"Mebbe. What use would you say they are, and what value? I do believe in a code of ethics, but it's very flexible. I'd break every one of my rules if a life was at stake." I have no ethics for most things. I have values, but not ethics. For instance, I go through two COMPLETELY different modes in life; mode one is where I value my own like a million times more than any other person's, where I have total lack of care for other human life. The second type, which is more often what comes out, is where I value my own life as much as I value a mint. And where I would die for nearly anyone I remotly like. It's usually the later. I usually could care less about my own life. Very rarely do I feel my life is of value, but when I do, it goes to an extreme! My ethics would consist of 'Freedom of Speech should pertain to ALL speech'. I would gladly die for your free speech if the government is putting down your cause, even if I completely disagree with the cause. I have very little regard for human life. So thinking that a war or action in war is not of high regard to me. For instance, Churchill being a war criminal? Bullshit. He did what was necessary at the time. It was actually VERY possible that the German's would win the war, he made sure it didn't happen. I say, praise the guy. If he hadn't been around, my family likely would have been killed in the Final Solution. The value of ethics to other people is to tell them the difference between right and wrong. To me, logic suits just fine for that.
Xev: no its not just a trust thing because if my girl came up to me and said "oh i cheeted on you" the girl would be INSTANTLY dumpted Thats not saying anything about if she was raped though. If that happend i would stick with her to the end if she wanted me to Adam: Your right i wouldn't cheet (in ether sence) for revenge or to "teach someone a lesson". If a girl cheets on me then i wont HAVE to teach her a lesson because she wont be my girl and cheeting WITH someone because there partner is abusive or something ISN'T going to help. Rather would actully put them in MORE danger You cop friend is a good idear This is all about feelings If you both agree that you can see other people then good luck to you but when i chose a girl its ONE girl and i expect the same from her
If your girlfriend cheated on you and you dumped her cold, do you think that maybe she learned her lesson? I'm not saying cheating is right. In fact I think that cheating on a loved one sexually is very wrong, but humans will be human.
It's also human to shag every woman you see whether she wants it or not, to beat your neighbour and his kids to death so your kids get all the food, and so on. On the other hand, it is human to be guided by honour and reason as well. I choose the latter, at least as often as I can manage.
I think the "instantly dumped" thing would really depend for me. I mean, if she were really sorry and telling me out of guilt, then having the courage to tell the truth and appologize deserves rewarding, not punishment. But if it was a "no remorse" sort of comment, then hell, ya. It's dumping time.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Normaly im all into forgiveness but i could NEVER look at a girl who did that to me and feel anything but hurt and distrust Sorry Shes gone (but as i said if it WASN'T her fault, drink spiking, then i would keep her)
Actually, no I dont agree. Most animals are not monogamous.. they stay together as a mated pair for a limited time only, long enough for the offspring to survive (and dont tell me about the widgedee bird from haraguru which rather romantically mates for life... we're talking the norm here not the exceptions) Our offspring are able to survive on their own (theoratically speaking) a few years after birth... for the sake of argument, say 7-10 years. At least by this stage the mother is able to care for the child by herself, and the child is more useful regarding its own upbringing. Is it a co-incidence then, that humans tend to fall in love, and stay in love for a few years without any desire to cheat, then the relationship develops into more of a platonic thing rather than a passionate one? I'm talking the norm here, not your "oh we've been married 47 years and still shag every day on the kitchen table" type couples, or the "damn we've only been together 3 weeks and already he's out till dawn" sort. Is the "7-year itch" a fallacy, or something which exists because by this time, the children of that union are becoming more able to fend for themselves leaving the male free to spread his seed elsewhere? Just a thought I've had, not a concrete theory...
I'm thinking that the fact they felt they NEEDED to lie to you is the problem... not the cheating itself. If cheating wasnt "cheating" then there would be no need for lies... hence no distrust. Right?
