Is it OK to judge by whom people date?

Sure, but that's sometimes not always. I try not to assume that I know the best way to get a person to change when all I know is that they are an asshole, it takes more than that, it takes a very detailed knowledge of a person and their circumstance to work out what the best course of action is to make them change.

Silas, you're pretty young. And you have a good heart. But as someone who is older and with responsibilities:

Not everyone has time, desire, or energy for that shit.

Even a certified mental health professional will tell you that it's not your job to fix your partner. Hell, even they don't treat their own family because that's a conflict of interest.

It is incredibly unhealthy to associate with people like that, let alone stay in a committed situation with people like that. And how long before they turn on you? That is the most common thing you hear from abuse victims "They always said I was special" "They said it wouldn't happen with me" "They said I was different!"

If they're willing to hurt other people, they're willing to hurt you. Being their lover, their emotional crutch, their partner in crime isn't' going to prevent them from turning on you.

Nevermind the fact that there are literally billions of other people in the world! There are people who will love you and respect you just the way you are without needing to be "fixed".

You shouldn't be in a relationship with someone and try to change them, even in the best of circumstances. You sure as hell don't want to be with an asshole and expect to change them with the power of love.

That's one of the biggest lies people waste their life and health on.

I am actually with Gabrael on this one. You will not "change" someone by dating them, or going out with them. You can disagree civilly in some things with them, while cohabitation and love still being possible. You can like different activities and still be lovers and such but to want to change other people is not quite..."ok", to put it a label. It is manipulative, even if it is for their good.

Hence why psychologists don't go around trying to change everyone. But it is a service others must seek and be active participants on.

Not to mention psychologists need to eat, too.

But that is different from "is whom they date a variable that predicts anything significant of their personality?". The question about "To change them" means that the person has seen and identified the behavior without a shadow of a doubt, whereas just dating does not relay it.

edited 26th Feb '15 1:12:49 PM by Aszur

O you're both totally right, I have for years insisted that while I may help damaged people improve themselves I will never ever date someone I'm trying to get out of a bad spot. I will have friends as project people, but I will not date them.

Hell even with friends, there is a limit to what my mental capability can take, if I try and help to many people I will break myself and be useless to everyone. There is a finite number of people I can help and I stick to that number rigorously, likewise I don't help people who don't want my help, it's not worth the effort. Hell my friends aren't assholes either (occasional they're idiots), I have a very high standard for my friends.

That's part of why I'm taking issue with the idea that if you date an asshole you must be one. I've known a lot of messed up people over the years who've dated assholes, they did good to get away from such people when they did but they themselves were not and are not assholes, they weren't when they dated such people and they aren't now. Messed up and stupid at times, sure, but never assholes.

I'm not saying that being in a relationship with such people is a good idea (as you've pointed out it normally isn't) but you don't have to be an asshole to do so, you can just be a misguided fool.

I may be young Gab but I've been playing armature psychologist for my social circle since I was 13 and for at least one of my friends I'm a better parent than either of her parents.

Playing armchair shrink is dangerous. And as you said they were messed up.

As we have said before messed up, malicious, doesn't matter. It is the same outcome. They're equally dangerous.

Silas the point is if you want to risk your safety by hanging out with people who need professional help, you have that luxury. My opinion is irrelevant.

However I am almost 30 years old, a mandated reporter, and a government employee. I can lose custody of my child, my job, my future if I am connected to someone who is abusive. The law isn't going to care if I get up there and say, "But I am only friends with his girlfriend! She is really sweet!"

The next words out of the official's mouth will be, "If she is so nice, what the hell is she doing with something like that?!"

And that is not even counting any personal damage that I could incur. Being the source of strength in a group of broken people isn't a good sign.

This is interesting...

Once again, responding to a few things.

@Gabrael

Agree with pretty much everything you say there.

@Silasw

I think that changing who somebody is requires professional training, not a girl/boyfriend. We have psychiatrists and psychologists. We have social workers, and life coaches, and a whole range of professional and private services dedicated to helping people improve their lives.

Now, if you want to help someone fix their life, that's fine and dandy and your choice, but in doing so you are accepting the social consequences. Namely that if your friends are a collection of damaged loons, then other people may well choose to avoid you, based on an entirely reasonable fear for their own safety, and the assumption that you are like your friends. If you want to rid them of that opinion it is on you to do so; you shouldn't expect people to just assume you are safe to be around.

To answer your last question: If you are aware of what they are doing and do not leave, yes you are morally bad. Not as bad as the actual abuser (duh) but certainly not somebody I would care to know. If you somehow don't know, you're stupid and unobservant, and still somebody I would rather not know, though you may not necessarily be morally bad.

@Aszur

Going to break this one up by topic:

RE: Alexander

We talking about his generals or his lovers? Because those are two different groups. Seriously, there's zero evidence he was sleeping with Antigonus, Seleucus, or any of the others. That said, I'll respond to both.

If you're saying we shouldn't judge people based on who they associate with you probably shouldn't bring up Alexander's Companions or the other generals. Because they were the exact same sort of megalomaniacal glory hounds that he was. They drowned most of the Near and Middle East in blood for years carving up the Macedonian empire. Seriously, if you knew Alexander, you knew exactly what his generals were like.

As to his actual lovers, you completely missed my point there. I at no point mentioned battlefield rape; that's all you. I was commenting on the fact that, historically speaking, saying "no" to a king is a very dangerous thing. Ergo, judging everybody who sleeps with the king as though they had free will is a very dangerous thing. That said, anybody who chose to sleep with Alexander of their original volition I will cheerfully judge.

So to take this back to the original point, where you were trying to suggest it would somehow be unfair to judge Alexander's consensual lovers: no it would not be. Alexander didn't hide what he was, he bragged about what he was. Anyone who made the choice to sleep with him, made the choice knowing what he was. I'll judge them gladly.

RE: Truman

Not really much to say to that, because all you're really saying is "morality is relative" which is not a conclusion I needed help to come to. It also doesn't matter at all to this conversation, which is about if we can judge people based on who they date. I think we can, and the fact that somebody else, handed the same information, might come to a different conclusion, doesn't reduce it's validity any (seriously, under that logic we can't come to conclusions about anything). I think Truman was an okay president. My attitude towards his wife (knowing nothing else about her beyond that she was married to him) is therefore a very tepid approval.

RE: Laura Bush

She married him, stayed with him, and made no public protests of his policies. Either she approved of his politics, or didn't disapprove of them enough to say anything. Either way, it is entirely reasonable of me to conclude that, based on that, she and I wouldn't get along. That's not even a moral judgement; it's a judgement that I would not enjoy her company.

RE: Politics

Politics are all about morality. If you vote for a party that wants to take rights away from gays, start wars, and avoid helping the poor because you like their tax cuts then you are immoral. You're putting your personal comfort above the rights and well-being of others.

As to the idea that bad presidents must have lied to their constituents, find me a bad president, and I'll find something in their platform that demonstrates how toxic they already were.

RE: Masks

Think there's been a miscommunication there. I thought you were saying that the person dating the asshole could be putting on a mask and just agreeing with them to maintain a relationship, and was responding that it isn't my job to figure out that they secretly don't.

To address your actual point if you are going to inflict somebody on your friends then yes, it's on you to ensure they aren't a complete bastard.

RE: Who someone dates as a predictor of behaviour

Here's my thing—who somebody dates is, in my experience, a reliable predictor of, if nothing else, how much I will like them. It doesn't tell me everything about their personalty but it doesn't have to.

Example give: Bob is a sadistic, bullying asshole. He has a girlfriend Alice, who I have never met. Given who and what Bob is, however, I already know something about Alice, namely that she is the type of person he would go out with. So she either a) approves of his actions, b) diapproves but prioritises dating him over the well-being of others, or c) is too dumb to notice what he is. In none of those cases is Alice somebody I want to get to know.

Also, because I'm not sure you're following me on this, I classifying dating somebody as being in a longterm relationship, not going out for drinks twice, and then deciding they aren't for you. I'm conducting this conversation under the assumption that we are dealing with a person whose partner of several months+ is abusive of others.

Sure if they're dangerous the reasons don't matter. But I think I've miscommunicated here, my friends aren't dangerous, the people they sometimes associate with are dangerous, my friends are more along the liens of stupid.

A few of them need some serious counselling (years of neglect and abuse as a child will do that) but that's it, again it's the people they then go hang out with that are dangerous, I'm spending my time trying to get them away from such people.

Thus why I completely get why you chose not to associate with people connected to dangerous people. As I've said repeatedly, it's a choice each person makes and it's up to them to make that choice, I make no judgement on people who decide not to associate with people who associate with dangerous folks.

There's a reason I'm very aware of my own mental well being, I work very hard to make sure that personal damage isn't incurred. I wouldn't say I'm the source of strength, they're all plenty strong, I'm just the most experienced and least prone to panic.

O defiantly, there's a reason I have for years being telling my friends to speak to councillor or doctors, I'm an amateur at best, for real progress they should see a professional.

I can get the safety argument, I just don't see why it has to go with "well they must be an asshole like the people they're around" instead of "well they could be an asshole like the people they're around so it's not worth the risk", which seems perfectly fine to me.

I guess this is our point of divergence then, I think one can be, but I don't think it's inherent.

Are you saying that it is immoral to vote for the party that will benefit you the most, whether you're rich or poor?

Silas, maybe the disconnect is what we mean by dangerous. That doesn't just mean abusive to you.

For example: Sally was abused growing up, has a lot of mental and emotional issues, can't keep a job, and is in and out of dangerous relationships. She maybe the sweetest person in the world who would never intentionally cause harm to anyone but fundamentally, she is just as dangerous and toxic as someone who is more explicitly abuse.

You, being the good friend, tell Sally, go to counselling. I will drive you. Here are resources on a silver platter.

If she actually does this and actively seeks treatment such as avoiding toxic people, getting herself in treatment or sober, cutting off ties with the abusive people regardless if they are connected by DNA or not, then Congratulations! Sally has avoided becoming an asshole! She took an active and healthy step towards fixing her issues and taking responsibility for herself.

If Sally says, I know I should but keeps making excuses, only comes to you crying but won't seek help, won't cut off contact with abusive and destructive people, doesn't do shit to help herself, then Sally is just as much an abusive asshole as the people who smack her in theface or call her stupid.

they're called emotional vampires for a reason. They may not bite or hit you but they are still abusing you and the psychological affects are much the same. They're being codependent on you and by you continuing to engage with them, there are so repercussions and no accountability.

Honestly, if I met you on the street and found out that all your friends magically had some sort of issue I would politely avoid you. Just like I would avoid a vat of quicksand.

Even if I didn't have the legal responsibilities I do, why should I risk the chance those people could suck you down with them or they may come back to hurt me by association with you?

Why should I when I can have a perfectly healthy relationship with people who have healthy friends who've conquered their issues and are all looking out for each other?

Just because I can understand where Sally got her issues from doesn't mean I won't judge her for her actions as an adult. I had a shitty childhood. But if I start beating my kid or being moody at work, they'll come down on me and they should.

I would judge a person an asshole if they refused to get and adhere to proper medical treatment for a bleeding gash. They're risking everyone around them. Mental and emotional issues are the same way.

You don't try to help yourself, you're just figuratively bleeding all over the place and everyone you run into. That's an asshole thing to do.

@Gab Yeah I've run into such a person before, once I realised they weren't interested in changing their situation I walked away. My current friends aren't that way, that's why they're my friends. As I said, only one of them has major issues and she is seeking help, she stumbles occasionally but I can see the progress over the last six years, she's getting better. Plus It's hard to take care of your life when you're only just 18, there are certain limits that one runs into at that age.

Sure when you're dealing with fully independent adults you're completely on the mark, but in my case I'm dealing with people who are still in their teens and are still financially dependant upon family who will, just as things are clearing up, throw a "I know you're looking hard for a job but unless you get one in a month you're going to be homeless because I'm going to kick you out".

I'm only 3 years older than my friends, but the independence I have that they don't makes a big difference.

Also it's far from all my friends, one has serious issues which she's working on, the others just tend to panic and make a mess when things go badly, I look out for them by telling them to stop panicking. All my friends look out for me the same way, when I've been in shitty places they've helped me get though them.

Emotional vampires exist, they're the people who don't make steps to improve things and just want sympathy, I'm careful about my friends, the one with serious issues is improving, even if she's not doing so as fast as she could be.

edited 27th Feb '15 5:43:17 AM by Silasw

But you're not dating them. Which is good. Honestly, I would be concerned about you if you were my kid, let alone my client because you have stray cat syndrome as I call it. I get you're trying to advocate for people like your friends who probably are good friends, but the key difference I see between what Vericrat and others are talking about is adults. Not children. And regardless, if you're 18, you're an adult like it or not and there are resources out there as well as consequences that they are subject to.

I don't mean to sound condescending or putting my "big person hat" on, but by the time you're our age, most of the instances you see just how much you have lost by having so many people around you who are not healthy and who are so broken. It's not a good place to be. I spend my day surrounded by broken people, but come 5 o clock I shut that down, get in my car, and go home to my family. If anything, I am more willing to shut down my children's interactions with broken people because I have both the expertise and the flat out experience to see what potential pitfalls can come from that.

If my daughter brought over a girlfriend and I found out she's dating a moron, then I will tell my daughter to avoid that person, loosen your grip. My daughter will do it to because she trusts my judgement. I am grateful for that. The social issues and perspectives developed from mostly being surrounded and in relationships with problematic people is a subtle and seemingly harmless poison. Some people are more immune to it than others but there are always side effects. I see it all the time in my work.

It isn't an emotionally satisfying answer of course, but that's life. Forced isolation sounds mean, but if you're that much of a problem, that's one of the best ways to realize it. It is also one of the best ways to inspire the internal motivation needed for sincere rehabilitation.

If they do not have any consequences to their actions, such as people leaving you or breaking up with you depending which side of the relationship they are in, they will not feel any pressure that how they are living is wrong.

There is a consistent problem with all of the assertions there, Ambar.

For the case of Alexander you are going on tangents of “It was a power thing” and “he had big publicity”…back in a world with no internet or very reliable methods of communication. To many people, Alexander was a stranger, a conqueror, or a liberator, or really, just a handsome man in a world of people who are already beating the snot out of each other. And so, here there is a predisposition to judge someone without knowing anything about them.

This predisposition shows itself with Truman, Bush, Politics, and Masks again. In here you assign moral values, moral judgments, to people that have nothing to do with the behaviors of something. For example you assume that it is the moral responsibility of a spouse to be in agreement of every single thing with their husband and if they are not, then they are to condemn the relationship. Happens the same with agreements or disagreements and even social situations: The idea that spouses must “posses” or be “responsible” in part for the behavior of the other person, and as such must regulate it via social condemnation.

Husband, wife, girlfriend, or boyfriend they do not have a say in what the others do in their jobs or lives. They can have an opinion, yes. Fuck yes, I certainly hope they do. But this does not mean their opinion is a tool that is entitled to “win” the change of the other. Only society or legal guardians are entitled to regulate the behavior of others. Anything other than that is just manipulation, possessive ownership, entitlement, and moral vigilanteism. It reflects on the other poster idea of “Relationships as prizes”, because now relationships are just positive or negative reinforcements to be used to promote or try to reduce behavior. And this is neither how they work, nor what they are.

Not even to mention the underlying tones of “anyone who does not agree with my morality is clearly wrong, because no one else gets anything done”. Ambiguity does not mean stagnation. Differences are not

“Holy shit Aszur” you might say “I am not talking about putting them in prison or beating them up Batman style, I am talking that I simply do not want to be with them”, and I understand that but your judgments, for that is what you call them, are rushed, predisposed to finding flaws, and already biased. “Name me a bad president and I will find them a flaw”, yeah, that is a statement that just says “I am going to find a flaw on this guy whether there is one or not”. And if you do not find one, you will just exaggerate one in order to MAKE one. And you WILL find one because no one is perfect anyways.

And this is fine. You are perfectly entitled to judge them. You are perfectly allowed to judge people based on something arbitrary so long as their consequence is simply “I do not want to be with them” instead of some actual consequence. But to tout this as something telling, predicting and valid because of personal experiences, or even morally right to do, is one thing I cannot agree with and instead preach for moderation in judgment.

Why would I? Who wants a sympathy project as a partner? the whole point of a partner is that they are a partner, not someone you save from evil, some you go side by side with into the world.

That sounds about right.

Yes, but I feel there is a big enough difference between a freshly 18 year-old still dependant upon an emotionally burdensome family for financial support and someone in their 30s with their own life set up.

O I agree, and the majority of my friends are in good places, it's only one who has serious issues (well her and her roomate). But yeah it's not good, I notice it myself how living with someone in a depressed slump can infect someone and draw them down to.

True true, but if they already recognise that the place they're in is wrong/bad then I'd say it's different.

No it's not.

It's the action that they respond to it with. Both the heroin addict on the corner and the person going to a therapist most likely recognize they have a problem. But which one is actually doing something about it? You can't have your cake and eat it to. You cannot claim that it is wrong to alienate and judge someone for being in an abusive relationship, even if that abuse is not directed towards them, then acknowledge with the same breath that being in a relationship with a broken person is dangerous.

Your friends can still be morally wrong even if they're not trying to be. That's the whole point of this discussion. Intent means nothing if the actions are the same. If I am bipolar and don't properly medicate and control myself, I may not mean to act out in rages or go on a massive shopping spree or involve myself in a crazy one night stand, but that doesn't make the abuse I deal out, the credit card debt, or the numerous problems that can come from an ill-planned rendezvous any less tangible and destructive to both myself and those around me, including my partner.

I have had people in my office break down in tears trying to save a relationship at the cost of their entire world and those around them. These people are still morally in the wrong. If you're willing to choose an abusive person at the cost of your health or the health of other people, you are in the wrong.

Just need to say that the very first post points out that the thread is in no way intended to ever include the discussion of "people in abusive relationships", as the judgment there becomes incredibly different.

What about the one who is getting some treatment while trying to build themself up to a point where they can go for the other treatment?

I never said that it was wrong to not associate with such people, hell even judging them a weak or foolish is fine, I just don't see why that has to come with a judgement on if they're a good person or not. they can still be a good person and be someone I refuse to be around due to them being dangerous, I don't have to tell myself that they're also bad person on top of being dangerous to be around.

See this reminds me of something my mum always said about my brother's ADHD. It might not be his fault that he moved quickly and knocked a drink over the computer, but he knew that he tended to do that and he still put the drink there, which was his fault.

Not going to disagree with any of that. You can care all you want but if you're actions are still hurting people than that's on you. The abuser I know (well knew) truly did love his girlfriend, that didn't change the fact that he would hurt her, if anything it just made it that bit more disturbing.

edited 27th Feb '15 7:29:10 AM by Silasw

Uh, no again.

You don't have to judge someone a morally unfit person to avoid them, but some people are morally unfit regardless and that needs to be recognized.

And again, your ADHD example is crap because I said refused to take their medication. If you know you have a problem and refuse to do anything to remedy that problem, you are morally in the wrong and a jerk. That's the whole reason we have names like jerk, asshole, and what not. It is a verbal short hand for someone who doesn't care how they affect other people.

You can make all the excuses to me you want. I've heard them all. "I stayed for the kids." "Getting help is so hard!" "I don't have the money!" "I didn't know what to do!" I make my living on these excuses...

If you continuously stay or repetitively continue to be in an unhealthy situation or condone the unhealthy treatment of others, you are morally wrong, a bad person, an asshole, whatever negative wording you wish to use. Excuses are excuses and are not justifications for allowing yourself either passively or directly to be used as a catalyst for harm.

I guess we just disagree then, as I see it one isn't a bad person for failing, just for refusing to try.

Never said that.

Then I obviously misunderstood you.

@Greenmantle

If what's best for you hurts a whole lot of other people, than yeah, I'd consider you immoral. People can have differences of opinion on the best way to solve a problem, but when one side wants to either ignore an issue, or god forbid, make it worse, than I want nothing to do with that side.

In the end, I don't think we can morally divorce ourselves from the people we choose to associate with, be it politically, socially, or, to bring it back to the original topic of conversation, sexually.

@Silasw

I think Polarstern's nicely summed up most of what I would have said, so I'll just register my agreement with them.

@Aszur

You and I are clearly failing to communicate. The historical comparisons you bring up are getting divorced from both the historical reality, and more importantly, from the thread subject (because let's face it—given the very different moral universe of the 300s BCE, the entire Alexander the Great discussion is not especially relevant to if we should judge current people based on who they date) and you're getting closer and closer to both ad hominem attacks and telling me what I "really mean", neither of which, I expect, are going to take us anywhere positive or productive. If you'd care to make a new post, bringing up new points of discussion, I'd be glad to engage you in further debate, but as is, I don't see this going anywhere enlightening.