"All's Fair in Love and War"

[tami-chan]

I understand the explanation but that doesn't make the saying true. All is not fair just because it's done in the name of love. That would mean that killing someone in the name of love is fair, which it is not. Or, more appropriately to this context, lying to someone and betraying someone you don't love in the name of love is fair, which it is not. Just because someone does something in the name of "love" doesn't make it "fair."

 

I am confused. Did I respond to any of your post? I know I directed one post to LADYGREY. Are you and LADYGREY one and the same? hmmm.... Anyway, I did not say the statement is true or false or that it is right or wrong. I simply explained what it means. You still do not understand it. Read more below.

 

The Geneva Conventions are evidence to the contrary. Thank goodness those in power do not agree that nothing is out of bounds when it comes to war.

 

It is just a saying. It isn't actually true. Most people can understand that some extreme actions are out of bounds, even in cases of love and war.

 

Be that as it may, all I was doing was explaining the meaning of the saying. Many people think that it means if you do things in the name of love or war that it is fair....no, it does not mean that. The saying simply means, all is fair game in love and war(whether you concur or not is another matter). That "fair game" approach, as a matter of fact, does not take into consideration whether it is fair or not.

[tami-chan]

:) applause applause :)

 

 

Agree. Acknowledging what the saying means does not equate to the saying is true.

 

 

I 'third' this ..

 

Check the below. Live and learn. Thanks wheelwright.

 

SB I feel your posts are good, but in this case not valid........

 

........There is nothing about fairness in the saying - that's the point of it.

 

It says there is an override to fairness.

 

You have ignored this override because of your current morality/life perspective.

 

My gosh, this is unbelievable how a simple saying can be so misunderstood

[tami-chan]

There have been a few cases of those who took the saying "all's fair in love and war" to heart. Amy Fisher, Betty Broderick, Steve McNair's young mistress, the astronaut who drove across the country wearing adult diapers. Is all really fair? What is the limit of what is fair? Who gets to decide the limits? How far is too far? Hmmmm.

 

Jesus Christ who gave his life to save the sinners..and rose to life in three days. Who can compete with that? and all for love.

[bentnotbroken]

Jesus Christ who gave his life to save the sinners..and rose to life in three days. Who can compete with that? and all for love.

 

 

I can only imagine how dissappointed he must be at the lengths to which we take what was so pure.

[tami-chan]

I can only imagine how dissappointed he must be at the lengths to which we take what was so pure.

 

I am not a Christian, but understand what you mean. I apologize. But you asked whether the acts of the examples you cited were "fair"..no...obviously. But, that is precisely what the saying does not consider, fairness. I hope we all understand this now.

[complicatedlife]

For what it's worth, I don't think it helpful to attack the OP. I have learned a lot from some of what is said on this board, it feels less like a foot in the enemy camp than being in No Man's Land with most wandering around trying to make sense of it all. OWoman is, IMO, someone who is married and happy and as her experiences on this board are as OW, her advice and observations will help those in the same position. I am identified here as a BS, yet IRL, I don't identify as such as I am reconciled and that label no longer applies, yet for this board that is how I identify myself.

 

WORD!!! I love this, Seren.

[xxoo]

I am not a Christian, but understand what you mean. I apologize. But you asked whether the acts of the examples you cited were "fair"..no...obviously. But, that is precisely what the saying does not consider, fairness. I hope we all understand this now.

 

I understood this before the thread began.

 

What I don't understand is people who agree with the concept--whether in love or war.

[bentnotbroken]

I am not a Christian, but understand what you mean. I apologize. But you asked whether the acts of the examples you cited were "fair"..no...obviously. But, that is precisely what the saying does not consider, fairness. I hope we all understand this now.

 

 

I knew what it meant before. I just couldn't use the sarcastic face, it gets me in trouble.

[tami-chan]

I knew what it meant before. I just couldn't use the sarcastic face, it gets me in trouble.

 

Sure you did.

[WTFBBQ]

"If he loves you, he'll move mountains to be with you"...

 

Yet when he does (OK, she wasn't quite as big as a mountain...), the nay-sayers don't clasp their hands in delight at the manifestation of true love trouncing the adversity that threatened to obstruct it, instead they mutter darkly about "what he did with you, he'll do to you".

 

That's fine - he made love with me, I'm quite happy for him to make love to me, too :love:

Wonderful! When your H tires of you and starts screwing OW, it will bo okay then.

[Owl]

As I said in my response to the original post on this thread...it's a good thing that this saying is not patently "true", or even good words to live by.

 

As some people have mentioned..."all isn't fair" in war. There are the laws of land warfare, the Geneva-Hague Conventions, and often at least IMPLIED moral boundaries (such as not attacking civilians/civil centers/religious centers/etc...) that most (granted not all) armies/countries adhere to.

 

There are intentionally prescribed "limits" set in modern warfare. Good thing, or every conflict of the modern age would have escalated to nuclear/biological/chemical warfare on a massive scale.

 

Nor is "all fair in love". Societies have always had moral/social conventions around what's acceptable in the pursuit of love and what is not.

 

Even beyond that, the "rules" aren't set aside for love...the laws of society sitll apply.

 

Good thing. I freely admit that I seriously considered some highly illegal acts against OM during my wife's affair.

 

According to this quaint little phrase...I would have been justified in carrying out those acts.

 

After all..."all is fair...".

 

Personally I don't think its particularly wise to throw a saying out like this when you feel it supports your position...because it would then open you up for all kinds of potential responses back from the OTHER "love interest".

 

If all is fair...then whatever the other person in the triangle opts to do to you or against you in the name of love is now "fair", right?

 

It can't just apply one way.

 

If all is fair "for you"....all is fair "against you", too.

 

Personally...I've seen a LOT of what one person can do to/against another. I'm glad that societies have these conventions/mores/rules...most people who live in "civilized cultures" have very, very little experience with what life is like without those rules. Something that they should be very glad of, IMHO.

 

Sorry...but this is just one of those really inane and thoughtless sayings.

[Spark1111]

As I said in my response to the original post on this thread...it's a good thing that this saying is not patently "true", or even good words to live by.

 

As some people have mentioned..."all isn't fair" in war. There are the laws of land warfare, the Geneva-Hague Conventions, and often at least IMPLIED moral boundaries (such as not attacking civilians/civil centers/religious centers/etc...) that most (granted not all) armies/countries adhere to.

 

There are intentionally prescribed "limits" set in modern warfare. Good thing, or every conflict of the modern age would have escalated to nuclear/biological/chemical warfare on a massive scale.

 

Nor is "all fair in love". Societies have always had moral/social conventions around what's acceptable in the pursuit of love and what is not.

 

Even beyond that, the "rules" aren't set aside for love...the laws of society sitll apply.

 

Good thing. I freely admit that I seriously considered some highly illegal acts against OM during my wife's affair.

 

According to this quaint little phrase...I would have been justified in carrying out those acts.

 

After all..."all is fair...".

 

Personally I don't think its particularly wise to throw a saying out like this when you feel it supports your position...because it would then open you up for all kinds of potential responses back from the OTHER "love interest".

 

If all is fair...then whatever the other person in the triangle opts to do to you or against you in the name of love is now "fair", right?

 

It can't just apply one way.

 

If all is fair "for you"....all is fair "against you", too.

 

Personally...I've seen a LOT of what one person can do to/against another. I'm glad that societies have these conventions/mores/rules...most people who live in "civilized cultures" have very, very little experience with what life is like without those rules. Something that they should be very glad of, IMHO.

 

Sorry...but this is just one of those really inane and thoughtless sayings.

 

Owl, about the bolded: I never thought of it this way before.

 

If all is fair in love and war, and I wanted to move mountains to reclaim my fWS, I could have done some extremely destructive things to his OW and her family; personally embarrisng, publicly humiliating and financially crippling.

 

I had revenge fantasies for about 24 hours and then let it go because a) it is NOT me and b) I did not have the emotionally energy to do anything other than get through ONE MORE DAY AND NIGHT at that time.

 

But you are right. If I believed in this old chestnut, I too could have left a path of destruction in my wake.

[tami-chan]

As I said in my response to the original post on this thread...it's a good thing that this saying is not patently "true", or even good words to live by.

 

Perhaps. But, you are assigning YOUR moral values to other people.

 

 

 

Good thing. I freely admit that I seriously considered some highly illegal acts against OM during my wife's affair.

 

According to this quaint little phrase...I would have been justified in carrying out those acts.

 

After all..."all is fair...".

 

Personally I don't think its particularly wise to throw a saying out like this when you feel it supports your position...because it would then open you up for all kinds of potential responses back from the OTHER "love interest".

 

If all is fair...then whatever the other person in the triangle opts to do to you or against you in the name of love is now "fair", right?

 

It can't just apply one way.

 

If all is fair "for you"....all is fair "against you", too.

 

Personally...I've seen a LOT of what one person can do to/against another. I'm glad that societies have these conventions/mores/rules...most people who live in "civilized cultures" have very, very little experience with what life is like without those rules. Something that they should be very glad of, IMHO.

 

Sorry...but this is just one of those really inane and thoughtless sayings.

 

Owl, AGAIN, (AD NAUSEUM) the saying does NOT mean that everything you do for love is fair. It simply means ( rightly or wrongly) that all is fair game in love ( or war, for that matter). It does not take into consideration any fair play.

 

Your bolded statements shows you are not understanding the saying. Oye. The statement, in fact, if played out in real life is really UNFAIR!

[Owl]

 

Owl, AGAIN, (AD NAUSEUM) the saying does NOT mean that everything you do for love is fair. It simply means ( rightly or wrongly) that all is fair game in love ( or war, for that matter). It does not take into consideration any fair play.

 

Your bolded statements shows you are not understanding the saying. Oye. The statement, in fact, if played out in real life is really UNFAIR!

 

You're right. I don't understand what you're trying to tell me.

 

What is the difference between "everything you do for love is fair" and "all is fair game in love"?

 

Your comments seem to support what I said...that if you accept this statement...anything done in the pursuit (or defense) of love is "fair".

 

I'm not tryint be obtuse, and I don't really appreciate the implications that I'm doing so...I'm posting my viewpoint and how I've read and understood the phrase. You appear to believe that you interpret it far differently than I do...so I'm trying to understand your interpretation and how it dffers from mine.

 

So if you could respond to me without the "oye"'s and "ad nauseums" and try to clarify...I'd be interested in what you're trying to tell me.

[Owl]

Re-reading...are you trying to tell me that any TARGET is fair in love and war?

 

That going after another person's spouse/significant other is "fair"?

 

If so...that means any target in warfare is "fair"?

 

Again...I don't believe that either statement is "true" or "acceptable".

[woinlove]

As I said in my response to the original post on this thread...it's a good thing that this saying is not patently "true", or even good words to live by.

 

Perhaps. But, you are assigning YOUR moral values to other people.

 

How is Owl saying he doesn't think this statement is true or good words to live by assigning his moral values to others? Owl is allowed, heck, even encouraged, to hold his own opinion. No where did he write anything that would deny the fact that you or others might think these are good words to live by. You are free to do so, even if Owl disagrees with you.

[bentnotbroken]

You're right. I don't understand what you're trying to tell me.

 

What is the difference between "everything you do for love is fair" and "all is fair game in love"?

 

Your comments seem to support what I said...that if you accept this statement...anything done in the pursuit (or defense) of love is "fair".

 

I'm not trying be obtuse, and I don't really appreciate the implications that I'm doing so...I'm posting my viewpoint and how I've read and understood the phrase. You appear to believe that you interpret it far differently than I do...so I'm trying to understand your interpretation and how it differs from mine.

 

So if you could respond to me without the "oye"'s and "ad nauseums" and try to clarify...I'd be interested in what you're trying to tell me.

 

 

You know you are being obtuse and dense on purpose. We can't possibly have a view of anything that is contradictory to others and understand why we feel that way or the original statement made. Our mental capabilities just can't keep up. * shrugging shoulder*

[desertIslandCactus]

As I said in my response to the original post on this thread...it's a good thing that this saying is not patently "true", or even good words to live by.

 

As some people have mentioned..."all isn't fair" in war. There are the laws of land warfare, the Geneva-Hague Conventions, and often at least IMPLIED moral boundaries (such as not attacking civilians/civil centers/religious centers/etc...) that most (granted not all) armies/countries adhere to.

 

There are intentionally prescribed "limits" set in modern warfare. Good thing, or every conflict of the modern age would have escalated to nuclear/biological/chemical warfare on a massive scale.

 

Nor is "all fair in love". Societies have always had moral/social conventions around what's acceptable in the pursuit of love and what is not.

 

Even beyond that, the "rules" aren't set aside for love...the laws of society sitll apply.

 

Good thing. I freely admit that I seriously considered some highly illegal acts against OM during my wife's affair.

 

According to this quaint little phrase...I would have been justified in carrying out those acts.

 

After all..."all is fair...".

 

Personally I don't think its particularly wise to throw a saying out like this when you feel it supports your position...because it would then open you up for all kinds of potential responses back from the OTHER "love interest".

 

If all is fair...then whatever the other person in the triangle opts to do to you or against you in the name of love is now "fair", right?

 

It can't just apply one way.

 

If all is fair "for you"....all is fair "against you", too.

 

Personally...I've seen a LOT of what one person can do to/against another. I'm glad that societies have these conventions/mores/rules...most people who live in "civilized cultures" have very, very little experience with what life is like without those rules. Something that they should be very glad of, IMHO.

 

Sorry...but this is just one of those really inane and thoughtless sayings.

 

Valid points, Owl.

 

Anything goes - with many.

[tami-chan]

You're right. I don't understand what you're trying to tell me.

 

Ok, once more with feeling:

 

I will borrow from wheelwright (sorry, wheelwright):

 

 

There is nothing about fairness in the saying - that's the point of it.

 

It says there is an override to fairness.

 

Therefore, if a person lies to another to gain the sympathy of someone he loves, in the name of love...he does so not out of fairness to himself or anybody, but because it is just what he thinks he needed to do whether it is fair or not. Fairness(or unfairness) is not a consideration.

 

What is the difference between "everything you do for love is fair" and "all is fair game in love"?

 

The first phrase is false because obviously not everything people do for love is fair. The second phrase is wrong (in my opinion-this is only limited to war and love- literally) because it does not take in consideration whether an act is fair or not. People should always consider the fall out, the price tags, the collateral damage, etc.etc. in whatever they do, especially because it involves other people's lives.

 

Re-reading...are you trying to tell me that any TARGET is fair in love and war?

 

That going after another person's spouse/significant other is "fair"?

 

If so...that means any target in warfare is "fair"?

 

Again...I don't believe that either statement is "true" or "acceptable".

 

No, thus I said you misunderstood. People who live their lives believing in "All is fair in love and war" are not concern about what is fair or what is unfair. They see anything in the way as obstacles and they get rid of it or find ways to circumvent it to get to their goal. Thus, most often are, in fact, unfair, because we want people to be considerate of other people's feelings/plight.

[Owl]

The first phrase is false because obviously not everything people do for love is fair. The second phrase is wrong (in my opinion-this is only limited to war and love- literally) because it does not take in consideration whether an act is fair or not. People should always consider the fall out, the price tags, the collateral damage, etc.etc. in whatever they do, especially because it involves other people's lives.

 

 

No, thus I said you misunderstood. People who live their lives believing in "All is fair in love and war" are not concern about what is fair or what is unfair. They see anything in the way as obstacles and they get rid of it or find ways to circumvent it to get to their goal. Thus, most often are, in fact, unfair, because we want people to be considerate of other people's feelings/plight.

 

OK. So people that see that live their lives by this phrase are not concerned about what is fair or unfair in the context of obtaining the subject of their affection. They see anything in the way as an obstacle, and do find ways to remove or circumvent it.

 

I think we're actually in agreement. I would agree that there are people who believe this and live their lives like this.

 

The question then becomes one of "how far does one take this"?

 

Where does it cross the line from simply "unfair" to something worse? How far is "ok" to go in removing those obstacles/boundaries?

 

I think the key difference between people who believe in this phrase and live by it and the ones that don't is that "what is acceptable" and what is not.

 

For me...its not acceptable to pursue someone who is already involved in a committed relationship. For others...its perfectly fine.

 

So perhaps the discussion point here isn't whether or not you believe this little phrase, but how far you believe it's acceptable to take it?

 

Perhaps I dislike this phrase because I've seen both...and personally believe that there are indeed "boundaries" you don't cross in either...love OR warfare. Other's mileage may vary. I can't and don't speak for them...just throwing out my opinion and views.

[tami-chan]

How is Owl saying he doesn't think this statement is true or good words to live by assigning his moral values to others? Owl is allowed, heck, even encouraged, to hold his own opinion. No where did he write anything that would deny the fact that you or others might think these are good words to live by. You are free to do so, even if Owl disagrees with you.

 

I actually do not think these are good words to live by. Perhaps if you read what I posted carefully and not be so biased you will understand I was merely trying to explain the saying.

 

BTW, I did not disagree with Owl saying that these are not "good words to live by". I just noted that while that maybe true ( and I agree with him on the part), some people do subscribe to that kind of belief. Making a statement (of fact) is (an attempt of) assigning your own values. Funny, thing about moral value is, it is personal.

[Owl]

And again...what about looking at this from the other side as well?

 

If I'm married, and deeply love my wife (which I do!!!), how far is "acceptable" to remove an obstacle/threat to my relationship with my wife? If it's acceptable for another man to pursue my wife...what's acceptable for me to do to prevent him from being successful?

[Owl]

I actually do not think these are good words to live by. Perhaps if you read what I posted carefully and not be so biased you will understand I was merely trying to explain the saying.

 

BTW, I did not disagree with Owl saying that these are not "good words to live by". I just noted that while that maybe true ( and I agree with him on the part), some people do subscribe to that kind of belief. Making a statement (of fact) is (an attempt of) assigning your own values. Funny, thing about moral value is, it is personal.

 

Just as my comment about not agreeing with these words is indeed assigning my own moral values...your defense of these words is equally an act of assigning your moral values.

 

Frankly...a discussion on this would be impossible without doing so.

 

Nothing wrong with it. We're equally "right" for doing so.

[tami-chan]

OK. So people that see that live their lives by this phrase are not concerned about what is fair or unfair in the context of obtaining the subject of their affection. They see anything in the way as an obstacle, and do find ways to remove or circumvent it.

 

I think we're actually in agreement. I would agree that there are people who believe this and live their lives like this.

 

The question then becomes one of "how far does one take this"?

 

Where does it cross the line from simply "unfair" to something worse? How far is "ok" to go in removing those obstacles/boundaries?

 

I think the key difference between people who believe in this phrase and live by it and the ones that don't is that "what is acceptable" and what is not.

 

For me...its not acceptable to pursue someone who is already involved in a committed relationship. For others...its perfectly fine.

 

So perhaps the discussion point here isn't whether or not you believe this little phrase, but how far you believe it's acceptable to take it?

 

Perhaps I dislike this phrase because I've seen both...and personally believe that there are indeed "boundaries" you don't cross in either...love OR warfare. Other's mileage may vary. I can't and don't speak for them...just throwing out my opinion and views.

 

Yes, how far would one go? We want people to be mindful. We want people to be "unselfish". We want people to be able to put themselves in other people's shoes. We want people to imagine/feel/empathize with the pain. We want people to recognize societal boundaries....etc.etc...

 

Our world is rocked when we are confronted with someone who does not do those things above. Someone who does not recognize societal boundaries in marriage for example-someone who does not believe in the "holy vows of marriage" ( some people believe it is unrealistic and naive, you know) will not be deterred from pursuing someone who is wearing a wedding band. So what to do? One can only hope for the best.

[woinlove]

I actually do not think these are good words to live by. Perhaps if you read what I posted carefully and not be so biased you will understand I was merely trying to explain the saying.

 

BTW, I did not disagree with Owl saying that these are not "good words to live by". I just noted that while that maybe true ( and I agree with him on the part), some people do subscribe to that kind of belief. Making a statement (of fact) is (an attempt of) assigning your own values. Funny, thing about moral value is, it is personal.

 

Huh? Biased about what? I didn't think Owl posting his opinion on this phrase was projecting his values on anyone else and I made my argument as to why I thought that - that anyone else was free to hold a different view and to post it here, if they wished. I never implied you held any particular view, was merely saying you were free to.

 

What you see as Owl making a statement of fact, I see as posting his own view. He explained why he didn't think all was fair in love, so I thought he made his point clear.

 

But I am puzzled as to why you say I am biased because I see Owl giving his opinion where you see him projecting his values on others.