Girl Ruins Marriage

[RandomLetters]

What was in your signature?

[Alex C.]

O_O ... poor guy...somethings are better left UNSAID

[mirhagk]

@RandomLetters his signature was asking what the trinary equivalent of a bit was.

[ecookman]

I watched a documentary on this a while back, apparently researchers discovered when someone is telling the truth, the brain answers passively, therefore not really requiring you to think. That being said, when you are lying, you are required to think about what is being said. The MRI can pickup this increase in brain activity apparently. From the tests that they did the MRI was a lot more accurate than "traditional" [polygraph] methods and may be used as actual court evidence in the future.

[RandomLetters]

What if the person accused of cheating (or murder) had done the act many years ago, and must actively try to remember if he or she actually did it? Furthermore, even if a person was telling "the truth", it would only be true in his or her mind. If that person was insane, had forgotten, or trained himself to believe otherwise, he could easily tell a truth, which would only be absolutely true in his subjective reality.

[Aange10]

RandomLetters @ 24/1/2012, 12:18 pm wrote:

What if the person accused of cheating (or murder) had done the act many years ago, and must actively try to remember if he or she actually did it? Furthermore, even if a person was telling "the truth", it would only be true in his or her mind. If that person was insane, had forgotten, or trained himself to believe otherwise, he could easily tell a truth, which would only be absolutely true in his subjective reality.

I completely second this, given the fact that I have had family pass a polymorphism test while lying. Furthermore, I highly doubt that this other test would detect the lie either; he trained himself to say that what happened happened, and that was that. He passed, even though it was a lie.

[Raknarg]

Perhaps training the use of microexpressions?

[Velocity]

cheating on your partner is only bad when he/she knows ur doing it

[mirhagk]

Raknarg @ Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:04 pm wrote:

Perhaps training the use of microexpressions?

Lie to me is even less accurate than a polygraph machine lol.

[S_Grimm]

Velocity @ Tue Jan 24, 2012 11:38 pm wrote:

Cheating on your partner is only bad when he/she knows you're doing it.

2 Things. One. It's "you're" not "ur". I corrected it in my quote for you.
Two. That is horrible thinking. By that logic, it's acceptable to justify anything as long as no one knows. Is murder right as long as no one knows your doing it? The pain you will cause your significant other makes it wrong ALL the time, regardless.

EDIT: Wow, I didn't even realize how old this thread was when i posted. My bad. Sorry for the Necro.

[Raknarg]

Seeing as it's already been necroed...

@mirhagk i was worth a shot lol
@Velocity I disagree. Why is cheating wrong? Because it is morally incorrect. Therefore, a morally incorrect action is not fine simply because you're the only one who knows, because the moral implications are still there.

[Aange10]

I'd like to take a stand on this topic too, then.

Quote:

@Velocity I disagree. Why is cheating wrong? Because it is morally incorrect. Therefore, a morally incorrect action is not fine simply because you're the only one who knows, because the moral implications are still there.

I understand your view, but that's a bit of a False consensus fallacy.

A person's morals may not be the same as yours. I may have two kids and am holding an unstable, low waged job, barley making ends meet. My wife is constantly strung out, and my children have no second parent in their life. I'm exploring my relationships with other people, in hopes that my children and I both could lead a much more productive and satisfactory lifestyle.

Are my actions still wrong? Am I really all that bad?

[RandomLetters]

S_Grimm @ Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:37 am wrote:

Velocity @ Tue Jan 24, 2012 11:38 pm wrote:

Cheating on your partner is only bad when he/she knows you're doing it.

2 Things. One. It's "you're" not "ur". I corrected it in my quote for you.
Two. That is horrible thinking. By that logic, it's acceptable to justify anything as long as no one knows. Is murder right as long as no one knows your doing it? The pain you will cause your significant other makes it wrong ALL the time, regardless.

EDIT: Wow, I didn't even realize how old this thread was when i posted. My bad. Sorry for the Necro.

That is a false analogy. When you murder someone, the victim knows that you have murdered them. Cheating on the other hand, could be considered a victimless crime, but in reality, there are various side effects.

[mirhagk]

Velocity's point stands perfectly fine. It may still be morally wrong to do it, but it is not "bad" in the sense that it causes no harm to anyone (well assuming the person your cheating with doesn't get hurt) unless someone finds out.

Murder hurts someone, whether or not anyone finds out.

It really depends on how you define "bad". Is it the hurting of others, or is it failing to follow moral laws?