'Only miserable people dislike cheaters' 🤡🤡🤡

ClowntownDenisen1234

January 24, 2020

191 upvotes

/r/MGTOW

Archived from /r/MGTOW

r/MGTOW is a community for men going their own way by forging their own identities and paths to self-defined success; cutting through collective ideas of what a man is.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MGTOW archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	'Only miserable people dislike cheaters' 🤡🤡🤡
Author	ClowntownDenisen1234
Upvotes	191
Comments	37
Date	January 24, 2020 2:20 AM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MGTOW
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MGTOW/comments/et3qx4/only_miserable_people_dislike_cheaters/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MGTOW/only-miserable-people-dislike-cheaters.375093 https://theredarchive.com/post/375093

[–]pull_a_sickie51 points52 points53 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ridzzzz15318 points19 points20 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]52-75-73-74-7919 points20 points21 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Considered_Dissent17 points18 points19 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ClowntownDenisen1234[S] 8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Her0_0f_time2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]lazerkings700 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Her0_0f_time0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThatOneSadFrogMeme9 points10 points11 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]U-948 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jjjj6223 points4 points5 points 6 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]colttaine-30 points-29 points-28 points 6 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[+]colttaine-14 points-13 points-12 points 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Some people commit suicide after losing their jobs. Do you also draw a moral equivalency between downsizing someone and murdering them? Should we outlaw making people redundant?

My guess would be no. Because men have agency. They have bad days all the time, and its on them to fucking deal with it.

It amazes me that MGTOW spends so much time advocating for women to be held accountable for their actions and agency, but then we want to blame women for these kinds of negative actions of men.

The truth is that is a very long bow to try and blame a person for someone else's suicide. Unless is an absolute clear cut case, where the person was mentally unhinged, and then manipulated and pushed with the specific intention of doing harm ala Michelle Carter. And even then, she was convicted of involuntary manslaughter (basically criminal negligence) not murder. Like it or not, its legally an important distinction to make.

At the absolute worst, cheating would be considered a breach of an exclusivity contract. That's it. You can’t morally equate it to murder, which brings me to oneofchaos… Good luck with that man.

As well as being little more than a contractual breach of exclusivity, its basically an implied contract, that most courts wont even recognise. That’s right, its not real. In most modern jurisdictions adultery has been decriminalised, and I’d say that in the 7 states you’re talking about, whist adultery laws may still be on the books, they probably aren’t recognised. Even if a court heard your case, and ruled in your favour, you’d probably still lose if it was then appealed in a higher court.

Should adultery be illegal? Perhaps. But for all intents and purposes it isn’t. Its not recognised as a real contract. Its not recognised by law. And even if it was, it still wouldn’t be equivalent to murder.

[–]CommanderOfTheDeath10 points11 points12 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[removed]

[+][deleted] 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ResidentTruck13 points14 points15 points 6 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[+]colttaine-9 points-8 points-7 points 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]ResidentTruck10 points11 points12 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]colttaine-2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I dunno about that. I think 'degrees' of wrong do matter, which is why i think the satire utterly fails.

As i said above, at worst, adultery is a breach of an exclusivity contract. An implied contract that the courts don't even legally recognise as legitimate. And if it is (as you see to agree) predictable behaviour, then its questionable whether such a contract is even reasonable in the first place.

Its like bringing a common chimpanzee to a high class dinner party and then getting upset that it doesn't follow correct dining table etiquette. You could argue that its 'wrong' that the chimpanzee isn't behaving itself, but personally i think the problem is the absurdity of bringing a chimpanzee to a dinner party in the first place. Its an animal. Ie, you can argue that adultry is wrong, but personally i think its foolhardy to have such expectations of people in the first place.

[–]CommanderOfTheDeath6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ClowntownDenisen1234[S] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

Its an animal. Ie, you can argue that adultry is wrong, but personally i think its foolhardy to have such expectations of people in the first place.

You can use the exact same argument about murder. In fact, that's actually in the satire. Humans are animals with a strong propensity for violence. So you can argue that murder is wrong, but personally I think it's foolhardy to have such expectations of people in the first place.. hence the entire reason that we have laws and punishments in place to deter assault and murder.

I don't know how this isn't more obvious to you. Except the fact that you seem to be taking a rather psychopathic view on the potential impacts of adultery by referring to it as nothing more than a breach of contract (not saying you're a psychopath.. just the position). But to the person being deceived and betrayed it's not the contract that is being broken. It's something much more personal and profound than that. And it's the discovery of betrayal and deception that's damaging,

Would be just as damaging in a long term relationship without the marriage contract. The subsequent divorce rape is just material salt on the wound.

[–]colttaine0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ClowntownDenisen1234[S] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

History would disagree with you. As would cultural anthropology. Human history runs red with blood, as does the cultural norms of more tribal/ primitive contemporary humans AND our closest genetic neighbors in the primate kingdom.

If it weren't for our modern rule of law and harsh punitive system as deterrents, present civilization would be no different. And even with those harsh deterrents and technologically enhanced law enforcement or treaties in place, the world is nevertheless rife rife with murder, war, and a variety of other violent crimes. Just ask the victims of the various wars of the last 50 years or the hundreds of millions dead in the last century.

What's more, it's the exact same ancient hindbrain that we share with primates and lizards which is responsible for survival instinct responses like fear, anger, rage, and lust (which you euphemistically refer to as being horny). It's just that modern humans have a neocortex that affords us rational thinking.. it just often ceases to be operational when our hind brain instincts kick in. Again.. the reason we need laws to deter violence within a civilized world.

Yes, all humans experience lust, and many historically have been promiscuous, but not all. Pair bonding was a viable adaptive strategy, which is why some humans have a strong predisposition toward it. Similarly, all humans experience rage. And you only need to have experienced it yourself to realize how easily it could turn to violence or even murder without proper deterrents in place, and also how similar that loss of control and rational thinking is to when lust takes over. But even without them, not all humans would give in. Just. Like. Cheating. in a monogamous relationship.

There really is no material difference here, apart from deterrents in society (laws, social stigma etc) and a person's natural ability (attractiveness in the case of promiscuity, and physical capacity for violence in the case of murder). That's literally all that accounts for the disparity between the two behaviors.

[–]colttaine0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ok... And is that what you'd do? Would you be out in the streets torturing and murdering people for the lolz, if the laws didn't tell you otherwise?

Honestly, this is the same nonsense argument I've heard from christians trying to prove the validity of the gospel. Arguing that without god and the bible explicitly telling people what to do, they wouldn't know right from wrong. Its retarded nonsense of the highest order.

The reason the world was more violent in the past was because survival was harder. Resources were scarcer. You had to do what you had to do to survive.

As civilization progressed, resources became less scarce, quality of life for everyone went up, and the need to practice violence to survive decreased dramatically. People were not inherently psychopathic, and they were not "corrected" by modern laws. What utterly insane poppycock.

As civilization advanced and progressed in real practical ways, the theoretical laws of society adapted to fit that real world progression. Not the other way around... I hate to say it, but your understanding of ethics, human nature, and frankly the world in general, is completely arse backwards and myopic.

Its not about social deterrents at all. Quite the opposite, its about modern incentives brought about by advances in individual quality of life.

Ironically, it was this very same civilization advancements leading to a drop in violence, that has also allowed for and incentivised promiscuous sex without the biological consequences. The two behaviors you claim to be the same, are quite literally polar opposites sir...

[–]ClowntownDenisen1234[S] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]oneofchaos11 points12 points13 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ClowntownDenisen1234[S] 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

conflate consensual sex between to adults, with a crime

Firstly, whether the act is a crime is utterly irrelevant and a total non-sequitur here, since (as you well know) lots of things are legal that shouldn't be, and lots of things are outlawed that shouldn't be. Heck.. even adultery was considered a serious crime punishable by death, just like murder until a century or two ago.

Secondly, you're committing the same equivocation fallacy the degenerates on that sub are by conveniently forgetting the other unconsenting parties that are being harmed, namely the spouse and children of the cheater.

Why do we lock up first degree murderers? Because they knowingly engage in acts that harm others and scheme to get away with it. What do adulterers do?.. Knowingly engage in acts that harm others and scheme to get away with it.

The premeditated commission of an act that you know will harm others is the definition of antisocial behavior. And the ongoing, elaborate, and careful deception and manipulation used to conceal it is another form of antisocial behavior known as Machiavellianism.

Both are primary characteristics of full blown personality disorders as defined by the DSM5

What you're doing is saying 'this is not the same at all, because one is causing physical harm and the other is causing emotional or psychological harm'. But the cluster of personality traits and behaviors that make it possible are the exact same. It's just we have laws deterring one and not the other.

Moreover, both are knowingly harming others, it's just that the adulterers are doing it to people they 'claim' to care about.

[–]colttaine1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm sorry, but the legality does matter here. We are talking about a contract here. Marriage is a contract. However it is a fake contract that has zero legal support when it comes to infidelity.

People are entering into this fake contract, and then we're going to be surprised when the fake conditions of that fake contract aren't upheld? Especially considering the distinct lack of loyalty that we know women posses (literally one half of this fake contractual partnership) The whole situation is stupid from the outset, and could be solved with the phrase "caveat emptor"

As for causing harm:

Secondly, you're committing the same equivocation fallacy the degenerates on that sub are by conveniently forgetting the other unconsenting parties that are being harmed, namely the spouse and children of the cheater.

What you're doing is saying 'this is not the same at all, because one is causing physical harm and the other is causing emotional or psychological harm'.

And therein lies the problem. At the end of the day, someone got their fee-fees hurt. They didn't like something that someone else conceptually did with a third party... Personally i don't think we should be going down the SJW path of moral outrage and legislation, based on hurt feelings.

[–]ClowntownDenisen1234[S] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

At the end of the day, someone got their fee-fees hurt. They didn't like something that someone else conceptually did with a third party

The concept of morality is meaningless if we aren't talking about the impact of actions on other conscious beings. An easy way to know if something is moral or not is to ask 'Would the world be a better or worse place if everyone did the thing I'm contemplating doing.'

Of course the world would be a worse place of everyone went around physically harming each other. But lying, manipulation, self-serving opportunism, and zero sum games, and even just rude/ mean/ asshole behavior are all things that make the world a worse place if everyone engages in them.

What's more, it really doesn't matter what you personally think about how much we ought to regard another person's feelings in discussions of morality. The psychological and philosophical literature on sociopathy and antisocial behavior are already pretty clear: The world is categorically not a better place if everyone just goes around doing whatever they want, consequences be damned, and otherwise using each other as tools to achieve a selfish end, rather than having compassion for them as human beings with deep psychological identities, and yes 'feelings'.

i don't think we should be going down the SJW path of moral outrage and legislation, based on hurt feelings.

On this we agree. However legislation on large scale and negative societal impacts are another thing entirely.

[–]colttaine0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

On this we agree.

I don't think that's really the case. You spent three whole paragraphs before that arguing the exact opposite. No kidding, what you've written are the same arguments I'd expect to hear from SJWs crying that their fragile feelings being protected as well.

Honestly, the argument in the OP is sloppy as fuck. If it was the exact same attempt at "satire" made by a feminist, arguing on the basis of emotions, and conflating murder with some "woke" transgression against their feelings, MGTOW would probably be the first group to tear it to pieces. And so they should.

It really is a shit argument. And its seems very clear to me that "noone had a problem with it", everyone was willing to make an exception, because it happens to be an issue that they're emotionally invested in. Personally, I don't think that is a good thing. I think we should be much more critical about human nature than that, even if the conclusion is something we find uncomfortable.

[–]AWildAussie1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

The key difference is that an SJW doesn't have anything but their feelings in order to argue that something is wrong.

"The West is a patriarchal society which tries to oppress women at every opportunity." "1 in 4 women are raped or sexually assaulted." "Women make 72 cents on the dollar."

The problem with these statements isn't simply that they're feelings-based, it's that they're feelings-based statements which are completely separate from factual reality. Not only that, but an SJW is prioritizing their own personal feelings over the well-being of others. And that is the whole irony; you have a person who is unbelievably sanctimonious and yet they are just as selfish (if not more so) then the very people they are deriding.

A "woke" transgression is laughable not because "Hey, fuck other people, it's every man and dog for themselves" but precisely because what they're referring to is purposely being over-inflated. Who is victimized by the act of "Manspreading" or the act of "Mansplaining"? At worst, "mansplaining" is simply an annoyance with no one being physically harmed. The fact that someone would carry on about such a minor (accurately titled) "micro-aggression" demonstrates that their concerns are trivial and despite what they think, they actually have very little in life to worry about.

To argue that cheating isn't wrong because "Hey, it's two consenting adults" is to completely miss the point. We're not talking about two people, we're talking about three people, at least. If Mary and John agree to be in a monogamous relationship with one another and then a month later Mary is out shagging Brad, it doesn't matter how unbelievably 'horny' Mary and Brad were, and how much they consented to it - John never did. You are letting someone off the hook based on the idea that the fact that because Brad enabled her to cheat, that he somehow invalidates the immorality of cheating. That rationale just doesn't make any sense to me. If we were to swap this to stealing and we were to say "Mary is allowed to steal from John because Brad says he doesn't have a problem with Mary stealing" there should be nobody who fails to see the faulty line of reasoning that is being used in this line of argument.

And no, the fact that Mary stealing from John was inevitable, even predictable, doesn't make it acceptable. Cmon now.

Comments