Still an assumption to link that of Alice to Bob.
Again, all the assumptions about Bob knowing, or this relationship being a happy, fruitful one, or the reasons having plenty of other possible explanations, including what you deem an unacceptable behavior.
It takes way too many assumptions to be able to truthfully say that those behaviors from another person tell something about another person related to them
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesSure, I just happen to think it's a useful one. My eyes can deceive me, but I tend to assume what I see is real. My memory can play tricks on me, but I tend to assume that what it tells me did happen. If evidence comes up to contradict them, I take those into account. I don't think it's an unreasonable assumption that someone's significant other supports that person.
Well, yeah, of course I'm going to judge based on what I deem is unacceptable behavior. That's kind of a given. If I have a problem with someone being abusive to the people around them, then I'm going to judge a person acting like that.
The link from person to their bad significant other is a voluntary one, so I'm not sure how unfair it is that I look at that as supportive behavior.
Much to my BFF's wife's chagrin, No Pants 2013 became No Pants 2010's at his house.See now that I'd say shouldn't be assumed either way, but instead it should be determined by how long a pair have been dating and such. Push come to shove if you know (and I mean really know) that their S.O. is a bad person than you know a fair bit about their S.O.
Fair enough, though such people need to be properly identified and with your other conditions (not being a bad person to their partner) you're starting to narrow down your field a fair amount, perhaps to much to be useful (I know that all the really foul people I know have been shits to their S.O.).
Sounds good, though I should point out that as I'm British the last one means something slightly different to me.
That's fine, but you need to make sure you're not ignoring such indications because it clashes with your narrative.
Why do you have to think less of them as a person? There are plenty of people who I don't consider worth additional emotional investment (some of whom are simply good people I can't help due to already being at my max number of people I can sustain sustaining). Also "decide not to spend time around them" means what exactly? Simply don't put the effort in to associate with or actively avoid/refuse to interact with?
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranI've yet to meet these conniving people that really make it difficult to know that they're terrible people. I'm sure there are some out there, and maybe it's a lot more than I've seen, but if that's the case and I find out later, then yeah I wouldn't hold it against their partner.
This is actually the best argument against my stance I think I've heard; it probably is pretty hard to find someone who is shitty to everyone around them and not to their S.O. There usually is a honeymoon period for the first several months where the partners are extra nice to each other, so that's when I guess a non-shitty partner would leave if they saw the other person was a dick.
Still, that does make me reverse my opinion about how useful a measuring stick it is.
[[qutoeblock]]Sounds good, though I should point out that as I'm British the last one means something slightly different to me.[[/quoteblock]]
I Googled "clubhouse" & "Britain" and all I really got out of that is that it has something to do with golf?
Agreed.
Because I often measure people and I think more of people who don't stay with partners who are shitty to the people around them than the people who do. It's a comparison.
For example, there was a terrible person I used to work with when I waited tables; he treated all the other staff like shit (unless they were a cute girl), verbally abusing them and generally making people's lives miserable. Whenever a waitress would decide to date him, I wouldn't refuse to interact with her, but I would note her as someone I would never want to date, and if I got to pick who my partner was that evening for my section, I wouldn't pick her. But if she was my partner (I rarely got to pick), I'd treat her like any other partner in terms of how much help I would be (not so much in social interaction), and when I was supervising I wouldn't come down harder on any of these girls than anyone else.
I don't know if that clears things up on what I mean there.
Much to my BFF's wife's chagrin, No Pants 2013 became No Pants 2010's at his house.You're lucky then, I've met plenty, some I ID but others don't, some even I miss and everyone gets hurt.
I was referring to the "no pants" bit of your list.
That kidna makes sense, though I think you'd be better of not thinking less of them but simply acknowledging that you don't have enough information to make a judgement and that what information you do have indicates that it's not worth your time to gather more.
I'd say the "kind of person I'd never date" bit is kinda foolish, some people make stupid mistakes, I wouldn't hold it against them if they learn from it. Though I get the picking others to work with thing, as you (presumably) have others to choose who you have positive opinions of.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran@Jhimmibhob
I'm okay with judging somebody like that harshly. If you'd rather date somebody who abuses the people around them than be alone, then you are the kind of person who prioritizes your welfare over that of others. In which case, I don't want to get to know you.
"Additionally, some people have hidden virtues that aren't always apparent in public, and that only someone in a close relationship sees regularly."
That's all well and good, but the fact that Bob's girlfriend is nice to him in private doesn't change the fact that she's constantly belittling everybody in public. At the end of the day, a person's public face is the aspect of them you have to deal with. If that public face is that of a jackass, I don't want to know them.
@Aszur
The only one bringing up the "gold digging whore" example is you. The scenario we're discussing is pretty basic. Bob's girlfriend is consistently and constantly rotten to the people around her. Should I think less of Bob? My answer is, yes. Bob is choosing to date this person. If he's okay with her being awful to everybody so long as he continues to have a girlfriend, I have little reason to like him. And if he's somehow missed the fact that she's nasty to everyone then he's exceptionally thick and I have little reason to like him.
I'm not going to bother touching the bit about your grandmother any farther because it seems to me that you are less debating, and more trying to get somebody to violate the rules and call you a bad person. As others have pointed out, it's not particularly relevant for a whole host of reasons, so I struggle to think why else you are continuing to bring it up. Again, we're talking about somebody who is, at best, expressing incredibly negative opinions about people in public, and at worst, an emotional or physical bully. If none of the above is true of your grandmother, it isn't relevant to the conversation.
@Silasw
"Why do you have to think less of them as a person?"
Why not? I think less of people who abuse drugs. I think less of people who try and convince me that getting drunk is a right of passage, or who try to share details of their sex lives with me without asking if I want to know. Hell, I think less of people who try to defend 50 Shades of Grey to me. Why shouldn't I think less of people who date bastards?
Keep in mind, thinking less of somebody doesn't have to mean hating them, or even choosing to no longer be friends with them. It just means that I have a lower opinion of them than I would have if they did not indulge in the behaviour I disapprove of. For instance, I strongly disapprove of drug use, but have friends who are users. My opinion of them is lower than it would be if they quit, but still high enough that we can be friends.
"I'd say the "kind of person I'd never date" bit is kinda foolish, some people make stupid mistakes, I wouldn't hold it against them if they learn from it."
Again, what's wrong with that? I have a lot of female friends and acquaintances. Most of them are people I'd never go out with, for a wide variety of reasons, ranging from lifestyle differences, to personality clashes that I know would happen. Why shouldn't who they've dated before be something I use to judge whether I'd like to date them.
In fact, now that I think about it, shouldn't that be something of a warning sign? One girl I work with, and who I'm fairly friendly with, has the worst taste in men of anybody I've ever met. Some of them have abused her, others have abused her friends while trying to hide it from her, etc. I remember thinking once that for all that I like her, if she came onto me (and I were single, which I'm thankfully not) I'd have to say no, not because I don't like her, but because I'd be quite concerned about what her interest said about me.
edited 18th Feb '15 9:23:46 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
As I have told a few of my friends, "No sex is that good."
If someone I care about or thought highly of is dating an absolute troll, I will think less of them. Now that doesn't mean I will judge them out of maliciousness. Bob may not be a bad person for dating Alice, but that doesn't exclude Bob's responsibility to deal with the severe personal issues he has for staying with someone like her.
Just because something isn't your fault doesn't mean you don't have responsibility in the situation.
It is not your fault your partner abuses you. But that doesn't diminish your responsibility to get yourself help and be in a healthy situation.
I used to attract really horrible people. My issues were so pronounced that I was scaring off the good people and only attracting abusive parasites who knew how to manipulate me. It is not my fault they abused me. But it is my responsibility to say, "What am I doing to attract these people or not recognize red flags?"
I realized I needed to value myself, avoid people who may be good people but keep making dangerous choices, and keep myself in a positive and constructive environment. Low and behold, as soon as I got myself together, I attracted better friends and scored a relationship with Aprilla.
But it's still a judgement: That person has an issue that is preventing them from dealing with their partner in a healthy way. It could be because they're an asshole or because they're a victim, but regardless, it's fair to judge them for it and make decisions for your own health and benefit for it.
"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - AszurStill assuming, and still assuming way too much.
For example, claiming that my paralel to a racist grandma is a "bait and switch" style of trap is some delirious sort of persecution complex: examples and comparisons, even personal ones are pretty acceptable in the socratic method of dialogue and debate, and if I am the one inviting such comparisons I am the one opening those doors. If it is you who are prying them open then we have a problem, but if I am the one extending the invitation, then yes, I am accepting the "vulnerability".
Furthermore, there is a grotesque overestimation of how commonly couples can lie to each other, or whatthoughts could prevail among them to mantain a relationship with someone who seems abusive, or IS abusive. Mentalities such as "But I can change him/her" or "but he really loves me" or situations like "but he is the only one who is keeping me alive" or more direct ones like arranged marriages or relationships, or simply being afraid of being alone.
"Should" you think ill of someone just of for whom they date? I am of the mind that "should" in the first place has a connotation of obligation that has no place in subjective opinions. And it invites an entitlement to behavior and a rigid line of thinking that allows no flexibility for situations that might spring.
In the second place, it is an asshole thing to do because as I have said plenty of times, you can be very wrong, for plenty of very reasonable, common reasons instead of "someone has a gun on their head" sort of thing. Seriously, for someone to be in a relationship with an asshole, there are many more reasons why they would stick around besides "there is a sniper's red dot on them right now". It is an asshole thing because you are predisposing yourself to giving negative attributes to people you have not even met yourself. Exactly like grandma would do to my hypothetical black/asian/jewish girlfriend.
So what is the problem with simply saying "Ok maybe his boyfriend is an asshole, but despite that there is no reason why she is not going to be a cool, non asshole person"?
For someone asking questions such as
That is not a question, that is just taking a position and defending it.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesOf these, the only acceptable excuse I'm really seeing is "but he is the only one who is keeping me alive" which is rare enough that I won't assume without evidence.
No, because I'm judging based on something that someone has decided to do as opposed to something that is inherent about the person (assuming you mean jewish culturally). If I said, "Is it okay to judge someone for being attracted to an asshole," you'd have a point.
[[quoteblock]]So what is the problem with simply saying "Ok maybe his boyfriend is an asshole, but despite that there is no reason why she is not going to be a cool, non asshole person"?
Because I think it is wrong to give the gift of romantic companionship to someone who is abusive to third parties. Just like I think it's wrong to be abusive to third parties.
Much to my BFF's wife's chagrin, No Pants 2013 became No Pants 2010's at his house.I never said they had reasons that made sense. I only said they could have reasons.
For example. Why are you not out there, right now, helping a starving child in Africa? The demand sounds ludicrous, does it not? I mean, for all the suffering they have, you should be out there in Africa helping a starving child, when you are instead sitting here, all privileged and stuff.
Sounds awful, but people have a right to look after themselves, and there can be many selfish reasons why someone could be with another that do not fall into any purview of your "shoulds".
Also, the notion of romantic relationships as a "gift" or a "reward" is a whole other can of worms.
A rotten one.
Feels more like a thought of "certain behaviors are entitled to relationships and others are not".
Does not sound like something that even mildly considers the desires, context, situation, or thoughts of the person in the relationship.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesThere are no behaviors that entitle you to a relationship. However, since a relationship provides comfort, companionship, support, sexual gratification, etc, I certainly think less of someone providing these things to someone who is abusive to third parties.
And the bully can have reasons for what he does, but that won't make me want to be around him.
If you think less of me than someone who has gone to Africa to help a starving child, you and I share an opinion. I just don't think it's as egregious as looking at the warlord responsible from keeping food away from him and saying, "You know what that warlord really needs? Companionship and support."
Much to my BFF's wife's chagrin, No Pants 2013 became No Pants 2010's at his house.You're still holding people to standards that are not necesarily their own, only yours. A person who goes to Africa to save a starving child might not necesarily represent the biggest paragon of goodness and kindness that humanity has to offer. They might as well be homophobic, hateful of other religions and sexist to boot. Traits that are just assumed to never be on a person who would go to Africa to do that.
You're creating standards for everyone and holding them up to it. And they will rarely hold up to them, because again, no one agrees, and you were never even asking a question. And these standards are born out of a normative, regulatory expression that seems to allow nothing outside some rigid system of reward-punishment system.
No one is telling you you should tolerate things you do not want to tolerate, just that it might behoove you to also tolerate people who tolerate things you do not without labeling them in a way that has immediate negative connotations.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesAnd if I find out those things about a person, I'll revise my opinion accordingly. Before that, though, I'll probably be thinking, "Holy shit, this person took time and resources out of his own life to go help others in a way I haven't, that's amazing."
As for this supposedly "rigid system" I'm supposedly creating - yeah, if someone disagrees with the concept of "hurting innocent people is bad" to the point where they hurt innocent people or provide support and comfort to those who do, I'm going to think less of them. If that's rigid, too bad.
Much to my BFF's wife's chagrin, No Pants 2013 became No Pants 2010's at his house.Not all of us can be heroes that fly around the globe to help the impoverished. Sometimes, helping those locally is the charitable, good, only thing you can do. That there is a system that would allow a person to help those far from them is no less admirable than one who choses to do the right thing for someone despite being much closer. Sure, it is the firefighter's job to fucking put out the fire, so it is not like they are bloody heroic for just doing their job, right?
Ignoring the risks they take, however, is negligent to what they do. Everyone's time is their own, and judging them negatively because they don't spend them to the full extent in the service of some biased morality system is pretty harsh...if irrelevant.
And again, you are assuming things. You are assuming too many things. You are picturing the abusive person sitting on a chair with their lover serving them grapes and fanning them with palm trees. "That sure was a beautiful way you beat up Crippled Timmy for his lunch money, sweetie!", instead of looking at a relationship as a more complex and difficult link between two human beings that are fallible themselves, and instead simplify the thing to "a reward".
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
I'm going to call bull on all of that. You can go on, and on, and on about how complex relationships are, and how complex people are, and it just doesn't matter. To pick an example as hyperbolic as your own about "feeding starving children", answer me this—if she were alive today, and within your age group, would you want to make friends with/go out with Eva Braun (Hitler's girlfriend)? Personally, I'd say no, because when your last boyfriend was a mass murdering racist psycho, I want nothing to do with you.
Now, to bring this back down to earth, if our first meeting involved you walking up to me and punching me in the face, then I want nothing further to do with you (save possibly serving as a witness at your assault trial). And if your significant other were to stand there, watch you punch me, and neither intervene nor even say anything to you, then I want nothing to do with him/her as well.
I don't care about your personal baggage, and I don't care about your SO's personal baggage. That's between the two of you and your shrinks. What matters to me is that you're unpleasant to be around, and possibly even dangerous to be around, and therefore, I'm not going to remain in your vicinity.
Summary: You are again assuming the person in the relationship is perfectly and completely aware of the agressive tendencies of the other. Again this hypothetical situation planted on the first is "you know X, who is going out with Y, is an asshole. Is it ok to assume Y is an asshole?". At no time is Y's involvement in X's assholery made implicit.
Also, many people in Germany did not know what Hitler was actually doing. Sadly, hyperboles seem to be the only thing that leaves things clear as nuances such as "Let us say the person believes wholeheartedly in her religion" or "She feels lonely" or "He comes from an abusive family" are somehow irrelevant and impossible and stupid, hence only the largest extremes are visible enough to draw a relatable comparison.
And you know what? Meeting Eva Braun would be awesome, if only to know if she, indeed, knew anything about what he was up to, why she condoned it, why she stuck around with him. She is a fucking historical figure, and historians do not think she had a relevant, if any at all, position in the third reichs politics anyways.
Who wouldn't want to meet a historical figure in a safe environment where you could find out things no historian could ever hope to know of them? That's just the opportunity of a fucking lifetime. (Newsflash: People also date others for interests other than romantic ones or to "reward" them)
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesI also would be interested in perhaps befriending Eva Braun, I'd decide based upon her and her views. What I wouldn't do is consider her irremediably tainted because of who was in her past. Maybe she'd regret it, maybe she didn't know, it would be a hell of an interesting conversation to have.
I steeped away from the wider debate here because I think it comes down to a fundamental difference in morals between the two sides. For some the idea of 'punishing' 'bad' people is paramount, denying them any happiness is a good thing. Personally I can't agree with that, I've known enough bad people over the years to realise that taking away all love and reason for redemption from bad people does nobody any good, I'm interested in making bad people good people, not sitting on my high horse looking down upon others.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranI don't think it's a matter of punishment, but rather picking up on social cues on who is a good person or not and not being around negative or dangerous people.
Let's say I know Chris is a douchebag. Chris has a partner. To me, it's irrelevant if Chris is nice to them or they have self esteem issues, whatever. They may not be a bad person, but they are in a situation where they are committing to a bad decision. They have shown themselves not to be in a healthy situation and they could potentially be a negative situation to interact with. How do I know whatever drama Chris does won't bleed on me?
I'm saying this from experience actually. I have had a couple of toxic relationships where I saw one side of the guy and everyone else got a second dose. I wasn't a bad person. But I certainly wasn't healthy or else I wouldn't have been dating a jerk named Chris or my son's father. I had people specifically avoid me because they knew I dated this guy however brief that was. I don't blame them. They were acting out of self preservation, not maliciousness.
I just try to carry myself in such a way that my reputation and my demeanor will offset any hesitations someone may have about me based on that connection. This also holds for my son's father. Since I still have to have a connection and interaction with him, it's even more important to hold myself classy and allow that difference to be understood.
"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - AszurBut how much is them ating out of self preservation because this Chris person might punch them since he is overprotective be a judgment on you, and instead just something out of self preservation?
Yeah if the guy is likely to shoot you because "u staring at my woman m8?" it is fine avoiding the partner, but from there to judgment and adjuting your behavior an an assumption she will also be a bad person I think is different
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesMaybe, it all depends on the individuals for me.
Such as in my case, people rarely saw Chris and myself together because I was either at work or at home. So for the short time we dated, I was being the responsible one. This also meant that there was a lot of crap that happened behind my back. So it was different.
With my son't father though, we were together all the time, we even worked together and his manipulation of me was pretty successful. So I accidentally gave off some ideas or did certain things because he asked me to that actually made me look bad because of what was happening behind my back there. So it was harder for me to prove myself not as he presented me. But I have over the years.
The biggest thing is the individual has to decide, "Is it worth it?"
Is it worth getting to know that person or is the drama and stress of their partner not worth it? Also notice that as long as I was with these people, no one came to me with their concerns. It wasn't until after they found out we were broken up (both cases the guy cheated on me among other shady things), and the nature of the break up that people were willing to give me the chance.
That's not judgement, that's smart.
"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - AszurYeah exactly but the question of the thread is if it oks to to judge person just based on whom they date, not based on the circumstances around them. it is not about deciding if approaching her or him would put them at risk from a partner or anything, it is just if there is a deep intrinsiceally revealing information about a person's personality based simply on whom they are dating with, without having witnessed any of their behavior at work.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesYou can judge someone unsafe or dangerous without morally condemning them.
Yeah, if you're dating a despicable person, I will judge you unhealthy for me to be around because you are most likely just like them, or you are unable/in denial over what kind of person they are. Either way, that's a lose-lose situation.
Will I go talk trash about them or be ugly to them? No. But I won't add them on Facebook or go out of my way to be around them. Now depending how they break up with that person, if they do, maybe I'll engage them. I can't say for certain. All depends on the individual.
I'm also almost 30 years old and a mom. I give no damns. There are millions of people on the earth I can be friends with who aren't romantically involved with douchebags and don't have that baggage. I have enough of my own.
"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

The entire point of the question is based on a given that the S.O. is a bad person. I'm not talking about hearing rumors that someone is a gold digger. I'm talking about watching people be verbally abusive (or worse) to the people around them. That is the S.O. of the premise. Not someone who may or may not be promiscuous (who gives a damn, anyway?), but someone who is actively harmful to the people around them.
Much to my BFF's wife's chagrin, No Pants 2013 became No Pants 2010's at his house.