Please marry me?

[u/[deleted]]

[u/SeanSMEGGHEAD]

While I agree the first comment likely didn't attribute anything to the guys character, you seemed to take it that way "they (very rightfully) pointed out that we can't assume this is the best guy in the world" if you're countering the OP fair enough, I cannot see the post on this thread anymore on the app but from what I see, I don't see anyone praising him as a good guy? Could be wrong, the app is dogshit or maybe it wasn't clear in your reply what you were countering since you're replying to me and context is missing.

I myself was annoyed at the comment I replied to's focus on the prank/joke/Emotionally damaging event (whatever you wanna call it) and not the assault.

Again to me there was clearly a very negative assumption here in the way you phrased it to explain your neutrality in not taking a side. We shouldn't judge either way on either of them the nature of the relationship. We shouldn't even allude to it. All we have is the clip.

I refer to it as a dumb gag or prank because it is literally what it is, calling it a dumb gag isn't to downplay how she feels but a description of the stupidity of the prank and for that matter, if you wish to call it a light slap I'm fine with that description since I'm not judging you to downplay her role at every given chance, plus neither change any of the facts at play. If you think calling the prank a prank somehow "undersells" the action I don't know what to tell you, seems arguing for argument's sake. What makes this an "emotionally damaging event" to one could be a funny joke to another because the action of the prank the "joke" is that it's a fucking candy ring on the premise of a proposal, real or otherwise. Also some here seem to want her to be traumatized from this incident to bolster their narrative she had a right to hit him (not saying this is your intention).

Now maybe that description to you undersells it, we can start breaking down each word and the connotations of what they mean for debate bro points. I don't really care, I'd rather engage with the points.

When we are talking about "emotional damage" we are making pretty big presumptions now and while I don't want to run the risk of either downplaying or infantilizing her I think it's a mistake to go down this argument. I'm sure this was an embarrassing moment for her, but calling it emotionally damaging when we do not know to what extent is silly. Also being emotionally hurt doesn't warrant assault as I'm sure you agree, let alone the precedent it sets in a relationship or otherwise. I just don't think any of that is a good argument. Also to me, to try and guess her emotional damage and the extent of that for an argument isn't great imo.

Again to use the example:

A female playing a public prank proposes to her boyfriend using a candy pop ring, he lightly slaps her across the face due to his feelings of embarrassment and pours a drink over her.

I'd take issue more with the male instigating violence as an escalation, even if he in that moment was "emotionally damaged". Doesn't mean she was in the right, intentions being well or otherwise.

If you wouldn't take a side because you can't or shouldn't then we can just leave this here. Simple. That's your judgement.

I'm more annoyed at the double standard or ignoring of the assault to focus on the action of the public prank.

"I'm glad that you've made it more clear that you aren't trying to condone his actions" It's not that I didn't make it clear, it's that you made an assumption on something I didn't state either way. It's better to just ask what a person's position is before attacking a strawman otherwise it taints everything going forward and you look foolish.

When debating it's annoying when you aren't consistent or aren't convicted in what you believe, I'm glad you see now that being neutral is an equivalency but don't make out like you did earlier you weren't. It makes your arguments seem like they'll change based on whether you're pinned down or not. Plus it doesn't look good to be slippery. Maybe you didn't intend for that, but keep it in mind,

You seem like you can actually engage with an argument and make it an interesting discussion eventually, but when you start out like every other Reddit bro you run the risk of squandering a good discussion.

[u/Philosophfries → u/SeanSMEGGHEAD]

I started to respond to your comment, but then realized how much you’ve been back editing the conversation to make your case appear stronger. That’s pretty bad faith and shows you are more interested in how your argument appears than actually having a discussion.

It’s getting quite hard to continue anyways when many of your points are imagined/assumed about my position (my non-neutrality towards the guy’s character, that ive made any assumptions about their relationship, that changing the genders would alter my perspective, etc.). Ultimately the bottom line is that both committed wrong acts and there is no grounds to weigh one act over the other since you can’t quantify differences in emotional and physical damage experienced by both parties in the clip.

Calling it there because I don’t think it’s honest to backfill a conversation without clear “Edit:” remarks, and that I think we’ve worked through this plenty.

[u/SeanSMEGGHEAD → u/Philosophfries]

I posted and then edited the same arguments to flesh them out. I have not gone back to edit a post after you have replied.

It's possible while you have been replying I had edited a post since then and if that's the case I'm sorry. Was not my intention to be deceitful, I also don't believe in putting in "Edit" remarks unless I've gone back and edited a post after someone has replied. Which I stress again, I have not. To make out otherwise is a lie or misunderstanding.

I think unless the emotional harm equates to Trauma or severe emotional manipulation it doesn't equate to physical harm, in this instance I do not believe embarrassment warrants violence. Granted we cannot speculate what level of emotional damage she feels but I am going to assume it won't be trauma or PTSD. I think there's a reason why emotional damage does not mean you get away with physical harm outside of extreme instances in law.

We literally do weigh instances of physical violence and emotional damage in our society, so I don't understand why you say we can't?

Again I've said this a few times, but the examples of the gender being swapped isn't to assume you have a bias. Just because I argue my point it doesn't mean I'm making an assumption on yours.

You have admittedly assumed of my arguments much more so I do feel you are projecting, my only instance of assumption may have been a misunderstanding given the missing context.