FinalStageBoss
Banned
They're all assholes
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Husband travels 160 miles to kill man having an affair with his Wife
- Thread starter Dram
- Start date
- Status
And that's stupid.
shanshan310
Member
It's all her parents' fault for having kids.
I know it has already been said, but... If you're going to take that approach (before someone freaks out, of course murder is obviously wrong) then he should've offed the cheating wife, not the dude who never made a single commitment to him. I've never understood the mentality of partner cheating -> get mad at person they were cheating with. It's probably the reaction of those with a weak mind who can't internalize that someone they trusted hurt them, so they assign blame elsewhere.
Actually, that's the first time I've heard someone explain that perspective in a way that makes sense. Like I said... weak minds. Thanks.
Actually, that's the first time I've heard someone explain that perspective in a way that makes sense. Like I said... weak minds. Thanks.
Guilty of...?
Well if her husband hadn't married her it would not have happened either. The guy being dead is still the husbands fault. The fault lies with the one who chose to respond by murdering someone.
If such a person were to exist, clearly his/her actions led to Garibay killing Martin. So obviously such a person would bear some of the blame for Keith Martin's death. I mean really, you shouldn't tell people that their spouses are cheating on them.
She shouldn't have cheated, but that doesn't make it her fault the guy is dead. Victim blaming is probably not exactly the right term here, but a lot of the posts in the thread have missed the point rather badly on who decided to kill another person.
People get cheated on all the time and no one is murdered. People need to stop acting like murder is a justifiable reaction to cheating.
I lot of people seem to be coming from the mindset that cheating is inherently wrong, like marriage is sacred or something. I really don't get that.
Maybe he's physically abusive? Maybe he emotionally manipulates her? Maybe he is slowly killing her every day by sprinkling poison in her cheerios? We don't know a damn thing about their past relationship, but there are plenty of realistic scenarios where I don't see "cheating" as an evil thing. In those scenarios, I don't see why she "owes" him the courtesy of putting off her sudden onset of horniness to get her divorce proceedings in order, if it would even be that easy to do.
There are zero realistic scenarios where killing this guy is justified, that's the only thing we really know about this story. Cheating = could be okay, murdering some guy = murdering some guy
Maybe he's physically abusive? Maybe he emotionally manipulates her? Maybe he is slowly killing her every day by sprinkling poison in her cheerios? We don't know a damn thing about their past relationship, but there are plenty of realistic scenarios where I don't see "cheating" as an evil thing. In those scenarios, I don't see why she "owes" him the courtesy of putting off her sudden onset of horniness to get her divorce proceedings in order, if it would even be that easy to do.
There are zero realistic scenarios where killing this guy is justified, that's the only thing we really know about this story. Cheating = could be okay, murdering some guy = murdering some guy
Cheating is not the answer to any of those, any more than killing someone is the answer to cheating.
And you sound like a bit of a sociopath if you don't understand why not doing something behind somebodies back is common fucking courtesy if nothing else.
ItAintEasyBeinCheesy
it's 4th of July in my asshole
I wonder if he wore adult diapers or just pulled over.
Why would she owe him these courtesies if he were abusive? Why is it wrong for her to cheat behind his back if he were abusive? Why would she owe him anything?
Because that is how you retain a moral justification. By treating people as you wish to be treated. And also, so he doesn't kill her too? It's not just how you interact with people, it's about safety.
Because deceiving people is immoral. This is not hard. Just because somebody punches me in the face does not give me any moral right to do something unrelated out of spite. It gives me the right to defend myself. Or to ensure the person doing it is charged.
Additionally, how does cheating on someone help resolve the situation with an abusive partner? What good does it serve? Leave the fuckhead, stop the abuse, then fuck whoever you want.
Honesty is not a complicated concept.
The husband is the more guilty party here, but just because he committed a worse crime does not wipe the wifes slate clean. She was still the initial catalyst for the series of events. Saying 'If he hadnt married her' Is a bullshit copout to absolve her of any guilt.
She bears no guilt in the guy being murdered. She bears guilt for cheating on her husband.
Catalyst
If she hadn't slept with him, her husband would probably have had very little if any reason to kill him. Her actions played a direct role in the eventual cause of his death. Bullshit she doesnt have any guilt.
Deceiving an abusive spouse is immoral to you. Why.
Also, why does she owe it to him to go and consult him before she has fun with her own body, if he were abusive?
Also, why do you assume (if that is your implication) pleasuring herself is purely out of spite, and not just that sex feels good?
Deceiving anyone is immoral unless it serves a larger purpose. It may or may not be worse than what the other person has done, but it doesn't make it okay.
For fucks sake. The only person bearing any guilt for the guy being dead is the person who shot him. Direct role. LOL.. You need to apportion responsibility on the parties who are responsible. Is it the gun companies fault for selling the guy a gun? Is it her parents fault for giving birth to her? Is Neville Chamberlain to blame for the Holocaust? Your argument is ridiculous.
The only person who has blame is the person who made the decision to kill someone. And then proceeded to act on that decision.
Otherwise everyone who upsets someone is responsible for that persons reaction to the offence. Which is utter bullshit.
Edit:
I'm not assuming shit, we're are talking about some fucking hypothetical abusive husband. If it isn't even spite but just sex behind his back because sex feels good, that is no better. All I was doing was providing a context for the cheating. If she did it just because she wanted sex, that makes it better how?
If you have an open marriage, that is fine. Otherwise, you are acting like a shithead. I can't believe you think cheating on someone is okay. It may be less bad than what has been done to you, but it isn't okay.
Maybe her greater purpose was that she wanted to feel pleasure right that minute? If he were were a shitty husband, why is it immoral to not put everything on hold and talk to him about what she does with her own body?
I was basing the spite thing on your random punch in the face analogy.
The point of the abusive husband thing is that I am claiming there are realistic scenarios where cheating isn't and evil thing to do. So you are of the opinion that because she made a commitment to him, she has to involve him in all her decisions even if he is a shit bag to her?
That is not a greater purpose. A greater purpose would be lying to him about where she was going so she could get the fuck out of the abusive situation and then have him locked the fuck up.
Personal pleasure is not a great purpose.
Again though, what makes him special? Why would she owe him all these random courtesies, such as who and when she has sex, if he is a shit bag to her? Just because they made some sacred commitment some time ago?
I would guess because two wrongs don't make a right, an eye for an eye and everyone goes blind, etc.
In most cases (or all depending on your morals and beliefs) somebody doing something bad doesn't make it ok to do bad things to them, and doing bad things to them definitely doesn't make the situation any better.
Yes, partly because they did make a commitment some time ago and if you want to break that you should at least tell the other person, but also because that is just what being a good person is about. Be clear, the hypothetical abusive husband is a worse person than the partner cheating on him. But that doesn't mean they would be justified.
If you don't like it, that's fine, but as Foaloal said, two wrongs just makes two wrongs.
Celestial Mortal
Member
Speed thrills but cheating kills?
Here's a question for you and Dead Man. Would it be immoral if she called him up and said that she was going to be doing it?
I disagree with the thought that marriage is a sacred thing, and that no matter how one of the spouses acts (him, in this hypothetical) the other is immoral if they break the "rules" that he is obviously already breaking.
Additionally, if he were abusive maybe she would be scared to tell him?
Less so. The best way would be to tell him she was leaving, that she was getting a divorce, and had called the police. Then go fuck whoever she wants.
Lets go back to your post that I initially responded to:
Are you really struggling with that concept?
Celestial Mortal
Member
"Who Let The Dogs Out?" ?
That concept is insane. If you weren't being a hypocrite here, than they are to be together forever as per their marriage vows, even now after the murder and cheating.
Can Crusher
Banned
So pointless. Just ditch the gal.
Sure.
Your argument boils down to 'He did something to me, so I'm going to do something to him' or 'He did something to me, so I'm going to do whatever I want'. Both of which may make you less of a bad guy, but still not a good guy. But hey, enjoy that if it works for you.
Nope. The argument is that cheating isn't always "evil", and that if he were some abusive shit bag, there is nothing immoral about pleasuring yourself in whatever way you want with your own body without his involvement. And considering this is a hypothetical to show there are realistic reasons that cheating isn't evil, you can drop the whole doing it out of spite thing, not sure how that found its way into the discussion.
That's dumb. If he's abusive to the point you fear getting a divorce, then you'd fear even more going to bed with another man.
Ridiculous.
If she called him beforehand and said she wanted to sleep with another man, it would be significantly less objectionable than her doing it without him knowing.
In that situation, assuming he wasn't mentally unstable as it seems he actually was, he could have asked her why, and if he could fix things so that she wouldn't want to.
She could have either told him what to fix, or told him there was nothing he could do.
Then he could either fix the problems, or they could file for divorce.
Of course this is all hypothetical, but assuming the relationship was between two mentally stable people this would be a much better way for things to play out then one person cheating, and the other finding out afterwards and dealing with the immense shock of something that they can't ever change.
1. Cry Me a River - Justin timberlake
2. Roses - Outkast
3. "Forget" You - Cee-Lo
just a few ideas from the top of my head. Basically just any breakup songs would probably fit.
What if he was a horrible husband that drove her to seek someone else? What if he was a horrible husband because of the way his mother raised him?
Maybe she got really horny?
And besides, if he never found out about it then she wouldn't have to worry about repercussions. You didn't think this through.
If just a 'horrible husband';
File for divorce, go get the d.
If abusive is involved;
Call the police, report it, get a restraining order, file for divorce, then go sit on someone else's dick.
Being 'really horny' wouldn't bypass genuine fear of an abusive spouse. So if that's what you're implying then... there's clearly zero reason to continue replying to you.
And your edit... so dumb.
You can't be serious.
I just don't see marriage in the same way. I don't think a he inherently deserves the luxury of being notified first if she suddenly has the urge to satisfy herself with someone else, if he were terrible to her. I think it is fine for her to tell him at her convenience. If she continues to lead him on (in this case she is the one who is emotionally abusive, which isn't in my hypothetical), then of course things are different.
Edit: A better way to say it is that I don't think marriage by default gives someone some sort of partial ownership over someone else's actions.
Ridiculous? Are you suggesting that no person in an abusive relationship who feared leaving their SO has ever carried out a relationship with someone else in secret?
Who invented the car, better yet the gas powered engine. Without a car it would have taken him too long to get there and victim could have been warned. Better yet who invented the gun?
No, because the possibility is certainly there. But so is her having sex with the neighbor's dog. To imply that it's common or makes logical sense to cheat when you're so afraid of your spouse that you can't tell them you want a divorce... then well, there's no arguing with you either.
And the wording you use makes your argument unclear. "fear of leaving" isn't really right. "Fear for your safety and life" fits far better. If you're in an abusive relationship, where you fear leaving because they abuse you... why would you then do something far worse?
Someone who is in an abusive relationship where they get beat to all hell by accidentally shrinking a shirt, or breaking a glass will be so afraid to do something wrong that there's very little chance the would risk doing something that has some gravity to do it by normal standards. Especially for the sole purpose of sex.
If you're going to risk pissing them off, the logical and more reasonable (and likely more common) thing to risk your life for is... leaving. Not cheating.
- Status