Would you tell a stranger their partner was cheating on them?

KomradeBishop · 27-07-2015 08:11PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Read over what you're actually asking people to do -

"Provide me with a sensible argument to counter a ridiculous scenario"...

Daft.

People have done it with your posts plenty of times in the thread so far.

The scenario seems ridiculous, but nobody has shown an example of such a question causing harm, to show that it's ridiculous - it's not turning out to be as ridiculous as peoples kneejerk reaction to it makes out...

Samaris · 27-07-2015 08:25PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

That's fairly alarmist...how do you think such a conversation is going to go?
A: "Hi, if your partner was cheating on you, would you prefer if a witness told you the details, or remained silent?"
B: "Are you saying that my partner is cheating on me?!?!"
A: "Nope, just a random question."
B: "OMG my partners cheating on me...:eek:"

:pac:

-Exactly-. :P

Hence my commenting earlier that it's daft to pretend one can just go and innocently ask a stranger if they'd like to be told if their partner was cheating on them.

It is, as I said, disingenuous to suggest that the very act of your asking isn't telling them in such a way that nearly absolves you of any results.

Thus, if you're gonna do it, -DO- it, don't pussy around with unfair questions; it's worse than just going "Sorry mate, your husband/wife is cheating on you, I saw him/her at it."

NachoBusiness · 27-07-2015 08:32PM

In fairness, in the second video I posted, some of customers do start asking the guy questions after they become aware that his girlfriend is a cheat, in an obvious effort to sus him out. They don't just dive in there and tell him right off the bat, so of course that is going to be somthing someone might do if they are unsure whether they should or should not be telling a stranger that their OH is cheating on them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxzOE-FnE_Y

One eyed Jack · 27-07-2015 08:36PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

People have done it with your posts plenty of times in the thread so far.

The scenario seems ridiculous, but nobody has shown an example of such a question causing harm, to show that it's ridiculous - it's not turning out to be as ridiculous as peoples kneejerk reaction to it makes out...

The reason it's ridiculous is because it's based on a number of false premises already -

1. You have to have prior knowledge of a complete stranger cheating.

2. You have to have prior knowledge of that stranger's partner movements in order to have the opportunity to ask them the question.

3. You have to ask that stranger would they like to know if their partner is cheating on them and you have no idea how they will react, so you can't argue one way or the other based on how you yourself would react.

Now that we've got all the improbables out of the way, you ask what harm could it do to ask a complete stranger if they would like to know if their partner is cheating on them (I'll presume you're wearing full body armour first) -

If the person has a suspicion already that their partner is cheating on them, you would be feeding into that thought process and causing them to become even more anxious.

Some people will interpret your behaviour as you knowing something that you feel they should know, and they'll wonder how the fcuk does a complete stranger know their partner is cheating on them, and the first person they're going to assume their partner is cheating with, 9 times out of 10, is gonna be you (and that's where the body armour is gonna come in handy).

It's simply a cruel and manipulative thing to do to a person to tease them like that, dangling that suspicion in front of them.

We're talking about a person's partner cheating on them, and I can understand someone feeling like it's the right thing to do is to tell them, but you with your "what's the harm in asking them if they'd like to know first?", as if it's an utterly benign question, just seems unnecessarily cruel IMO, you're just playing with people's emotions for your own amusement at that rate, and that's why what you're suggesting isn't just harmful, it's despicable.

RaRaRasputin · 27-07-2015 08:37PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

There's also a pretty simple solution to not knowing if someone would welcome being informed: Just ask them if they'd want to be informed if they were being cheated on.

Your middle name must be subtlety, you move with such delicate caution

Jon Stark · 27-07-2015 08:42PM

None of my business so the answer is no. I only recently found myself in such a scenario as well with a friend who cheated on his girlfriend (who I never met).

That doesn't mean I condone it and I'd give him my frank opinion if he asked me for it but at the end of the day, he's my mate. She's not.

As for this scenario, it's not the worst case of attention whoring I've seen on social media. I'm sure their hearts were in the right place but at the end of the day, and while I have no sympathy for the cheater, I have to ask myself would I be happy if this was my sister/cousin/friend being shamed so publicly. The answer would be no.

And that's coming from the most bitter and petty person one could know.

KomradeBishop · 27-07-2015 08:48PM

Samaris wrote: »

-Exactly-. :P

Hence my commenting earlier that it's daft to pretend one can just go and innocently ask a stranger if they'd like to be told if their partner was cheating on them.

It is, as I said, disingenuous to suggest that the very act of your asking isn't telling them in such a way that nearly absolves you of any results.

Thus, if you're gonna do it, -DO- it, don't pussy around with unfair questions; it's worse than just going "Sorry mate, your husband/wife is cheating on you, I saw him/her at it."

Ha

I think people reacting like the way I was mocking there, particularly with a complete stranger, is incredibly unlikely - someone would need to be incredibly insecure to react like that.

You (and others) keep asserting that the question is as good as telling them, but you haven't shown this, only asserted it - you've yet to show it (instead, people discuss this as if the question is asked, and no more dialogue happens).

The question has complete plausible deniability - so if the person you're asking does suspect you're making a statement, it's completely deniable - so the reality is, if you ask that question, it'd be 'odd', but it's not going to harm anyones relationship.

KomradeBishop · 27-07-2015 08:51PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The reason it's ridiculous is because it's based on a number of false premises already -

1. You have to have prior knowledge of a complete stranger cheating.

2. You have to have prior knowledge of that stranger's partner movements in order to have the opportunity to ask them the question.

3. You have to ask that stranger would they like to know if their partner is cheating on them and you have no idea how they will react, so you can't argue one way or the other based on how you yourself would react.

Now that we've got all the improbables out of the way, you ask what harm could it do to ask a complete stranger if they would like to know if their partner is cheating on them (I'll presume you're wearing full body armour first) -

If the person has a suspicion already that their partner is cheating on them, you would be feeding into that thought process and causing them to become even more anxious.

Some people will interpret your behaviour as you knowing something that you feel they should know, and they'll wonder how the fcuk does a complete stranger know their partner is cheating on them, and the first person they're going to assume their partner is cheating with, 9 times out of 10, is gonna be you (and that's where the body armour is gonna come in handy).

It's simply a cruel and manipulative thing to do to a person to tease them like that, dangling that suspicion in front of them.

We're talking about a person's partner cheating on them, and I can understand someone feeling like it's the right thing to do is to tell them, but you with your "what's the harm in asking them if they'd like to know first?", as if it's an utterly benign question, just seems unnecessarily cruel IMO, you're just playing with people's emotions for your own amusement at that rate, and that's why what you're suggesting isn't just harmful, it's despicable.

Your entire post here is based on multiple false premises, and projecting multiple motives onto the question, in order to smear it - it's easy for you to paint an imaginary scenario to suit your argument, and knock that down, try debating with what you're replying to instead...

One eyed Jack · 27-07-2015 08:58PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Ha I think people reacting like the way I was mocking there, particularly with a complete stranger, is incredibly unlikely - someone would need to be incredibly insecure to react like that.

You (and others) keep asserting that the question is as good as telling them, but you haven't shown this, only asserted it - you've yet to show it (instead, people discuss this as if the question is asked, and no more dialogue happens).

The question has complete plausible deniability - so if the person you're asking does suspect you're making a statement, it's completely deniable - so the reality is, if you ask that question, it'd be 'odd', but it's not going to harm anyones relationship.

Essentially what you're doing is sh1t-stirring. Your behaviour is indefensible, by any standard.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Your entire post here is based on multiple false premises, and projecting multiple motives onto the question, in order to smear it - it's easy for you to paint an imaginary scenario to suit your argument, and knock that down, try debating with what you're replying to instead...

You can't possibly be serious?

Samaris · 27-07-2015 09:00PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You (and others) keep asserting that the question is as good as telling them, but you haven't shown this, only asserted it - you've yet to show it (instead, people discuss this as if the question is asked, and no more dialogue happens).

The question has complete plausible deniability - so if the person you're asking does suspect you're making a statement, it's completely deniable

Only way to prove it one way or another is by experimentation. You're the one claiming it'd be fine and all, so I suggest you try it. For the purposes of ensuring the right subjects, they vcan be either sex, wearing a wedding ring and otherwise unknown to you.

KomradeBishop · 27-07-2015 09:01PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Essentially what you're doing is sh1t-stirring. Your behaviour is indefensible, by any standard.

You can't possibly be serious?

You've provably: Misrepresented my posts, put words in my mouth, directly lied, have tried to smear me, and have been continually posting reams of fallacious arguments in the thread.

Lets not forget the time way back, that you hysterically smeared me as a 'misogynist' to try and get an edge in debate before.

If you don't like my posts, and think I'm shít stirring, don't reply to me - I'd be glad for it; I have asked you several times in this thread, to stop replying to me, particularly when I'm trying to discuss something with someone else.

KomradeBishop · 27-07-2015 09:09PM

Samaris wrote: »

Only way to prove it one way or another is by experimentation. You're the one claiming it'd be fine and all, so I suggest you try it. For the purposes of ensuring the right subjects, they vcan be either sex, wearing a wedding ring and otherwise unknown to you.

Well indeed, there's equally nothing to back the argument, that asking that question would harm anyones relationship so.

Not shít-stirring or playing devils advocate or anything here either - the question does seem ridiculous, but if people can't show that it'd lead to harming a persons relationship (even just by providing an example or logical argument - don't need direct 'proof'), then people haven't established that, and haven't established that it's not a perfectly good way to sidestep all the moral issues surrounding informing someone of cheating.

Samaris · 27-07-2015 09:16PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Well indeed, there's equally nothing to back the argument, that asking that question would harm anyones relationship so.

Not shít-stirring or playing devils advocate or anything here either - the question does seem ridiculous, but if people can't show that it'd lead to harming a persons relationship (even just by providing an example or logical argument - don't need direct 'proof'), then people haven't established that, and haven't established that it's not a perfectly good way to sidestep all the moral issues surrounding informing someone of cheating.

You brought it up, its your duty to prove it works. I wouldn't do such a thing for fear of causing harm, but you reckon there cannot possibly be any harm in it. So rather looks like you're weaselling out of testing your hypothesis by just claiming you're right.

Thing is, it WOULD be fine with a mate. There can be a context. But who the hell asks a stranger something totally personal and random like that and expects him or her to not wonder why you're asking?

One eyed Jack · 27-07-2015 09:25PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You've provably: Misrepresented my posts, put words in my mouth, directly lied, have tried to smear me, and have been continually posting reams of fallacious arguments in the thread.

Truth be told, I don't need to smear anything when you're doing a bang up job of it without my help.

Lets not forget the time way back, that you hysterically smeared me as a 'misogynist' to try and get an edge in debate before.

I think we're long past anyone covering themselves in glory here, don't you?

I'm sure it was an apt description at the time if that's the impression I got from your posts. I don't actually obsess about these sort of things.

If you don't like my posts, and think I'm shít stirring, don't reply to me - I'd be glad for it; I have asked you several times in this thread, to stop replying to me, particularly when I'm trying to discuss something with someone else.

Now that's not what I said at all, is it? I was referring to your behaviour if you were to go about asking random strangers if they'd like to know that their partner (or partners even, lest you point out that I excluded those in polyamorous/open relationships!) have cheated on them.

As for the rest of it, we've been over this, you're commenting in public, so anyone is free to address your posts in any way they see fit as long as they remain civil, and I believe we're being civil here?

Colser · 27-07-2015 09:34PM

I think its safe to say at this stage that some would and some wouldnt:D

KomradeBishop · 27-07-2015 09:34PM

Samaris wrote: »

You brought it up, its your duty to prove it works. I wouldn't do such a thing for fear of causing harm, but you reckon there cannot possibly be any harm in it. So rather looks like you're weaselling out of testing your hypothesis by just claiming you're right.

Thing is, it WOULD be fine with a mate. There can be a context. But who the hell asks a stranger something totally personal and random like that and expects him or her to not wonder why you're asking?

I put forward the question, you and others made the claim that it'd lead to harm, so the burden of proof would lie on you to back that claim - the burden isn't set at all that high a level either, nobody has even provided examples of harm yet.

It doesn't matter if a person suspects your reasons for asking - there is complete plausible deniability, so you can just deny there is an implication behind it.

My plausible deniability argument is stronger than any argument others have put forward, for claiming harm.

One eyed Jack · 27-07-2015 09:47PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I put forward the question, you and others made the claim that it'd lead to harm, so the burden of proof would lie on you to back that claim - the burden isn't set at all that high a level either, nobody has even provided examples of harm yet.

It doesn't matter if a person suspects your reasons for asking - there is complete plausible deniability, so you can just deny there is an implication behind it.

My plausible deniability argument is stronger than any argument others have put forward, for claiming harm.

You put forward the question (moving the goalposts to suit your argument so you could side-step the actual question) claiming that there was no harm in asking the question. The burden of proof is actually on you to justify why you think your question wouldn't cause any harm.

You even acknowledge possible harm or you wouldn't have come up with your "plausible deniability" argument. It's still nothing to do with having foreknowledge of a person cheating on their partners.

The question moves from just odd to far more sinister if you're asking with that foreknowledge already in hand.

Plausible deniability then becomes "your partner is cheating, but if you don't want to know, that's none of my business".

That's playing with people and it's cruel, and the only reason you choose to ignore that facet of your argument is because you're aiming for some intellectually abstract wet dream of some sort.

KomradeBishop · 27-07-2015 10:24PM

Absent either side meeting the burden of proof, the null-hypothesis/default-position, is "we don't know" whether the question would cause harm, not that it would cause harm.

The side claiming harm has to meet the burden of proof for that, as much as the side claiming no harm; and I've provided plenty of such arguments thus far on the no harm side - there are very few on the 'harm' side.

As usual, more text has to be spent in my post, debunking all the fallacies in your post, than contributing new content to the thread:
1: I did not move the goalposts, there is no reason you can't ask the question before informing.
2: Your implying 'sinister' motives to the question - that is 'mindreading'/smearing, when you have no argument to back that.
3: The 'plausible deniability' argument does not implicitly acknowledge any harm, it explicitly is an 'out' for avoiding harm.
4: You're rephrasing the question into a statement - it is not a statement.
5: You're applying more sinister motives, of 'playing with people' and being 'cruel' - again that's mindreading/smearing.

Every single one of your posts is a gish gallop of fallacious arguments, where you try to sling as much mud as possible, to try and make some of it stick.

zeffabelli · 27-07-2015 10:28PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

There isn't any statement in the question.

The thing about meaning is its a two way street.

Intention vs outcome.

I said I would hear it as a statement disguised as a question which is exactly what it is, like 90 % of other questions are..... Pretend statements.

KomradeBishop · 27-07-2015 10:33PM

zeffabelli wrote: »

The thing about meaning is its a two way street.

Intention vs outcome.

I said I would hear it as a statement disguised as a question which is exactly what it is, like 90 % of other questions are..... Pretend statements.

Okey, but that would be an assumption on the part of the person being asked, which is easily downplayed through how the question has plausible deniability.

When you ask someone the question, there's going to be dialogue - it's not just going to be the question alone, and then nothing more is said - you're going to get a reply to the question most likely, and if confirmation is sought that it's a statement, if it's suspected as such, you have full plausible deniability.

So there isn't any real room here (except in the cases of e.g. really really insecure people for instance), for harming a relationship by asking the question.

One eyed Jack · 27-07-2015 10:37PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Absent either side meeting the burden of proof, the null-hypothesis/default-position, is "we don't know" whether the question would cause harm, not that it would cause harm.

The side claiming harm has to meet the burden of proof for that, as much as the side claiming no harm; and I've provided plenty of such arguments thus far on the no harm side - there are very few on the 'harm' side.

As usual, more text has to be spent in my post, debunking all the fallacies in your post, than contributing new content to the thread:
1: I did not move the goalposts, there is no reason you can't ask the question before informing.
2: Your implying 'sinister' motives to the question - that is 'mindreading'/smearing, when you have no argument to back that.
3: The 'plausible deniability' argument does not implicitly acknowledge any harm, it explicitly is an 'out' for avoiding harm.
4: You're rephrasing the question into a statement - it is not a statement.
5: You're applying more sinister motives, of 'playing with people' and being 'cruel' - again that's mindreading/smearing.

Every single one of your posts is a gish gallop of fallacious arguments, where you try to sling as much mud as possible, to try and make some of it stick.

I'll avoid a gish gallop so, and simply state that your question is a fallacy in itself because you are quite literally begging the question, and worse still, you already know that the person's partner is cheating on them, so if they answer to you that they wouldn't want to know, that's your out for avoiding harm, but the harm is still there because now not only is the person being made a fool of by their partner or partners, but now you're making a fool of them too by not informing them of what you know of their relationship that they don't (if they knew their partner or partners were sleeping with someone else, then they wouldn't be cheating).

That, by your own standards, is immoral.

zeffabelli · 27-07-2015 10:42PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Okey, but that would be an assumption on the part of the person being asked, which is easily downplayed through how the question has plausible deniability.

When you ask someone the question, there's going to be dialogue - it's not just going to be the question alone, and then nothing more is said - you're going to get a reply to the question most likely, and if confirmation is sought that it's a statement, if it's suspected as such, you have full plausible deniability.

So there isn't any real room here (except in the cases of e.g. really really insecure people for instance), for harming a relationship by asking the question.

But then you'd be lying. Which is why you morally object to cheating.

Plausible deniability..... Not going to work. You've brought suspicion into the room, anxiety always follows suspicion, and conflict always follows anxiety.

That is the emotional chain of events, plus you appear not straight forward and immediately people will think you are like Iago in Othello.

Samaris · 27-07-2015 10:51PM

zeffabelli wrote: »

But then you'd be lying. Which is why you morally object to cheating.

Plausible deniability..... Not going to work. You've brought suspicion into the room, anxiety always follows suspicion, and conflict always follows anxiety.

That is the emotional chain of events, plus you appear not straight forward and immediately people will think you are like Iago in Othello.

! I'm glad I wasn't the only one thinking "God, there's something very Iago about all this...well, he was -trying- to imply it, this guy's more not considering that he's implying it..."

I even went off and read a bit of it, since I was reminded!

KomradeBishop · 27-07-2015 10:59PM

zeffabelli wrote: »

But then you'd be lying. Which is why you morally object to cheating.

Plausible deniability..... Not going to work. You've brought suspicion into the room, anxiety always follows suspicion, and conflict always follows anxiety.

That is the emotional chain of events, plus you appear not straight forward and immediately people will think you are like Iago in Othello.

Cheating isn't just lying, it's betraying their partners trust - morally, that's not comparable to lying, in order to respect a persons wish to not be informed.

I don't think there's enough backing, to assume that that emotional chain of events would happen - if the person suspects your question is a hidden statement, and you utilize plausible deniability, then there's not really anything for them to go on (unless they are very insecure); you can easily portray it as just a question/curiosity (not that much different to the pub-talk type question, in the title of the thread).

Ha

I like the Iago comparison. Even if someone did suspect your motives like that, then that doesn't matter if they would not wish to be informed (that would be better actually - it would be even less likely to be harmful, as you would be so much more unconvincing).

KomradeBishop · 27-07-2015 11:01PM

Samaris wrote: »

! I'm glad I wasn't the only one thinking "God, there's something very Iago about all this...well, he was -trying- to imply it, this guy's more not considering that he's implying it..."

I even went off and read a bit of it, since I was reminded!

Ya co-incidentally I was at a play of that earlier in the year too, ha, so it was a funny reminder

NachoBusiness · 27-07-2015 11:06PM

If ever there was a case for a group of people all convincing themselves that black was white, this is it.

Iago is a deceptive deviant, motivated primarily by jealously. He is fundamentally, a cheat.

On the contrary, the fictitious person being discussed here, is a person motivated by doing the right thing. His intentions are honorable and without malicious intent.

In short: Iago'esque he is not.

Samaris · 27-07-2015 11:08PM

NachoBusiness wrote: »

If ever there was a case for a group of people all convincing themselves that black was white, this is it.

Iago is a deceptive deviant, motivated primarily by jealously. He is fundamentally, a cheat.

On the contrary, the fictitious person being discussed here, is a person motivated by doing the right thing. His intentions are honorable and without malicious intent.

In short: Iago'esque he is not.

Oy, chill, Nacho, I did even say as much in my comment. Iago was deliberate. I believe to ask such a question is disingenuous and awkward, but I certainly don't believe that he was -aiming- for cruelty, whatever the outcome, any more than I believe that you are not sincere in your point of view (which I also agreed as much with earlier on).

One eyed Jack · 27-07-2015 11:11PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Cheating isn't just lying, it's betraying their partners trust - morally, that's not comparable to lying, in order to respect a persons wish to not be informed.

Lying isn't morally comparable to lying?

You can respect a person's wish not to be informed that you have knowledge of their partner cheating on them, but you cannot respect a person's right to privacy which is how you would have gained that knowledge in the first place?

Curioser and curioser.

Samaris · 27-07-2015 11:15PM

I reckon this thread's hit the point of heels going in. I don't think anyone will convince anyone else of their views, and it's beginning to get to a stage where just what the other person says is wrong, not just their words.

At that point, I don't see much sense in continuing what's edging towards no longer being a debate. See you chaps in the next morally tricky topic!

NachoBusiness · 27-07-2015 11:20PM

Samaris wrote: »

I reckon this thread's hit the point of heels going in.

Kind of like the couple at the end of the bar video that started arguing about if what she had done (telling the soon to be bride) was the right thing to do.

Would love if they hadn't told them it was a prank and we got to see what would have said to each in the car."

"Why do you always have to butt into other people's business all the God damn time, Maureen*??"
"She was gonna marry the guy, George*, for the love of God, what was I supposed to do!"

*May not have been their names.

Would you tell a stranger their partner was cheating on them?

Comments