Outrageous Two-Timing: Hang 'em High!

  • Thread starter Thread starter wolram
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers around the ethics of two-timing in relationships, with participants expressing strong opinions on the subject. Some argue that cheating is unacceptable and should be met with severe consequences, while others suggest that certain circumstances, like long-term abstinence or mutual consent, might justify such behavior. The conversation touches on cultural differences, particularly regarding polygamy, and whether a lack of transparency in relationships is inherently wrong. Participants debate the implications of honesty and openness in dating, with some asserting that dating multiple people without disclosure is poor form, while others argue that casual relationships do not necessitate such transparency. The topic of race and cultural background arises, leading to accusations of racism and discussions about the appropriateness of certain comments. Ultimately, the thread reflects a complex interplay of personal beliefs, cultural norms, and the varying definitions of cheating and relationship dynamics.
  • #31
Don't worry wolram, and don't apologize. There was nothing wrong with what you posted. Period. If others get offended by it, it's their problem.

Evo said:
I edited the offending post.

Thank you! I'm sure so many people were being "offended" by the use of adjectives. :rolleyes:

Evo said:
Actually both parties are the same race, caucasian, so it's ethnic.

What do you mean, so it's "ethnic"? You should clarify this. Do you mean it's racism because both parties are white?

DaveC426913 said:
He was explicit - not much room for misinterpretation

Dave, where was he "explicit" that he was dispicable BECAUSE he's Iraqi? Or saying in any way that one race is superior to another (i.e. racism). Check your dictionary. Simple mention of race is NOT racism. The fact that you interpret this as racism is not based on explicit words, rather it's based on your ASSUMPTION (why else would he say it if not to be racist?) of words that could be used for any number of purposes. But you infer one purpose and assume it and claim it to be the words of a "racist pig". I'm not trying to defend wolram, rather I'm trying to point out when people get anally conservative and whine about everything.

DaveC426913 said:
Why would he mention it if it weren't relevant to the point?

That has an easy answer. Adjectives are used in writing to create vivid language. They provide the reader with more information about the subject and make the words more enoyable or informative. The way wolram worded it painted a much clearer picture than Evo's vague replacement ("this person").

Evo said:
We can stop discussing it now.

Okay you automatically get the final say. You're the moderator! I understand. Please don't delete this message or close the thread yet. I'm just asking for the courtesy of an explanation as to how these comments warranted being edited. I understand the purpose of rules and moderators on this forum! I just think that in this case the action taken was senseless. Can you at least show me how it's not?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Mental Gridlock said:
Okay you automatically get the final say. You're the moderator! I understand. Please don't delete this message or close the thread yet. I'm just asking for the courtesy of an explanation as to how these comments warranted being edited. I understand the purpose of rules and moderators on this forum! I just think that in this case the action taken was senseless. Can you at least show me how it's not?
If Wolram wants an explanation, he can pm me. I have great respect for Wolram, but the post was disrespectful and therefor violated the guidelines and needed to be deleted. It doesn't matter if you "personally" were not offended.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
It's called honesty... you know? ... HONESTY!?


I should be wise, for honesty's a fool
And loses that it works for. - Iago
 
  • #34
Those who can't think, quote.
-Me
 
  • #35
And those too tired to think just :smile:
-me
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 106 ·
4
Replies
106
Views
14K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 85 ·
3
Replies
85
Views
13K
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
13K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
6K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
6K