Deal Breakers

[TheSkaFish]

don't know. If it's only comedy that might not be so bad. I just don't want to hear about what's wrong with everything all the time.

 

[SofiasMami]

Laziness. Flakiness. Misogyny. No knowledge of current or world events. And anyone who is constantly bent over their smartphone like a brain-dead woodpecker.

-Teresa

 

[TheSkaFish]

Getting stabbed... Total deal breaker...

Sounds like there's probably a story here.

 

[murmi97]

Believer of the "women's work"/"men's work" distinction
Possibly a football fan, but possibly not

 

[WildernessWildChild]

Finding out they're married or in some kind of 'committed' relationship has always been a major turn off....it's happened a few times over the years.

 

[Batman55]

LOL, I am a vegetarian, BUT, I know how to cook meat and do so for my kids. I don't like to, but I will for them (and I did for my ex too).

Please cook some meat for me.

---

What I don't like: Arrogance, "social-climbing", manipulative tendencies, and so on.

 

[FreedomFromLiberty]

My list is so long, it's guaranteed to offend somebody on here Perhaps this is one of the reasons I'm on this forum. Hmmmmm......

- Extreme conservatism
- Religiosity
- Shallowness
- Doesn't understand dry, sarcastic sense of humor
- Thinks they can "mold" their man into somebody else
- Drug addict
- Hates cats
- Thinks working a fast-food job as a career is A-OK.
- Unfeeling
- Conformist
- Stupid
- Wants to pop out like 10 kids
- Doesn't think they should have to work
- Drama queen
- Doesn't learn from mistakes
- Climate change denier
- Young Earther
- Flat Earther
- Pro drug prohibition
- Over-zealous sports fanatic
- Unambitious
- Bad listener
- Birther (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=birther)
- Antagonistic towards shy/quiet people
- The kind of person who would get married 3 or more times in their life
- NEEEEEEEDS to be in a relationship
- On Facebook day in and day out
- Bad with their money
- Non-stop partying
- Anybody who could accidentally drink themselves to death doing a Neknominate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neknominate)
- Dismisses the accuracy of the MBTI

 

[jaguarundi]

Things like racism, homophobia, abusive, cheating etc... well they're the standard for every relatively sane person, aren't they? Although yes, many of us put up with them sometimes, but usually when we're in too deep...

You would be surprised by how many age-appropriate British men there are out there who come out with homophobic comments, It can be eye opening. I have also come across quite a few closet racists or xenophobics. This may not be the case in the younger generation, raised in more open minded times.

 

[Nightwing]

Wait wait wait...

Before I start, I want to add a disclaimer. I am not in any way trying to say that you aren't entitled to your opinion or trying to change your mind. It's your life and you have every right to say who you will and will not date. I am also not saying I'm offended in any way. I'm simply trying to understand this. I would likely be asking this even if I wasn't a vegetarian.

So, what you're saying is that a vegetarian might nag you to stop eating meat. Okay, if this were to happen, I would completely understand your take on this. However, it's the second part that I have issues with.
If a vegetarian did NOT nag you to stop eating me, she's not faithful in her beliefs? How do you come to this conclusion? I'm not saying every vegetarian/vegan is like me, but I don't care what other people do. You have the right to eat meat, just the same as I have the right to NOT eat meat. Now, I would likely have issues if you wanted to kill an animal in front of me and then expect me to cook it, but other than situations like that, I have no problems with other people eating meat. That doesn't mean I'm not committed to being a vegetarian. I haven't had meat or any type of meat products in almost 13 years and I have never once reconsidered my beliefs in the matter.
Yes, I cook meat, but in my opinion, the choice of not eating meat should be made by the individual, not made FOR them by someone else. As I have kids and I don't feel they are old enough to fully weigh the pros and cons of the matter, they continue to eat meat for the nutrients it provides them and because they like it.

I guess what I'm getting out is how does a person respecting YOUR decision about what you eat boil down to you not respecting them for not getting on your ass about what THEY believe?

There's a couple of ways I could go about explaining this. Neither are particularly straightforward. I think the best way I can explain is that it boils down to my view on opinions and why we hold them. Vegetarianism is basically an opinion (specifically a moral opinion. I'm not going to count those who don't eat meat because they don't like the taste. They don't hold the moral opinion that guides their actions. Their actions are guided by the same thing that makes us all avoid certain foods we don't like the taste of.) Now, we all hold subjective opinions on things because we've looked at the available information and formed our own belief or opinion on the subject. The reason we hold this opinion is because we think we are right. (Why would you hold an opinion you thought or knew was wrong?) If you are a good person, then there are two things you'll generally do when it comes to opinions. The first is to try and spread the belief in your own opinion. (If you believe yourself to be right on a moral issue, it becomes your moral duty to try and convince others to act in the right way. If you don't, then you're implicitly allowing actions which you believe will not bring about the greatest good. The passive acceptance of falsehoods is never a virtue.) However, this must be tempered with tolerance.

I say tolerance specifically because we know that there is truth in every topic. The idea that multiple opinions can be right or that morality changes based upon the situation is known relativism. Unfortunately, that's a self-defeating argument. (The one truth of relativism is that there is no truth.) The reason for tolerance is twofold. Firstly, there is the possibility that your opinion is wrong. If you want to get to the right opinion to ensure you're spreading the right thoughts, then you need to have an open mind in case someone is ready to convince you of the right opinion (assuming yours is wrong in this case.) The second reason is the human condition. Unfortunately, not every human has the capacity to comprehend more complex topics. Should we devalue and dismiss these people for that? No. We can tolerate them and encourage peaceful coexistence without downsides. (We still hold the opinion we had. We can still spread this. And this individual couldn't be convinced anyway, so there is no loss from tolerance. It only holds benefit.)

So if we apply this reasoning to vegetarianism as a belief held by a partner who you assume loves you... it's either their duty to try and convince you to change your ways. Or they consider you incapable of comprehending their moral stance and are merely tolerating you. If they tried the former on me... the relationship wouldn't last because I'd start trying to explain why the whole veggie moral argument is actually one of the weakest moral arguments which has ever been made. If they went with the latter... I could assume two things. They don't think I'm smart enough to understand their point of view (which is wrong. I can understand it. I just don't agree with it.) or they are unwilling to try and spread their moral opinion (a bad thing, as explained earlier) so I'm likely to respect them less as a result.

I hope what I've written makes sense to you. It's something of a view on the underlying principle assumptions that we then base a lot of our thinking on. I've looked at many different ways, and this was the best one I came across which could be generally applied to everybody. The reason I like it is because it encourages learning and personal growth alongside the chance to improve the human race and individuals in all areas of our life... while also avoiding the many negatives which could come about through other assumptive methods. - This is also why I don't want to argue about this... because it is far too general principle. Most people when they argue will use specifics or individual examples. The "what about x" argument as I call it. All of that is irrelevant when it comes to principle discussion. However, you can apply your principle assumptions to a specific example to demonstrate it. I'll be surprised if everybody understands why the arguments don't apply.

 

[jaguarundi]

^ The above makes a significant omission. It assumes that being a vegetarian would be the highest and only principle a person has.

But people generally have far more than one value - a whole hierarchy of them in fact. For some people, toleration, sustaining a relationship, and really loving someone might well come higher up the list for some people than what their partner puts into their mouth.

Once you take that idea on, the rest falls away like so much chaff in the wind.

And toleration surely means a good deal more than letting someone have their values because you think yours might be wrong, or somehow smugly putting up with someone's values because you think that they are stupid, and hence you are behaving like a patronising arse, which this argument implies.

You are young, so perhaps you simply have not learned what love, real toleration and mutual respect can mean. Try it. You might be surprised.

 

[TheRealCallie]

^ The above makes a significant omission. It assumes that being a vegetarian would be the highest and only principle a person has.

But people generally have far more than one value - a whole hierarchy of them in fact. For some people, toleration, sustaining a relationship, and really loving someone might well come higher up the list for some people than what their partner puts into their mouth.

Once you take that idea on, the rest falls away like so much chaff in the wind.

I agree with this, but also want to add that a relationship is NOT about trying to change someone's beliefs, it's about accepting someone for who they are. Whether that is based on what they eat or what religion they are or anything else. If you do not accept a person as they are, the relationship would never work in the first place.

I understand what you are getting at, Nightwing, but I don't agree with it. (Not arguing here, having a discussion.) You say you won't respect someone that doesn't try to change your beliefs, so I'm assuming that you would try to change theirs?
Now, I will tell you that I never really cared for the taste of meat all that much, but that's not really the reason I stopped eating it, it just made it easy for me. However, my beliefs are my own and I don't feel like pushing my beliefs on a person is right. Everyone has their own opinions and beliefs. No two people think alike. Now, I can understand talking to someone that expresses interest, but if they don't or you know they have no intention of changing their beliefs, what's the point? If you nag a person about how their beliefs don't coincide with yours, you will only get irritation from the person and consequently you will make them start to resent you for it.

Now, I would likely try to make you eat HEALTHIER (organic, homemade, etc), if you didn't already, and I would likely introduce some vegetarian dishes to your diet, but I would NEVER try to make someone follow my own beliefs if I knew they didn't want to.

 

[ladyforsaken]

I used to say I wouldn't tolerate physical abuse..Went through a whirlwind period with an ex. Used to say I wouldn't tolerate cheating. But let that one slide, too. They are definite deal breakers now.

Me too on this, exactly.

Other deal breakers - arrogance, manipulative, dislikes children.

 

[Sci-Fi]

Clingy obsessive over-reactive behaviour, just can't stand that anymore. That is a deal breaker for me.

 

[Grackle]

Someone who is mean. Mean to animals, mean to people, mean to me. Just couldn't put up with that.

 

[Lone Apothecary]

Drug habits (excepting caffeine), rapidly deteriorating health, excessive illogic or irrationality, excessive superstition, religious beliefs [Unless someone can justify their beliefs--at which point I'd simply convert--I wouldn't be able to respect them enough to form a deep, intimate relationship with them for holding unjustified beliefs deeply.], a desire to have children, an opposition to surgical sterilization [I wouldn't pressure anyone into getting sterilized. If they didn't want to, then I'd get a vasectomy; if they tried to dissuade me, then it'd be a deal-breaker. This is only an issue if the other person has female reproductive organs.], a desire to have a dog/dogs, a lacking sense of humor, a negative view of bisexuals, homophobia, racism, a lack of interest in horror, a lack of tolerance for extreme fictional content, shallowness, and an opposition to video games are a few examples of what I'd consider deal-breakers, but the list could go on for a while, haha.

 

[Mr.YellowCat]

Being a good person would be a deal breaker for me I´d accept only horrible human beings

Just kidding, wouldn't accept those neither

 

[Nightwing]

hence you are behaving like a patronising arse, which this argument implies.

You are young, so perhaps you simply have not learned what love, real toleration and mutual respect can mean. Try it. You might be surprised.

The irony here is quite special.

I'm not trying to be patronising. I'm trying to be open and clear. Callie asked for me to explain my reasoning. That is what I did and tried to make the logical links as clear as possible. If I wanted to be patronising, I could have started using philosophical language, but I didn't because I wanted to oblige Callie's request. I wanted understanding.

Unfortunately, as I discovered years ago when I first started debating, abstract principled arguments are so wide in their interpretation that they're difficult to explain (because the terms you need to use tend to be very wide ranging.) The convincing parts come on an abstract level. They underlie the logic which most people use. This is why I was thinking I didn't really want to go into the detail... because it's in an area which is second nature to me and some of my old friends. But the majority of the population will never even consider this. (Not because they're stupid. But because the world doesn't demand it. We can function very well without needing to think beyond our base reasoning.)

I'm sorry you're under the impression that being young means I'll find it harder to understand something. Though of course you'd probably be offended if I suggested your age correlates to lessening abilities to comprehend things. So I'm not going to stoop that low. I will just say that you're not engaging the point on the correct level to defeat it. I don't want to go through the varying levels of argumentation and engagement... because I think you'll accuse me of patronising you again. As far as I'm concerned, I've made my explanation. I'm not here to argue the toss over it because I'm not convinced it would be remotely productive.

I'm not bothered that you don't agree with me. What bothers me is that you need to throw snide insults at me while disagreeing. It reflects on your character

 

[jaguarundi]

"And toleration surely means a good deal more than letting someone have their values because you think yours might be wrong, or somehow smugly putting up with someone's values because you think that they are stupid, and hence you are behaving like a patronising arse, which this argument implies."

I think you will find when you re-read the quote above, and think about it instead of having a knee jerk reaction, that I was not saying that you are a patronising arse. I am saying that putting up with someone else's values because one thinks they are stupid is behaving like a patronising arse, and that your argument implies that this is what you think that toleration is.

Which reflects upon the character of your thin skin perhaps more than it does on my character?

 

[AmytheTemperamental]

I wonder if it is too late for me to make the consumption of Kraft Dinner a deal breaker...My hubby seems to not want to try real food...

 

[murmi97]

Also someone unabashedly spoiled - I couldn't take living with that kind of mindset.