• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why Is Your Partner Cheating on You?

Xerographica said:
How effectively does voting communicate your needs though? Imagine if your partner is not meeting your needs. Would simply filling out a survey help your partner understand which needs of yours are most important to you?
Click to expand...

This is sometimes what is done when people go to couples therapy. When it's determined that they can not communicate their needs in more standard measures, others are tried to get things moving.
 
Xerographica said:
hehehe...oh I love this analogy. SmokeAndMirrors...I mean...in my post I cover topics...revealing preferences...opportunity cost...partial knowledge...which explain the fundamental problems with liberals/progressives...yet you want to focus on the cheaters. The cheaters! I love it!
Click to expand...

If the analogy you based the rest of your post on is profoundly flawed, I don't really have to address the rest of it to cut the whole thing off at the knees. That saves me from having to write a behemoth of a post, like you did, when it's completely unneccessary to address anything beyond that beginning fallacious statement.

Can somebody have two boyfriends?
Click to expand...

Yes. As long as everyone involved is informed and happy with the arrangement, people can do whatever they like in their relationships. The dishonesty of cheating is the issue, not the act of having sex or romantic relations with more than one person.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
If the analogy you based the rest of your post on is profoundly flawed, I don't really have to address the rest of it to cut the whole thing off at the knees. That saves me from having to write a behemoth of a post, like you did, when it's completely unneccessary to address anything beyond that beginning fallacious statement.
Click to expand...

So just because you don't understand how the invisible hand works means that you don't understand how anything works?

SmokeAndMirrors said:
Yes. As long as everyone involved is informed and happy with the arrangement, people can do whatever they like in their relationships. The dishonesty of cheating is the issue, not the act of having sex or romantic relations with more than one person.
Click to expand...

So it's entirely possible for an individual to have needs that their partner alone cannot satisfy?
 
Xerographica said:
So just because you don't understand how the invisible hand works means that you don't understand how anything works?
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with anything? If you present an argument and begin with its foundational concept, and that foundational concept is flawed, the rest of it falls apart. It would be redundant for me to cover the rest of it.

So it's entirely possible for an individual to have needs that their partner alone cannot satisfy?
Click to expand...

Yes. I would say everyone has needs their partner alone can't satisfy, which is why they continue having friends or pursuing their career even while in a relationship. It just depends on what those needs are; for some they are sexual/emotional in nature, which may lead to polyamorous relationships. Poor communication and immaturity is what leads to cheating, regardless of whatever needs the person may have. And the cheater are completely to blame for that.

Let me try to make this clearer: having unmet needs may or may not be the fault of someone else. But even if it is, corrupting the relationship (whether romantic, social, or contractual) is not the appropriate response, and is the fault of the person corrupting it. The appropriate response is to come up with a new arrangement in cooperation with all involved.
 
Xerographica said:
This is the libertarian theory...but it's not the anarcho-capitalist theory. We actually have no idea what the public sector can really do better than the private sector...pragma-socialism.



What I clearly stated from the get-go is that this analogy is directed at libertarians and anarcho-capitalists. So it's really awesome and entertaining that you're making this monumental effort to explain to me how cheating really works! I love it! As if this is something that really needs to be clarified to anybody. Don't we all hold these truths to be self-evident? I guess that's why I find the amount of effort you're dedicating to explaining the fatal flaw in my analogy so very amusing and well worth having chosen this analogy in the first place.
Click to expand...

Well apparently YOU needed to be corrected about how cheating works, because you were trying to pretend it is a rational activity!

Frankly your attempts to laugh off your own failure to communicate well or use analogy well by taking a high-and-mighty, sneer-down-your-nose at the poor plebes that are too dim to understand your vast wit, is starting to piss me off. But by all means, if you want people to ignore you and pay no mind to what you have to say, then simply continue in this vein.

YOU are the one who choose to use cheating spouses, and a fatally flawed viewpoint of why people cheat, as an analogy for your political viewpoints... it is not MY fault if your analogy fell flat due to poor facts and poor construction.
 
SmokeAndMirrors, that you don't understand the relevance of the invisible hand means that your "foundational concept is flawed" and the rest of your political views fall apart. Well...at least according to your logic.

Right...so everyone has needs that their partner alone cannot satisfy. Does anybody know your own needs better than you do?
 
Xerographica said:
SmokeAndMirrors, that you don't understand the relevance of the invisible hand means that your "foundational concept is flawed" and the rest of your political views fall apart. Well...at least according to your logic.

Right...so everyone has needs that their partner alone cannot satisfy. Does anybody know your own needs better than you do?
Click to expand...

You're making a faulty comparison, which means you are thinking about the issue in a foundationally flawed way. I don't have to address the concepts that follow, regardless of my understanding of them. You have to correct your foundational concept.
 
Goshin, can you quote me where you explained in detail how my analogy fell flat? So far...all you've done is condescendingly lecture me on how cheating really works. Really? Not going to give a person the benefit of the doubt in this area?

Of course I'm going to think it's extremely funny that you're lecturing me on something that you don't even understand is completely irrelevant to my point. Make the effort to demonstrate how my analogy falls flat and I'll stop laughing. Until then...LOL
 
If your partner is cheating on you because needs are not being met, then you have three options:

1) Try to fulfill the need.
2) Have an open relationship so their needs can be met elsewhere while still being with you.
3) Breakup.

If the need isn't reasonable or you can't do it, then the answer is obvious.

I hate the word "cheating". We're adults, not children. Nobody OWNS anyone else. A relationship is about your own work with yourself, with your partner as your mirror. You were born free and that has never changed.
 
Xerographica said:
Goshin, can you quote me where you explained in detail how my analogy fell flat? So far...all you've done is condescendingly lecture me on how cheating really works. Really? Not going to give a person the benefit of the doubt in this area?

Of course I'm going to think it's extremely funny that you're lecturing me on something that you don't even understand is completely irrelevant to my point. Make the effort to demonstrate how my analogy falls flat and I'll stop laughing. Until then...LOL
Click to expand...


Congratulations, I'm no longer interested in a damn thing you have to say, smart ass. Have fun with your invisible hand.
 
SmokeAndMirrors, ok, here's the deal. I'll admit that I don't understand how cheating works and you'll admit that you don't understand how the invisible hand works. Deal?
 
Temporal, should taxpayers have the opportunity to communicate their needs in the public sector like consumers have the opportunity to communicate their needs in the private sector?
 
Xerographica said:
SmokeAndMirrors, ok, here's the deal. I'll admit that I don't understand how cheating works and you'll admit that you don't understand how the invisible hand works. Deal?
Click to expand...

Nope. I understand the "invisible hand" concept perfectly well. I just have no reason to address it because your argument unraveled before I ever got there.

Like Goshin, I have now ceased to be interested.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Nope. I understand the "invisible hand" concept perfectly well. I just have no reason to address it because your argument unraveled before I ever got there.

Like Goshin, I have now ceased to be interested.
Click to expand...

You've certainly proved that you understand how cheating works. Yet...when it comes time to prove that you understand how the invisible hand works...you bravely run away. Was it really that hard for you to admit that you don't understand how something works? Do you think people would have thought any less of you? If somebody did think less of you for admitting that you don't understand a specific economic concept...then why would you care about their opinions in the first place?

We can't understand how everything works. It would be a waste of time/money for us to try and do so. So we focus on learning about the things that we think are most important in life. This is the division of labor concept. You understand how cheating works and I understand how the invisible hand works. If you truly did understand how the invisible hand works then you would advocate that taxpayers be allowed to choose which government organizations receive their individual taxes.

The fact of the matter is...the only reason you participated in this thread in the first place was because you considered yourself to be knowledgeable on the subject of cheating. If I had given this thread a more technical title..."The Efficient Allocation of Scarce Resources"...then you would have skipped it for "juicier" topics. My title wasn't necessarily false advertising...but it didn't really tell the full story. Once you realized what the actual topic really was then you bravely ran away to juicier threads.

Come back! We can talk about cheatery all you want! I have so much more to learn about the subject! So far the only thing that I really know is that the cheat is grounded. But I'm not quite sure if that bit of partial knowledge is relevant to cheating! Is it?
 
Xerographica said:
samsmart, guess you missed my thread on. In the for-profit sector and the non-profit sector people are not expected to be experts in every single area. In fact, it's quite the opposite. Civilization developed for the simple fact that we established a division of labor. Nowadays people are experts in only one or two very specific areas.

So the invisible hand works on the basis of a division of labor. This was the topic of my post on Unglamorous but Important Things. If you search on that page you'll see I added your response to the long list of people who do not understand how the invisible hand works.

You don't have to understand how the invisible hand works for it to work. But you do have to understand how the invisible hand works in order to effectively evaluate whether taxpayers should be allowed to choose which government organizations receive their taxes. Not only that...but understanding how the invisible hand works is necessary to effectively evaluate many other political topics.

That's why, in my opinion, it's well worth it to take the time to familiarize yourself with the topic. It won't take 10,000 hours...maybe it will take anywhere from 1-5 hours. You're not receiving a Ph. D. in economics...you're just learning about one very important part of economics...how the invisible hand works. Here's what I recommend...

Thoroughly read the following essays/articles...

1. Unglamorous but Important Things
2. A Marvel of Cooperation - Russell Roberts
3. What is Seen and What is Not Seen - Bastiat
4. The Use of Knowledge in Society - Hayek

Once you understand why 150 million taxpayers should be allowed to choose which government organizations receive their taxes then you'll understand how the invisible hand works.
Click to expand...

I don't need to read those things because taxpayers will only pay for those services only for their own self-interest, whereas the purposes of taxes is for the national interest.

Which is the reason why the Constitution with a stronger federal government was adopted - it was because the Articles of Confederation put too much trust in the individual states to pay for the needs of the federal government for the services that the federal government provided. It didn't work, there was a cluster****, and a stronger federal government was accepted instead.

The invisible hand is wrong when it comes to taxation. History has proven this. Ergo, I'm not going to study more of a theory that is wrong.
 
Samsmart, what's in the national interest that's not covered by people's self-interest? If people aren't interested in something then why would you consider it to be in the nation's interest?

"Federal taxation of individuals would succeed where “requisitioning” the states for their fair share of contributions to the national treasury had failed. In the Critical Period, the states acted individually when they needed to act collectively, free riding on the contributions of other states to the federal treasury. Moreover, the Articles of Confederation denied Congress any power to solve this problem. With no authority to tax, Congress had little money to spend. The Revolutionary War debts remained unpaid." - Cooter, Siegel, Not the Power to Destroy

Check out my post on Libertarianism and the Free-rider Problem. The problem was never with the invisible hand...it was always with the free-rider problem. We solved the free-rider problem by forcing people to pay taxes but then we took one more step that was completely unnecessary...we allowed congress to decide how taxes were spent.

When the government consisted of paying off revolutionary war debts and funding the post office...then congress could handle allocating public funds. But now we have a few more government organizations. We've gone from A and B...to A through Z. The more government organizations that there are the greater the case for allowing taxpayers to choose which government organizations receive their taxes.
 
Xerographica said:
Samsmart, what's in the national interest that's not covered by people's self-interest? If people aren't interested in something then why would you consider it to be in the nation's interest?

"Federal taxation of individuals would succeed where “requisitioning” the states for their fair share of contributions to the national treasury had failed. In the Critical Period, the states acted individually when they needed to act collectively, free riding on the contributions of other states to the federal treasury. Moreover, the Articles of Confederation denied Congress any power to solve this problem. With no authority to tax, Congress had little money to spend. The Revolutionary War debts remained unpaid." - Cooter, Siegel, Not the Power to Destroy

Check out my post on Libertarianism and the Free-rider Problem. The problem was never with the invisible hand...it was always with the free-rider problem. We solved the free-rider problem by forcing people to pay taxes but then we took one more step that was completely unnecessary...we allowed congress to decide how taxes were spent.

When the government consisted of paying off revolutionary war debts and funding the post office...then congress could handle allocating public funds. But now we have a few more government organizations. We've gone from A and B...to A through Z. The more government organizations that there are the greater the case for allowing taxpayers to choose which government organizations receive their taxes.
Click to expand...

That doesn't get rid of the free-rider problem. That only means that the taxpayers may misallocate the taxes they pay.
 
I'm not against the theory of people deciding where they want their money to go. It's a fine theory. It's never going to happen and in actual use it wouldn't work. IMO.
 
samsmart said:
That doesn't get rid of the free-rider problem. That only means that the taxpayers may misallocate the taxes they pay.
Click to expand...

What is a misallocation? You think everybody is going to allocate their taxes to NASA? You think you're going to wake up one day on Mars and wonder how you got there? "Crap! Those stupid taxpayers allocated too much of their taxes to NASA!!!"

Are we going to build some pyramids? Perhaps we are going to build our own Great Wall?

Look at these threads...do we agree on anything? We all have different values and if we allowed taxpayers to choose which government organizations received their taxes then the distribution of funds would accurately reflect our values. The question is...why don't you want the distribution of funds to accurately reflect our values? Perhaps you are concerned that the things that you value would receive less funds then they currently do?

Does that mean that you're concerned that I won't allocate my taxes to the things that you value? If the things that you value are so essential...then why would you have a difficult time convincing me to help fund them? If you have concrete evidence that Canada is planning to launch an attack on the US...then why wouldn't I allocate more of my taxes to the Dept of Defense? Do you think that I want to get beat up by Canadians?
 
1Perry said:
I'm not against the theory of people deciding where they want their money to go. It's a fine theory. It's never going to happen and in actual use it wouldn't work. IMO.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't you be against a theory that wouldn't work in real life? How is my theory any different than how the non-profit sector is funded? The only difference would be that taxpayers wouldn't have a choice whether they paid taxes...they would just have a choice which government organizations received their taxes.
 
Xerographica said:
What is a misallocation? You think everybody is going to allocate their taxes to NASA? You think you're going to wake up one day on Mars and wonder how you got there? "Crap! Those stupid taxpayers allocated too much of their taxes to NASA!!!"

Are we going to build some pyramids? Perhaps we are going to build our own Great Wall?

Look at these threads...do we agree on anything? We all have different values and if we allowed taxpayers to choose which government organizations received their taxes then the distribution of funds would accurately reflect our values. The question is...why don't you want the distribution of funds to accurately reflect our values? Perhaps you are concerned that the things that you value would receive less funds then they currently do?

Does that mean that you're concerned that I won't allocate my taxes to the things that you value? If the things that you value are so essential...then why would you have a difficult time convincing me to help fund them? If you have concrete evidence that Canada is planning to launch an attack on the US...then why wouldn't I allocate more of my taxes to the Dept of Defense? Do you think that I want to get beat up by Canadians?
Click to expand...

It may correctly allocate our values. Which does not mean it may accurately allocate our needs.
 
Xerographica said:
Why wouldn't you be against a theory that wouldn't work in real life?
Click to expand...

I'm not against theories. They can be interesting even when they don't work.

How is my theory any different than how the non-profit sector is funded? The only difference would be that taxpayers wouldn't have a choice whether they paid taxes...they would just have a choice which government organizations received their taxes.
Click to expand...

One of the ways we build roads is with with a fuel tax. Absolutely nobody would vote to raise the fuel tax.
 
1Perry said:
One of the ways we build roads is with with a fuel tax. Absolutely nobody would vote to raise the fuel tax.
Click to expand...

If nobody would vote to raise the fuel tax then how did we end up with a fuel tax?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom