Am I being unethical by continuing to see a girl I don't plan on dating?

[Jason11]

I'm hoping to get some insight on this situation I'm currently in. I met a girl online over a month ago, and within three days of hanging out we had sex. This is much quicker than usual for myself, and I automatically assumed this was not a girl I'd like to date becuase of it.

I did feel a connection with this girl (likely lust), so I continued seeing her. While getting to know her I discovered a few things about her that really disturbed me. Most notable being the young age she lost her virginity at.

I did share my concerns with her, but I still feel uneasy about them. She seems like she is very open to self knowledge and doing what it takes to have a healthy relationship (although so far that has not been practised). Of course, I have known her for a short period of time, and I don't truly know her.

 

She has become quite attached to me, while my feelings haven't grown much since the first couple of weeks.

I can't help but feel like I'm being unethical or rude by continuing to see her with my current state of mind not being interested in dating.

I have made it clear that I am not interested in dating her right now, but I am struggling with deciding if I should end things, or continue seeing her and possibly developing more feelings for her?

[Thus_Spake_the_Nightspirit]

The right thing to do is to be absolutely clear on how you feel about her and make sure she understands you don't want that kind of relationship with her right now. To do anything else would be leading her on, which is basically lying. If you want to keep her as a friend, that's fine, but make sure she's fine with it, too, and doesn't see it as a way to keep you around in the hopes you'll change your mind about her.

[dsayers]

That which is immoral in practice is unethical in theory. What you are doing is not initiating the use of force, so it is not immoral/unethical.

[regevdl]

I'm hoping to get some insight on this situation I'm currently in. I met a girl online over a month ago, and within three days of hanging out we had sex. This is much quicker than usual for myself, and I automatically assumed this was not a girl I'd like to date becuase of it.

I did feel a connection with this girl (likely lust), so I continued seeing her. While getting to know her I discovered a few things about her that really disturbed me. Most notable being the young age she lost her virginity at.

I did share my concerns with her, but I still feel uneasy about them. She seems like she is very open to self knowledge and doing what it takes to have a healthy relationship (although so far that has not been practised). Of course, I have known her for a short period of time, and I don't truly know her.

 

She has become quite attached to me, while my feelings haven't grown much since the first couple of weeks.

I can't help but feel like I'm being unethical or rude by continuing to see her with my current state of mind not being interested in dating.

I have made it clear that I am not interested in dating her right now, but I am struggling with deciding if I should end things, or continue seeing her and possibly developing more feelings for her?

 

 

I won't make the call if this is immoral or not.  I mean you were honest with her but.... be honest with yourself and stop wasting time because you are keeping yourself from finding a better match for you.  And... it seems like she has a lot of abuse that she's not aware or willing to acknowledge and this will not turn into anything healthy for either of you.  

 

If her feelings are advancing and yours are not, cut off .... it will hurt less now than if you drag it out.  

 

She apparently uses sex because she feels she has nothing of value to offer.... she needs to deal with that so she can find a quality man and you need to move on so you can find a quality woman. With that said, Neither of you are providing respect for yourselves or each other.... and I am sure if you communicate this to her she will understand and take value in it to move in a healthier direction and you as well but away from each other. 

 

Look.... consider the next woman you meet that might be quality and you are open about your past relationships and such.  When you bring this situation up to her that future quality woman will RUN.  Don't jeopardize repelling future quality women ESPECIALLY in exchange for a fling of a woman you know won't advance to anything fulfilling.

[AccuTron]

" She seems like she is very open to self knowledge and doing what it takes to have a healthy relationship (although so far that has not been practised). Of course, I have known her for a short period of time, and I don't truly know her."

 

One thing many or most women do, automatically and possibly not even consciously, is mimic the person they're interested in.  Reality may or may not match what she says.

[Jason11]

Wow, I really appreciate the comments everyone! It's so nice to have some useful feedback.
I let her know yesterday that I need some time to think about our relationship, and that I would meet up with her when I was ready to discuss it further.

[Brendancclarke]

If I may, it sounds like you are just not into her. The most unethical thing I see here is that you seem to be wasting your time. Your time is your greatest resource and using it up on a woman who doesn't convince you, would be a big mistake. When we first meet a woman, we can't be absolutely sure if we are going to want her further down the line, so we give her a chance. It looks to me like she's running out of chances.

 

Have you had that conversation about her values, her past, her motivations? It is all in the spirit of finding out if she is girlfriend material or not of course. If you have, you should know if she is worth giving a chance to or not. If not, perhaps you are simply not interested.

 

To be honest, my first reaction (right from the gut) was... "I would dump her"

 

Take care.

 

Brendan

[WasatchMan]

Lying is not ethical.

[dsayers]

Lying is not ethical.

How do you know? Somebody points a gun at you and asks where your loved one is. You owe them the truth?

[shirgall]

How do you know? Somebody points a gun at you and asks where your loved one is. You owe them the truth?

 

I think you are underscoring the key point about those who insist one should act ethically when in prison or when taxed by the state to pay for immigration.

[WasatchMan]

How do you know? Somebody points a gun at you and asks where your loved one is. You owe them the truth?

 

As Stef has pointed out a lot (A LOT), ethics doesn't apply to situations where force is involved.

[dsayers]

As Stef has pointed out a lot (A LOT), ethics doesn't apply to situations where force is involved.

That is true, but it does not answer my question as to how you've come to the conclusion that lying is the initiation of the use of force. I would argue that your honesty is like any other piece of your property. You are free to give it out as you see fit. Would you give your credit card number to a stranger that asked for it? If not, why not? If you're honest with yourself, I think you will agree that honesty is earned, not required of you to live a consistent life.

[WasatchMan]

That is true, but it does not answer my question as to how you've come to the conclusion that lying is the initiation of the use of force. I would argue that your honesty is like any other piece of your property. You are free to give it out as you see fit. Would you give your credit card number to a stranger that asked for it? If not, why not? If you're honest with yourself, I think you will agree that honesty is earned, not required of you to live a consistent life.

 

There is a pretty good section in UPB about lying which has a grey fuzzy line between fraud. I wouldn't lie to a stranger asking for my credit card number, I would just tell them "hell NO!".

 

I would say that not telling someone you are not interested in a long term relationship to maintain getting sex when you believe they think that it is moving to something long term is getting close to fraud.  You are stealing their time and work by withholding information on an implicit contract. 

 

Also, please note that I said lying is "not ethical" not "lying is immoral".

[dsayers]

There is a pretty good section in UPB about lying which has a grey fuzzy line between fraud.

Some feel that UPB only serves to obfuscate an otherwise simple topic. Let us stick to things clear items that we can agree upon. Also, the word fraud is vague, as there appears to be two commonly held definitions, with very different moral/ethical ramifications. For more on this, refer here.

 

I wouldn't lie to a stranger asking for my credit card number, I would just tell them "hell NO!".

Fair enough. Though this only serves to reveal the imprecision in my approach. Imagine instead, the stranger asks you "Is your CC# XXXX...?" Assume he guessed correctly. Do you owe him the truth still? Would you be initiating the use of force if you didn't tell him the truth?

 

I would say that not telling someone you are not interested in a long term relationship...

Again, let's not bog down a simple debate with obfuscations. Let us first agree upon whether dishonesty is the initiation of the use of force, then we can apply that to any topic you like since its identity will not change based on what we apply it to after the fact.

 

Also, please note that I said lying is "not ethical" not "lying is immoral".

That which is moral in practice is ethical in theory. If the proposition of lying is unethical, the act of lying would be immoral. This is yet another way to avoid the point of contention: Is your honesty yours to dispense as you see fit or do we all have an unchosen positive obligation to be honest?

[WasatchMan]

Some feel that UPB only serves to obfuscate an otherwise simple topic. Let us stick to things clear items that we can agree upon. Also, the word fraud is vague, as there appears to be two commonly held definitions, with very different moral/ethical ramifications. For more on this, refer here.

 

 

I would think on a philosophy board, the proof underlying our methodology (UPB) is pretty basic, and does not need to be rehashed.  I am not necessarily here to debate you or teach you, but wanted to provide you a place to further investigate your quandary, which is solved by the philosophical proof which underlines the FDR methodology.

 

Fair enough. Though this only serves to reveal the imprecision in my approach. Imagine instead, the stranger asks you "Is your CC# XXXX...?" Assume he guessed correctly. Do you owe him the truth still? Would you be initiating the use of force if you didn't tell him the truth?

 

We already discussed that ethics don't apply during situations where force is involved.  If someone is threatening to steal your stuff you don't owe them anything, especially the means to allow them to steal from you.

 

Again, let's not bog down a simple debate with obfuscations. Let us first agree upon whether dishonesty is the initiation of the use of force, then we can apply that to any topic you like since its identity will not change based on what we apply it to after the fact.

 

Bogged down with obfuscation?  Is that a fair way to discuss things?  I was just pointing out that you are committing fraud against someone when you are lying to them over an implicit contract.  Lying is not the initiation of force, necessarily (it can be though).

 

 

That which is moral in practice is ethical in theory. If the proposition of lying is unethical, the act of lying would be immoral. This is yet another way to avoid the point of contention: Is your honesty yours to dispense as you see fit or do we all have an unchosen positive obligation to be honest?

 

So if you did actually go read about lying in UPB you would have found that the conclusion is that you cannot initiate force against someone for lying but it does "validate the illogic of the proposition "lying is good," and confirms that the act of lying to someone is worse than "being late," and better than "assault."

[dsayers]

We already discussed that ethics don't apply during situations where force is involved.  If someone is threatening to steal your stuff

This is a strawman. No force nor threats were indicated.

 

Lying is not the initiation of force, necessarily (it can be though).

So close. The end part is an assertion that begs the question.

[DaviesMa]

Back to the original question...

 

I have had 2 casual relationships where I wasn't really interested in a girl and both ended up hurting the girl and on reflection were a waste of mine and her time. The problem with many women is that the less interested you are the higher they percieve your Sexual Market Value to be, so it sets up a dynamic where they are increasingly invested and needy.

 

If it were me, I would end it because of the hassle and the bad feelings I had from contributing to the upset of the girls involved.

 

That being said I don't see anything unethical in what you are doing as she has to take responsbility for her own actions as a consenting adult. You could say that it is asthetically undesirable, but not immoral.

[EclecticIdealist]

Whether you agree with the following definitions outside of the context of this (and any subsequent posts I make) is entirely up to you, but for the sake of understanding, please assume the following definitions for these terms.

Ethics involve an individual's judgments of right and wrong on their own behavior. Morals are the collective judgements made by society on the behavior of its members or the society as a whole.

 

Most will consider the initiation of the use of force to be sufficient justification to disregard the morals imposed upon them by society. It is a reasonable position to take as every person living in the society is under an implicit, informal social agreement to adhere to these morals if one wishes others to do likewise. Those who violate this implicit social contract of adherence to social mores opens themselves up to the other no longer being bound by such rules themselves.

 

For example, society says adhere to the NAP in order to minimize violence. A person declines to adhere to NAP by aggressing with violence. The person may now be retaliated against with violence to the extent reasonably necessary to defend oneself (or others) against their violence (and no further). In other words, physical violence may be met with defensive physical violence. A bloody nose does not, however, justify lethal retaliation.

 

Lying is similar to violence in that it is a violation of the common societal morals and is a commonly held ethic. It is not the same as physical violence in that the only potential damage that is done is to the perception of the individual who is lied to; but such damage may be great or small depending upon the consequences of an illusory belief one had the reasonable expectation of being genuine. For example, the lies of doctors about medical conditions or genuine concern for their patients during the Tuskeegee syphilis experiment did tremendous harm and even resulted in the likely untimely deaths and certain disfigurement, pain, etc. to those who contracted or were deliberately infected with syphilis and not properly treated according to medical knowledge and standards of practice at the time. Had the patients been operating under correct knowledge from honest doctors and medical staff, their outcomes would have certainly been different for all or nearly all of them.

 

Lying in an assault on the perceptions of others which limits their ability to make informed decisions uncolored by deliberate obfuscation or misrepresentation of reality. It is akin to emotional, psychological, and physical abuse in its potential long-term consequences, depending upon the nature and severity of the lie (much like a cut may be of different severity and long-term consequences depending upon its length, depth, place upon the body, and so on, and how quickly the wound is treated. Just a wound can be treated and will heal, and superficial ones without scars, lies can be treated and heal with honesty; and those which are superficial will often heal without scars, but the deepest cutting lies, like the deepest cutting wounds, can leave lasting scars which last a lifetime, and injuries which may be debilitating for a lifetime.

 

Lying is an initiation of the use of force when the other person has not already initiated force through violence, threat of violence, or deceit. It is a defensive use of force once such violence or threat of violence has been initiated.

[Frosty]

Lying is not ethical.

 

I'd argue that lying alone isn't grounds for being unethical, however lying in order to advance a personal benefit and the expense of someone else (AKA Fraud) I would argue is in violation of the NAP. I think you could make a reasonable argument of fraud if you misrepresented your position to a partner in order to continue to get sex and/or intimacy from them, if they reasonably expected a long term monogamous relationship in return.

 

And while lying alone can't constitute unethical behaviour,  certainly wouldn't call it a virtuous trait so you have to consider how that makes you appear to your friends/peers.

 

Ultimately, talk to her, be honest, be open and straight forward with what you want, don't mince your words, make sure she understands and if you're both happy staying in the relationship then great, continue to see her as long as you're both happy, absolutely nothing wrong with that, other than potential wasted opportunity cost for seeking a long term partner.

[EclecticIdealist]

Lying is the use of force against another's perceptions of reality. Like violence, it is neither ethical or moral, nor unethical or immoral. It is only in how it is used that it becomes one or the other.  If it is used to harm another, especially to one's advantage, or to their disadvantage, it is immoral.  If it is used to entertain or educate with little or no adverse consequence (such as done by a magician, or an actor, or actress, etc.), it can be considered at least amoral, if not in fact moral. If it is done to prevent harm from coming to others (e.g. lying to the Nazis, or someone else intending unjustifiable harm) it is moral (despite what others might tell you about lifeboat situations and lying).

[dsayers]

Lying is the use of force against another's perceptions of reality.

In order for this to be true, you would have to prove that you are more responsible for my decisions than I am. Since this cannot be universalized, it is clearly false.

[EclecticIdealist]

In order for this to be true, you would have to prove that you are more responsible for my decisions than I am. Since this cannot be universalized, it is clearly false.

I believe you are inferring something which I am not claiming.

 

Perhaps a restatement would lend clarity to my assertion.

 

Lying is akin to physical violence. It has no intrinsic moral quality. The moral judgment placed upon lying is the same placed upon physical violence. When the physical violence is an unjustified initiation of the use of force (e.g. assault, rape, attempted murder), it is judged to be ethically and morally wrong or evil. However, when the physical violence is a defense act, used to defend against the aforementioned initiation of the use of force, it is deemed, at least morally neutral, and in the case of an individual engaging in a proxy self-defense of another, a moral good.

 

Lying is not a physical assault on the material world, it is an assault or use of force upon the rational or mental world in another person's mind, an assault or use of force against their conception of reality in an attempt to get them to make decisions based upon illusions rather than fact, falsehood rather than truth.

 

Lying is subject to NAP in exactly the same way that physical violence, psychological violence, and emotional violence are subject to NAP.

 

As to the notion that I would have to prove that I am more responsible for your decisions than you are, are you suggesting that if as your trusted Doctor, I tell you that I am giving you medicine to treat your cancer, but in fact I am only giving you saline; you are more responsible than I for your choices not to seek actual treatment from another physician while you are under my care?

[dsayers]

Lying is not a physical assault on the material world, it is an assault or use of force upon the rational or mental world in another person's mind

You said this already. And then I said, "In order for this to be true, you would have to prove that you are more responsible for my decisions than I am. Since this cannot be universalized, it is clearly false." If you tell me that 2+2=5, the onus is on me for accepting what you told me without verifying it for myself. You would have to be more responsible for my decisions than I am. If you can prove this, then you can say that lying is the initiation of the use of force. You saying that 2+2=5 isn't binding upon anybody else and binding upon somebody else without their consent is the measure for the initiation of the use of force.

[EclecticIdealist]

I see what you're saying. You're suggesting that lying is not the use of force because it is not incumbent upon you to believe the lie. In other words:

 

The initiation of the use of force is binding upon the victim without their consent.

Because a person does not have to believe the lie they are told, lies are not binding upon the person being lied to.

Therefore, lying is not the initiation of the use of force.

 

If your proposition were correct as it stands, that would place telling a lie in the realm of Aesthetically Negative, not Morally Wrong. Which means you are suggesting that lying is akin to being late, or farting in public.

 

However, your proposition as it stands is incorrect. I will demonstrate what you are doing wrong.

 

The initiation of the use of force is binding upon the victim without their consent.

Because a stronger person may successfully resist a weaker person attempting to push them off of a cliff,

the attempt made by a weaker person to push a stronger person off of a cliff is not binding upon the person being pushed.

Therefore, the attempt made by a weaker person to push a stronger person off of a cliff is not the initiation of force.

 

And, incidentally, not only is it not an initiation of the use of force, but merely an aesthetic negative,. The attempt by weaker people to murder stronger people by attempting to push them off of cliffs is not morally evil, but merely an aesthetic negative.

 

When a person lies, they are attempting to insert a falsehood or falsehoods into the mental conception of another person. When this is done without the person's knowledge or consent (i.e., it is not a form of entertainment such as a magic show, fictional story, etc.), it is an act of force against the person's mental conception of reality. Whether or not the insertion is successful does not change the fact that the insertion was attempted.

 

We don't say that attempted assault is merely aesthetically negative but successful assault is immoral because one was avoided and the other was not. We don't say that attempted rape is merely aesthetically negative, but only successful rape is evil. The attempted assault, just like the attempted rape are still acts of aggression or the use of force. Similarly, the attempt to initiate a non-defensive act of fraud or deceit upon another person is not merely an aesthetically negative act because one is unsuccessful, and morally wrong only if one is successful. The act of lying is the use of force, whether or not the lie is believed, just as the act of assault or rape are the use of force whether or not the act is successful or avoided/thwarted.

 

This is not a difficult concept to understand. The only reason why one might have difficulty accepting the truth once it is fully understood is if they are attempting to justify committing fraud or deceit by suggesting that the other person is more morally responsible for believing a lie than the person is for telling the lie. That's like saying a woman is more responsible for allowing herself to be raped than the rapist is for raping her. Sorry, that duck just won't fly.

[dsayers]

Because a stronger person may successfully resist a weaker person attempting to push them off of a cliff,

the attempt made by a weaker person to push a stronger person off of a cliff is not binding upon the person being pushed.

The stronger person only has to resist BECAUSE it is binding upon him.

 

To measure if something is binding upon somebody, you have to test avoidability. If person A pushes person B REGARDLESS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE STRENGTHS, person B cannot NOT be being pushed by person A. Therefore pushing is a behavior that is binding upon another person. What comes after the push has no and could have no bearing on the identity of the push itself.

[EclecticIdealist]

The stronger person only has to resist BECAUSE it is binding upon him.

 

To measure if something is binding upon somebody, you have to test avoidability. If person A pushes person B REGARDLESS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE STRENGTHS, person B cannot NOT be being pushed by person A. Therefore pushing is a behavior that is binding upon another person. What comes after the push has no and could have no bearing on the identity of the push itself.

The wiser person only has to reject the lie BECAUSE it has already been told to them.

 

To measure if something is binding upon somebody, you have to test avoidability.  If person A lies to person B REGARDLESS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE WISDOM, person B cannot NOT be lied to by person A. Therefore lying is a behavior that is binding upon another person. What comes after the lie (recognizing the lie and rejecting it) has no, and could have no bearing on the identity of the lie itself.

 

Non-defensive Lying (attempting to commit fraud or coerce through deception) is NOT an Aesthetic Negative according to UPB, it is an unavoidable (to the victim) moral wrong.

[dsayers]

So what you're saying is that you have a conclusion that you need to be true and to hell with logic, reason, and evidence.

 

You know full well that a person cannot make 2+2=5 just by speaking it. A lie does not act upon anybody or alter reality.

 

attempting to commit fraud or coerce through deception

...is not the same as lying. People have different definitions of fraud. The definition by which somebody does not fulfill a contract IS the initiation of the use of force. More here. Coercion requires a credible threat, which cannot be established by words alone.

[EclecticIdealist]

So what you're saying is that you have a conclusion that you need to be true and to hell with logic, reason, and evidence.

No, ironically, that is precisely what you're saying. I have demonstrated with logic and reason the validity of my argument. You on the other hand have not.

 

You know full well that a person cannot make 2+2=5 just by speaking it.

Of course I do, but that is immaterial to anything I've stated.

 

A lie does not act upon anybody or alter reality.

A lie does act upon the mind of the person who it is told to. Since the map of reality in a person's mind is what a person bases their decisions upon, including life-course altering decisions, lies can indirectly affect reality as well.

 

People have different definitions of fraud. The definition by which somebody does not fulfill a contract IS the initiation of the use of force. More here.

You have cited an example of a type of fraud, not provided the exclusive definition of fraud. If you misrepresent yourself as something you are not (say for example, a person committed to logic and reason), you have committed a fraud.

 

Coercion requires a credible threat, which cannot be established by words alone.

A credible threat need not be actual; perhaps you are unaware of the number of people who have robbed banks with unloaded weapons or "bombs" made from nothing but road flares they passed off as dynamite? These people lied (deceived people) into believing there was a credible threat where none in fact existed in order to obtain a desired result. For an example of how State governments might do similarly, I refer you to Operation Northwoods, the Gulf of Tonkin, and the sinking of the USS Maine.

 

Now, i do not expect you to agree with me. I fully expect that you will again accuse me of claiming the equivalent of 2+2=5 and other such foolishness rather than actually addressing the very direct analogy I made between lying and rape. In fact, I'm so certain that no amount of analogies or rational proofs will convince you that I will simply let you get the last word. My arguments stand for themselves. Reason is on my side despite what you will say, and I will have to be satisfied with that.

[Will Torbald]

If you're a philosopher and you say there's nothing wrong with lying, how can I trust your argument isn't a lie just to convince me? If you truly believe there is nothing wrong with lying at all, you just lost all credibility on anything you say because you have no honor to back your word anymore. It's futile and paradoxical.

[dsayers]

 Since the map of reality in a person's mind is the what a person bases their decisions upon

 

Full circle. For this to be true, you need to prove that you are more responsible for my decisions than I am... still.

 

A credible threat need not be actual

 

Credible doesn't mean the same thing as actual.

 

I fully expect that you will again accuse me of claiming the equivalent of 2+2=5

 

I never accused you of claiming this. Telling me what I'm going to do is both manipulative and transparent.

 

If you're a philosopher and you say there's nothing wrong with lying

Strawman. What was ACTUALLY said is that lying is not the initiation of the use of force.

[Will Torbald]

Strawman. What was ACTUALLY said is that lying is not the initiation of the use of force.

 

Equivocation. The OP didn't ask if lying would leave a concussion but if his actions were unethical in the context of dating.

[dsayers]

Equivocation. The OP didn't ask if lying would leave a concussion but if his actions were unethical in the context of dating.

Deflection. This post does nothing to change the fact that you put words into my mouth in an attempt to prove "me" wrong by proving YOUR WORDS wrong.

 

You did this in response to an in-thread tangent that began with WasatchMan's assertion that lying is not ethical, not anything OP said. Please start from the beginning of the thread and follow the progression of the discussion before just jumping in with strawmen and deflections. Thank you.

[EclecticIdealist]

I wrote, "Since the map of reality in a person's mind is the what a person bases their decisions upon..." to which you replied:

Full circle. For this to be true, you need to prove that you are more responsible for my decisions than I am... still.

I wrote, "I fully expect that you will again accuse me of claiming the equivalent of 2+2=5..."

to which you replied

I never accused you of claiming this.

But you did exactly this above:

"In order for this to be true, you would have to prove that you are more responsible for my decisions than I am. Since this cannot be universalized, it is clearly false." If you tell me that 2+2=5, the onus is on me for accepting what you told me without verifying it for myself. You would have to be more responsible for my decisions than I am. If you can prove this, then you can say that lying is the initiation of the use of force. You saying that 2+2=5 isn't binding upon anybody else and binding upon somebody else without their consent is the measure for the initiation of the use of force.

Then you stated:

Telling me what I'm going to do is both manipulative and transparent.

By your own criteria, for my words to have been manipulative, affecting you or your behavior (similar to the way a lie is manipulative), you would have to prove that I am more responsible for your decisions than you are. This leaves you in a bind. You must either concede that you were not manipulated in order to maintain rational and logical consistency with your position, or you must concede that lies, including those which are obvious or transparent or otherwise recognized as lies are in fact manipulative and by definition a use of force as I have asserted. To refuse to do one or the other is to demonstrate yourself to be inconsistent in your application of logic and reasoning and prove yourself to be a fraud for representing yourself as committed to logic and reason. Full circle indeed.

 

DSayers, you resemble to me the man trapped in an invisible box in a field in Stefan's book, "Truth, the Tyranny of Illusion". No amount of reasoning or proof will get you to see the truth, it only serves to provoke your anger at having your illusory mental concept which you are so devoted to challenged. And as a possibly final prediction, If you are the one Negging my posts, I predict you will likely do so again, if not actually kicking me from the board, or putting me in some form of timeout; which incidentally will only further prove my point that words used to lie (or manipulate, or harass, or emotionally or psychologically abuse) are the use of force against the mental concept of reality in another person's mind. Subconsciously, you know it's true, but your conscious mind is refusing to see it because you're more committed to your position than you are to truth and reason.

[Will Torbald]

Deflection. This post does nothing to change the fact that you put words into my mouth in an attempt to prove "me" wrong by proving YOUR WORDS wrong.

 

You did this in response to an in-thread tangent that began with WasatchMan's assertion that lying is not ethical, not anything OP said. Please start from the beginning of the thread and follow the progression of the discussion before just jumping in with strawmen and deflections. Thank you.

If writing a post unquoted about a general statement about the nature of lying and how arguing in favor of it destroys credibility is putting words into your mouth, then you have proven that I have more agency than you over your own mind, which is something you've been arguing is impossible so far when it comes to lying.

[dsayers]

Doubling down. Didn't see that coming

 

@Eclectic: Once again, that which happens after something has no bearing on that something's identity. Whether I alter my behavior or not has no bearing on the fact that telling somebody what they're going to do is manipulative. It's the underhanded behavior of somebody who understands that their "arguments" cannot stand on their own merit. Your epidermis is showing.

 

@Mr. Torbald: Enjoy your free upvote. Stupid touchscreen... Putting words into a person's mouth is an expression. It is something that you do in your own mind. Or when you publish it, put it down for others to see. Your attempt at doing so doesn't actually change what I've said, which is why I easily point it out as such. So to reference it as if that IS what it means is again erecting a strawman to pretend as if you've knocked something down. It's little more than mental masturbation and I am immune to it.