let's say the person you meet is everything you need them to be. from personality to looks to habits to intelligence and everything else you need. if it's on your list, they got it.

BUT

in the past, they did some things.

the person before you has completely turned over a new leaf and it ain't fake. there's no chance of them going back to who they once were...

BUT

what if in that past life they were

*a rapist

*a dope fiend

*a pedophile

*a prostitute

*a terrorist

if they were any of those things or anything else you might give a side-eye to, would that kill the chance of y'all having a relationship?

now for the sake of this discussion, there is ZERO chance of them ever doing that stuff again. the person before you currently is everything you need them to be.

are you overlooking their past and moving forward?


***
I'm tryna be better off, not better than...

experience == exposure

exposure increases likelihood of repetition

right?

how would you guarantee that:

"there is ZERO chance of them ever doing that stuff again"?

seems like the best you could do is HOPE, which is a gamble you COULD lose

why risk it with all the non-rapists/terrorists/whatever out there to choose from?

that way the decision rests on what you can forgive. if you make it so they'll probably do the shit again people would base their decision on not wanting to live through that.

if that makes sense...


***
I'm tryna be better off, not better than...

ZERO change of something that already happened reoccurring?

beyond that - you just said/added "forgive"

does this imply that YOU were directly a victim of their crime/indiscretion?

plus...methinks there's a difference between "i stole some gum as a kid" and "I murdered a bunch of schoolchildren" on the "likely to let slide" scale

but let's imagine it is.

I still wouldn't date any of them except maybe a former drug addict or a terrorist with a noble cause.

killer, pedophile or rapist.... FOH.

so in this imaginary world my love for this former whatever-er would impel me to the highest level of scientific endeavor

....and i'd build a time-machine

that way, I could go back to their life pre-whatevering and make sure that whatever happened never happens

then, we can live together without the moral/social stain of their past rich then a mug because i'd also change the past to make that happen too

sweet

cool. just say that. LOL

fuck you.

it was yes actually

it's fine. there are plenty ppl who don't believe in forgiveness when it comes to certain past indiscretions.

i don't know how xtians square that w/their faith - but i guess all ppl come short of the glory - even those who cannot forgive.

fuck you.

good speech there chief

since you wanna do all that though.....

i honestly (all jokes aside for a sec) think true forgiveness takes into account having to deal with the reality of the past and its potential consequences....pointed to that "hope" discussed (by me) elsewhere

you can't pretend (or make up a false reality) you gotta choose GIVEN that the perpetrator might very well do it again

THAT is really forgiving (in my opinion)

...and for the record I didn't say I personally would/woudln't be able to forgive - I just questioned the original premise

when it became clear we are just making up stuff I made up a scenario where the choice would be 1000x easier (if you gone do it, go big)

*shrug*

fuck you.

or is that part of the "posting" phase of this thing?

it wasn't particularly specific.

fuck you.

good luck with that

i won't need luck b/c i'm just that great at this. but i appreciate the wish anyway.

fuck you.

>good speech there chief
>
>since you wanna do all that though.....
>
>i honestly (all jokes aside for a sec) think true forgiveness
>takes into account having to deal with the reality of the past
>and its potential consequences....pointed to that "hope"
>discussed (by me) elsewhere
>
>you can't pretend (or make up a false reality) you gotta
>choose GIVEN that the perpetrator might very well do it again
>THAT is really forgiving (in my opinion)

awesome. i'll stick my own opinion here - being willing to look past an awful indiscretion that won't be repeated involves some level of forgiveness of the indiscretion. i say that b/c refusing to be w/them due to that indiscretion is definitely a judgment. i'm comfortable thinking about this issue in the terms i've chosen. you disagree. oh well.

>...and for the record I didn't say I personally would/woudln't
>be able to forgive - I just questioned the original premise

right, you basically dodged the question.

>when it became clear we are just making up stuff I made up a
>scenario where the choice would be 1000x easier (if you gone
>do it, go big)
>
>*shrug*

yeah, you dodged the question. which indicates to me that in the given scenario your answer is 'no' b/c if it were 'yes' you'd likely just say that.

fuck you.

i don't think I "dodged", as much as "wanted to clarify" cuz the original question seemed kinda wonky

toe-may-toe / tuh-mah-tuh maybe?

*shrug*

fuck you.

why the fuck do I have to forgive everyone for everything?

to prove what?

That I'm bat shit crazy?

cause it damn sure doesn't prove you are just and pure to let some former pedo or rapist get their smash on.

i agree.

fuck you.

but I'll be damned if someone shames me for not forgiving a rapist or a pedophile.

I can live with that shame.

fuck you.

>
>i don't know how xtians square that w/their faith - but i
>guess all ppl come short of the glory - even those who cannot
>forgive.
>

To think I ought to have forgiveness for my failings but some people should never have the same no matter how they change.

Just IMO though.

often where it's not deserved. and to remain in that grace one has to turn away from the transgression.

that's what the post is about - someone who has transgressed and hasn't and won't return to the transgression being forgiven.

it should be pretty plain to a xtian.

fuck you.

which is part of what's being discussed in this subthread.

as we agreed earlier - the failure to forgive is a human failing. an understandable but unfortunate human failing.

but the xtian God doesn't have that problem - so says the Bible, at least. God is willing/able to forgive ALL transgressions - even grown men who rape babies can be forgiven. most humans cannot offer that forgiveness.

fuck you.

If there's a ranking for sin, why do you think you're on the side of the line that should be given a pass for your past?

What makes you think you're even fully aware of the breadth of your sin in God's eyes?

Interesting on this board where men frequently want to get indignant when being accused of promoting rape culture and bigotry. But when it's something they feel strongly about, suddenly a person deserves to be cut off with no recourse.

Just IMO though.

lets not selectively read the bible
and also... human beings are not jesus christ
shit even god (ok, o.t god) is not jesus x
i dont know if that god changed in the new testament- because we now have christs teachings
but that god definitely ranked sin
and hell hath no fury

(as a former catholic wont go into the whole trinity thing.)

but even in the n.t. there is ranking in sin.
(and its not just paul saying this - i mention paul becuase one can put his ministry into question).
even those disciples

mortal sin
venial sin

etc.

and why are we talking religion in a post about personal choice and preference?

i mean, its eye-opening to know that some people here would have relationships with ex- peodophiles and ex-rapists

that choice does not necessarily have to come from people aspiring to be jesus

.
http://perspectivesudans.blogspot.com/
i myself would never want to be god,or even like god.Because god got all these human beings on this planet and i most certainly would not want to be responsible for them, or even have the disgrace that i made them.

They teach us that God makes no distinction between sin.

And *i* brought up the Jesus thing bc as I see it this discussion is about our willingness to offer forgiveness. Yes, I see that as something to which xtians should aspire given that Jesus was about forgiveness.

Also, I believe I'm the only one here who has said I would consider the relationship with a guy who has committed a pedophillic act. You can address me directly, thanks.

fuck you.

>Also, I believe I'm the only one here who has said I would
>consider the relationship with a guy who has committed a
>pedophillic act. You can address me directly, thanks.

.
http://perspectivesudans.blogspot.com/
i myself would never want to be god,or even like god.Because god got all these human beings on this planet and i most certainly would not want to be responsible for them, or even have the disgrace that i made them.

You're better than passive aggression.

fuck you.

if i wanted to single you out, i wouldve

.
http://perspectivesudans.blogspot.com/
i myself would never want to be god,or even like god.Because god got all these human beings on this planet and i most certainly would not want to be responsible for them, or even have the disgrace that i made them.

i see ppl agreeing w/everything EXCEPT the rapist and pedo thing.

but no matter - if you meant me you'd have said me in particular.

fuck you.

>lets not selectively read the bible

Hold on. Where did I say there wasn't a ranking? I said that wasn't the point, then spoke specifically to ranking and how people apply it to their lives versus how they apply it to others.

>and also... human beings are not jesus christ

Agreed. I'm not exactly all forgiving myself.

>shit even god (ok, o.t god) is not jesus x
>i dont know if that god changed in the new testament- because
>we now have christs teachings
>but that god definitely ranked sin
>and hell hath no fury
>
>(as a former catholic wont go into the whole trinity thing.)
>
>but even in the n.t. there is ranking in sin.
>(and its not just paul saying this - i mention paul becuase
>one can put his ministry into question).
>even those disciples
>
>mortal sin
>venial sin
>
>etc.
>
>and why are we talking religion in a post about personal
>choice and preference?

Because we're posting in the context of a board that often pushes against the likes of homosexuality on the basis of Christianity, but then wants exclusions and mitigations when that principle can be used against it.

>
>i mean, its eye-opening to know that some people here would
>have relationships with ex- peodophiles and ex-rapists

So, where's the line? Would you do business with them? Allow them access to public services? If we can have an appropriate prison sentence as a pre-requisite, what's the dividing line for what kind of personal contact is appropriate with someone who has done something heinous, if we're going to completely ignore the possibility of rehabilitation. Shit, why not just kill them then?

Once you go down this personal judgement road of what's eye-opening in regards to letting a criminal who has served their time to carry on a normal life afterwards, where do the judgment championships end? It all becomes very interesting to me in the context of Christianity (particularly on an American board).

If a person can't be rehabilitated or ever trusted again, what's the purpose of letting them back into society ever? What is then the purpose of letting them have three hots and a cot on that taxpayer's dime for the rest of their life?

There's a slope to these things that can end up in some troubling places.

>
>that choice does not necessarily have to come from people
>aspiring to be jesus
>

Just IMO though.

to this what you want to draw lines around

i take relationship with to mean, someone i will be living with intimately consider them my family, perhaps starting a family...

thats a totally different relationship from the public services, personal contact lines you are drawing in the sand
lets not slippery slope this particular issue

>So, where's the line? Would you do business with them? Allow
>them access to public services? If we can have an appropriate
>prison sentence as a pre-requisite, what's the dividing line
>for what kind of personal contact is appropriate with someone
>who has done something heinous, if we're going to completely
>ignore the possibility of rehabilitation. Shit, why not just
>kill them then?

the dividing line is if i will have them in my bed and my life.
come on. maybe we should have started by defining relationship??


>Once you go down this personal judgement road of what's
>eye-opening in regards to letting a criminal who has served
>their time to carry on a normal life afterwards,

im fine with them having a normal life
im not about to get into a relationship with them
im glad to see some people would be willing to overlook that
im not.
the rest of that where does that line stop and all that is unnecessary

and y'all need to stop acting all saints
theres a reason there's an element of choice in being in a relationship
some of that choice is based on certain principles and ethical judgement

.
http://perspectivesudans.blogspot.com/
i myself would never want to be god,or even like god.Because god got all these human beings on this planet and i most certainly would not want to be responsible for them, or even have the disgrace that i made them.

I totally understand why most ppl would not continue the relationship as proposed in the OP. I also get that my difference of opinion on this puts me in rare company. I don't think it makes me any better than those of you who answer differently. It just makes us different.

fuck you.

You don't think enough of yourself to say no to that person. You don't think you're better. If anything, you might have self esteem issues.

Just IMO though.

i kinda fell for that line they sold me in Sunday School about all of us having sinned and come short of the glory. and i came to believe that i should work to avoid judging ppl for their faults considering i have plenty faults of my own for which i don't want to be judged (i fall short of this goal all the time). or at least i want ppl to be able to see that i'm more than my faults. also, i fell for that 'do unto others as you'd have them do unto you' jazz too. silly me!

fuck you.

>You don't think enough of yourself to say no to that person.
>You don't think you're better. If anything, you might have
>self esteem issues.

its clear that theres a difference in personality here, as stated
i wouldnt deal with a person that was a prior rapist or peodophile
and yes i find it interesting that there are those who would
there's no pedestal being put up here

but if it makes for a brighter day to act like that's what's being argued here...
some silly notion of 'better than'

then carry on.

.
http://perspectivesudans.blogspot.com/
i myself would never want to be god,or even like god.Because god got all these human beings on this planet and i most certainly would not want to be responsible for them, or even have the disgrace that i made them.

i shall.

fuck you.

>to this what you want to draw lines around
>
>i take relationship with to mean, someone i will be living
>with intimately consider them my family, perhaps starting a
>family...
>
>thats a totally different relationship from the public
>services, personal contact lines you are drawing in the sand
>lets not slippery slope this particular issue

Why can't I slippery slope it? If you're going to give people the side eye, I'm interested to know where the cut off is.

>
>>So, where's the line? Would you do business with them? Allow
>>them access to public services? If we can have an
>appropriate
>>prison sentence as a pre-requisite, what's the dividing line
>>for what kind of personal contact is appropriate with
>someone
>>who has done something heinous, if we're going to completely
>>ignore the possibility of rehabilitation. Shit, why not just
>>kill them then?
>
>the dividing line is if i will have them in my bed and my
>life.
>come on. maybe we should have started by defining
>relationship??

I don't have to come on. It's a question. You can answer it simply with the first sentence, or add all the extra stuff at the end. The first one would have done it fine though. So apparently you'd be happy with them being your hypothetical child's teacher then?

>
>
>>Once you go down this personal judgement road of what's
>>eye-opening in regards to letting a criminal who has served
>>their time to carry on a normal life afterwards,
>
>im fine with them having a normal life
>im not about to get into a relationship with them
>im glad to see some people would be willing to overlook that
>im not.
>the rest of that where does that line stop and all that is
>unnecessary

Maybe to you it is. I'm free to ask the question, you're free to get defensive. It's a message board.

If you're going to deny them a relationship and side eye anyone who does, it doesn't seem to me that you are prepared to have them live a normal life.

>
>and y'all need to stop acting all saints
>theres a reason there's an element of choice in being in a
>relationship
>some of that choice is based on certain principles and ethical
>judgement
>

Yes, there is an element of choice. I wanted to see what principles underlined those choices, and how they might affect other interactions with these people. You and legsdiamond got defensive. Fair enough.

Just IMO though.

"Because we're posting in the context of a board that often pushes against the likes of homosexuality on the basis of Christianity, but then wants exclusions and mitigations when that principle can be used against it."

what does this have to do with rapists and pedophiles and dopefiends and kuros?
i dont get how phobes (mis)using the bible vis a vis homosexuality has anything to do with what we are talking about
i mean, this key issue is how far into forgiving is one willing to go?
in this case there actually is something to forgive

with the homo argument, its sodom and gomorrah condemnation

totally different argument

.
http://perspectivesudans.blogspot.com/
i myself would never want to be god,or even like god.Because god got all these human beings on this planet and i most certainly would not want to be responsible for them, or even have the disgrace that i made them.

>"Because we're posting in the context of a board that often
>pushes against the likes of homosexuality on the basis of
>Christianity, but then wants exclusions and mitigations when
>that principle can be used against it."
>
>what does this have to do with rapists and pedophiles and
>dopefiends and kuros?
>i dont get how phobes (mis)using the bible vis a vis
>homosexuality has anything to do with what we are talking
>about
>i mean, this key issue is how far into forgiving is one
>willing to go?
>in this case there actually is something to forgive
>
>with the homo argument, its sodom and gomorrah condemnation
>
>totally different argument
>

It's not, in my opinion. People let those who are divorced and fornicating get far more of a pass than homosexuals under the guise of forgiveness. This is more about where those attitudes come from rather than your reading of what the bible says.

Especially if we get into disallowing civil rights under because someone is living in sin as opposed to getting past something someone has done in the past and rehabilitated from. In that sense, it's far more Christian to take a stand against someone currently sinning than continue to condemn someone who has repented.

Just IMO though.

>Especially if we get into disallowing civil rights under
>because someone is living in sin as opposed to getting past
>something someone has done in the past and rehabilitated from.
>In that sense, it's far more Christian to take a stand against
>someone currently sinning than continue to condemn someone who
>has repented.

i dont understand how it falls under the 'something that needs forgiveness' blanket.
if christians want to argue that its a sin and that they are willing to forgive any that move past this sin
is not something i agree with
there;s no rehabilitation to be had

now if we are talking about rape and peodophilia?
thats just morally wrong to me
and there's an extent to which im willing to foresee that
in terms of being intimately involved with someone whom i feel
has done something that i deem reprehensible.

.
http://perspectivesudans.blogspot.com/
i myself would never want to be god,or even like god.Because god got all these human beings on this planet and i most certainly would not want to be responsible for them, or even have the disgrace that i made them.

>
>i dont understand how it falls under the 'something that needs
>forgiveness' blanket.
>if christians want to argue that its a sin and that they are
>willing to forgive any that move past this sin
>is not something i agree with
>there;s no rehabilitation to be had

Again "This is more about where those attitudes come from rather than your reading of what the bible says." By that I mean where I think those attitudes come from where many Christians are concerned. Because that "homosexuality is not a sin" line does not fly in those circles, I think we can both agree on that.

>
>now if we are talking about rape and peodophilia?
>thats just morally wrong to me
>and there's an extent to which im willing to foresee that
>in terms of being intimately involved with someone whom i feel
>
>has done something that i deem reprehensible.

And that's fine for you. Look, when it comes to rape and pedophilia in real life, I'm the same. There are trust issues in place for me. The hypothetical is different to me though.

Just IMO though.

>And that's fine for you. Look, when it comes to rape and
>pedophilia in real life, I'm the same. There are trust issues
>in place for me. The hypothetical is different to me though.

the hypothetical does not make this any different.
its not something i would be able to forgive
and thats fine
some people would be able to
and thats fine too

so now where is this whole self esteem issue come from?
and how is this being defensive?
i dont have a right to my feelings?

.
http://perspectivesudans.blogspot.com/
i myself would never want to be god,or even like god.Because god got all these human beings on this planet and i most certainly would not want to be responsible for them, or even have the disgrace that i made them.

>>And that's fine for you. Look, when it comes to rape and
>>pedophilia in real life, I'm the same. There are trust
>issues
>>in place for me. The hypothetical is different to me though.
>
>the hypothetical does not make this any different.
>its not something i would be able to forgive
>and thats fine
>some people would be able to
>and thats fine too
>
>so now where is this whole self esteem issue come from?

That was me being silly with SoWhat.

>and how is this being defensive?
>i dont have a right to my feelings?

It feels defensive to me because you're adding things that I'm not.

Of course you have a right to your feelings. I was just asking some questions. You can respond how you want and my opinion on that be damned.

Saying that I'm acting all saints came across to me as defensive. Telling me what I can and can't slippery slope and what's unnecessary came across as defensive. They're not questions you have to answer if you don't want to. But I should be able to ask them if I want to.

Just IMO though.

>If there's a ranking for sin, why do you think you're on the
>side of the line that should be given a pass for your past?

When did I say I was in the right side of the line?
>
>What makes you think you're even fully aware of the breadth of
>your sin in God's eyes?

I'm not aware of the breadth of my sins and this is why I ask for forgiveness for the ones I make and the ones I'm not even aware of.
>
>Interesting on this board where men frequently want to get
>indignant when being accused of promoting rape culture and
>bigotry. But when it's something they feel strongly about,
>suddenly a person deserves to be cut off with no recourse.

oh, ok... you are one of those types. foh with those OKP meta keywords.

>>If there's a ranking for sin, why do you think you're on
>the
>>side of the line that should be given a pass for your past?
>
>When did I say I was in the right side of the line?

You're in a relationship, aren't you? You'd take it on the chin if people decided to isolate you from their lives based on your past? OK.

>>
>>What makes you think you're even fully aware of the breadth
>of
>>your sin in God's eyes?
>
>I'm not aware of the breadth of my sins and this is why I ask
>for forgiveness for the ones I make and the ones I'm not even
>aware of.

Interesting.

>>
>>Interesting on this board where men frequently want to get
>>indignant when being accused of promoting rape culture and
>>bigotry. But when it's something they feel strongly about,
>>suddenly a person deserves to be cut off with no recourse.
>
>oh, ok... you are one of those types. foh with those OKP meta
>keywords.

Feel free to exclude anything else that's inconvenient to your world view and desire to reach judgement over others. lol, right down to telling me what I can and can't bring up.

Just IMO though.

but I get to decide if I will entertain it or not.

>but I get to decide if I will entertain it or not.

As anyone dodging inconvenient points is likewise free to do.

Just IMO though.

on some "what is life" steeze?

>ZERO change of something that already happened reoccurring?

a 22 yr old who has previously committed the offenses of possession and consumption of alcohol by a minor will NOT re-offend. it's impossible.

>beyond that - you just said/added "forgive"
>
>does this imply that YOU were directly a victim of their
>crime/indiscretion?
>
>plus...methinks there's a difference between "i stole some gum
>as a kid" and "I murdered a bunch of schoolchildren" on the
>"likely to let slide" scale

the question is are you willing to forgive a person's past indiscretions (SERIOUS ONES) w/o regard for their likelihood to commit the indiscretion again? if you know that they will not ever commit the indiscretion again are you willing to look beyond the fact that they previously committed it at all?

fuck you.

yeesh

i can't be poasting too?

cool.

fuck you.

fuck you.

I'm not talking that 18 with a 15 year old. Like a 25 yr old with a 6 year old.

nah, too many people in the world to give one of them a fair shot.

if my 41 yr old boyfriend raped a 2 yr old child in his past and there is zero chance he will rape again i would be able to look past his bad behavior if he had everything else i want in a mate.

fuck you.

Guard the gates to your ass higher than even Jesus guards the gates to heaven.

Just IMO though.

fuck you.

'cause I posted about this in that "google someone you meet" or whatever post from a few days ago.

Too many people out there are living with something they did in the past that no one will allow them to move forward from. Too many men and women have been fucked up people in the past and have genuinely turned the page and written a new chapter for their life.

---------------------------

forcing myself to actually respond to you is like bathing in ebola virus. - Binlahab

Like there is stupid, and then there is you, and then there is dead. - VAsBestBBW

R.I.P. Disco D

and i'd hate if a guy with whom i otherwise matched up perfectly who is also into me and recognizes how great we are together would dismiss me and our relationship b/c of those trangressions. especially if there is no real possibility that i will commit them again.

plus, as single as i am IMO i'd be a fool to diss someone who's perfect for me just b/c they did something terrible that they will not ever repeat.

fuck you.

>if my 41 yr old boyfriend raped a 2 yr old child in his past
>and there is zero chance he will rape again i would be able to
>look past his bad behavior if he had everything else i want in
>a mate.

.
http://perspectivesudans.blogspot.com/
i myself would never want to be god,or even like god.Because god got all these human beings on this planet and i most certainly would not want to be responsible for them, or even have the disgrace that i made them.

if he's perfect for me and in his past he did something unthinkable and there is no chance he will ever do it again i would give the relationship a try - or i wouldn't end the relationship based purely on knowledge of that awful thing he did.

fuck you.

>
>what if in that past life they were
>
>*a rapist - NO
>
>*a dope fiend - maybe
>
>*a pedophile - HELL THE FUCK NO!!!
>
>*a prostitute - HELL NO
>
>*a terrorist - depends on the country they terrorized

>>
>>*a terrorist - depends on the country the terrorized
>

-------------------------------
If life is stupendous one cannot also demand that it should be easy. - Robert Musil

i wouldn't care if they were a prostitute or drug addict, but a pedophile or murder? that would be waaaaaaay harder. i really don't know

d

hell nahhh

>*a rapist

>*a dope fiend
>
>*a pedophile
>
>*a prostitute
>
>*a terrorist


why don't you throw white supremacist in there, too? i don't trust them ex skinhead types because even if they changed their views, they still had the rage inside them in the first place. they might just redirect it now.

same thing with a rapist, and there there is an undercurrent of natural destructiveness and objectifying, even more so with the pedophile.

a dope fiend, a *real fiend* aint gonna come out the other side 100%. youve fucked with your brain chemistry and emotional state too much. if they were just a user or someone who had a minor problem, OK, that's different.

prostitution is a similar vice, after a certain point the girls are so intertwined in terms of their lifestyle and the act that it becomes something they feel compelled to do, even if better opportunities or some stability is there. it's *real*. and the effects of someone throwing down a little cash to abuse you sexually/physically are not to be taken lightly. i could see becoming involved with someone sexually and even trying to help them a little, but please believe this is more of a lost cause than you think. pretty woman was a lie.

a terrorist? lmao. i'm good off that, too.

you're trying to make this out (probably a spinoff from ndibs thread?) like people have these irrational hangups, right? they're not irrational. certain shit is worth running from or at least not getting involved *too deep* with. i am all for helping people, befriending them, whatever, but making them your partner *in life?* fuck. and. naw.

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

it went from "would you be in a relationship with them knowing somethgin bad from their past?" to "could you FORGIVE them?"

I dunno if forgive even applies if they didn't do something to YOU (forgive != overlook) but i get that i'm particular about meaning and stuff like that and not everyone is

fuck you.

i'll leave that personal-assessment bait right there

no fruit in internet psychoanalysis or namecalling

lol

fuck you.

but not everyone.

fuck you.

that's my main gripe.

i could get over some if not all these things under the right circumstances but those circumstances seldom if ever exist. overall, there is a lot of wisdom in the repugnance toward the behaviors enumerated in the OP

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

but really...it's not.

b/c this is real life. there are ppl in the world who have done absolutely terrible things to themselves and others. some of those ppl actually turn away from those bad acts and don't ever commit them again.

and those ppl don't just disappear - they live among us.

i was raised by a man who was a raging alcoholic in his past. he was a danger to himself and the community (he loved to drink and drive recklessly while drunk). he stopped drinking nearly 40 yrs ago. since then he has had 2 drinks - a sip of champagne at a wedding and another sip of wine at a family dinner while traveling. he will not ever be a drunk again. i am confident. and so is his wife - who long ago forgave him for his drinking and recklessness. she is still with him though he wronged her while he was a drunk and there is always the CHANCE that he'll fall back into that life. she inspires me when it comes to this issue, i guess. oh, and she's a teetotaler - doesn't drink and never has been a drinker. if she can forgive that man and stay w/him then i think i can too - for the right guy.

>i could get over some if not all these things under the right
>circumstances but those circumstances seldom if ever exist.
>overall, there is a lot of wisdom in the repugnance toward the
>behaviors enumerated in the OP

it's not for everyone. not everyone can handle being w/a person who has done the unthinkable. but IMO those ppl may have something wonderful to offer and i'm not necessarily willing to put so much focus on their awful past that i'd just ignore all of the wonderful things they offer currently and likely in the future. keep in mind in this OP the person is perfect for me. he has everything i want in a mate - but there's that checkered past that won't ever be repeated. IRL maybe the checkered has some likelihood of repetition. i think if the guy is otherwise perfect i am very likely to give the relationship a chance.

fuck you.