Hot married babe, would you do it?

[ketostix]

Hope has no effect on your destiny nor the destinies of others

Consider the contless men, women and children who have shot dead at school or work by some pissed of guy who just broken up with his girlfriend, they were in the wrong place at the wrong time because they either was trying to get an education of make enough money for the mortgage... "Golden rule..." Pffffttttttt....

Except the wrongdoers in your example weren't following the golden rule were they?

Your actions have outcomes, or consequences for those

I agree your actions have outcome for others and others' actions have consequence for you. But I would add your actions have outcomes and consequence for you too, in each of the examples you gave the perpetrator would likely go to prison.

The Golden rule was a succinct rule for everyone to guide their ACTIONS by. You have to admit the more people who follow it the less likely you're to become a "victim" by someone else.

Sure you can "cheat" in following the rule and get away with it and maybe benefit. But I think what people are saying is by Karma eventually the consequence of your actions will eventually catch up with you in ways you didn't predict.

But I agree with you being a "do-gooder" in itself rarely gets rewarded.

 

[Victory Unlimited]

Mr. Positive:

Congratulations on standing firmly on YOUR core beliefs by choosing to pass on the married chick. Nothing like the inner peace and CONGRUENCE that you experience by being true to YOURSELF, is there?

Now, on to something else about this thread that has risen into the crosshairs of my laser scope:

I find it simply amazing that there are some men here who find it necessary to almost "APOLOGIZE" for standing their ground on the things in which they believe.

So THIS is to the men who choose to live their lives by a kind of "personal" code of ethics that SOMETIMES seem at odds with those of the majority:

The level of commitment that you have given to adhering to YOUR personal code of ethics is a decision that YOU have made. It is something you do for your OWN honor, and your OWN edification...and NOT for the mere consumption or the validation of ANYBODY ELSE----either here on the internet or in the REAL WORLD.

If you experience that the things and/or standards that you believe in actually WORK for your life, then continue to MARCH ON in those directions. Having said that, the open dialogue that goes on HERE is still beneficial for many reasons:

A meeting of the minds-----cool.

An exchanging of ideas-----great.

Occasionally seeing the "light" and actually changing your viewpoints BASED on the exchanging of "SAID" ideas------wonderful.

But to allow yourself to fall into the tempation to "change" your convictions due to the presence of opposing views simply BECAUSE they are opposing-----NEVER!

And why SHOULD you? I have yet to see many men here express themselves APOLOGETICALLY when it comes to the advocating of their particular beliefs and lifestyles, so AGAIN-----why should YOU?

Many of you would be surprised to learn how many guys read these boards but feel too intimidated to join, LET ALONE express an "unpopular" viewpoint when they DO. I know that I personally receive MANY direct emails, (not PMs) from guys responding to the things they've read on Sosuave-----guys who have YET to join us here on this forum...

So it is my belief that, on ALL sides, and on ALL issues, those of us who DO post here continue to provide a GREAT service to the throngs of men who come here by UNABASHEDLY expressing our views----no matter WHAT they are.

But of course, in a way that remains as mutually respectful as possible...

So...whether the "Battle of Ideas" takes place during fair weather, OR within a climate of adversity or opposition, "IF" you still find that you believe the way that YOU believe, then your position of choice should ALWAYS be the same...



...NO COMPROMISE.

 

[ER!C L!VE]

I'm sorta kicking myself for this one...

I was loading groceries into my car earlier today. I noticed a HB start loading groceries into the car next to her, glanced over and though to myself that she was pretty hot.

Well, she looked at me and said "wow, it's a hot day today" So, I started chatting her up. During the conversation I noticed that she had a wedding ring on. It sucks when you reach an age where you start looking for wedding rings.

I must say we had a good connection...and she was pretty d@mn hot.

At the end of the convo, I introduced myself. She then said (with a big flirty smile), "my husband's out of town for a couple of days, would you like to come over? I'll cook you dinner."

No Joke...she's married, and was very blunt about it. It's rare, for me at least, to meet a woman who was this straightforward...and, to add to it, married.

I ended up telling her that I was flattered, but had a girlfriend (not true).

Anyway, I'm kicking myself for passing this up, however I just couldn't bring myself to accept her offer.

Any thoughts? Would you guys have jumped on this?

I would have.

 

[blueguy]

What if you didn't KNOW she was married? You still fukked a married woman. Is Karma gonna get you in a case like this?

My explanation of Karma earlier included the fundamental aspect of humans having a conscience. Is a mass serial killer going to feel "connected" with the rest of society and his friends? No, he'll lose out on one of the most important aspects of life itself - and that is his feeling of acceptance by others. Once you do something, you carry that with you - often even sub communicating it to others. The more you alienate yourself from another's views, the less emotionally intimate you become with that person/society. And visa versa.

 

[blueguy]

The Golden Rule, Karma, Faith and the like are pannaceas that help people get through life, it's just another form of "hope." Hope has no effect on your destiny nor the destinies of others. Consider my examples, did hope or the golden rule help any of those people in their times of need? At best it gives them some solice if something beyond their control happens.

I disagree, and that's because you don't understand Karma.

Buddhist principles are very logical. The reason people so easily disbelieve Karma is because there's this misunderstanding Karma means tit for tat, just as you did, which is (of course) not logical at all.

 

[Last Man Standing]

Good post VU

There is no such thing as "Karma" -- but you do reap what you sow!!

 

[blueguy]

There is no such thing as "Karma"

Lemme guess, you learned that from the movies just like Francisco?

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/karma_of_the_nation.htm

Event scientists don't argue the concept of karma. It is completely rational!

 

[ketostix]

I don't think having sex with a married woman in a situation like this would necessarily always be morally wrong just because the woman is married. It could be wrong. But you don't know the guy and their marriage. It's more wrong for her than it is for the guy for sure. Kind of like Mr. Positive said, in the worse case scenario this situation has some risks.

I tend to try to "do unto others as I'd want them to do unto me". But I agree with Francisco, this doesn't really get you some reward or protection.

I guess I respect and see the points of both sides. I respect someone who just set standards they abide by and won't break them, and I can respect someone who weighs the situation and then decides what they will do at the time. In a perfect world I would never get with a married women but this isn't a perfect world.

As far what I would've done, that's tough to say. I probably would've been hesitant and dilly-dallyed a little bit and got more of a feel for the situation. I can't say I'd feel too comfortable being at her place though.

 

[jophil28]

Good post VU

There is no such thing as "Karma" -- but you do reap what you sow!!

The concept of Karma and (reincarnation ) are both fanciful nonsense , It matters not that some eastern religions (and bazillions of people ) believe these notions,. False beliefs like thees may have been useful in ancient times to try to explain some of lifes mysteries to unsophisticated folk, however to cling to some of these beliefs now because they are enshirned in Buddism or whatever is foolish.
That said - we do reap what we sow . Just look at the empirical evidence from your own life .

 

[Bonhomme]

Sometimes people reap what they sow. There are many sowing bad seeds, and reaping rich harvests.

But "karma" as I see it is an active process. It's up to us to call out those who are harming others. Karma ain't gonna do it by itself.

 

[edger]

KARMA...the topic of Karma, Curses, etc. I've known people who swear by this sh*t, that it exists and is out there. I've known practicing Pagans who have personally testified to the 'Three Fold Rule'; that if you do a bad deed to someone, it will come back to you "Three Fold". Like I said, I've known people who swear by it. I personally don't understand why something would come back to you "Threefold" though, which would mean you'd suffer more than the suffering you had caused. I've also known people who swear that "Curses" are real. These are people who are very experienced with the spirit world and the occult. I've also read up on this stuff and have watched numerous documentaries relating to it. Sure some people's stories I'm sure are made up, but I'm definitely not one to believe that they're all made up, as I personally believe many such stories and testimonials are very real. Anyone who is of Carribbean origin(Haiti in particular) can also testify to this.

I agree, it apears that not everyone reaps what they sow. I don't know what to say to that, except for I guess god(if you believe in a god), whoever you wanna refer to it as, allows it to happen to some people, and others not. Life is truly a complete, strange mystery.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Except the wrongdoers in your example weren't following the golden rule were they?

That's what I was pointing out. No matter how much you'd want to believe that the golden rule will be your shield of invulnerability, it has no influence over other people but for some reason people believe that it will. Yeah, and the Easter Bunny lays caramel filled Cadbury Eggs.

I agree your actions have outcome for others and others' actions have consequence for you. But I would add your actions have outcomes and consequence for you too, in each of the examples you gave the perpetrator would likely go to prison.

True, but you also gave a perfect example of how people who use the term "consequence" will typically note a negative outcome and seldom give positive examples. Pay attention whenever you hear someone use the word consiquence, is it ever positive?

The Golden rule was a succinct rule for everyone to guide their ACTIONS by. You have to admit the more people who follow it the less likely you're to become a "victim" by someone else.

Prove it.

...
But I agree with you being a "do-gooder" in itself rarely gets rewarded.

Let it be known that I'm not advocating running around screwing people (married women with hot bods aside). It's just funny to see people expect that it will ensure that they will get something positive in return. Go ahead and do good, but do it because you enjoy doing it and not because you want something in return. If you want something, do what's necessary for you to get it and not expect someone to give it to you because you're a "nice guy."

 

[Luveno]

If you were to go to her house and screw her, the least you could do for the husband would be to leave an anonymous note somewhere he'd find it that said "I had sex with your wife after she propositioned me at the grocery store on dd/mm/yyyy". Might as well let the bloke know he's got a harlot on his hands.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

I disagree, and that's because you don't understand Karma.

Oh I completely understand the concept of Karma and by the way that most people conform to it, it severely limits their capabilities; especially their quest for enlightenment since you had referenced Buddhism. It would mean treating everyone as if they had the same strengths, talents and goals. Ever watch Star Trek? Notice the so called "efficiencies" of the species known as the "Borg?"

Here's something to contemplate; the mantra of "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" is a completely selfish and unaltruistic endeavor. It basically says that you should only treat people the way that you would want to be treated (not taking their individual needs into consideration).

Wouldn't it be more selfless to do unto others the way in which they would want to be done unto? It would take more effort and would mean being in tune with others at least as much as you are in tune with yourself. How many people are actually willing to do that?

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

FYI, as much as there may be some people may feel that I'm arguing a point, I see this thread as a healthy debate which depicts both sides of what we could call "the morality delima." It's threads like these that keep me around this forum (no wisecracks from the peanut gallery). Anything that makes people really think about their (society's) beliefs is worth the effort in my book.

Good stuff fellas, keep it up.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Lemme guess, you learned that from the movies just like Francisco?

Uh oh, getting frustrated so you're taking cheap shots now huh? Wonder how that's going to come back to ya'. Perhaps this thread will turn into a flame war...

"Karma's a b1tch."

 

[Mr.Positive]

Wouldn't it be more selfless to do unto others the way in which they would want to be done unto? It would take more effort and would mean being in tune with others at least as much as you are in tune with yourself. How many people are actually willing to do that?

But Francisco...wouldn't this be supplicating? Just to play devil's advocate.

A lot of people are willing to do this, they are called 'nice guys'. We constantly tell guys on this site NOT to do this. Also, it's hard for people to 'read' each other, to real know how others want to be treated.

This is why, Karma aside, moral absolutes are important. Such as the ten commandments, for example, etched in stone (if you believe)..."thou shall not steal".."thou shall not COVET another man's wife".

There's no grey area with these. Nothing really open to interpretation, so we can bend the rules. They are a moral code of conduct that each one of us can choose to follow, or not.

I'd like to learn more about karma actually. Not that I believe in it, just learn more about the philosophies of it.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

But Francisco...wouldn't this be supplicating? Just to play devil's advocate.

Oh please, play devils advocate.

A lot of people are willing to do this, they are called 'nice guys'. We constantly tell guys on this site NOT to do this. Also, it's hard for people to 'read' each other, to real know how others want to be treated.

So you tell me, is the typical "nice guy" charismatic? I say that guy who's charismatic makes other people feel good about themselves when he is in their presence. How do you think he does that, supplication???

This is why, Karma aside, moral absolutes are important. Such as the ten commandments, for example, etched in stone (if you believe)..."thou shall not steal".."thou shall not COVET another man's wife".

I personally cringe whenever I hear [personal] morality equated with the Ten Commandments. I think someone wrote that there shouldn't be sex before marriage. Oh yeah, and that you shouldn't eat yellow snow.

There's no grey area with these. Nothing really open to interpretation, so we can bend the rules. They are a moral code of conduct that each one of us can choose to follow, or not.

This is probably why it seems as if most people can't adhere to them. Hell, even the clergy have been known to break morality clauses themselves. I won't even ask why.

I'd like to learn more about karma actually. Not that I believe in it, just learn more about the philosophies of it.

In life there are no absolutes beyond death (other than math). Most things that you read are ideas of the individual. There is no reality, only perception.

 

[ketostix]

Here's something to contemplate; the mantra of "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" is a completely selfish and unaltruistic endeavor. It basically says that you should only treat people the way that you would want to be treated (not taking their individual needs into consideration).

I'd say it's just an easy and practical rule. Before you do something to someone else your guide would be how would you feeel if they did the same thing to you. That doesn't sound that selfish unaltrusitic to me. I think this rule was talking about big things like stealing, lying, physically injuring someone else and their property, not every little good deed you could do for someone, e.g, if someone didn't have a coat, give them one. Besides I don't see how it would have to neglect taking their individual needs into conideration. Logically you could see their need, imagine yourself in their situation, ex. no coat, then ask yourself would you want others to give you a coat.

True, but you also gave a perfect example of how people who use the term "consequence" will typically note a negative outcome and seldom give positive examples. Pay attention whenever you hear someone use the word consiquence, is it ever positive?

Maybe, so but avoiding a negative consequence is a positive thing.


I think your taking the "do unto others as you'd want them to do unto" too far. I don't think it was an explanation about how to deal with people socially and win friends. I think it was more about don't act with malice nor live with a total disregard for the effects your actions would have on another innocent individual. A nice guy continues to do nice things and favors to a woman that's walking on him. That's two different things.

I also don't buy that what's moral is ambiguous to a normal average person. People that aren't normal eventually get locked up unless they're very clever.

I agree with you about Karma. And I think something's aren't totally black and white like a married woman coming on to you. I think in those cases your motivation matters. if you're not really trying to harm anyone then your actions have less chance of doing anyone else harm or at least less harm.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

I'd say it's just an easy and practical rule.

And therein lies the one indisputable truth, it's easy and practical. Not that it's proven, not that it's true, not that it's fulfilling, it's just easy. It's people's nature to take the path of least resistance, less effort, what's practical to the masses. It takes no effort, no necessity to prove because it's believed by most people and will seldom be challenged. It couldn't be more practical than that, now could it?

Before you do something to someone else your guide would be how would you feeel if they did the same thing to you.

So you're saying that because you would like to be treated a certain way, I should naturally feel that I should feel or be treated the same way because you personally believe it's right. That would definitely be practical but c'mon, is it realistic?

That doesn't sound that selfish unaltrusitic to me.

Tell me where in your premise that you took my feelings into consideration. Have you? No? Seems selfish to me but usually people who are truly selfish don't realize that they are (this is not meant to be a personal dig toward you, just a generality). At least their definition of "selfish" doesn't match that of the other person. But if it did, that would mean that he would have taken their perception into consideration, but that wouldn't be practical.

I think this rule was talking about big things like stealing, lying, physically injuring someone else and their property, not every little good deed you could do for someone, e.g, if someone didn't have a coat, give them one.

Ah, selective enforcement. Very practical.

Besides I don't see how it would have to neglect taking their individual needs into conideration. Logically you could see their need, imagine yourself in their situation, ex. no coat, then ask yourself would you want others to give you a coat.

Not once in your explanation you ever mention the other person except for putting yourself into his situation. No need to find out specifically what he wants. That would neither be easy nor practical.

Maybe, so but avoiding a negative consequence is a positive thing.

Perhaps, but wouldn't moving toward a positive thing be more enjoyable?

I think your taking the "do unto others as you'd want them to do unto" too far. I don't think it was an explanation about how to deal with people socially and win friends.

No, not really. I was just following the path of those who called it a moral code or even equated it to religious laws. It would be easier if its meaning wouldn't change between posts; but that would be practical.

I think it was more about don't act with malice nor live with a total disregard for the effects your actions would have on another innocent individual.

Define malice; define innocent; by the way, define individual and what makes him so.

A nice guy continues to do nice things and favors to a woman that's walking on him. That's two different things.

Is it really? Didn't someone else (I think Edger) posted something about why nice guys do what they do? That they have a hidden agenda themselves and in fact (in a situation dealing with a married woman) have an ulterior and undisclosed motive?

I also don't buy that what's moral is ambiguous to a normal average person...

If I said that, I didn't mean to. The "moral majority" typically need very strict rules so that they can adhere to them; it makes things easy and practical. No need to make things complicated by deviating from the norm.

I agree with you about Karma. And I think something's aren't totally black and white like a married woman coming on to you. I think in those cases your motivation matters. if you're not really trying to harm anyone then your actions have less chance of doing anyone else harm or at least less harm.

So you're saying that the only thing that differentiates a deed is intent?