1. i know it’s not my relationship, i wasn’t involved. i am an internet person who has never met any of the relevant people commenting from a third party neutral perspective.

2. when someone is being deeply wronged and they don’t know about it but you do, you are (in my opinion) morally obligated to inform them. and this is a very common point of view. it is extraordinarily normal for a person who is being cheated with to find out that the person they’ve been in a relationship with already has a partner and to then seek out that partner and inform them. it is standard practice. 99% of people agree that it is the correct course of action.

cheating sucks. don’t cheat and you won’t have to worry about your partner being informed of your cheating

christian moralism is when you think people shouldn’t be unknowingly stuck in a relationship with someone who has no respect for them

you did the right thing, nothing to feel bad about. but that sucks, hope you find somebody else you like soon!

nope lol, if you’re being cheated on you deserve to know

The best part of this is that your character knows what the fine is, both the first offense and for further offenses thereafter.

No wonder you were in the prison

my brain is too smooth for this game. i tried to play it and just kinda hit a wall after like an hour where it’s obvious there are like 7 different puzzles im supposed to be following but i just don’t know how to get to them.

By my count it has exactly 5 lines of text which is not more than 5 lines of text. owned

you cowards weren’t into glados before portal 2?

you DID NOT articulate your alien interpretation of my OP at any point

I repeatedly accused you of defending horse riding, and you did not say that that is not what you were doing. That is what I mean. If I were being accused of making an argument I wasn’t making I, personally, would clarify what my point is rather than insisting on continuing into semantic arguments while the person I’m talking to is under a false understanding of what my position is.

the repeated insults; i’m flabbergasted you are still treating me like a child even after i’ve tried to cut through the misunderstanding and treat you with respect.

The fact that you interpret my frustration with your refusal to communicate your position as an insult seems like a you problem

you didn’t “win”

There it is. You know, I haven’t been treating you like a child whatever you say. But maybe i should have been, because you are one. No one “won” anything. This isn’t a fucking competition. This is what I was talking about the entire time. You are reddit to your very core.

is this fr the core of this entire shitflinging argument?

Isn’t it wild how fast misunderstandings can be resolved when you have the guts to actually put forward a view instead of treating everything like a debate? The moment you clarified that you aren’t trying to defend horse riding it became much easier to step back and determine where the disconnect came from. The entire time, my position has been crystal clear: riding horses is animal abuse, animal abuse is bad, training a dog to shit outside is not animal abuse and is not bad.

You made an argument that I interpreted to be in defense of horseback riding, and I stated that interpretation clearly and immediately. Why exactly did it take you so long to clarify that that was not the intention of your argument? What reason, if you were interested in good faith discussion, could you have had for knowingly allowing the other party to discuss under the assumption that the argument you were making was a completely different one from the one you were actually making?

dogs that aren’t housebroken are outside dogs. that’s their ‘natural’ (deeply anthropogenic ofc) state.

Here I have to disagree. We invented dogs. Their natural state is to live with us. I see a dog living outside or in the ‘wild’ as the ‘unnatural’ state for a dog. They evolved not, like their wolf ancestors, to live in the wilderness, but to live with us protected by our tools and our shelters. Because we bred them that way.

Anyway, that’s just a digression. The point is which way is more ethical. To me it seems very obvious that if the two choices are don’t bother to teach the dog to choose where it shits and force it to stay outside or do teach it to choose where it shits and allow it to benefit from the shelter of a human domicile, the latter is the more ethical choice.

not dogs who live inside but shit everywhere. i can see how that would seem unreasonable, but that read legitimately did not occur to me at all.

We must have quite different life experiences, because I have met plenty of dogs kept inside and not taught to appropriately handle their waste.

I have also met plenty of neglected dogs kept outside, but I’ve never before thought there was a particular link between that and training them to poop in the right places.

Now, I’d like to circle back around to the actual original point. Training a horse to stop fighting when you abuse it: necessarily abusive and done only in the service of more abuse. Training a dog to poop outside: not necessarily abusive and done in the service of affording the dog a more comfortable, safer, healthier, happier life inside shelter.

Where is the connection?

You know, when I see a struggle session thread I just keep on scrolling because it’s never worth it. I don’t usually say controversial things at all because, again, not worth it. But this place is usually cool enough that I often forget that basic vegan criticisms of obvious animal abuse are considered controversial here and will instantly turn even the otherwise coolest users into your shitty uncle in his f150

It isn’t worth it

Ah, I see where the disconnect was then. Obviously I have never seen dogs that weren’t trained to poop outside except in neglectful households where they were abused in various other ways at the same time. I very much associate refusing to train a dog to poop outside with neglect and carelessness and so the image in my head was of someone who just doesn’t pay attention to what the dog does at all (maybe the dog is locked in a seldom used room or it’s a hoarder house where some extra poop pretty much just goes unnoticed)

I see what you’re getting at now, if you clean up the poop then yeah that’s more convenient for the dog, and the only upside then to training it to poop outside is for you and not the dog. You’re right.

Also sorry for the tone of my previous comment, that was pretty cringe

you’re treating “reddit” like a magic word that invalidates anything i say, lmao

No actually, I am being a complete dumbass by actually addressing what you say when I should dismiss it because it is already invalid

Because I actually believe in people and even though I identified you correctly as an internet troll who has no beliefs and simply wants to argue about nothing at your very first comment, I still tried to open a dialogue with you several times and every single time I have regretted it

I never actually accused you

shot

your defense of horse riding implies that you might in the future decide to do so

chaser

You really thought you had something here didn’t you? All you’re telling me is that you don’t know how to read. That is not an accusation that you have ever ridden a horse.

i will remind you my OP was comparing semantics between dog training and equine training

And I will remind you that at no point have I been interested in arguing about those semantics, which is what I told you the moment you opened that discussion with me in the first place. I find it much more interesting to discuss the actual activities and not the arbitrary fucking glyphs we use to represent them, which is why I will be the dumbass once again and attempt to discuss that with you here:

not a claim that training horses to be ridden is a good thing. despite like 6 replies where you insist everything i’ve said has been in service of that, i literally never said it.

I accused you of being interested only in redirecting the discussion to the semantic argument I had no interest in, primarily. This entire time I have been pointing out (again, correctly) that your entire goal in this conversation was to avoid discussing the ethics of the issue which was my interest and to instead get bogged down in arguing about the semantics of the term “breaking” as it is applied in horse and dog training (again I will add that it is applied differently)

because i don’t necessarily believe it’s true

The reason I interpreted your unwavering desire to bog the discussion down with an argument about the semantics of the terms used to describe dog and horse training as a desire to defend the ethics of horseback riding is because I see the specific type of dog training in question (teaching the dog to poop outside instead of in the house where it has to live) as an unambiguous, obvious, undebatably positive thing for the dog. I assumed that no reasonable person would consider it to be acceptable to let a dog just shit all over the place and then have to walk around and sleep and eat and play in a shit covered house. If you, like me, assume training a dog to shit outside is unambiguously good, then your attempt to redirect the discussion to a semantic argument in which training a dog to shit outside and training a horse to stop fighting when you abuse it are equated would be seen obviously as a defense of the latter.

Rare outcome, most friend groups would be like “nah dude you’re the worst get lost” and then you’d all laugh and chug another beer or whatever it is neurotypical people do when they hang out

Right. They aren’t built to carry you around and you should leave them alone. I did say that. Where exactly did I claim that you personally ride horses? My comment was, in the first paragraph, addressed to “you animal-abusing fuckheads.” Plural. How exactly will you claim that I was referring to you and you alone?

I was speaking generally. They aren’t built to carry (your; general) dumb ass around. Anyone’s dumb ass. They aren’t built to carry people or things around. They are animals, and are best suited to carrying themselves and nothing else.

And even if I was speaking specifically to you I never actually accused you of having ridden any horse in your life. However, your defense of horse riding implies that you might in the future decide to do so, and I would like to reiterate again that you should not do that. Because that would be animal abuse.

Now I’ve had to write three paragraphs of wordy refutation of your dishonest claims, once again demonstrating why my first reaction to your reddit bullshit was to refuse to engage with it.

I don’t see how the situation benefits the dog here,

Seriously? You don’t think that it is detrimental to any animal to live in its own shit? I expected “show me some scientific evidence that it is good for a dog not to have to live in a pile of its own feces” from the dishonest animal abuse supporting dipshits but I didn’t expect it from you

I really thought that anyone arguing in good faith would take for granted that teaching a dog to go outside to poop is beneficial to the dog in the same way that it is beneficial to a child to teach it to poop in the toilet

you’ve insulted me repeatedly, even in this reply!

Don’t go to bat for animal abusers and I won’t insult you. The difference between me insulting you and you insulting me is that you deserve it.

'i know you ride horses

I never said that. I called you an animal abuser for defending horse riding regardless of whether you engage in it yourself. I don’t know you, I don’t care who you are or what you do. What I do care about is the shit you say because that is all that exists here. And what you are saying is in defense of animal abuse.

I’d say earth life can probably handle that. You know, the extremophiles. Microscopic lil dudes.

Genuine question, why does it so upset you that I don’t want to host a scored and moderated debate about this semantic point you refuse to let go of that I have said multiple times that I was never interested in? Every single time I tried to redirect the conversation to what actually mattered to me the entire time, you came back harder on the semantics. The one time I actually indulged you and got into the weeds about the semantics, you mocked me for doing so. Why the hell would I even consider this discussion with you after all of this behavior was considered together? It is on a topic I don’t care about, with a person who is defending something I find indefensible and disgusting, who is defending it in ways that are dishonest, and who has only been an asshole to me even when I engaged as you seemingly desired.

In short, there are two wolves inside you. Both of them are redditors. Evict them.

defend this.

No.

I’m done playing reddit debatebro with you. Fuck off. Stop defending animal abuse.