Rules for life:

1. Never buy property with more than your name on the title.
2. Never start a business that you don't fully own.
3. Family is never an exception for the first two rules.
4. Smile.

I understand the appeal of the "unwavering principles" person but I think it's more true to fiction than it is real-life. IMO it's indicative of a temptation to see people as "super-human", as opposed to merely human, which is the truth of the matter. As humans we're all fallible and capable of making mistakes, hurting others and so forth; to err is human. But of course we're also capable of wonderful things.

Having said that, there will be some people out there of impeccable integrity who have it in them to uphold their principles in even the most trying / challenging of circumstances. But it's important to remember these people are still human, and even they will have a breaking point.

The "appeal" here is yours - to believe that "all are fallible" and "all have a breaking point". The appeal of your perception is to not ever need to trust someone that deeply, and it is a coping mechanism. Important for you to remember to place these coping mechanisms in their proper context, especially when contrasted with the reality of the world around us.

All human beings are fallible. Are you really going to be so riduculous as to claim that isn't the case? All humans will have a breaking point. To suggest anything else is, well… kind of moronic.

To think of human beings as "infallible" is to lean into fictitious notions of people being either "super-human" or "sub-human". These are very common attitudes to be fair.

Also, you've somehow translated my "to err is human" point into some nonsense that I don't or can't trust deeply. These things are not mutually exclusive. You can trust someone deeply but also recognise the fallibility of human nature.

Even the emotive nature of your reply shows how appealing you find the "all are fallible" perspective of the world around you.

To be so desperate as to assume that all are fallible (to fit the comfort of your world view) is the "appeal" you thought my post referred to.

Now you're resorting to vagaries to prevent further engagement. Re-read the content of the OP and try to reply to the specifics there, if you can remember to get past the world view you cling so dearly to.