One time is no time and two equals zero.

Samael88

Evil always finds a way
Reaction score
181
As the header says, one time is no time and two equals zero.
Originally "En gång är ingen gång och två är lika med noll".

This is a common Swedish saying which was created by the artist "Björn Rosenström". It applies for cheating and I want to see if anyone here can find a flaw in this philosophy.

Edit:
13lade619 made a good point, perhaps I should mention that this formula is called the "Guilt Equation".
:Edit

The rule applies as such:
Cheat once: does not count.
Cheat twice: still does not count.
Cheat a third time: Start over at number one.

Is there any flaws in this theory? I sure can't find any and I basically live by it:)
 

13lade619

is now a game developer :)
Reaction score
400
The rule applies as such:
Cheat once: does not count.
Cheat twice: still does not count.
Cheat a third time: Start over at number one.
that does not make sense..

from what i understand
One time is no time and two equals zero.
Cheat once > no punishment.
Cheat again > get a zero, meaning you're punished for cheating.
 

Samael88

Evil always finds a way
Reaction score
181
that does not make sense..

from what i understand
One time is no time and two equals zero.
Cheat once > no punishment.
Cheat again > get a zero, meaning you're punished for cheating.


No, cheat once and feel no guilt. Cheat twice and feel zero guilt.
You see, guilt is the main reason for getting caught.
 

Darthfett

Aerospace/Cybersecurity Software Engineer
Reaction score
615
One time is no time and two equals zero.
Cheat once > no punishment.
Cheat again > get a zero, meaning you're punished for cheating.

Makes much more sense than yours. The translation must be off.

Also, why would you want to live by the philosophy that cheating is okay? This will only cause problems.
 

Samael88

Evil always finds a way
Reaction score
181
Makes much more sense than yours. The translation must be off.

Also, why would you want to live by the philosophy that cheating is okay? This will only cause problems.

Nah, it is supposed to be that way.
How could it not be right?
If you have options, then why do you have to pick just one and be happy about it?

If the dude married to a princess of my country can cheat, then why is it wrong?

I really can't find any flaws with the philosophy.
 

uberfoop

~=Admiral Stukov=~
Reaction score
177
How could it not be right?

The moral absolutist perspective might argue that the doing of cheating is either inherintly or for some particular reason wrong.

From a utilitarian perspective, you could argue that cheating has detrimental effects on society as a whole, since it damages personal stability and security, two things which arguably contribute to happiness.

If you have options, then why do you have to pick just one and be happy about it?

Please do specify what you mean.

If the dude married to a princess of my country can cheat, then why is it wrong?
Is the "dude married to a princess of your country" a knowledgeable and reputable authority on the morality or practicality of cheating? And does he actually support the morality or societal practicality of cheating?

If not, this appeal to authority is rather fallacious.

And even if he were a knowledgeable and reputable authority on the morality or practicality of cheating, and supported it, I would really love to hear his reasoning for supporting a viewpoint that clearly goes against what the majority has agreed upon for millenia; support for an alternative viewpoint from a single person is certainly not enough to sway me without some pretty mind-blowing logic.
 

Samael88

Evil always finds a way
Reaction score
181
By options I meant more than one woman to chose from^^

And I meant that the dude thing is that he cheated a couple of days ago and it cost him his engagement to the princess, but that is one of the risks with cheating.

One could say that cheating is worth it for the thrills and risks, but there is something more to it perhaps a chase for freedom to express ones sexuality.

But this was not meant to be a debate about if cheating is correct or not, it was meant to be about the philosophy mentioned above and whether it is bulletproof or not, or perhaps it is the same thing.
 

uberfoop

~=Admiral Stukov=~
Reaction score
177
But this was not meant to be a debate about if cheating is correct or not, it was meant to be about the philosophy mentioned above and whether it is bulletproof or not, or perhaps it is the same thing.

Righto, let's analyze cheating from the standpoint of personal practicality instead of morality then.

First, let's consider what we're defining as cheating. Let's say it's sexual activity outside of a relationship in which monogamy is assumed.

In such a relationship, there is an assumed contract that says that you shall not under any circumstances have a sexual relationship with another person unless the first relationship has ended. This contract bears heavy weight in Western Society, even when there is no legally established punishment for some instance of breaking it.

Because of the expectations of a system that a person is raised under, they will tend to gather intense feelings of guilt if they cheat; after all, such infidelity is a deliberate act of manipulation towards the person being cheated on.

Additionally, intense long-term guilt is likely to be far more painful than a shallow and awkward set of relationships is likely to be pleasurable.

Thus I conclude that, for cheating to be worth it,
a-you have to lack the ability to feel certain emotions which are typical of people living in Western society, or
b-you simply don't understand the basic idea of having an agreement with another person.

Furthermore, society typically substantially loses faith in you when you get caught cheating, even down to the level of your family and friends. So even if you lack those typical emotions, cheating is still quite likely to be detrimental to your life.

Also:
You see, guilt is the main reason for getting caught.
?

//=========================

While I don't actually understand the logic/anything behind the original statement you posted about, and so I'm not sure how to address the "philosophy" directly, it seems as though your main argument is that cheating is ok, and that you shouldn't feel guilty about it.

This is absolutely baffling to me. There are really two possibilities here:
a-You believe that breaking serious contracts is thoroughly acceptable, or
b-you believe that sexual contracts between two people are a special case.


In response to a, this seems ridiculous, since human organization is based on serious agreements between people down to the most basic level. Even for a paleolithic tribe to function, people would have had to recognize some form of structure and some set of rules for coorperation to work. The basic method of responding to people who take advantage of the many by breaking these agreements to benefit themselves is what we refer to as "the law." And while it's often argued that some laws are unreasonable, few would argue that absolute anarchy is preferrable. The point being, it's generally understood that basic but serious agreements between people are what make society work.


In response to b, well, that needs some justification.

//=========================

Ultimately, I guess I would say that the "philosophy" seems not watertight as a general rule, since it requires the user to lack certain common emotions.
 

Darthfett

Aerospace/Cybersecurity Software Engineer
Reaction score
615
If you don't care about the other person in a relationship enough to be faithful to them, why would you consider that a relationship?

If anything, your relationship only means "friends with benefits". It is not a relationship and therefore it is not cheating to go out with someone else. Cheating means breaking a contract, as uberfoop mentioned above.
 

Samael88

Evil always finds a way
Reaction score
181
Ultimately, I guess I would say that the "philosophy" seems not watertight as a general rule, since it requires the user to lack certain common emotions.

That is a pretty good conclusion to the rest of your post, but you seem to be missing one alternative in the last two scenarios.
C- I don't see sexual relations as important.

I for one see sexual relations as one thing and a relationship as something else.
That might be why the philosophy works so easy for me.

The breaking a relationship is a contract between two people to be care and respect each other. Sex is only seen as a naughty thing in general, but in fact it is just a question about pleasure and reproduction in some cases.

It is not just a question about lacking a feeling, it can also be a question about world view.
 

uberfoop

~=Admiral Stukov=~
Reaction score
177
That is a pretty good conclusion to the rest of your post, but you seem to be missing one alternative in the last two scenarios.
C- I don't see sexual relations as important.

Darthfett said:
If anything, your relationship only means "friends with benefits". It is not a relationship and therefore it is not cheating to go out with someone else. Cheating means breaking a contract, as uberfoop mentioned above.

As Darthfett pointed out, your "C" would apply if and only if we reformed our definition of cheating to "any sexual relationship outside of any other relationship in which sex is involved." I specifically assumed that "cheating" would be taken to mean "sexual activity outside of a relationship in which monogamy is assumed."

Thus I'm not missing the alternative you suggested; if neither person in the relationship assumes monogamy, then it simply does not follow my definition of cheating.

Of course, if person 1 does not assume monogamy and person 2 does (ie person 2 expects you to not cheat), then we're back into the realm of my definition of cheating. At which point person 1 IS breaking societal standards and being dishonest and manipulative, and IS breaking a contract, at which point your "C" option flows more or less into my options: not understanding or caring about human relationships.
 

Samael88

Evil always finds a way
Reaction score
181
Hmm, you have got a point there uberfoop.
So the conclusion I can draw from what you are saying is that the philosophy itself is flawless but however the persons that can make use of it is not, or am I wrong?
 

denmax

You can change this now in User CP.
Reaction score
155
I think the philosophy does not limit itself to cheating, but rather any event that SHOULD build up guilt. As you said on your previous posts, the focus of such philosophy is not on cheating, but rather in guilt.

The best about debates are not to limit yourself within the topic, but to expand it into greater, but sensible extremes.

I would say the saying "One time is no time and two equals zero" is more a saying that:

In the first event, one will disregard it
In the second event, he'll feel as if he was still in step 0, which is before the first event (meaning, he'll totally ignore everything else).

And I have another question..

How is one flawless if it doesn't work? What makes things flawless is that it cannot be flawed by the flawed.

Of course, I am an idiot, so I could be wrong :3
 

Samael88

Evil always finds a way
Reaction score
181
In the first event, one will disregard it
In the second event, he'll feel as if he was still in step 0, which is before the first event (meaning, he'll totally ignore everything else).

The first time it does not count as it did not happen.
The second time it still counts as nothing have happened.
The third time you start over at number 1.

And I have another question..
How is one flawless if it doesn't work? What makes things flawless is that it cannot be flawed by the flawed.

A philosophy can be flawless as in it has no leak holes(is that the word I am looking for).
I could almost say that there is in fact no flawed philosophy, but the people using them are, but of course that would be to bold especially when that darn "Hakuna Matata" thing is still in existence, even though this particular philosophy is pretty similar to it.

There is one problem that I can find and it is in the beating wife scenario:(
But then again it would not be the philosophy itself that is flawed, it would be the person that is stupid enough to apply it in that situation.

It could be used in the scenario where friends accidentally drops their ice cream in your lap, that would perhaps be a more understandable scenario for most people. And with that said I dare ask you this question: What is the difference between the cheating scenario and this one?

Of course, I am an idiot

Glad you pointed it out so we did not have to:p
I just could not resist:p
 

thewrongvine

The Evolved Panda Commandant
Reaction score
506
I don't get it...
if you don't feel guilt at all, then shouldn't the philosophy just be:

-cheat and never feel guilty! :D :D :D

(smilies to express how absurd it is)
Why do you start over on the third cheat? Why not the 2nd or 4th?
I'm confused.

~Hai-Bye-Vine~
 
General chit-chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.

      The Helper Discord

      Members online

      Affiliates

      Hive Workshop NUON Dome World Editor Tutorials

      Network Sponsors

      Apex Steel Pipe - Buys and sells Steel Pipe.
      Top