Well, I've slept on it now so I'm not exactly as riled up, but I'll at least try to address the stuff.
You think Killian is bad because of the things he's done and you can't understand why people here aren't ditching him as a friend. You made that point pretty clear. I say the "if he killed someone" comment doesn't have relevance because this is a matter of opinion on what constitutes ending a friendship and that event never happened.
If I did miss your point then please do tell me what it was. I enjoy these conversations
You can't just create a hypothetical scenario and say he's a bad person because he might do something like this or that because he's done other things you morally disagree with and not expect to be corrected on this.
...
Again, the same thing. While I agree that I could have chosen my words better and "just doing one's job" isn't justification enough to acquit one of any moral responsibility, there's quite a bit of difference between what Ian is doing compared to Nazis, as well as what options the Carnations have and what options the Jews in concentration camps had available to them.
Gahhh.
As much as it annoys me that I feel misunderstood, the 'dead hooker' thing was not critical to the point, so I'll just move on. Sorry for just dismissing it.
Being conscious of my own flaws as a human being helps me enormously in accepting others's faults and being less judgemental, so at least for me it makes quite a lot of sense. You can still disagree with what others do, for sure, but what we are discussing is ultimately ending an otherwise very positive relationship.
See, I don't necessarily agree that it's a very positive relationship, especially if you don't go the Bromance route and instead feel as though Killian is more of an uncomfortable acquaintance you know from school. I agree that from an objective point of view it's probably better that he looks up to you in a "he's happy, so he's treating those around him (Mina) better" sense, but that kind of one-sided adoration is just not healthy, even if it feels nice to have someone look up to you like that. It's certainly a
beneficial relationship, as he got you into a well-paying job in an exclusive club and potentially gaining you very powerful contacts, but that doesn't really factor into whether or not I respect him as a person, which I (at least to some degree) see as a foundational part of friendship.
In fact, I find it difficult to call it friendship at all (still talking non-Bromance route). It's more like a puppy engaging in hero-worship, which I think most people can agree is not a good thing to engage in. I mean, Killian is
fully dedicated to you, which is
not a point in his favor. It's outright a bad thing. Like some guy with a crush ending up in the friend-zone and just continuously going above and beyond to please the object of his affections; it's just a bad thing, actual heartbreak would actually be the preferable outcome.
Sorry, I realize I'm ranting, but seeing as my objection isn't really about facts it's difficult to pin down a single point to argue.
It matters indeed. Dismissing any effort to work through or overlook problems you have with someone else as simple sunk-cost fallacy is a fallacy in itself. As you seem to already know yourself, the problem is where to draw the line. There are many reasons to end relationships with others; humans are flawed beings. Which relationships can you afford to end, which would bring you more pain if continued? Those things are what everyone themself has to place on a scale and see how it balances out.
The only difference between me, you, and others in this thread is how the scale tipped in one's eyes when weighing the sexual humiliation and other suffering Ian causes versus how good of a friend he apparently is to the MC.
And not to put words into your mouth, but just in case: if that makes you think people who don't agree with you on this point are morally bankrupt, then you might want to take a look at how high of a horse you are really sitting on.
I really appreciate you trying to identify and home in on the core of the conversation, as it tends to get really muddled in these online arguments.
So, to try and summarize my problem, it's not that I don't understand that people draw the line at different places, I get that, people have different values and those values will shift their conclusions around.
What I'm trying, and completely failing, to understand is the blanket statement that "Killian is a good friend to you,
therefore his actions are excusable". That's a leap that makes zero sense to me.
However you view the reasons any of the women are in this, calling it "the easy way out" doesn't fit. If anyone thinks what the women are enduring, for the possibility of a reward, is easy, maybe they need to rethink their definition of "easy."
I strongly agree, saying "they signed up for this" or "they are here by consent" is either naive or callous in my view.
