5 ms·

People have been claiming my wife left me. That's not true. Here's what actually happened. For several years I was sleeping with both her and another woman ...

mort96 2y ago
I mean literally yes? It's a weird analogy but if you decide to leave your wife for another woman then that's you leaving your wife, not your wife leaving you? If you decide to leave one company to focus on working for another company then that's not the first company firing you, that's you leaving the first company?
- thaumasiotes 2y ago
  "For several years I was sleeping with both her and another woman" generally implies that the wife left him, not that he left the wife. The guy in that scenario is pretty clearly fine not leaving his wife.
  - mort96 2y ago
    > "For several years I was sleeping with both her and another woman" generally implies that the wife left him No it doesn't. "For several years, I was sleeping with both her and another woman, she eventually had enough and filed for divorce" means that the wife left. "For several years, I was sleeping with both her and another woman, she eventually had enough so she asked me to choose between her and the other woman. I chose to leave her for the other woman" means that the husband left. He could have chosen to stay with the wife, but chose not to.
    - thaumasiotes 2y ago
      This isn't a coherent viewpoint. How do you distinguish these two cases? ----- 1(A). Wife discovers cheating. 1(B). Wife gives ultimatum. 1(C). Husband declines ultimatum. 1(D). Husband leaves. ----- 2(A). Wife discovers cheating. 2(B). Wife gives ultimatum. 2(C). Husband declines ultimatum. 2(D). Wife leaves. ----- You seem to be arguing that it's always scenario 1, because in step (C), the husband "could have chosen to stay with the wife, but chose not to". But that immediately implies that this scenario cannot occur: 3(A). Wife discovers cheating. 3(B). Wife gives ultimatum. 3(C). Husband declines ultimatum. 3(D). Wife stays. What we know is that the husband sees no reason for the marriage to change, and the wife does. The breakup of the marriage, in this context, is almost always the wife's choice, as identified by the very simple criterion that it's something the wife wants and the husband doesn't want. She can equally choose to take the husband's offer of a stable marriage with adultery.
ojosilva 2y ago
No, it's more like... People have been claiming I left my wife. That's not true. She had a guy BFF but then this guy publicly announced that my wife and him would start dating. So I said it's me or him. She chose him and we thereafter divorced. > but when OpenAI announced that it was going to have a for-profit subsidiary and that Sam was going to be the CEO If anything (in case you're looking for a scoop), PG implies that YC found-out about Sam's raising the stakes on OpenAI through a third-party ("OpenAI announced"), which does not look good for Sam. There's even a subtle "but" in there. The firing versus resigning discussion is irrelevant, the focus is probably (and arguably) the lack of clear communication on Sam's part regarding a conflict of interest for both parties, YC and Sam. As a counter-argument, OpenAI was a running show anyway, which YC was on the know and apparently openly allowed and the for-profit thing was just a matter of time.
TaylorAlexander 2y ago
It’s actually fine to sleep with multiple people over the same time span as long as everyone knows about it and everyone consents. It’s only a violation of trust when one of the people is under the impression they’re sexually monogamous with the person who has multiple sexual partners. Then that person has broken an agreement. Sometimes in these situations, one party who was consenting to non-monogamy decides that they want to be monogamous. When that happens, their partner is asked to make a choice as to whether they want to participate in monogamy with that person or go their separate ways. That’s what this is like.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- hackernewds 2y ago
  Only a sith speaks in absolutes. There exist numerous cultures, and world views
  - TaylorAlexander 2y ago
    Good faith here, but where were the absolutes? I said that if everyone knows and everyone consents then it’s okay. That’s not really absolute, that’s precisely qualified. Is there a culture in which everyone could both know about it and consent to it and it would still be morally wrong?
- zarathustreal 2y ago
  You’re assuming “it’s a violation of trust!” is the hazard in this situation but that’s a very shallow, naive understanding of why having two “partners” is almost universally frowned upon. See the sibling comment for a full write-up. The human psychological and interpersonal aspect is the real hazard. You either A) don’t find two other people that can emotionally handle it or B) do find two other people that can emotionally handle it but suffer from the trauma they’ve experienced that numbed them enough to be able to emotionally handle it, which is a hazard in itself. Either way, it just doesn’t work in the long run.
skwirl 2y ago
This is a terrible analogy that implies all instances of “doing two things at once” are somehow immoral. You would compare someone eating both steak and potatoes for dinner to an adulterer.
the_real_cher 2y ago
Did you commit to your company for the rest of your life, to have and to hold in sickness and in health? I have some bad news for you

mort96 2y ago

I mean literally yes? It's a weird analogy but if you decide to leave your wife for another woman then that's you leaving your wife, not your wife leaving you? If you decide to leave one company to focus on working for another company then that's not the first company firing you, that's you leaving the first company?

thaumasiotes 2y ago
"For several years I was sleeping with both her and another woman" generally implies that the wife left him, not that he left the wife. The guy in that scenario is pretty clearly fine not leaving his wife.
- mort96 2y ago
  > "For several years I was sleeping with both her and another woman" generally implies that the wife left him No it doesn't. "For several years, I was sleeping with both her and another woman, she eventually had enough and filed for divorce" means that the wife left. "For several years, I was sleeping with both her and another woman, she eventually had enough so she asked me to choose between her and the other woman. I chose to leave her for the other woman" means that the husband left. He could have chosen to stay with the wife, but chose not to.
  - thaumasiotes 2y ago
    This isn't a coherent viewpoint. How do you distinguish these two cases? ----- 1(A). Wife discovers cheating. 1(B). Wife gives ultimatum. 1(C). Husband declines ultimatum. 1(D). Husband leaves. ----- 2(A). Wife discovers cheating. 2(B). Wife gives ultimatum. 2(C). Husband declines ultimatum. 2(D). Wife leaves. ----- You seem to be arguing that it's always scenario 1, because in step (C), the husband "could have chosen to stay with the wife, but chose not to". But that immediately implies that this scenario cannot occur: 3(A). Wife discovers cheating. 3(B). Wife gives ultimatum. 3(C). Husband declines ultimatum. 3(D). Wife stays. What we know is that the husband sees no reason for the marriage to change, and the wife does. The breakup of the marriage, in this context, is almost always the wife's choice, as identified by the very simple criterion that it's something the wife wants and the husband doesn't want. She can equally choose to take the husband's offer of a stable marriage with adultery.

ojosilva 2y ago

No, it's more like... People have been claiming I left my wife. That's not true. She had a guy BFF but then this guy publicly announced that my wife and him would start dating. So I said it's me or him. She chose him and we thereafter divorced. > but when OpenAI announced that it was going to have a for-profit subsidiary and that Sam was going to be the CEO If anything (in case you're looking for a scoop), PG implies that YC found-out about Sam's raising the stakes on OpenAI through a third-party ("OpenAI announced"), which does not look good for Sam. There's even a subtle "but" in there. The firing versus resigning discussion is irrelevant, the focus is probably (and arguably) the lack of clear communication on Sam's part regarding a conflict of interest for both parties, YC and Sam. As a counter-argument, OpenAI was a running show anyway, which YC was on the know and apparently openly allowed and the for-profit thing was just a matter of time.

TaylorAlexander 2y ago

It’s actually fine to sleep with multiple people over the same time span as long as everyone knows about it and everyone consents. It’s only a violation of trust when one of the people is under the impression they’re sexually monogamous with the person who has multiple sexual partners. Then that person has broken an agreement. Sometimes in these situations, one party who was consenting to non-monogamy decides that they want to be monogamous. When that happens, their partner is asked to make a choice as to whether they want to participate in monogamy with that person or go their separate ways. That’s what this is like.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
hackernewds 2y ago
Only a sith speaks in absolutes. There exist numerous cultures, and world views
- TaylorAlexander 2y ago
  Good faith here, but where were the absolutes? I said that if everyone knows and everyone consents then it’s okay. That’s not really absolute, that’s precisely qualified. Is there a culture in which everyone could both know about it and consent to it and it would still be morally wrong?
zarathustreal 2y ago
You’re assuming “it’s a violation of trust!” is the hazard in this situation but that’s a very shallow, naive understanding of why having two “partners” is almost universally frowned upon. See the sibling comment for a full write-up. The human psychological and interpersonal aspect is the real hazard. You either A) don’t find two other people that can emotionally handle it or B) do find two other people that can emotionally handle it but suffer from the trauma they’ve experienced that numbed them enough to be able to emotionally handle it, which is a hazard in itself. Either way, it just doesn’t work in the long run.

skwirl 2y ago

This is a terrible analogy that implies all instances of “doing two things at once” are somehow immoral. You would compare someone eating both steak and potatoes for dinner to an adulterer.

the_real_cher 2y ago

Did you commit to your company for the rest of your life, to have and to hold in sickness and in health? I have some bad news for you