Not a lot of substance to this thread.

Every silver lining has got a touch of grey — ArguingWAristotleTiff

This one, inspired by Psalm 23 ( https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+23&version=KJV):

In fairness, "acquisition" is a word, and it's likely he misspelled "accusation" and spell check guessed wrong.

Do you support a proper investigation then to get at the facts? — Baden

I suppose, but I don't know what it would entail other than what we already know. He said he didn't. She said he did. Unless there's a super surprise witness who's going to spring into action and tell us he saw the whole thing, I don't know what else there is. Are we going to look closely into each of their eyes and decide who looks most believable?

The reason they rope off crime scenes is to preserve evidence, but they're like 35 years too late here, and I fear some things might have gotten moved and contaminated. So tell me what sort of "investigation" you envision taking place.

The simplest and most straightforward explanation to all this is that Kavanaugh was a bad kid and is lying about it now to save his chance to get his dream job.

The most complicated and convoluted explanation to this is that it's a big conspiracy theory with Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez (and other as yet unnamed accusers) collaborating with Dems to take down a conservative nominee (even though his replacement is likely to be just another conservative nominee).

And there are plenty of other possibilities in between.

How to distinguish? Investigate. Why don't the Republicans want to investigate? Because they know, like all of us, that the simplest and most straightforward explanation usually turns out to be the true one. — Baden

Senate minority leader Schumer said back in January he would "use everything he's got" to stop the confirmation. Wouldn't the simplest explanation be that the Democrats are doing what they said they would and are prepared to throw everything they can at stopping the confirmation?

And why do you trust the single person who has said Kavanaugh was a bad kid when hundreds of women have signed a letter affirming his good character?

It's a pity that you still haven't even researched what happened and are making your comments, like other supporters of Kavanaugh here, on the basis of an ignorance of the facts. — Baden

This is such nonsense. Yes, I overstated the number of people who were supposedly in the vicinity of the alleged event, and so you may now modify my statement to comport with the Ford's rendition, which changes nothing. An alleged attempted rape occurred in the close proximity of a handful of people, yet despite what I would assume to be a violent event (assuming, as I've never been witness to such an atrocity) there were no witnesses to it occurring or of the aftermath.

We're all ignorant of the facts. We only know what the respective parties said.

There were only five people attending this party according to Ford. There was only one witness, Mark Judge, in the room where the incident allegedly occurred. It's possible Judge was also inebriated and didn't (or would rather not) make a big deal out of the incident. If neither Judge, Kavanaugh or Ford told what happened to the other two people who weren't in the room, then Judge remains the only potential witness. That neither Ford or Judge (let alone Kavanaugh) would have told anyone is nothing out of the ordinary. — Pierre-Normand

It's possible also that everyone was drunk and all recollections are faulty. It's also possible that Judge is an upstanding person who would never permit someone to commit attempted rape in his presence and would have expressed outrage at the occurrence. It's also possible that Ford was very close to her mother and would have told her of this immediately and then her protective father would have charged over to that house and wrung some necks. It's also possible that Kavanaugh almost raped her, but she got away and the group of childhood friends entered into a pact of silence and she remained too embarrassed and humiliated to tell anyone. It's also possible Ford hates those guys for all sorts of historical reasons and has a vendetta even though nothing ever happened to her.

Speculation is like creative writing. We are only limited by our imagination.

For starters, how did our ancestors deal with depression? I mean, all the way back to homo erectus? Did they all die off, and if not, why hasn't natural selection dealt with depression in evolutionary terms of survival of the fittest genes? And, if depression is hereditary, then is the reason why it has not 'died off' through natural selection due to the fact that it is so widespread and common amongst folk? — Posty McPostface

Depression, like any genetic condition, continues to exist because those who have it are able to reproduce. I would suspect that the more difficult the environment, the more difficult the depressed had it historically, but as long they were able to reproduce, then you'd expect it to persist. Evolution makes creatures better fit for survival, but it doesn't create supermen. I have a bunch of cracked teeth (all patched up though) and wish God had given me a better grille. Maybe in ancient times I'd have died young for having to gum my food. You'd have thought by now evolution would have given us all amazing smiles.

Second, what is it about depression that makes it so enduring? Why does it persist for many years? You would think that it would go away; but, in my case, it's always in the backdrop somewhere in every activity or doing of the mind. — Posty McPostface

Why would it go away from time to time? Some conditions do, but many conditions don't. Someone may get an occasional flare up of rheumatoid arthritis, but you aren't autistic just sometimes.

One doesn't go to a therapist and speak about something that happened years before because its 'not really that big of a deal'. — StreetlightX

Corroborating yourself with your own prior comments seems a bit flimsy doesn't it? There was a supposed attempted rape at a party, yet exactly one person has any recollection of it. Am I to believe that a there was a party filled with sociopaths, some of whom were aware of the goings on at the party, but none of whom were at all alarmed by the behavior? No one recalls what would have been an extremely distraught young woman literally running from the party? What have her parents said or her best friends said of that night? Wouldn't someone somewhere have seen or heard something or would have been a confidant at the time of the incident?

So, could there have been a woman silently almost raped in the midst of a party filled with people, with the only witnesses being extremely loyal to the rapist and refusing to turn him in? Yes, could be, I guess, but this approach I'm taking is the flip side of the coin you're taking, where you try to make the other person's story seem incredible.

It's no more crazy to question why Ford would tell her therapist about an incident decades prior that didn't happen than it is to ask how a violent crime occurred in a crowd of people where no did anything, said anything, or can remember anything.

No, if you bully the 95% of claimants who are statistically found to be telling the truth by unreasonably doubting them then not only will more of the public unreasonably think they are liars, but they will be less likely to come forward, and that will encourage more crimes against them. — Baden

You have the right to confront your accusers and subject them to cross examination. Any system that doesn't allow an accused to fully (and I mean fully) question their accusers on anything of relevance is unjust.

At any rate, Frank was censured for using office funds to fix his boyfriend's parking tickets, and I suppose for the extraordinary bad form of having a sex ring operating out of a congressional home. Frank was reelected by a substantial margin, however, after the scandal. — Bitter Crank

It's an interesting thing, where the general public is much more forgiving than are the representatives of the general public. Representatives are so worried about what the public may think and how that may damage their careers that they assume the public expects standards that they might not.

As with Barney Frank, his fellow Senators censured him, but the voters didn't care. Trump is another example. The left thought over and over they dealt him a knockout blow with all his buffoonery, but the voters didn't care.

The problem is that I have no idea how poker works, but I can say that those who do (the others in the various forums where you've been ejected) have universally rejected you. The site you posted sarcastically scoffed at you. My assumption is that if I were to actually figure out what you were saying, I'd reach the same conclusion as they have.

Don't make me say something rude to you BC. I like you too much. — Baden

Okay, let's take a break. You're getting more pissy than usual and you're taking it too personally. This is a true difference of opinion about what justice demands and no one here thinks that sexual abuse is any way acceptable.

Hanover, so the idea that you're being objective here and would have made all these posts defending Kavanaugh if he were a lefty is just absurd. — Baden

But what about what you're doing to him? Why does he not receive any empathy? Explain that. It is just very possible he's done nothing wrong? Why do you discount that possibly and where do you arrive at such certainty that he's a lying sack of shit? The most I can say is that he's innocent until proven guilty, and he's not been shown to me to be guilty. Might Ford be telling the truth? Sure, but I don't know that, and I can hardly prudently act on something I don't know.

I would ABSOLUTELY do the same for a lefty, and if I wouldn't that'd make me a hypocrite. So you are wrong about me personally, but I'm having a real problem trying to figure out why it'd matter logically if I were a hypocrite.

That's a crock of laughable horseshit. Franken wasn't convicted and you supported him being dumped for a start. But of course he wasn't a conservative. Plus, suppose someone wanting to be a principle at the local school was credibly accused of sexual assault and it wasn't yet proven. Just ignore it? Vote the guy in? This is kids stuff, H. This is not about your principles, it's about your team. — Baden

Nope, you don't know me. You really don't. I believe in forgiveness and salvation in the sense that I think that people really can change who they are and become something much greater, and I find it profoundly inhumane to discard human beings to fulfill some personal goal. People are never to be treated as a means to an end.

I would vote against Franken 100% of the time and I'd hope he'd lose 100% of the time. I would not, however, cheat him of his seat and force my guy in to an unearned position by throwing up unsupportable accusations at him. I don't play dirty pool.

I also again find your concerns about me ad hom and therefore irrelevant. But to the extent you continue to offer these accusations, you're going to be further exposed to icky personal data about me.

Feinstein withheld the allegations until it could have the greatest impact. She's no champion for the rights of the abused. She wouldn't have returned Ford's phone call if the abuse allegation didn't have political use.

But let's be real, if he was a lefty, you wouldn't be making these points, so it's not about the merits of how he's being treated but the fact that he's a conservative that's key for you. Am I wrong? — Baden

You are wrong actually. This is a truly a big issue for me. I see all this as a system for allowing people to be thrown away and discarded. It's inhumane in a very real way. When the Franken thing first hit, I was supportive of him, thinking that the Democrats were tossing him out with minimal proof based upon unsupported allegations just to be able to protect their base Of course, the evidence was overwhelming against him, and I changed my mind.

This is probably the most naive thing you've ever written. Forget about me though, I'm only empathy normal. There are plenty out there with more empathy for the sexually abused than me who would rip some of the posters here new arseholes for the crass and insensitive way they talk about these victims. No, the idea that we all care equally is frankly nuts. — Baden

Fine, double down on your sanctimony and let me know how deeply you feel and inform me that I couldn't care any less about people being abused. I just find your approach horribly unjust, with less regard for the truth than to simply make a feel good declaration about how supportive you are of those who've been abused.

My approach here is universal. Whether you're accused of child abuse, sexual abuse, drunk driving, or jay walking, you're innocent until proven guilty. I know that's a wild notion. If you want to take all the sexual abusers and throw them under the jail, I'll be there with you first thing in the morning with my shovel, but I sorta need to know the folks we're throwing under there actually did what we think we did. There's that.

I don't want to nitpick either as I think it was right to dump Frankenstein (predictive text error but I think I'll just leave it), and I have nothing positive to say about his behaviour, I condemn it fully. — Baden

My point was that that Kavanaugh might be innocent. Franken clearly wasn't. That is the distinction worth noting. The Republicans would pull Kavanaugh's nomination if there were real proof of his crime. Had Franken been facing a single accusation that he denied, I wouldn't be in favor of his being removed unless there were something more convincing.

Yes, why (presuming Ford testifies convincingly) not just move on to the next candidate and push through in the lame duck. We all know that's what they're going to do anyway if Kavanaugh goes down. Why discredit themselves? — Baden

People aren't disposable. They would discredit themselves if they pulled his nomination based on these unsupported allegations. If you were accused of something you didn't do, you wouldn't find it honorable for someone to stand beside you and defend you, especially if it meant harm to that person's reputation?

She was fifteen, and most likely very scared and traumatised. But let's blame her rather than criticise the abuser. Again, all your post demonstrates is a lack of empathy for the victims of these crimes. It does zero in terms of analysis. — Baden

So sanctimonious. We all have the same empathy as you for those who were actually sexually abused. The question here is whether she was, not whether we'd feel for her if she was. And there's also the question of empathy for those wrongly accused and the needless suffering they endure. The idea of protecting the accused is actually a progressive idea. It's not an oversight in the system that we'd rather let 10 rapists go free than to send a single innocent man to prison.

And even given that, note that the Dems did not attack the victims and let Franken go. We may disagree over whether he should have been let go, but the difference in attitude is striking. — Baden

Not to nitpick, but the Franken accusations came from multiple women, all while Franken was very much an adult, and one accusation was of an event that occurred while he was a Senator. And, then there's the matter of the picture of him groping a woman's breasts while she was asleep. So, yeah, Franken and Kavanaugh are so close as to almost be indistinguishable, the main difference being only that the Democrats removed him honorably, whereas the Republicans refuse to show any class.

We've just established there's no statute of limitations in this case, and suggesting in any case that I was suggesting an equivalence in severity of crime between Nazi genocide and this sexual assault rather than merely pointing out the failure of your attempt at establishing a non-existent right not to be prosecuted when such a statute doesn't apply is something I should really spend considerable time mocking and berating you for, and only won't because I'm too lazy to move from my mobile to my laptop where typing is more convenient. — Baden

My challenge is to whether any court has jurisdiction over the offense. If we elevate the offense to a felony because apparently you're one hard core prosecutor who likes to push the envelope, we still have the issue of prosecuting a 52 year old man in juvenile court, which I am quite certain can't be done. I just don't understand how we do this or why we do this. Why must adults answer for their misdeeds committed when they were children without the capacity to commit crimes like adults?

What's her motivation to lie? So she can have her life threatened and suffer harassment and mockery from the right-wing hate machine? As opposed to him avoiding having his career wet dream spill wastefully into his pyjamas. Hm, let me weigh those two up. — Baden

Her motivation to lie is to stop the Court from making a hard right that will last for decades. But why speculate? People say things that aren't true for all sorts of reasons. I'd also say that you've created a pretty dangerous system when you just accept whatever a sex abuse accuser says because "why would they lie"?

Please don't tell me your biography. It makes it look as if you think I care about you. Which is icky. — Baden

Now, now Punkin. You make my point with this comment. You accused me of defending an elitist out of my kinship to all that is elite and beautiful, and I responded by saying the attack was (1) ad hom, and (2) that it didn't even make any sense because I had no kinship to the elite and explained why that was. So, if you're going to make ad hom attacks and call me an elitist, a cat hater, a bad dancer, or any other super mean thing, expect me to defend myself by telling you how I'm just a regular Joe who loves the kitty cat and who is tired of being a wallflower and wants to just dance the night away.

Let me ask you this: If any of you had a 15-year-old daughter or a close relative who told you that an older boy had held her down, hand over mouth to the point where she feared she would suffocate, groped her and grinded his body against her, and then tried to pull her clothes off, and that she thought he was trying to rape her, would you just tell her to laugh it off and then do nothing about it? Would you be more worried about the reputation of the accused? And how would you feel about those more interested in protecting him than her? — Baden

I would think myself incapable of providing an objective answer because I was personally impacted by this crime, as it was my daughter. If summoned as a juror on such a case, I suppose I'd be removed for bias, as it was my daughter who was the victim.

If I were the prosecutor, my concern would be proving the case, and I would speak to all the kids at the party, perhaps inspect the victim's clothes, look for visible sign of injury on the accused and accuser, go to the scene and look for signs of a struggle, and pay close attention to social media posts from those involved. I would track down the leads and see where they led.

If I had nothing to look at other than the vague recollections of those involved due to a 35 year gap between the event and the reporting of the crime, I think I'd probably offer the victim's family what comfort I could and explain to them that this is just not prosecutable at this stage.

And the flip side of the coin is what would you do if you felt your son wrongly accused of attempted rape and he faced public scorn, ostracism, and exclusion from college for something he did not do. Would you not fight his battle with the same passion as you'd expect the accuser's father to fight her battle?

Plus, the idea that some privileged elite who has an accusation leveled at him is being treated worse than a 15-year-old who thought she was being raped is severely wrongheaded. — Baden

Oh yes, it's a classist thing, where privileged elite folks ought have less sympathy than those who happened not to be so lucky. I have a sneaky suspicion she too didn't have too many financial struggles during her upbringing, as if that matters.

Does the accused suddenly have the right not to be prosecuted much later? Nazi war criminals were prosecuted long after the war. The only people that objected to that were Nazis. — Baden

You reference Republican hysteria but then your next sentence actually attempts to draw an analogy between sexual assault and genocide, as if they're at all comparable. You appear far more hysterical than me or the Republicans.

Anyhow, let's see, why might your analogy be flawed? Could it be perhaps that genocide is a far more serious crime than sexual assault at a party?

The reason there exists statutes of limitations in criminal matters is to protect an accused from prosecution after witnesses and evidence have been lost when the government could have prosecuted the case earlier. In the case of the Nazis, one reason the government didn't prosecute the Nazis earlier is because it was the government that was committing the crime. I suppose Eichmann could have argued that he ought be freed because the Germans failed to prosecute him earlier when they had a chance, and then the Nuremberg judges could have tried to make sense of that argument, just like I'm trying to make sense of your argument.

See above. There is no right to get away with crimes just because you weren't caught quickly enough except in cases where statutes of limitations apply. — Baden

Again, your comparison of Senate confirmations hearings with Nuremberg. Just withdraw this argument. It's nonsense.

My reference was to the political nature of this whole affair. All we have are competing claims. She says it happened and he says it didn't. They both have plenty of motivation to lie. The consequences of his confirmation will be devastating to the left, and the consequences to him personally will be devastating on the other side of this coin.

And let's not pretend that she came forward now only because she felt safe with the #metoo movement. She told Feinstein back in July about her claims and Feinstein revealed it just before the confirmation vote. Feinstein's motive was to block a candidate for the Supreme Court she doesn't like. She doesn't give a damn about that girl.

It's odd that it takes a potential prosecution of an elite conservative to bring out your concerns about a justice system that is highly weighed against the poor and unprivileged. — Baden

Why because I'm part of the elite? I was pretty much a middle class kid who went to public school (and public means government funded in the US, which I understand is oddly the opposite in the UK), we took exotic trips in our station wagon to the Georgia coast every year, and I don't remember any country clubs. But, whatever. I thought the Clarence Thomas lynching was just as bad, and yet he was hardly from an elite background.

This is an aside also. It's an ad hom. I guess I could tell you that your only motivation in holding your position is because of your disdain of those elite country club kids who you looked upon with envy from your hovel as a child.

I think no one, from the right or the left, suggests there ought be a dissolution of the distinction between juveniles and adults. We all understand that kids lack capacity to make decisions that can effect the rest of their lives, and for that reason they are treated as protected citizens, incapable of fully engaging in society. Juvenile records are sealed usually because we don't want the sins of youth to destroy one's life. I generally think that's a good thing. My guess is that you do too. As I've said, and which no one can answer, is how do you think he could be prosecuted now as an adult for a juvenile offense? You can't wait for someone to turn of age and then prosecute them as an adult. That's not how it works. A 17 year old who commits murder and who is tried as a juvenile can only remain in custody through age 21. Children are children. Do you really not see an absurdity of prosecuting a 52 year old for his actions when he was 15, or do you really consider your Nazi analogy that persuasive?

Per the news, it could be. In the jurisdiction it happened in there is no statute of limitations. But as yet, there's been no complaint either. — tim wood

At best, he's guilty of sexual assault, a misdemeanor. He supposedly got on top of her and put his hand on her mouth, a serious violation if true, but not attempted rape, attempted murder, or attempted kidnapping or whatever else you need to justify a lynching.

Prosecuting someone 35 years after a crime not only makes it a practical impossibilty (many witnesses are now unknown, evidence is lost, and memories have faded), but it seems a complete disregard for the rights of the accused. Do we all suddenly have such great trust in our criminal justice system that we raise no objections to politically fueled prosecutions of ancient charges?

But let us say we decide to charge him, how exactly does that work? If the juvenile court finds him guilty (as he was a child), how long does he stay housed in juvi?

"Roughly speaking: to say of two things that they are identical is nonsense,

I take this statement as distinct from the OP. The OP suggests that there is some variation in any two objects. I see that as an empirical statement.

Your quote points out the incoherence in suggesting that two things be one. That is, identity specifies a specific object as being that object, so you couldn't have two identical objects, if for no other reason than you've already defined them as two different things. I see that as a definitional/logical statement..

Or possibly you mean people having sex with sex dolls? Whoever heard of such a thing--screwing a piece of inflated plastic! — Bitter Crank

No one suggested that the sex doll be inanimate. I take "sex doll" as a descriptive term describing a certain personality, not one I particularly aspire to, but one that fulfills an occasional purpose.

My decadent narrative is so much more interesting than other's. It's my most unRepublican aspect.

We've not yet banned someone for comments made in the bannings thread. If we do, at least it'll be tidy to have everything in one convenient place for viewing.

Something made me think to say this.

I'd prefer wings, so I could fly like a bird. — Baden

I'm sensing the need for a druthers thread.

I'd prefer that instead of it showing the most recent posts on the opening screen, that it open to the catagories page with the most recent thread topics listed under each catagory.

That reminds me of something.

When I was in highschool (79-84) most of the girls took home ec and the boys took wood shop. I built a solid oak stereo cabinet. It weighed 500 pounds and wasn't much to look at, but it was sturdy.

Knowing what we want: paulocoelhoblog.com/2015/09/04/the-fisherman-and-the-businessman/

Be good enough to let us know just what, exactly, you think a marriage is? And if there are criteria such that third persons can decide if an existing marriage is a marriage or not? — tim wood

A marriage, as I understand it, from the ceremonies I have attended as a groom, a groomsman, and a simple guest (not all at the same time mind you), is where two people make a lifetime commitment to one another, and , importantly for this discussion, forsake all others.

I recognize that not all adhere to this quaint notion of marriage and some do allow for various dalliances, but, in order to keep consistent with the OP, I'm referencing only those marriages where cheating can occur and I'm speaking of my duty to inform the cheatee of the cheater.

Now what would you appreciate if you were cheating? — unenlightened

The guilty always appreciate going undetected. Do you suggest that the harm to the cheater ought be considered before revealing the truth?

Your position seems to be that marriages and monogamy are largely bullshit mirages, and so should someone learn of another's infidelity, they needn't inform the other because all that will likely do is invoke irrational reactions from the person cheated on who was too naive to have already realized that marriages and monogamy were bullshit mirages anyway.

That is to say, if someone were to come to you with news of your partner's infidelity, you'd tell them to buzz off because you never expected your vows of faithfulness would be taken seriously 100% of the time. You don't live in fairy tale land and you're not terribly troubled when you learn the fairy tale you pretended to be the case is shown not to be. Your view is forged from reality, not through armchair introspection, which means it avoids the abstract hypothetical of whether one is obligated to inform another of a damaging truth by your making reference to too many real details of the shit that goes on in most fucked up marriages.

I reason, you rationalise, they are very naughty. If you wind back a way, you will see that I advocate action and honesty, on the basis that you actually care. What I'm arguing against is acting with the protection of anonymity and not taking responsibility for the consequences. — unenlightened

There are two questions here as you're presenting it. The first is whether they ought be told. The second is whether the messenger ought reveal his identity when he tells.

You answer both in the affirmative, but they are two different questions. The first is in the affirmative I suppose because you think a person is entitled to the truth and a good is accomplished when the truth is revealed to him.

I don't agree that the second question demands an affirmative response because I don't see why a messenger accomplishing the good inherent in question #1 must do so through self-sacrifice. What loss is there to the world should I send an anonymous note to a friend that his wife is cheating on him instead of delivering the message in person? I can say that I would be appreciative of an anonymous note if I were being cheated on and understanding of the anonymous nature of it, considering the messenger is an innocent party who just happens to have bad news to deliver.

Yes, and that is morally suspect, because it relies on a judgement of the morality of the parties. Who knows, perhaps the cheater is trying to escape an abusive and controlling relationship? One cannot assume the equality of other things. — unenlightened

I suppose, but that seems a rationalization more than anything else. If I overhear your plot to murder your neighbor, should I keep that tidbit to myself because I don't know if you're trying to free yourself from the abuse he's been exacting on you and your family for decades? Sure, the seemingly immoral act of cheating or murder may be oddly justified in certain situations, but like everything, you've got to make the best decision you can based upon the information that you have. To do otherwise would free yourself from ever having to make a decision, justified on the basis of hyper-prudence.

The question of whether you've made a correct decision is answered by looking at what information you had before you, not upon what you'd do if omniscient. So, if I should see my brother's wife in a passionate embrace with another in a far away restaurant, I could conceal that information under the make believe notion that I'm protecting her from having to return to the evil hands of my brother, or I could just admit that I'm taking the easy road of hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil because life is easier that way.

Truth for truth's sake? But no, because you want to be anonymous, and hide your own part. In my book, I call that hypocrisy. — unenlightened

Not truth for truth's sake, but truth for the person being cheated on's sake. Hypocrisy would arise only if the messenger were a cheater himself and yet he felt the need to out all other cheaters. Anonymity permits the person to be informed without causing personal damage to the messenger. Considering the messenger did nothing wrong here, why should he be forced to make his statements publicly and be subject to criticism?

Generally speaking, I see anonymity as a useful way of expressing candid and unpopular thoughts without the consequence of damage to reputation. It actually increases honest, open discussion. Such is the basis of TPF.

Have any of you been in similar circumstances? What do different ethical theories say on the matter? — ProbablyTrue

How we might react offers you a healthy dose of reality, but it doesn't provide an ethical solution. If I were in your shoes and the person were my brother (who I have a strong allegiance to) whose wife were cheating, I'd be on the phone immediately to him. If he were the cheater, yeah, well, she'll find out if she finds out. If it were a distant friend, I might butt out. With others, I might call the cheater and offer them a chance to fess up. It really would matter what my relationship was to the respective parties, how significant the loss of the relationship might be to me personally or professionally and such. Of course, all these considerations are political, not ethical. I'd be just trying to sort out how to best deal with a cheater so that I don't end up in the middle of a shit storm.

And keep in mind that these loyalty issues go beyond just infidelity issues. Do you tell your friend's boss that your friend is stealing from the business bank account? You probably do if the boss is a better friend. Again, not an ethical response, but a realistic thought.

I'm prepared to offer though a stronger ethical stance, and one that I can't say I'd necessarily adhere to, which is in doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, you tell the person. Consequences be damned. You ought to tell the person he/she's being cheated on.

4. God does not, in fact, reveal Himself to humans. — flight747

I think many religions and religious people believe God does reveal himself, so this premise can't be accepted as a given except to an atheist.