SilverBoat
Posts: 257
Joined: 7/26/2006 Status: offline
|
What Maria said earlier about learning to lie, yeah, there's been some studies showing that kids learn to lie about 3-5 years old, the smarter often earlier. Their sophistication about what other people can or can't tell about the truth develops rapidly during that time, especially about whether or not they can get-away-with lying. I guess there's lots more rather conjectural stuff published about (most?) people developing 'moral' empathies that evolve into social-contracts about *not* deceiving others for fun, profit, or worse, but obviously, some sociopaths never arrive at that stage. (Or some justify deceit as being what everybody-else-does ...) Not to highjack the thread topic, but lying that was calculated to cause harm to others is pretty much a deal-breaker, IMHO. And even if apology, restitution, etc were made for a first instance, a second or repeated habit would permanently zero out all trust factors. Fibs or with-holding that were aimed to prevent embarrassment, if repeated too much, could be deal-breakers too, but not as abruptly as hurtful intent. Some of what the OP mentioned, about prior personal, legal, moral or family issues that hadn't been dealt with, amends made if possible, and so forth, I can see how those certainly could affect an ongoing relationship, vanilla or otherwise. A lot of that could as readily be case-by-case, depending on the people involved. Should it make a difference whether the person couldn't (wasn't capable of) or wouldn't (refused to) address the wrongs they'd done to others, if there were victims? (The 'victimless' crimes against self can be of less moment, I think.) And discovering that one person is *using* another via deception, blackmail, etc, that'd be a dealbreaker ...
|