Debate question & other.

[vvalkyri]

1) Resolved: That in a committed relationship one has responsibility /to one’s mate/ to take care of oneself as best as one can, in order to lessen the risk one’s mate will be left alone due to an otherwise preventable death.(Obviously people still get hit by buses, and the debate resolution as written above attempts to differentiate between the

Comments

[emeraldliz]

Entitlement always leads to disappointment.

I expect my partners to be true to themselves and honest to me about it. That's it. If they do X, I decide whether that's an acceptable risk, or compatible with my truth of self.

I want them to choose for themselves what they want. It might not always mean we can stay in a relationship, but no compromise of truth of self, ever. No matter how healthier or sweet or "nicer" we may want to judge it to be.

[vvalkyri]

[remember, I'm playing in thought experiments. and unfortunately i think i muddied the question by mentioning Dad and the helicopter]

Another way of putting it (which you've essentially pointed to here) is "is it reasonable to disqualify a potential mate for seeming to not take good care of himself"

(my original 'resolved' extrapolated from there to worry that the mate would therefore die earlier, e.g. from untreated heart disease)

[emeraldliz]

It's reasonable to disqualify a potential mate because they are wearing a purple polo shirt. So yeah :)

[selki]

I didn't break up with someone over what seemed self-destructive behavior, but I was *relieved* when we did break up.

Re your higher-up comment "Am I disrespecting my mate if I have a second beer with dinner?)" above, I'd be bothered if it turned out a partner had been regularly raising their cancer risk around me and I hadn't known about it. I would have wanted to have known, not to dictate of course, but to decide for myself if it bothered me.

[also_huey]

I don't know if I like this. What if your 'true self' is an irresponsible alcoholic jackass loser with a massive sense of entitlement brought on by the fact that people have always bailed you out in the past? If that's the case, I don't want you to be true to yourself: I want you to fix your shit. Now, it may be unrealistic of me to honestly expect you to fix your shit if that is indeed your true self, but I'd really much rather you lived a big fraud as a responsible sober polite productive citizen who does for themself, rather than being true to what you really are.

[emeraldliz]

Of course I WANT you to get better- but only once you've decided it for yourself.

For me if there is no truth of self, there's no point to anything else.

[selki]

I can't imagine wanting a relationship where the other person was a big fraud.

[pokeyburro]

This feels righter to me than the alternative.

Your partner can of course factor in the fact that you're his/her partner. It's just that it's not obligatory out of the gate.