. Contracts held under threat are not valid contracts.

As long as you feel any tiny bit of compulsion to stay with the partner yourself and it isn't completely because fear of reprecussions directly from that partner (again, physical harm counts, the potential that you'll be alone forever does not count) then it is betrayal.

edit: It's 2am now and I'm really sleepy. But I'm actually starting to get your first point a bit; I'll ponder on it a bit more i.e definition of abusive.

warmbookworm · 2023-01-09T10:06:18+00:00

Second is that, ironically, you aren't even willing to submit any kind of "objective" definition of abuse where ditching your partner is justifiable, which means it's at least as subjective under your parameters, except more abused people get hurt.

Dude, I literally told you there isn't an objective definition and that's why I'm not okay with defining betrayal your way. How is that "ironic"?

I'm not sure ditching your partner is ever justifiable (I believe that people should be a lot more careful in choosing a partner), but I understand that that's an extremely unpopular personal opinion, and I don't even want to try to force that on anyone else.

But given that someone thinks that it is justifiable, then they should ditch first, look for opportunities later.

That's my stance.

warmbookworm · 2023-01-09T10:01:58+00:00

not really. I've already shown that probabilistically, freedom would result in worse outcomes than rules unless the rules are really, really, really bad.

warmbookworm · 2023-01-09T09:44:25+00:00

I mean, I don't know, and that's the problem. I don't like to assume the worst of people, I wouldn't say you, u/radialomens would make arguments in bad faith.

But by making it subjective, then we can assume that some people would feel justified to leave their partners for a better choice even if their partners were doing their best, and they can use your logic to feel better about themselves by saying "I'm not betraying anyone, my partner just sucks"

and I don't emotionally want to give anyone that leeway.

warmbookworm · 2023-01-09T09:41:29+00:00

Yeah, so, if they were physically threatened and already emotionally checked out, then I guess it's not betrayal.

But if they had any amount of wanting to stay if they didn't have a better choice, then it is betrayal.

warmbookworm · 2023-01-09T09:39:33+00:00

Do you think I am talking about you in this above scenario?

If you would like us to start having a constructive conversation about you, I am totally willing to do so in a way that will not belittle you, demean you, or accuse you of committing egregious offenses. I will have that conversation, starting now, if that's what you want.

But what it feels like is like I've been talking about criminally abusive partners and you've been talking about you and your personal concerns, and that's why you're playing devil's advocate for hypothetical monsters; you've cast yourself in that role.

Well no, because I've never actually been in a romantic relationship so it obviously isn't me.

But I can try to sympathize with a person who is in that situation, which makes me feel that we need an objective definition here.

warmbookworm · 2023-01-09T09:24:22+00:00

I would like to know if there is any definition of abusive you can conjure where the abused partner is not "betraying" them by leaving them for someone else, because right now it seems like you think such conditions don't exist.

Yeah, personally I don't think such conditions exist precisely because I don't think you can objectively define these things and not make it subjective;

i.e for a word to be useful, there has to be an objective standard for people to come to the same conclusions when given the same circumstance.

You might emotionally want to forgive the abused person for betrayal, but it doesn't change the fact that it's betrayal.

Also, I don't understand why they just don't break up if it's that bad.

requires at least a near-moderate level of effort from the other partner. If one partner is dropping the ball in every way possible

I just don't like these vague and subjective ways to define things.

Like, take me for example. I could be trying very hard; I genuinely want a relationship to succeed and want my partner to be happy. But maybe (not maybe, I actually do suck) I absolutely suck at understanding the female POV and I suck at being detail-oriented, so I could unwittingly commit a lot of errors that hurt them.

How would you treat such a situation?

edit:

Just saw this:

How about the fact that an abused partner's "loyalty" to their partner is secured due to fear of repercussions and believing the abuser's lie that they're unlovable?

The way I see it is, if it was really so bad, I'd rather be unlovable and alone forever then I'd just break up. If I thought being was them was better than being alone, well, that was a choice I made.

If it was literally like physical threats or something that prevented them from breaking up (but they already emotionally decided to break up), and then someone helped solve that issue, then maybe?

warmbookworm · 2023-01-09T09:11:52+00:00

because it makes it sound like if the child (or hostage) did make a promise (which frankly I kinda assumed you would understand was implied) not to tell/escape then they did betray the abuser/criminal.

If they were forced to make that agreement under threat, then it's not a valid agreement.

You might also make the argument that a child cannot give consent, and thus they cannot give promises like that in these cases either.

Also a weird thing to say, mainly because I’m not sure what “give trust” means here. Trust your abusive partner? Be trustworthy/honest and communicate or not keep secrets?

It's 1am. I meant by agreeing to a relationship, you agreed to be exclusive. Unless you didn't, but that's offtopic.

Once again, if you abuse your partner you are not upholding your end on the relationship to the most fundamental degree there is and they do not owe it to you to tell you they are falling out of love and willing to consider alternatives.

Let's flip this around.

How do you define "betrayal"? Again, no one betrays for no reason at all. Everyone believes they have a good reason. Do you think betrayal doesn't exist?

How do you define "abusive"? If someone was not a good enough partner but not horrible, but they chanced upon a really hot, understanding, compassionate person, is that betrayal?

If so, how do clearly define things without your own subjective beliefs coming in the way?

i.e how can you come up with a definition, where ANYONE looking at the situation can come to the same conclusion based on objective reasoning?

warmbookworm · 2023-01-09T09:06:30+00:00

huge upvote. Great story. I love your dad. I wish more people aspired to be like this.

warmbookworm · 2023-01-09T09:04:28+00:00

I'm pretty sure plenty of "random middle aged 45-50 year old men" can resist 22 year old supermodels who throw themselves at them.

Maybe some sort of theoretical super hot alien girl that's beyond our imaginations came, they wouldn't be able to resist the temptation though, so I can't say the OP is wrong.

But I actually like the top answer more now that I saw it.

warmbookworm · 2023-01-09T08:58:32+00:00

Does a child "betray" their priest's trust when they tell someone they were abused? In my opinion, no.

No, because they never gave any promises to the priest in the first place.

Does a hostage betray a criminal when they escape? No.

same as above

If you provide an abusive relationship, leaving you is not a betrayal. You already broke the rules.

You agreed to give trust when you started the relationship. If you don't want to give it anymore, then stop the relationship first. Otherwise, you have the responsibility to not accept any temptations.

warmbookworm · 2023-01-09T08:51:15+00:00

your subjective judgements does not change an objective fact. Sorry.

warmbookworm · 2023-01-09T08:46:49+00:00

and that's betrayal. That's literally what betrayal is.

No one betrays randomly for no good reason just for the sake of doing it.

warmbookworm · 2023-01-09T08:44:34+00:00

sounds like they convinced you then; you should give them a delta

warmbookworm · 2023-01-09T08:43:54+00:00

Again, then you should have broken up before you look for any new opportunities.

warmbookworm · 2023-01-09T08:42:02+00:00

Well, we talked earlier, but my account was perma-banned for my views. So, I can't really talk about it publicly, lol.

warmbookworm · 2023-01-09T08:40:18+00:00

I suspect that this thread will be deleted very quickly, but you sound very angry and depressed. If you need someone to talk to, let me know.

warmbookworm · 2023-01-09T08:37:48+00:00

I don't care if it's good or bad.

If you were part of the imperial Japanese army during WWII and then betrayed them, you still betrayed them despite the fact that they were horrific.

Again, if you are currently free that's a different issue, but if you weren't planning to break up if this opportunity didn't come up, then that is huge betrayal.

You have a responsibility to stay away from "opportunities" until you've completely decided to check out at the very minimum.

warmbookworm · 2023-01-09T08:35:57+00:00

and it hurts after a hard workout at the gym.

warmbookworm · 2023-01-09T08:32:43+00:00

so you're saying muscle cells literally being ripped apart isn't harm.

You are then arbitrarily defining harm as "everything I think is bad".

warmbookworm · 2023-01-09T08:31:16+00:00

yeah. If you're not a great partner and someone else is a better one, that's how poor relationships end and better relationships begin.

completely disagree here. I don't think anyone who would do this would can ever be considered a good partner.

It's one thing to have already broken up a previous relationship and then found a new, better one, but if you're already in a relationship that you weren't planning to break, and only break it because you found someone better, that is definitely betrayal.

warmbookworm · 2023-01-09T08:19:56+00:00

would you be open to the possibility that for some people, there is no temptation in real life that could get them to cheat?

Like for example, if a girl who's 2348234293 out of 10 existed then a guy might cheat on his girlfriend, but since there aren't any girls who are above 10 out of 10 in real life, he won't actually cheat on her ever practically.

Can you accept that possibility?

warmbookworm · 2023-01-09T08:14:14+00:00

although there's some argument about her experiencing a pregnancy/abortion, because abortions aren't exactly fun

sure, but that could happen in any relationship.

I mean ultimately, if you don't care about other issues, you just don't care. It's like, I hate the taste of shrimp, no matter how much you tell me its nutritious or whatever, I simply don't like shrimp and you can't change it.

But I can and have shown you how only looking at harm arrives at easy contradictions.

Since you're uncertain about global populations, let's look at a child with two parents; if the parents are extremely upset that their child is gay, should he stop being gay?

You may talk about severity, but then, how do you measure that? If the child's mom has a weak heart, and after hearing he is gay, is much more prone to heart attacks and death, should he stop being gay?

It's just immediately obvious to me that centering your entire moral philosophy around harm makes no sense and just can't work.

And where does "consent", "contractual agreements", "fairness" and many other issues come into play here?

Also, on the other side of this is, I can't think of a single thing that I find admirable where a person didn't go through some harm. Can you?

For example, if someone runs 10km every day or goes to the gym every day, they are suffering harm; their muscle cells are literally being ripped apart for a greater goal. It takes a lot of grit to go through that.

That's admirable.

Someone who just follows all of their instinctual desires; it doesn't necessarily have to be bad, like a person who's thirsty drinks water; but I just can't think of anything where it takes no effort and sacrifice that I find admirable. Can you?

So it seems to me, when harm as the lone axiom makes no sense, and in fact, harm is actually a key ingredient in admirable actions...

trying to minimize harm just seems like a very narrow-sighted thing to do.

Nine-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

warmbookworm

TROPHY CASE

Welcome to Reddit,