Cheating, and the cheating cheaters who cheat.

[Wewus432]

Don't start preaching to me you little dweeb. I saw through your shit about five minutes after you got here.

[Kaz]

Originally posted by Doug Osborne:

is this cheating?

No.

[Kaz]

Originally posted by TheWewus:

Don't start preaching to me you little dweeb. I saw through your shit about five minutes after you got here.

Ah, name calling, there you go. Another brilliant response from TheWewus.

[Wewus432]

Isn't that what you were waiting for?

 

I got no real problem with you zzzzzzzz, but I will give you shit whenver I feel like it, and if you can't handle it, that's your problem.

 

Just promise to always be you.

[Kaz]

Originally posted by TheWewus:

Isn't that what you were waiting for?

 

I got no real problem with you zzzzzzzz, but I will give you shit whenver I feel like it, and if you can't handle it, that's your problem.

 

Just promise to always be you.

I can handle it just fine.

[Wewus432]

Can you?

[Thomas Wilburn]

Originally posted by zzzzzzzzz:

Do you ever cheat? Does it bother you when other people cheat? Do you have to cheat to get ahead in this world? Is cheating only wrong when you get caught? Do you feel bad or guilty when you cheat? Do you try to rationalize why you cheated? Is it wrong for the rich and powerful big guy to cheat, but okay for the little guy? Is it foolish to be honest? Do nice guys finish last?

 

Discuss.

Originally posted by zzzzzzzzz:

I take it you've been watching from the sidelines, huh? Yes, that thread inspired this one, but I think this is an interesting topic, and some are taking it seriously.

 

So, if you have an opinion on cheating, let's hear it.

The only people I've seen take it seriously have (no offense) not contributed anything particularly out of the ordinary. The most interesting one to me is Linwood's story about the dating service, because I'd kind of like to know where he is that single musicians are such a commodity. Where I am, they call us bums.

 

But in truth, how are we supposed to answer this kind of question? You're like the guy that gets up on Fox News and says that we should take a certain course of action because doing bad things is bad. It's called a straw man. You get to set up an argument here that no-one will disagree with, and then you can feel all self-righteous for having a contrary point of view on Lee's voting thread.

 

Wewus has chosen a somewhat crude way of expressing himself, but I have a feeling it's only because he's reached the same conclusions that I have, and he's just skipping straight past the rational argument phase because he doesn't see it going anywhere. I agree, to some extent, but I figured I'd just try to make something a little more clear: every time I've seen you around these boards, and I've been lurking and posting off and on for a year or so, you've just been bitching about how nobody likes you and we're all just a big club of meanies. Even your posts that pertain to something else usually find a way to work this in.

 

I'm not even going to address that argument, because I think it's delusional. Just look around and you'll see it's not the case. But personally, I'm tired of reading your short-sighted take on it. If you feel persecuted, don't come back. But don't show up, get into arguments with well-respected regulars here, and then look for sympathy when you complain about it. This is not a psychological therapy lounge.

 

Good rhetoric, by the way, doesn't cheat. Your strategy here is very poor rhetoric. How do you answer your own block of questions?

[Kaz]

Thomas, you, like a few others, instead of choosing to think about the topic at hand, or think about what I'm saying, on this subject, or many of the others, simply choose to knock me. That's the easy way out.

 

And this whole thing about me whining about no one liking me couldn't be more wrong. Do you really think if I wanted you to like me, I would call you on your shit. I would kiss ass like everybody else. "Oh you're great, you're so smart, it's them that are so bad and evil!"

[Wewus432]

Thank you Thomas for inserting the phase I skipped over.

 

Zzzzzzzzzz, we love you, don't ever change, unless you want to.

[Kaz]

Originally posted by TheWewus:

 

Zzzzzzzzzz, we love you, don't ever change, unless you want to.

I know you do, you can't get enough.

[Thomas Wilburn]

Originally posted by zzzzzzzzz:

Thomas, you, like a few others, instead of choosing to think about the topic at hand, or think about what I'm saying, on this subject, or many of the others, simply choose to knock me. That's the easy way out.

 

And this whole thing about me whining about no one liking me couldn't be more wrong. Do you really think if I wanted you to like me, I would call you on your shit. I would kiss ass like everybody else. "Oh you're great, you're so smart, it's them that are so bad and evil!"

People who don't care if someone likes them do not get involved in arguments online that seem to revolve around popularity contests. Trust me, I would know. I have hung out in the political forum, and will likely do so again.

 

If you think that we are all just involved in narcissism and mutual admiration here, you have perhaps confused politeness with flattery. I have submitted music in the appropriate threads on several boards here. I was criticized, quite correctly, and I took the advice to heart because I knew that it was being offered to help me.

 

I have been insulted because I "couldn't understand reggae," I have been told that my music was an abortion by a troll or two, and I have lived. Those incidents were not the best behaviors of this forum, but that seems to be what you want--brutal honesty instead of productive interpersonal communication.

 

Right now there are debates going on about media ownership right here, and we are hardly banding together in one huge block about it. The Bass Forum has one member who repeatedly raises issues I frankly think are idiotic, but people end up debating back and forth on them. Maybe because they do so with a little polite circumlocution it's eluding you.

 

In other words, these forums are not a mob, and you are not the only one to "call me on my shit." Perhaps to you, zzzzzzz is a figure of wisdom who can see what many of us cannot. But to me, he just looks like someone with an inferiority complex and a grudge to bear.

 

The point I was trying to make is that you're not saying anything. You have no statement for us to discuss. There's nothing thought-provoking here. So why act like you're exposing deep truths, or expect them from others?

 

In debate and rhetorical training, or frankly in all academia, it's a common discussion device to examine the question being asked for flaws, because the discussion is meaningful within the premises and the framework posed by that question. I submit that your question is weak, leading, and should be modified for meaningful conversation. This is relevant, and not necessarily a personal attack on you. Because frankly, Wewus is carrying on that phase far better than I could, and in a better humor than I would.

 

Rephrase your question, and I will address it. But if it remains just a part of a hollow vengeance, I hardly think it's off topic to point that out.

[Tedster]

(humming to himself in the tune of "Carolina in the Morning")

 

Nothing could be sweeter than her lips upon my p..uh...oh, we're back on topic. Sorry. I got distracted.

 

Yup. I jaywalk from time to time. I also occasionally drive 5-10 mph over the limit. But I wait my turn in the checkout line. Got a bachelor's degree. Never once cheated on a test. Is "inflating a resume" cheating? What I mean is this:

 

Actual job duty: Sorting and stapling papers together.

On resume: Displayed the immense responsibility of assessing minute-by-minute cohesiveness of media resource materials. (Or some such shit).

[Wewus432]

Thomas, that was excellent.

 

Thank you zzzzzzzz, for bringing out the best in us, and I mean that sincerely.

 

You're good at this zzzzzzzz, and I do see some of your points.

 

I hate to say this zzzzzzzz but "I like you", sorry if that throws your game, continue, if you like.

[GeorgeVW]

Originally posted by TheWewus:

Do you think JayWalking is morally wrong? It is against the law.

No, it's just stupid behavior. Having seen the number of jaywalkers who get run over every year here in L.A., I think that anti-jaywalking laws are probably a good idea. On the other hand, in the perfect libertarian utopia, you could jaywalk if you wanted to. And the drivers could run you down, if they wanted to. Everybody could do whatever they wanted, and only the market would have to answer for anything.

[Wewus432]

So, apparently you've had relatives killed while jaywalking?

[coyote]

Jeez.

 

Jaywalking is sometimes, and perhaps often, stupid behavior. But not always. If there's NO traffic from either direction AND the nearest corner/crosswalk is six hundred feet away AND you need to get across the street right now to make an appointment on-time, is it more stupid to jaywalk or to go a quarter-mile (six hundred there, six hundred back) out of the way and be late for the appointment just so you can pat yourself on the back for not jaywalking?

 

This is one of the problems with law. Enforcing the letter of the law, and obeying the letter of the law, is often an exercise in idiocy. Is it really important to anyone else if you're driving without your seatbelt fastened, or if you're going 8mph over the limit on an empty highway? Going back to the 'cheater' topic, I know of many folks who stay within the letter of the law while completely violating its spirit. They will blatantly rip someone off and then say "you signed the contract" and because they can afford a better attorney they are not legally culpable.... don't anyone be congratulating themselves merely for observing the letter of the law.

 

As for the drivers running you down... there's a vast gulf between choosing to risk one's own life and others carelessly putting your life at risk. "And the drivers could run you down, if they wanted to" is no one's idea of libertarian utopia.

Originally posted by GeorgeVW:

Originally posted by TheWewus:

Do you think JayWalking is morally wrong? It is against the law.

No, it's just stupid behavior. Having seen the number of jaywalkers who get run over every year here in L.A., I think that anti-jaywalking laws are probably a good idea. On the other hand, in the perfect libertarian utopia, you could jaywalk if you wanted to. And the drivers could run you down, if they wanted to. Everybody could do whatever they wanted, and only the market would have to answer for anything.

[Kaz]

In other words, these forums are not a mob, and you are not the only one to "call me on my shit." Perhaps to you, zzzzzzz is a figure of wisdom who can see what many of us cannot. But to me, he just looks like someone with an inferiority complex and a grudge to bear.

The only thing that keeps any of these arguments going is the reluctance by some to see or accept what I'm saying. It's not that complicated. I'm am no figure of wisdom and never claimed to be.

 

What "Thomas" looks like to me, thus far, is a pompous windbag who was standing on the sidelines, and decided to jump in for no other reason than to slam me.

 

I believe that when you go against the grain, or a particualr person, there can be a mob mentality to defend them, regardless of the argument. People have admitted as much over and over with the whole "their my friend" thing.

 

As far as the question goes, it's pretty basic and simple. Perhaps too simple for a pompous intellectual like you. Others have managed to come up with varying answers, and how they or you perceive the question is part of the question.

[Wewus432]

I like coyote, he speak truth.

 

The VERY bottom line is , and I think zzzzzz will support this, Human Beings Should Be Honest With Each Other.

 

That IS A GREAT THING!

 

I love my MusicPlayer buddies, and I also LOVE, PEOPLE!

 

So, TRUTH GOOD, LYING BAD, have we all got that down?

 

I am Caveman Wewus, and I thank you for reading this thread.

[Tedster]

Oongowa.

[Kaz]

The VERY bottom line is , and I think zzzzzz will support this, Human Beings Should Be Honest With Each Other.

You have my full support. You are beyond reproach. Wewus for president.

 

The trouble is, this honesty thing, not so easy.

[Duddits]

It's not always clear what cheating is. More often than not, cheating is what the other guy does. And while "cheating" has negative connotations, it often doesn't until so labeled.

 

The Best Story I Know About Cheating:

 

When I was a kitten, a friend's mom was president of the School Board. One night, the Board met to develop a "Cheeting Policy" in response to a rash of students caught cheeting at school.

 

It came time for my friend's mom to speak up:

 

"What do you think, madam President? How do you think we should punish students who cheat?"

 

"I'm afraid that I'm going to have to recuse myself from this discussion since I, myself, happen to condone cheating." She replied.

 

Are their moral absolutes? Is lying about a blowjob as bad as lying about WMD? Is cheating on a diet as bad as cheating on your spouse? Is it wrong to flout the rules of a corrupt contest?

 

I'll never know, and frankly, I'm more interested in figuring out what I'm going to have for dinner.

[Wewus432]

I love ya zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Wewus432]

I really do

[Thomas Wilburn]

Your mob mentality statements are just ludicrous, and I'm not even going to touch them anymore.

 

Originally posted by zzzzzzzzz:

As far as the question goes, it's pretty basic and simple. Perhaps too simple for a pompous intellectual like you. Others have managed to come up with varying answers, and how they or you perceive the question is part of the question.

What, now it's a rorschach? The question (assuming we pick one out of the dense paragraph you posted) is simple. Exactly my point. It's so simple, there's honestly nothing to talk about.

 

Your questions are closed. If I were to answer them honestly and simply, it would look like aeon's reply. "Yes. No. No. No. Sometimes. Probably. Maybe. Yes. Often." Do you see why simple != good in this scenario? Complexity and nuance are far more effective.

 

Cheating is bad. End of discussion. Can we move on now?

 

Since I believe in a solution, here are questions that would be far more interesting:

 

Did you cheat while you were in school?

 

What do you do about kids that are cheating in school?

 

What to do about the growing cheating problem at America's universities?

 

Is there a time when it's permissible to cheat in a relationship?

 

These are still overly-simplistic questions, but they might still lead to complicated conclusions through the development of thoughtful responses. If people like, they can discuss them, although to be honest we probably already have in at least one or two situations. Duddits has already gone and started an answer to one of them while I've been writing this. I like that kind of initiative in a cat.

 

It is true that some people have answered your questions. Many more of them have simply decided to have fun with this thread. It seems to me that such behavior is probably due to the afore-mentioned weaknesses in your questions.

 

Finally, I'm a writer. That's what I do, and I was academically trained in it. If you don't want someone to post somewhat-lengthy responses in a mode you would consider "pompous" or overblown, you probably shouldn't be online where people like me find a natural environment. If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the goddamn porch.

[Wewus432]

That's an excellent response, Thomas, but you gotta give zzzzzz his due.

 

Man! That's good writing! I love IT!!!!!

 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz?

[Philip OKeefe]

Is there a time when it's permissible to cheat in a relationship?

 

Let me modify that a bit if I can...

 

Suppose you're married... and you took a vow to remain faithful to that person. Let's make the assumption that the first violation of the faithfullness rule "voids" the covenant (marriage contract). So if person A cheats, and that voids the contract, is person B actually guilty of cheating if they 1) tell the judge that person A cheated / voided the contract and then they 2) find someone new after person A has moved out and taken up residence with a new partner?

 

IOW, assume someone's spouse cheats on them and leaves them. That person goes to the judge and reports it. Are they still obligated to remain under the provisions of the original "rules" and faithful to the original vow? To remarry under those circumstances - is that cheating?

 

Some would certainly argue that it is, while others would disagree.

[Thomas Wilburn]

Ooh, I like that. Is this a personally relevant question, or are you just curious?

 

I'm no contract lawyer, but I tend to think that a person who is married and then cheated on has pretty free reign if they want it. However, it's also my sneaking suspicion that although that's not technically cheating, it wouldn't look very good in divorce court, and you'd probably want to hold off on the frolicking until the marriage was officially nullified.

 

Anyone else have any input?

[Lee Flier]

Morally (leaving out the legal aspects) I think if you're cheated on it "voids the contract." That's how I tend to behave personally about most things: I won't initiate cheating but if someone else cheats, I have no moral problem with cheating right back. Not that I always will - there has to be some good reason for it. I don't tend to do anything just for revenge. But if someone is trying to cheat me or someone close to me out of something that's rightfully deserved - hell yeah, I'll abandon my normal ethics where that person is concerned.

[Hanshananigan]

Originally posted by Thomas Wilburn:

This is not a psychological therapy lounge.

Uh, Thomas...are you kidding?

A bit off topic, but, this place is like a group therapy session without a competent facilitator- like what happened when the "Simpsons" were in family therapy with the impotent Dr. Marvin Monroe. In fact, the Wewus only posts here because of court-ordered treatment. Luckily, when someone really has a problem or needs to vent, people can be pretty dang sympathetic/empathetic/supportive around here.

 

Oh, and 'don't want a cheater as my meter reader.

[Thomas Wilburn]

Originally posted by Hanshananigan:

Originally posted by Thomas Wilburn:

This is not a psychological therapy lounge.

Uh, Thomas...are you kidding?

A bit off topic, but, this place is like a group therapy session without a competent facilitator- like what happened when the "Simpsons" were in family therapy with the impotent Dr. Marvin Monroe. In fact, the Wewus only posts here because of court-ordered treatment. Luckily, when someone really has a problem or needs to vent, people can be pretty dang sympathetic/empathetic/supportive around here.

 

Oh, and 'don't want a cheater as my meter reader.

True. Wait until you all get my bill for this session. But for the most part, the people here for therapy are our friends. They've spent time here and built up a rapport. They don't just expect sympathy. And I don't mind them at all.