More and more of your debate style of late has been centered around arguing exact word definitions and phraseology. It's the sort of thing we see when the position someone is defending is bankrupt, so they try to move the debate to minutia because they don't have anything to say other then something unpalitable like...]
It's interesting that you're criticizing my emphasis on definitions when only recently you were
asking me for one.
Do you honestly find it questionable that I would want to clarify definition in a debate? Consider two recent threads in which I debated heavily:
I seriously can't imagine debating those topics without establishing definitions. The questions are definitional in nature, are they not? Now in this thread, I didn't get definitional until you charged in. I tend to get a little bit defensive when my advice is "translated" to be little more than lies, especially when I know that the "translation" itself certainly qualifies as one.
So forgive me if I question phraseology that seems designed to smear, besmirch, or demonize and utilizes deception to achieve that goal.
When you can't win the point, argue the rules. You used to be much better then that sort of argument.
While I appreciate the left-handed compliment, I should make it clear that I don't believe anybody "wins" arguments here. I'm more concerned with how well I performed. Did I adequately represent my side of the argument? Was I clear in making my points? Did I counter objections effectively? These are the things that interest me, not winning a popularity contest.
You consistently argue a socially selfish corse of action, that shows almost zero regard for anyone outside of yourself.
If that's true (and I'm not quite inclined to agree it is), it's only because the forum subject matter almost postulates selfishness. What do we talk about, here? Tickling. Something that's done all over the world yet rarely ever for the benefit of the recipient. Ticking is by nature a selfish act. From what I've seen of the clips that float around this place, virtually all of the scenarios whether real or contrived involve people being tickled who aren't enjoying it and want it to stop. The ticklers however just plow right on, completely heedless of the pleas for cessation.
Yes, I'm well aware of the difference between fantasy and reality. But it doesn't change the fact that whether directly or indirectly, the
concept of selfishly deriving pleasure at the expense of the well-being of another is widely embraced here, and not just by me.
And you may be surprised that I don't think that is a bad thing. It's a valid life strategy, and clearly it's worked for you.
Forgive my saying so, because I do appreciate the acknowledgement; but in truth it rings a bit hollow. After all, referring to a significant portion of my life strategy as being "lies" or having "almost zero regard for anybody outside of yourself" doesn't exactly come across as a ringing endorsement.
But you are the rare exception that it does. Most people go down in flames using it. So I tend to feel it's not the best course. For most people it's toxic in the long term. It leaves them in situations where things are not that sunny.
I don't feel either of us are qualified to determine how any advice will affect most people. This isn't the first time I've shared such advice, and I've never known anybody I directly counseled who went "down in flames" as a result of it.
As for having an obligation to divulge or not, that's pretty debatable, and that in itself could fill pages of a thread. But many people feel that when they enter into a serious relationship with another, that facts about who they are can have a direct impact on that partner, and could hurt them if left undiscussed, and thus feel a moral or ethical obligation to provide their partner with information that allows that person to make informed judgements about how they want to proceed.
And that's fine. I have no problem with people doing that. But like you said, obligations in this regard are highly debatable, and for this reason nobody has any business laying down a blanket code of ethics by which the rest of us are obligated to follow. That's why I have so many clashes with the Morality Police. It's also why I objected to the phrase "lie of omission" because it presumes a significant level of obligation to divulge, which you've just now agreed is debatable.
No that was not what I implied with my words. What I implied was "If you take DAJT's advice you stand a very high chance of becoming a liar. To your partner, and to yourself."
A significant difference. Once a person becomes a liar it's too late for any sort of moral debate. The die is cast. It's a situation in motion and can only play out now. But before it happens, thats when discussion has value, and worth, because it can prevent a situation from starting.
If the OP decides that being a liar is the best option, and he chooses it mindfully, more power to him. He's picked a path with awareness of the toll to walk that road. It's a VALID choice.
But knowing what those tolls that path will ask, that's important information to point out. And in this case, secrecy, a lack of veracity, and personal forms of selfishness are all in the offing.
For the record, I don't recall ever advocating deliberate prevarication, though perhaps my memory isn't as good as it used to be. Feel free to recall such an instance of me doing so.
Please show us how your line of action councils Honesty, Discretion and Stoicism. And how it benefits the long term relationship he is forming. Put some meat in your argument rather then wanting to French Kiss the dictionary and playing jenga with semantics.
Certainly.
Honesty - When a guy tells his significant other that tickling somebody or being tickled by somebody is a "sexual act" in his mind, he has instantly placed any such tickling outside the relationship in the category of unfaithful or adulterous behavior. By linking tickling with sex in the mind of his SO, he's now barred himself from any other outlet for his interest. If he, like most guys eventually decides that his SO's laughter or tickling techniques aren't cutting it, he'll be compelled to seek it out in others, and break his marital obligations of sexual faithfulness. On top of all that, there will be a strong compulsion to avoid the consequences by lying about his activities, which further compounds his dishonesty.
By neglecting to include the "tickling=sex" clause in the first place, he has the option to seek tickling outside of the relationship with no detrimental affects on his relationship, or his conscience. In short, he can meet his tickling needs honestly, with his head held high.
Discretion - This one's certainly a no-brainer. By not divulging every little thing that has the potential to excite him sexually, he practices practical discretion which will avoid unnecessary conflict. Should a man tell his wife that he's sexually stimulated by the sight of her sister especially when she frequently crosses her legs? I would counsel him to rather exercise discretion. Some things are on a need-to-know basis, and she certainly doesn't need to know that.
Stoicism - Traditionally men are more stoic than women in that they are less inclined to share their feelings, their emotional needs, etc. The decision to not blab about his innermost desires would certainly seem to be in line with traditional stoicism, as opposed to the converse, telling her every little thing that excites or upsets him.
