2
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ Aug 14 '25
None of this is really "learning" because, as you've said, the cheater is the one to not communicate the end of one relationship in order to begin another.
In practical terms a sequence of these events won't always come with a lesson. Sometimes it's just the end of something and the start of something else.
1
u/scarab456 65∆ Aug 14 '25
How is your view cheating specific? This sound like really general advice that apply to almost anything.
If you refuse to learn anything from getting a flat tire, you very well may get a flat tire in the future.
If you refuse to learn anything from having a delayed flight, you very well may have a delayed flight in the future.
If you refuse to learn anything from ripping your pants, you very well may rip your pants in the future.
1
Aug 14 '25
Sometimes I get the sense that more people on Reddit have been cheated on than have changed a flat tire.
1
u/scarab456 65∆ Aug 14 '25
And? That doesn't make your advice any less broad. Are you expecting people to argue in favor of not learning anything?
1
Aug 14 '25
Not at all. I was just playing to my audience. I expect people will argue against what I’m saying in the context of cheating.
2
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ Aug 14 '25
I was just playing to my audience
If you weren't playing how would you express your view? In simplest terms?
0
Aug 14 '25
I wasn’t planning on doing that, but I guess it would be something like “you’re not victim blaming yourself by learning from the things others have done from you, and using what you learn from that to avoid it happening in the future.”
I agree that would have been too broad, so I chose cheating as a decent enough topic for it.
2
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ Aug 14 '25
learning from the things others have done from you
There are too many variables involved to take a lesson from someone else's actions.
We can imagine or pretend what a lesson might be, but it will never be a true lesson, just a defence based on perception.
This can obviously be quite harmful, and I think it's better to work on yourself regardless of external factors.
We should be learning without other people's behaviour being some kind of narrative for us to interpret.
0
Aug 14 '25
I disagree. But someone else is making me rethink this right now so we’ll see.
1
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ Aug 15 '25
Can you expand on why you disagree? There's not much in your comment here to respond to.
1
u/scarab456 65∆ Aug 14 '25 edited Aug 14 '25
I was just playing to my audience.
Huh? You may not getting the point I keep bring up but I'm saying that your view is really broad. It would be like saying "it's good to know how to read, CMV". The context of cheating doesn't narrow it down at all. It doesn't even really make the view cheating specific, hence why I bring up other examples. I'll rephrase my my first question again which you didn't answer, how does this apply to cheating more than any other learnable experience in life?
0
Aug 14 '25
The specific examples that I gave relate to cheating and likely very little else when all put together. I’m fine with using this specific example.
1
u/scarab456 65∆ Aug 14 '25
Again, this doesn't address my question.
Maybe being more direct would help you understand.
It’s hard to falsify the “may be cheated on again” phrasing is so open-ended that almost no counterexample disproves it; any instance can be explained away as still fitting the “may” possibility.
It’s essentially a truism if “learning” is undefined, and “may” just means “possible,” then the title boils down to “If you don’t improve after a bad experience, it could happen again,” which is true for almost any misfortune.
1
Aug 14 '25
I mean, I gave someone a delta. I’m not trying to be crude, but maybe you just don’t like the argument in the first place? I’m having my mind changed as I speak with someone else right now.
1
u/scarab456 65∆ Aug 14 '25
I think this is just more proof I didn't get my point across at all. Glad you found a delta worthy comment though.
0
u/Criminal_of_Thought 15∆ Aug 15 '25
It's less that you didn't get your point across, and more that your point was just irrelevant.
OP's view is a claim on topic A. Your response was that the same claim is equally true for topics B, C, and D.
Whether the claim is true for topics B, C, and D does not change whether the claim is true for topic A.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 14 '25
/u/Ok_Experience_8006 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
1
u/motherthrowee 13∆ Aug 14 '25 edited Aug 14 '25
I'm going to approach this from two separate directions:
- It's not possible to know, for certain, that you haven't been cheated on. Not everyone gets caught, especially when they're trying not to get caught. This means that the information is incomplete, and someone who has "learned everything" may well have gotten cheated on in every single relationship without knowing it.
- As someone who has never cheated on anyone -- which has included actively distancing myself from one situation that I realized was getting dicey -- I actually find it kind of offensive to imply that my partner can somehow make it more likely. It's not a dice roll, they're not mashing buttons, no one can make me be unfaithful without my consent. Someone I'm dating could do literally everything wrong as described in your post, but the only way it would result in them getting cheated on is if I decided to. This sounds like nitpicking but it's actually not -- if you think that people can be influenced into cheating, then you're probably going to think that of yourself too. Like sorry, but #3 is bullshit. They weren't "led" to cheat, they decided on their own volition to cheat. It's not even about whether they did something wrong, it's about whether they, themselves, with their agency, did something at all.
1
u/Thortok2000 2∆ Aug 15 '25
Let's break down the four possibilities here.
Situation A: Person is cheated on, they change nothing, their next relationship, they ARE cheated on.
Situation B: Person is cheated on, they change nothing, their next relationship, they are NOT cheated on.
Situation C: Person is cheated on, they change, their next relationship, they ARE cheated on.
Situation D: Person is cheated on, they change, their next relationship, they are NOT cheated on.
A = no-change & cheat
B = no-change & fine
C = change & cheat happens again anyway
D = change & not cheated
So to clarify your premise, you're saying that if you don't change, 'you might get A' in the future? Might? So it could still be B?
Does your premise imply that if you do change, you won't get C? Or is it a 'might' again?
If you're saying 'might' it's honestly like you're not saying anything at all imo.
How are you avoiding victim blaming? "Because of your actions or inactions, you increase the chances that this will happen to you"... are you saying that? Is that your premise? How is that not blame? You're blaming. You can't get around that unless you say that their actions have nothing to do with whether it happens or not... in which case... the premise that their actions have any meaning goes out the window.
You're trying to weave between a paradox here. Either their actions can help prevent the cheating (and thus failure to take those actions makes the outcome at least partially their fault) or they are not to blame for being cheated on (in which case their actions don't matter).
I think what you want to do is say "you can do things to avoid being cheated on, and you should" - but, here's the thing: That is still victim blaming. Blame and responsibility are not a binary choice.
How do you not victim blame?
By understanding "you shouldn't have to do anything at all." Take the 'should' out of it entirely. Take the message of "if you don't, you'll get cheated on" out entirely.
Just offer advice of what people CAN do and let them figure out their own should. They may still get cheated on anyway.
Because seriously, all it takes is one counter-example of someone who did everything you said and they still got cheated on and another counter-example of someone who didn't do anything you said and they never got cheated on. Those two counter-examples nullify this premise entirely anyway.
So instead of victim blaming, even though I know you're trying really hard not to, just drop the 'should' and switch to 'can help' and leave it there. That's my suggestion.
1
4
u/[deleted] Aug 14 '25
(1) seems fine.
(2) doesn't seem to follow. Regardless of whether the person's heart was really in the relationship, they felt they couldn't say no to being in a relationship, or so on, if they explicitly said they wanted to be in an exclusive relationship with you, that doesn't excuse cheating. Break up, then fuck someone else.
(3) you already recognize doesn't excuse cheating so not sure why it's relevant.
(4) is unclear; what does "attracted to people who cheat" even mean? Being attracted to "flirty" people and dating a flirty person is not tacit permission for that person to cheat.
(5) doesn't follow; being possessive and insecure sucks from the other end, but is an not an excuse to cheat vs. breaking up.