Not that I advocate cheating, but that test bugs me. It seems to say "if it is possible to ask a discriminating question about whether or not cheating exists, then it exists", so unless a perfect (read: total) definition of cheating is set, there is always cheating!
See, that's interesting, since it's intent is exactly the opposite. Some people have phrased it as the "Would I want my partner to know this happened" test, which might avoid that for you.
In my case, it came out of the tendency of someone to say "oh, we never exactly defined that, or we did define cheating and technically this isn't it" as a way to basically try and shut down their partner's right to be angry at the behaviour.
In other words, they don't allow for post-hoc evolution, because since you didn't list it all in advance, I am blameless for everything I do you didn't think to cover.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: logical ick
Date: 2010-03-09 05:07 pm (UTC)See, that's interesting, since it's intent is exactly the opposite. Some people have phrased it as the "Would I want my partner to know this happened" test, which might avoid that for you.
In my case, it came out of the tendency of someone to say "oh, we never exactly defined that, or we did define cheating and technically this isn't it" as a way to basically try and shut down their partner's right to be angry at the behaviour.
In other words, they don't allow for post-hoc evolution, because since you didn't list it all in advance, I am blameless for everything I do you didn't think to cover.
I'm against that.