Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT

WCDT: 2176-2180 (30 April - 4 May 2012) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread

<< < (37/53) > >>

Magdalena:
I think she might just get a little annoyed with Jim - I don't think there will be a, how did people put it? A Dorasaurus?

I do think that she will ask him or tell him to next time just tell her that he's going on a date for courtesy's sake.

I know it's perfectly reasonable to think that he is on a romantic type date, but remember that Sam is only what, 12 years old? It could be that Jim is at a business meeting with a female that Sam ASSUMES is a potential romantic partner, but in reality is just a business partner. ( It's one thing to ask a random person that you've met and had dinner with one time to baby sit your kid for a business meeting, another thing entirely for that same one dinner date person to baby sit your kid while you are on a date. Which brings up the point that possibly if he were on a romantic date with someone, I would think he would ask a family friend who was closer to babysit Sam, rather than Dora. )

I hope that made sense. - -;

Blackjoker:
I think this will be an interesting kind of test run for Dora. If she can keep rational control of herself she will have grown...if she behaves like she did with Marten then she might well be napalming bridges.

Overkillengine:

--- Quote from: gangler on 03 May 2012, 07:21 ---I think the concept of the lie of omission just gets applied in places where it shouldn't.

In a situation where you have a moral or social obligation to inform somebody of something that is clearly understood by both parties and you don't then that's blatant dishonesty. You've deceived as surely through your silence as you could through your spoken words.

A situation like this though, well it just plain doesn't apply. It's not a lie of omission. It's just not telling her something. Being less informative than maximally possible.

--- End quote ---

This.

To clarify: I once had a friend ask me for a loan because they were having financial issues and were about to lose their car. What they didn't tell me is the reason they were having financial issues was that they were helping a serial adulterer and deadbeat dad pay his child support to get out of jail. (Disclaimer: Deadbeat Dude was the kind of irresponsible crap that causes the rest of us men so much hell having to prove that we aren't them, so I feel justified for wanting to let him rot in jail. You'd likely understand too if you knew him.)

This of of course irked me greatly when I eventually found out the truth about how the loan I gave was being used. I thought I was helping a friend meet their responsibilities, but was in actuality instead helping a deadbeat avoid theirs.

This is an example of a lie by omission, as crucial information that would have affected my decision was deliberately left out of the request for help.

---

Why doesn't what Jim did count as being as horribad? Because he's not in a relationship with Dora. Now, if he were at least even casually "seeing her" and then also asking her to watch his kid so he could go on a date with another woman? Yeah, that would be bad. It is a bit tacky to show up like he did if he actually is going on a date (just reschedule it, if the lady is interested and not a psycho hose beast, she'll understand)  but short notice and desperation make odd bedfellows at times.

Marfo:
Honestly... I feel like its a lie of omission. The kid said "He didn't want me to tell you that." The intent is written all over it - this was information that he wanted to avoid sharing, not information that he forgot to share. That being said, Dora typically would not be affected (they are not together after all), but I feel since he dropped his kid off with her, he owes it to her to be more honest. Would I babysit an ex-date's kid if I thought he had work related or even family related affairs? Sure. Date related? I don't think so. I think even if there was no feelings there, it is still imposing to put me in a situation where I'd be used like that; if I agreed upon a date in the first place, there is the possibility of me still liking him. It is rude that just because she can't see him right away he gets to ask a huge favour of her while deceiving her. And yes, kids are a huge favour. Kid gets hurt at her work, and she can get sued. Nobody wants to feel rejected like that, even if they weren't too interested in the first place. He really should have found an alternative babysitter. I know that they are "friends" and work partners, but there are some situations you don't put certain people in.

Overall, its an awkward situation and he should be responsible for his offspring. Delay the date, find alternatives... But don't put people doing you a favour into positions where they (like Dora) can be hurt by the truth.

DSL:
I'm gonna guess ("predict" is too dignified a word for what I'm doing) that further story developments from here will have more to do with Dora's efforts to strike a balance as to how much control she wants/needs to exert over her surroundings, than to any bad intent or lack thereof on Jim's part. Really, the worst he's done so far is maybe not make the best choice in resolving a sudden situation, and it's a side issue, in my mind.

Unless it turns out that Jim's the kind of person who's used to charming people into giving him what he wants. I pick up a little of that in what Jeph's presented thus far. Or maybe I'm projecting my dislike of that sort of person onto a cartoon character.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page