Can an affair ever have a happy ending?

euronorris

Marisco wrote: »

Surely you're not comparing an affair to rape????? Or criminal acts???
Heard it all now!!

No, but surely if someone doesn't subscribe to right or wrong, that would apply to everything in life, not just affairs?

PS. (off topic)Never make the mistake of describing the proposal process you use, during a Dutch lesson.

Toughest..........lesson......ever!

VestanPance

nickyhutch wrote: »

You questioned nothing. You said "all of those are wrong. It is that simple".

I think we exhausted the wrong vs. right argument a long time ago. They are inherently wrong, but sometimes understandable/excusable/inevitable in some people's opinions. Not everyone's.

On her original I don't see things as right/wrong jibberish, which she later backtracked on to mean only affairs.

All her later suggestions for understandable/not understandable are wrong. They only serve as excuses. See my comments on lies and deceit. If they weren't wrong and the person didn't think they were wrong those aspects wouldn't exist.

VestanPance

Marisco wrote: »

So what criminal acts do you consider to be on par with having an affair then?

Off the top of my head I'd say it's a far lesser crime than being picked up for drunk and disorderly, or public misdemeanour.

VestanPance

Welshwoofs wrote: »

That's a pretty bizarre question. Only in fundamentally religious and authoritarian states like Saudi Arabia is infidelity a crime and we all know how they choose to uphold their concepts of 'right' and 'wrong'.

Why not answer the question rather than run from it?

Simply put you currently seem to gauge those things written into legislation as having a right and wrong moral compass, but not for those that aren't.

Welshwoofs

euronorris wrote: »

No, but surely if someone doesn't subscribe to right or wrong, that would apply to everything in life, not just affairs?

My view is that a great many things in life are not black and white, but shades of grey.

euronorris

Welshwoofs wrote: »

My view is that a great many things in life are not black and white, but shades of grey.

So then you do subscribe to right and wrong, but only with certain things.

What's the distinction then? What makes something worthy of fitting into that category, and others not?

Personally, I think view everything with a bit of 'right and wrong' mentality and judge it based on it's reasonableness and how understandable it is.

However, just because I can understand why someone did what they did, doesn't mean I don't think it's wrong. I can understand the reasons behind stuff, but it doesn't excuse it.

Like I've said before, people make mistakes. But simply saying 'I made a mistake' doesn't excuse the behaviour, or the consequences that follow. Nor does it mean that it was acceptable for them to do it in the first place.

Welshwoofs

VestanPance wrote: »

On her original I don't see things as right/wrong jibberish, which she later backtracked on to mean only affairs.

You are becoming increasingly 'odd' in my view. I have no need to 'backtrack' - the entire bloody thread is about affairs and YOU went off on some bizarre tangent about rape, murder or whatever else.

Why not answer the question rather than run from it?

Because it's an utterly stupid question perhaps?

Simply put you currently seem to gauge those things written into legislation as having a right and wrong moral compass, but not for those that aren't.

How do you figure that when legislation hasn't been discussed in this thread and I've given no opinion about legislation? (Indeed, what legislation?)

Welshwoofs

euronorris wrote: »

So then you do subscribe to right and wrong, but only with certain things.

What's the distinction then? What makes something worthy of fitting into that category, and others not?

I actually said that I see most things in shades of grey. I don't like using the terms 'right' or 'wrong' because there are many situations which don't fit neatly under either heading.

Example:

1. Car runs over a child on a zebra crossing and doesn't stop

Now I guess you could just stick a big old 'wrong' label on that, but that implies almost religious style moral judgement which takes no account of circumstances.

- Car runs over a child on a zebra crossing and doesn't stop....because when the driver saw the child and applied brakes, they didn't respond.
- Car runs over a child on a zebra crossing and doesn't stop...because driver was on bail, had no licence and didn't want to go back to prison
- Car runs over a child on a zebra crossing and doesn't stop....because driver was having a heart attack and the car finally came to a halt upside down in a ditch a mile down the road.
- Car runs over a child on a zebra crossing and doesn't stop....because driver was 4x over the limit

Are the drivers in all those cases as equally culpable? They all ran over a child. In a world where there is only 'right' and 'wrong' they'd all be equally blamed and castigated because the end result was horrific.

In other words, I prefer to look at the specific circumstances rather than make blanket judgments based on some unspoken list of 'goods' and 'evils'

euronorris

Welshwoofs wrote: »

I actually said that I see most things in shades of grey. I don't like using the terms 'right' or 'wrong' because there are many situations which don't fit neatly under either heading.

Example:

1. Car runs over a child on a zebra crossing and doesn't stop

Now I guess you could just stick a big old 'wrong' label on that, but that implies almost religious style moral judgement which takes no account of circumstances.

- Car runs over a child on a zebra crossing and doesn't stop....because when the driver saw the child and applied brakes, they didn't respond.
- Car runs over a child on a zebra crossing and doesn't stop...because driver was on bail, had no licence and didn't want to go back to prison
- Car runs over a child on a zebra crossing and doesn't stop....because driver was having a heart attack and the car finally came to a halt upside down in a ditch a mile down the road.
- Car runs over a child on a zebra crossing and doesn't stop....because driver was 4x over the limit

Are the drivers in all those cases as equally culpable? They all ran over a child. In a world where there is only 'right' and 'wrong' they'd all be equally blamed and castigated because the end result was horrific.

In other words, I prefer to look at the specific circumstances rather than make blanket judgments based on some unspoken list of 'goods' and 'evils'

No, but in two of those examples the things that caused the crash (ie, brake failure and heart attack) were outside the control of the driver (as would the child suddenly running out into the road from behind a parked car, meaning the driver had no opportunity to stop). Whereas, in the other two examples the driver had made a choice, ie he had control.

So long as we have choices, we have control.

No one could ever say, honestly, that they were forced into an affair. They made a choice, it was within their control.

I also look at the specific circumstances, and then make my judgement of it. But that applies to everything.

Using one of those examples above, the guy on parole, would you say his actions were wrong? Or would you describe it as understandable (I certainly wouldn't)?

To me, he would've made a very poor and selfish choice that was inherently wrong. There is no grey area there.

In the case of say, the brake failure, I would say that (so long as the car had been serviced regularly, and a brake issue not ignored), then the man made all of the right choices, but the end result was still wrong through no fault of his own.

I'm sorry, I understand extenuating circumstances and all that, but there is still a need to judge whether something is right or wrong (or good or bad), IMO. I don't know how anyone could through life, making decisions, without making judgements on whether that choice is a good or a bad thing.

Marisco

euronorris wrote: »

So then you do subscribe to right and wrong, but only with certain things.

What's the distinction then? What makes something worthy of fitting into that category, and others not?

Personally, I think view everything with a bit of 'right and wrong' mentality and judge it based on it's reasonableness and how understandable it is.

However, just because I can understand why someone did what they did, doesn't mean I don't think it's wrong. I can understand the reasons behind stuff, but it doesn't excuse it.

Like I've said before, people make mistakes. But simply saying 'I made a mistake' doesn't excuse the behaviour, or the consequences that follow. Nor does it mean that it was acceptable for them to do it in the first place.

I actually agree with this, the problem on this thread though is that some cannot even understand how these things happen!! I'm not saying having affairs are right, but to just say this is wrong/evil/ whatever, without even trying to understand how these things can happen is also wrong IMO.

I understand how people get addicted to drugs, doesn't mean I think drug taking is right, it means I know these things happen. And to condemn a drug user out of hand, without knowing the FULL story, is also IMO wrong. Some on here make PTN sound like the devil incarnate!!! There are far worse things that happen in life than having an affair!!