"Likewise, child abuse isn't wrong BECAUSE of the broader point about discipline; it's wrong on its own demerits. Therefore, it doesn't abolish the validity of discipline because of child abusers use it to justify their crimes."

It sounds like you're saying that abuse and discipline are recognizably different acts; even when the abuser calls it discipline?

Apply the same standard to love and abuse.

"But ultimately it's irrelevant whether it is done out of love. Spouse abuse isn't wrong because of the motivations behind it; it's wrong for its own reasons (which I will assume we are already on the same page about). Can we agree on that much?"

Agreed. We don't need to know whether the "lover" believes they're a "lover" when they abuse. All we need is to see the abuse itself. And know that they're an abuser even if we cannot be compelled to accept that they are a "lover."

"I say that actions speak louder than words."

"Well, it's a nice sentiment, but ultimately it's a thought-terminating cliche and not an informative description of reality.

Actually its the only description of reality to an Empiricist. Other descriptions may also be useful. But the observable act is MORE real to a shared reality than the potentially misrepresenting statement about an externally unknowable state of mind.

"Not to be an asshole,"

If you have to say it you know why you have to say it....

" but have you ever stopped to consider that the reason your marriages failed is because you approached them all wrong? Seriously, if you based the entire validity of your relationships on your behaviors, then that isn't love. There are plenty of loveless marriages where everyone does what they are supposed to do. If what you say is true and behaviors are more important than "words", then why didn't your relationships last? Could it be that the emotional connection--if it ever existed--was lost somewhere along the way?"

I doubt you'd understand.

Its because I'm not a telepath like you that I cannot fully understand.

But I do know that where I once assumed that I knew something about Julia's first husband because of all the stories she told about his failings. I now know that I never knew anything about him because all I knew was her perspective on him.

To the point, when she told me she wanted a divorce I suggested that marital counseling ought to precede just giving up. That's when she told me that the counselor she'd claimed to be seeing about her workplace issues and her sibling and parent issues was also hearing about her marriage issues.

Exhausted and stunned, I gave in.

Although no credible marital counselor will work with just one partner when the other is willing.

I suspect that she might not have wanted an objective third party to work out a compromise where she might have had to accept something other than her own version of things. But that's just a guess because she never told me why. So all I do know is that she didn't want me present or aware during the period when she was considering divorce.

She never explained her choice to the satisfaction of either of her adult daughters too, so I'm not alone in my befuddlement.

What I did learn is to not try to be a "rescuer." I suppose I was trying to find someone who I could help "save." But I now believe that if another person has nothing but miserable relationships with her parents and siblings, nothing but miserable relationships with boss and co-workers, and nothing but miserable relationships with Exs; then if you add yourself to that list it just might not be long until you are relegated to the only kind of relationship she seems to build.

But hey, now that you've speculated erroneously about my one failed marriage, perhaps you could tell me where she went wrong in her first failed marriage since she told me I was nothing like her Ex?

"But think about what I'm really saying here. I think, if you actually gave it a fair consideration, you would see that my argument is a valid one."

Do you presume that those who reach differing conclusions are no less sincere?

Just because we don't falsely claim that your disagreement stems from either deception or lack of considered thought doesn't mean that we didn't arrive where we did by ignoring other arguments.

"This is just a semantics game. Whether you define it as two relationships or one, the part of it that ultimately matters is the shared/overlapping part, which is what is designated as 'the relationship.'

Its not a semantics game. Its a recognition that there is not a single thing with a single objective description to wrestle over. There may be two mutually contradictory things there in "the relationship." When it works the two different relationships can be mutually beneficial in most regards. When it doesn't, the differences in expectation and experience can be insurmountable even if no one person is doing "the relationship" wrong.

People don't have to be wrong for you to be right. And you need not assume malice when others are coming to different conclusions.

Dante