Very simple, M/L.

The difference is that in NG's universe not every stranger, acquaintance and has claim upon my "sentiments of esteem, respect, and affection" causing me to seek "his society and welfare."

I concluded that without exception one should tell a "friend" of his WW's infidelity (which btw: was the question originally raised by the initiator of the thread). Do you agree with that?

Today I saw a woman, with children in her vehicle, excitedly talking on a hand-held cell-phone (illegal in NY, btw) while changing lanes on the main two-lane state highway in my area. She was putting her children at some increased level of risk. I did not record her license-plate and attempt to research and contact her husband, and I feel it likely that the other drivers she passed and cut-off did not either.

Had I recognized her as the wife of a "friend" I would have felt compelled to alert him to the danger to his children, based on what I would have instinctively felt to be, and research confirmed, is the duty of a friend.

That is a critical difference (again, IMHO) in the case of the woman driving, as it would be in learning that the wife of a stranger was conducting an A, and deciding whether to tell the BH or not.

So, if you were not "friends" with your neighbor and you knew his bookkeeper was embezzling money from him, you would NOT tell him unless he was your "friend?" If this same neighbor's child was being molested, would you not tell him because you are not "friends?"

In other words, your humanity and decency only extends to people who fit within a very strict definition of "friend?"

Is this what you are saying?

I don't like that analogy, Mel, with the bookkeeping and stealing.

Stealing money, cooking the books, etc...those are illegal acts that are against state and federal laws.

There are ramifications and consequences for not providing material information/knowledge of the crime IF you had said knowledge of it.

By asking someone if they would knowingly break the law by NOT reporting said book-cooking/stealing...you're hanging a Damocles Sword over their head. They can't say "No" because they'd be breaking the law. They can't say "Yes" because then they give legitimacy to your question---when (IMHO) its a trick question.


While adultery is morally wrong, it is not legally wrong anymore...at least, not in the United States.

If you lived, say, in Iran...where adultery is legally wrong, and you had 1st hand knowledge of it and didn't report it...then you are an accessory or obstructer and can be punished accordingly.

By comparing theft and adultery, its like comparing an apple and an orange.

Sure, they're both fruits...but thats the only similarity they share.

Just my 2 cents

The analogy is not contingent upon the legality of the crime, though, that is irrelevant. Because the point is to warn the victim, NOT to comply with a law. All you are saying with your objection is that you would only feel inclined to help someone if you are LEGALLY OBLIGED, only means you are an uncaring person who would not help his neighbor when he is being harmed.

In fact, I would assert that adultery is a WORSE CRIME than embezzlement. The fact that adutlery is not illegal and embezzlement is does not detract from the point, which is that when ANYONE is being harmed behind their back in such a grievous manner, the humane reaction of a decent person will be to warn the victim.

The legality of the crime is not relevant to the point and the fact that adultery is not illegal does not change the point.


No, they are both crimes. Apples and apples. And actually adultery is worse. I bet any victim of adultery would rather experience embezzlement if he had the choice.

For your analogy to make sense, you must believe that if this woman in your story was having an affair - instead of driving while on her cell phone - she would only be "putting her (marriage/husband/children/self) at some increased level of risk?"

There is not "potential" damage when a person commits adultery. The damage begins with the act of adultery. The damage is done. Your driver has had a head on collision and there are already casualties! She and her passengers need treatment Now! You can pull over and call 911 for help or you can just leave them on the side of the road to bleed out.

IMVHO this is the story that more appropriately describes the situation.

[/quote]How do you do that? If you say, 'friend, fess up to your BH or I will tell him myself', and friend tells her BH under that threat...has she really done the right thing?[/quote]

Hmm...that's an interesting point.

I'm not saying that I wouldn't report anything Mel, legally obligated or not...as you can see, I'm working toward doing that as we speak

So please don't say "you"....makes it sound as if that is directed at me

I just don't like the analogy that you use, is all.

Strangely, people treat adultery very differently than other crime and make bizarre irrational excuses that would be laughable in any other context.

Can you imagine not telling your neighbor about embezzlement because "it would hurt him?" Or not telling him his child was smoking cigarettes because "it would hurt him?"

My concern is if the analogy works, though. And it does.

Really, M/L, are you now the arbiter-goddess of decency and humanity for all people, worldwide? If so, I respectfully offer that you have seriously more important duties awaiting your attention than to question my morality. (Sarcasm intended)

I very much resent your tone and implication, and will no longer engage you in this type of debate, during which my experience has been you invariably summon the mods to "erase" any responses you cannot adequately answer.

Let it rest that in this case, as posed by the initiator, I would urge notification of the "friend".

Oh good grief. She said nothing of the sort. Sharing an opinion about morality does not mean someone is setting themselves up as God and arbiter of morality, and claiming that someone is does not answer the points they raise.

I question the morality behind the premise that we only warn certain people, and not others, that they are being harmed behind their backs. We can't very well claim to have principles if we only use them very selectively. Otherwise, one can't really can't claim to have principles.

And you didn't adequately explain by what standard one should only expose an affair to a "friend" and screw the rest of humanity. Instead of feigning outrage, why don't you answer that?

I am cerainly not the arbiter of decency, but I don't think sitting by and allowing someone to be harmed behind their back just because they are not a personal "friend" would be decent by any standard. And I don't mind saying so. Apparently one is the "aribiter of decency" if they simply profess to know right from wrong in your book.

You mean you invariably get moderated for following me from thread to thread to pick fights and post rude and baiting comments.

Yes.

No, I was more in mind of situations such as this thread, in which I first posted today at 01:41 PM and your first posting, instead of addressing the question as posed by the thread initiator, responded at 01:45 PM to my post with the baiting question of

At which point I politely explained that I - personally - would accord a "friend" significantly greater consideration than I would a "stranger". As I recall, that led you to demean (or at least question the range of) my humanity and decency.

But you will do as you will do. I'm not getting into a fight with you about it.

W/t - I want you to know I snorted my brandy through my nose when I finally figured out what question you answered!

Neverguessed, I will ask this again, since you have not adequately answered my question. Something you accuse me of:


Can you please answer without little digs like: "are you now the arbiter-goddess of decency and humanity for all people, worldwide...? "

Most people don't snitch out their friend that are having affairs or tell their friends that are being betrayed not because they don't want anyone to get hurt, but rather because they are pansy conflict avoiders that don't want to have to deal with any messy fallout from being the messenger. People act like they don't do it for noble reasons, but their reasons are their own selfish reasons. That's why some people do it anonymously. Man up and do it unabashedly.

Can you two please just

D R O P

I T

I second that!

All the bickering is not helpful to the poster. I wouldn't want anyone else's thread to get shut down!