Adultery's not so bad after all...

[The Stranger:Me]

Sex is wonderful; deceit is loathsome. An inability to acknowledge both of those truths characterises the thinking of many an adulterer; I give you The Stranger as Exhibit A in this regard.

Yep, I'd say my original post cut pretty damn close to the bone.
It's not often you get so rattled that you loose your eloquence, venture into the unknown and sink to cheap shots.
That guilt must be eating you up real bad.

Take a few deep breaths.

[Big Dave]

And keep your dick in your pants.

[Clockwork]

Were you hoping to persuade anyone toward your point of view with that statement, or were you just looking to burn a little bandwidth?

I understand where you are comming from, I disagree with the quoted statement, I do not believe that there is anythng more I can say that will change your POV.


Sorry.... it was just the 5 minute argument you wanted wasn't it?

[jrandom]

Yep, I'd say my original post cut pretty damn close to the bone.

If you define 'cutting close to the bone' as 'causing me to wonder why you'd accuse me of hypocrisy', then, for sure!

I've never subscribed to the "it's only the internet..." nonsense. If someone calls me a hypocrite, they can either prove it, retract it, or be very glad that I'm a smart man with no interest in winding up in court for assault.

Because, frankly, that shit deserves a broken nose by way of return. Call me a hypocrite, would you?

You're welcome to back that up to my face.

It's not often...

Yes, yes, you offended me. Now, assuming that you've finished congratulating yourself over your ability to be unpleasant to people for no apparent reason, can we get back to noticing that you didn't deny what I pointed out about you?



We're both behaved like scumbags at various points in our lives, no question about that.

The difference is that I've renounced such behaviour, while you equivocate about the possibility of moral justification for it and, one suspects, bide your time against future opportunities to repeat the performance.

To be honest, I don't think either of us are hypocrites, but I do think that your failure to renounce adultery makes you a rather distasteful individual. Not that I'd ever rub that in your face without provocation.

It's disappointing to see you starting a fight, Noel, but don't go thinking that you'll escape the consequences of your words by being snide and evasive.

[nodrog:Me]

adultery is bad, it causes angry debate and name calling on a motorcycle forum.

i wonder if i can go here www.kiwiadulterer.co.nz and start a thread about waving?

[The Stranger:Me]

If you define 'cutting close to the bone' as 'causing me to wonder why you'd accuse me of hypocrisy', then, for sure!

I've never subscribed to the "it's only the internet..." nonsense. If someone calls me a hypocrite, they can either prove it, retract it, or be very glad that I'm a smart man with no interest in winding up in court for assault.

Because, frankly, that shit deserves a broken nose by way of return. Call me a hypocrite, would you?

You're welcome to back that up to my face.



Yes, yes, you offended me. Now, assuming that you've finished congratulating yourself over your ability to be unpleasant to people for no apparent reason, can we get back to noticing that you didn't deny what I pointed out about you?



We're both behaved like scumbags at various points in our lives, no question about that.

The difference is that I've renounced such behaviour, while you equivocate about the possibility of moral justification for it and, one suspects, bide your time against future opportunities to repeat the performance.

To be honest, I don't think either of us are hypocrites, but I do think that your failure to renounce adultery makes you a rather distasteful individual. Not that I'd ever rub that in your face without provocation.

It's disappointing to see you starting a fight, Noel, but don't go thinking that you'll escape the consequences of your words by being snide and evasive.

Man, what are you smoking?

My initial post was a general comment on moral type threads.
You yourself acknowledged your hypocracy (whilst being careful not to call it that) of your own volition.
I shook the tree, you fell out. Don't blame me.


I have no problem renouncing adultery, quite simple it is not right, no need to get worked up over that. No need for a song and dance, no need to turn it into a chant.

That however was not the premise of this thread. Sure threads change and evolve, however, my initial post and my post on judging people is adressing the premise of this thread.

[jrandom]

Man, what are you smoking?

Good shit. I suspect you'd benefit from joining me occasionally; I find that it makes me more empathic.

My initial post was a general comment on moral type threads.
You yourself acknowledged your hypocracy (whilst being careful not to call it that) of your own volition.
I shook the tree, you fell out. Don't blame me.

You posted that the thread had 'brought out the hypocrites'.

007XX and I were the only people in it at that point who had been noticeably outspoken against adultery.

You may have hoped to annoy us without having to subsequently stand behind your words, but your intention was clear, and I won't let you get away with such cowardice in argument.

I called you on my supposition that you'd been accusing me of hypocrisy, and you didn't deny that in response. I've been very clear in my refutation of that. If you consider my refutation invalid, you'd better show why.

Still, I'm almost satisfied by your back-pedalling, here. Keep it up, and you'll be in no danger of needing to borrow Shaun's false teeth.

I have no problem renouncing adultery, quite simple it is not right...

Good chap. That's what I needed to hear.

It helps your earlier mealy-mouthed 'judge not...' approach immensely; I'd advise you to lead with such a clarification in future.

[ManDownUnder]

I have no problem renouncing adultery, quite simple it is not right, no need to get worked up over that.

In an attempt to drag this all out knock down punch up back on topic...

"Quite it's not right"... what - ever? Aren't there extreme circumstances where an exception could be made? Let's say he and she have always enjoyed a robust physical relationship and in mid life he develops Alzheimers.

Could she put him into full time care and establish a sexual relationship beyond her betrothed, should she divorce him (arguably an equally low thing to do), or does she have to suffer sexual hardship, through no fault of her own for an unclear period of years, possibly decades?

Again - it's that fluid contiuum of ethics we're talking about here. I don't see this as a simple right or wrong. Far from it - I'm sure there will be situations out there that make our heads spin.

That was my original intention starting the thread. Examining those peripheral situations - the exception handling if you will....

[007XX]

[jrandom]

... it's that fluid contiuum of ethics we're talking about here.

Personally, I see it as more of a bell curve, with boundary conditions like you just described at the extreme edges.

In much the same way as I wouldn't be quick to condemn a man who stole a motorcycle and sold it so that his children didn't starve to death (and there are places in the world where I suspect that such things happen with monotonous regularity), I wouldn't be quick to condemn someone who acted discreetly and flexibly to sort their own needs out while caring for an aged life partner with Alzheimers or any other serious disability.

Theoretical boundary conditions, however, are just that - they do not have any bearing on the vast majority of real-world situations.

And the fact that they do exist as grey zones does not make them good. Nobody wants to have to steal a motorcycle to feed starving children; nobody wants to have to sneak around to avoid sexual frustration while looking after a senile husband.

Motivation is probably the single most important element in determining whether an action takes place in those ethical boundary conditions.

[ManDownUnder]

Motivation is probably the single most important element in determining whether an action takes place in those ethical boundary conditions.

Elegant and the whole post's a thoroughly good read sir. I'm seriously impressed with that.

[Mikkel]

We're both behaved like scumbags at various points in our lives, no question about that.

The difference is that I've renounced such behaviour, while you equivocate about the possibility of moral justification for it and, one suspects, bide your time against future opportunities to repeat the performance.

To be honest, I don't think either of us are hypocrites, but I do think that your failure to renounce adultery makes you a rather distasteful individual. Not that I'd ever rub that in your face without provocation.

This, also, seems slightly judgmental to me TBH.

"Quite it's not right"... what - ever? Aren't there extreme circumstances where an exception could be made? Let's say he and she have always enjoyed a robust physical relationship and in mid life he develops Alzheimers.

Could she put him into full time care and establish a sexual relationship beyond her betrothed, should she divorce him (arguably an equally low thing to do), or does she have to suffer sexual hardship, through no fault of her own for an unclear period of years, possibly decades?

Again - it's that fluid contiuum of ethics we're talking about here. I don't see this as a simple right or wrong. Far from it - I'm sure there will be situations out there that make our heads spin.

That was my original intention starting the thread. Examining those peripheral situations - the exception handling if you will....

Sorry MDU - I think you just failed the test here. You are now a 'distasteful individual' to the Church of jrandom, and will most likely not be granted access to the afterlife. Maybe, if you pay some money and say you are very sorry and start actively renouncing despicable behaviour (the list so far includes doggy-style, dissing someones motorcycle and adultery), you can manage to absolve yourself of your sins and lack of moral fiber.

Dan, go see Breaking the Waves by Lars Von Trier - and then come back and tell us what you think of it. Considering how much you enjoy this subject I am positively certain you will enjoy the film. Although, if you are in a bad mood, you might consider it blasphemy.

[The Stranger:Me]

Good shit. I suspect you'd benefit from joining me occasionally; I find that it makes me more empathic.

You posted that the thread had 'brought out the hypocrites'.

007XX and I were the only people in it at that point who had been noticeably outspoken against adultery.

You may have hoped to annoy us without having to subsequently stand behind your words, but your intention was clear, and I won't let you get away with such cowardice in argument.

I called you on my supposition that you'd been accusing me of hypocrisy, and you didn't deny that in response. I've been very clear in my refutation of that. If you consider my refutation invalid, you'd better show why.

Still, I'm almost satisfied by your back-pedalling, here. Keep it up, and you'll be in no danger of needing to borrow Shaun's false teeth.





Good chap. That's what I needed to hear.

It helps your earlier mealy-mouthed 'judge not...' approach immensely; I'd advise you to lead with such a clarification in future.

Oh sorry, did you see that as back pedalling.

Once again for the sake of clarification, my opinions remain the same as when I made my first post.

[jrandom]

Oh sorry, did you see that as back pedalling.

Once again for the sake of clarification...

The clarification is the nub and the rub of it.

I do enjoy realising that someone I've taken issue with was actually agreeing with me all along, but suffering from an apparent communication breakdown.

So, yes, I'm cool with that.

[jrandom]

You are now a 'distasteful individual' to the Church of jrandom...

In the time it took you to compose that, I added to the canon.

I commend to your attention the post immediately prior to your own.