Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not as low as what she did to him. Shoulda, woulda, coulda. She cheated on him, all bets are off. He owes her nothing. Any notion of courtesy and sympathy was thrown out the window the second she pursued this other guy.
I'm sorry but there is nothing more humiliating than finding out your partner has not only been unfaithful, but flaunting their hook up around town. Her full name was not even disclosed, no one knows what she looks like, in fact no one other than her close friends and family would ever know this happened to her. People are making a moutain out of a molehill here. This girl is NOT a victim. She is an inconsiderate, disrespectful, dishonest shady individual who had this coming, and should be grateful that at the end of the day, whatever hurt and humiliation she's going through has NOTHING on what her partner felt when he found out about her infidelity.
I realized this over the course of the thread. I will bet you that between 72 hrs to one week after this she has not only fully recovered but she also now considers him "the bad guy" and has a chorus backing her up saying she was lucky to not marry him. It is the same as a cheating guy who decides that his cheating was justified after his ex keyed his car or something. I base this on humankind's amazing capacity to shift blame and make our failings and bad acts the fault of others.
I realized this over the course of the thread. I will bet you that between 72 hrs to one week after this she has not only fully recovered but she also now considers him "the bad guy" and has a chorus backing her up saying she was lucky to not marry him. It is the same as a cheating guy who decides that his cheating was justified after his ex keyed his car or something. I base this on humankind's amazing capacity to shift blame and make our failings and bad acts the fault of others.
There are so many things wrong with this, I don't know where to begin.
First, the issue of whether the guy's response was proportional to the harm suffered. Back in my days of flirting with religion, I once heard a sermon by a rabbi on the prohibition against "the evil tongue", which, as anyone familiar with Judaism can attest, is quite extensive and strict in the Jewish tradition. (Understand, I am not preaching religion here, just using what I heard for illustration.) The part of the sermon that stuck with me was his statement that in the Jewish tradition, the Sixth Commandment ("thou shall not murder") covers public humiliation. That's right -- when you publicly humiliate someone, for any reason, you are killing that person. The idea is (he explained), that pillorying so crushes a person's soul, that for all spiritual purposes, that person is dead, or very close to it. She cheated on him, and that's bad; he responded by killing her, and that's worse.
Which segues into the next issue, whether "feelings" justify conduct. I realize many of you will not accept that public humiliation is the moral equivalent of murder, and that's fine. However, you should understand that the justification offered for his conduct -- that she did something bad and he was really angry, and men have feelings too, yadda, yadda, yadda -- can also be used to justify actual, physical murder. In fact, this is precisely the reason why in certain countries of the world, it's perfectly legal and socially acceptable for a husband to just execute his wife for adultery. Come to think of it, even in some countries where honor killings are illegal, they are still socially acceptable, even expected. Even in some liberal democracies, jealousy is still considered a valid defense where a man murders a woman who has cheated on him, leading to an acquittal or at worst a token prison sentence (Brazil comes to mind). Furthermore, if you are an egalitarian, then I don't see why "feelings" shouldn't be invoked to justify infidelity either -- quite possibly, he did something wrong, and she felt angry and consequently cheated on him to "punish" him. I am always blown away by the idea that horrible behavior can be justified by "feelings". It shouldn't be. All of us have, at some point, felt the desire to hit someone, and with good reason -- yet we restrain ourselves. Anyone here who is a parent knows that irresistible urge to grab that defiant, misbehaving kid, whose bum is badly in need of some good slapping, and spank him something fierce -- but most of us refrain from doing that because it's wrong and inhumane. And these are situations in which revenge would be impulsive; in the case of a guy who washed his dirty laundry on the radio, his conduct was planned and carried out over a period of time. But of course, people who think that anger is an acceptable reason to wipe the floor with the one who caused it, invariably believe that doing so is only acceptable for a certain group of people (read: men).
And finally, there is the eekiness of the whole thing. I really can't imagine what would inspire a man to advertise to the whole world that he has been cuckolded. It makes him look like fool, and I'm not sure the sympathy he would get would make up for what is clearly a total loss of dignity -- his dignity. Apart from that, revealing tawdry details of one's intimate life is extremely low class, and it doesn't matter which gender does what (I was very critical of Princess Diana when she dragged the details of her marital life into the media spotlight). There is something pornographic in this -- not in the sense of making people want to have sex, but in the sense of appealing to the most base and prurient in people. Feign moral outrage all you want, folks who applaud this guy and pulverize the woman; but deep down, this is just cheap entertainment for you.
Not as low as what she did to him. Shoulda, woulda, coulda. She cheated on him, all bets are off. He owes her nothing. Any notion of courtesy and sympathy was thrown out the window the second she pursued this other guy.
What type of educated person throws out personal issues in a radio anyways with the sole intention of degrading someone publicly?
I agree she was a cheating selfish person but he's also a pig. Courtesy and sympathy was also thrown out the window when he did that too.
I'm sorry but there is nothing more humiliating than finding out your partner has not only been unfaithful, but flaunting their hook up around town.
I'm thankful to be here to be able to tell you there is. Of course that's relative too. *shrug*
Quote:
Her full name was not even disclosed, no one knows what she looks like, in fact no one other than her close friends and family would ever know this happened to her.
Well now, there is certainly no shame in friends and close family knowing about it. After all, it is the opinion of people we don't know that matters, right?
Then there are people who do know what she looks like, yes?
There are so many things wrong with this, I don't know where to begin.
First, the issue of whether the guy's response was proportional to the harm suffered. Back in my days of flirting with religion, I once heard a sermon by a rabbi on the prohibition against "the evil tongue", which, as anyone familiar with Judaism can attest, is quite extensive and strict in the Jewish tradition. (Understand, I am not preaching religion here, just using what I heard for illustration.) The part of the sermon that stuck with me was his statement that in the Jewish tradition, the Sixth Commandment ("thou shall not murder") covers public humiliation. That's right -- when you publicly humiliate someone, for any reason, you are killing that person. The idea is (he explained), that pillorying so crushes a person's soul, that for all spiritual purposes, that person is dead, or very close to it. She cheated on him, and that's bad; he responded by killing her, and that's worse.
Which segues into the next issue, whether "feelings" justify conduct. I realize many of you will not accept that public humiliation is the moral equivalent of murder, and that's fine. However, you should understand that the justification offered for his conduct -- that she did something bad and he was really angry, and men have feelings too, yadda, yadda, yadda -- can also be used to justify actual, physical murder. In fact, this is precisely the reason why in certain countries of the world, it's perfectly legal and socially acceptable for a husband to just execute his wife for adultery. Come to think of it, even in some countries where honor killings are illegal, they are still socially acceptable, even expected. Even in some liberal democracies, jealousy is still considered a valid defense where a man murders a woman who has cheated on him, leading to an acquittal or at worst a token prison sentence (Brazil comes to mind). Furthermore, if you are an egalitarian, then I don't see why "feelings" shouldn't be invoked to justify infidelity either -- quite possibly, he did something wrong, and she felt angry and consequently cheated on him to "punish" him. I am always blown away by the idea that horrible behavior can be justified by "feelings". It shouldn't be. All of us have, at some point, felt the desire to hit someone, and with good reason -- yet we restrain ourselves. Anyone here who is a parent knows that irresistible urge to grab that defiant, misbehaving kid, whose bum is badly in need of some good slapping, and spank him something fierce -- but most of us refrain from doing that because it's wrong and inhumane. And these are situations in which revenge would be impulsive; in the case of a guy who washed his dirty laundry on the radio, his conduct was planned and carried out over a period of time. But of course, people who think that anger is an acceptable reason to wipe the floor with the one who caused it, invariably believe that doing so is only acceptable for a certain group of people (read: men).
And finally, there is the eekiness of the whole thing. I really can't imagine what would inspire a man to advertise to the whole world that he has been cuckolded. It makes him look like fool, and I'm not sure the sympathy he would get would make up for what is clearly a total loss of dignity -- his dignity. Apart from that, revealing tawdry details of one's intimate life is extremely low class, and it doesn't matter which gender does what (I was very critical of Princess Diana when she dragged the details of her marital life into the media spotlight). There is something pornographic in this -- not in the sense of making people want to have sex, but in the sense of appealing to the most base and prurient in people. Feign moral outrage all you want, folks who applaud this guy and pulverize the woman; but deep down, this is just cheap entertainment for you.
These matters should be kept private.
This post is proof of why Redisca is one of the best posters, and one of my favorite individuals, here.
What type of educated person throws out personal issues in a radio anyways with the sole intention of degrading someone publicly?
I agree she was a cheating selfish person but he's also a pig. Courtesy and sympathy was also thrown out the window when he did that too.
We've covered that already. Some of us could give a **** less, while others would prefer to demonize the guy and make a victim out of the girl (cheater)
There are so many things wrong with this, I don't know where to begin.
First, the issue of whether the guy's response was proportional to the harm suffered. Back in my days of flirting with religion, I once heard a sermon by a rabbi on the prohibition against "the evil tongue", which, as anyone familiar with Judaism can attest, is quite extensive and strict in the Jewish tradition. (Understand, I am not preaching religion here, just using what I heard for illustration.) The part of the sermon that stuck with me was his statement that in the Jewish tradition, the Sixth Commandment ("thou shall not murder") covers public humiliation. That's right -- when you publicly humiliate someone, for any reason, you are killing that person. The idea is (he explained), that pillorying so crushes a person's soul, that for all spiritual purposes, that person is dead, or very close to it. She cheated on him, and that's bad; he responded by killing her, and that's worse.
Which segues into the next issue, whether "feelings" justify conduct. I realize many of you will not accept that public humiliation is the moral equivalent of murder, and that's fine. However, you should understand that the justification offered for his conduct -- that she did something bad and he was really angry, and men have feelings too, yadda, yadda, yadda -- can also be used to justify actual, physical murder. In fact, this is precisely the reason why in certain countries of the world, it's perfectly legal and socially acceptable for a husband to just execute his wife for adultery. Come to think of it, even in some countries where honor killings are illegal, they are still socially acceptable, even expected. Even in some liberal democracies, jealousy is still considered a valid defense where a man murders a woman who has cheated on him, leading to an acquittal or at worst a token prison sentence (Brazil comes to mind). Furthermore, if you are an egalitarian, then I don't see why "feelings" shouldn't be invoked to justify infidelity either -- quite possibly, he did something wrong, and she felt angry and consequently cheated on him to "punish" him. I am always blown away by the idea that horrible behavior can be justified by "feelings". It shouldn't be. All of us have, at some point, felt the desire to hit someone, and with good reason -- yet we restrain ourselves. Anyone here who is a parent knows that irresistible urge to grab that defiant, misbehaving kid, whose bum is badly in need of some good slapping, and spank him something fierce -- but most of us refrain from doing that because it's wrong and inhumane. And these are situations in which revenge would be impulsive; in the case of a guy who washed his dirty laundry on the radio, his conduct was planned and carried out over a period of time. But of course, people who think that anger is an acceptable reason to wipe the floor with the one who caused it, invariably believe that doing so is only acceptable for a certain group of people (read: men).
And finally, there is the eekiness of the whole thing. I really can't imagine what would inspire a man to advertise to the whole world that he has been cuckolded. It makes him look like fool, and I'm not sure the sympathy he would get would make up for what is clearly a total loss of dignity -- his dignity. Apart from that, revealing tawdry details of one's intimate life is extremely low class, and it doesn't matter which gender does what (I was very critical of Princess Diana when she dragged the details of her marital life into the media spotlight). There is something pornographic in this -- not in the sense of making people want to have sex, but in the sense of appealing to the most base and prurient in people. Feign moral outrage all you want, folks who applaud this guy and pulverize the woman; but deep down, this is just cheap entertainment for you.
These matters should be kept private.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
