The Bash Fuji Thread

[fuji's mom]

I want all of to leave my little fuji alone. stop picking on him. he is a very sensitive boy.




Fuji- don't forget to turn off the lights when you come up from the basement.

 

[JohnLarue]

In any case you owe me an apology.

QUOTE]

Thats funny
I do not owe you the steam off my piss.

I recall asking you multiple times for factual proof on multiple ridiculous assertions you have made (global warning, The Oil sands, Govt sponsored welfare baby machines, Chinas right to pollute until the plant dies etc) and each time you shined me on and were unable to provide hard facts to back your position

Again you do not seem to understand the future implications of your bad behavior

You can twist the words around anyway you want and then try to paint your self as a superior thinker, however we can see through that and observe the bullshit artist with an ego issue

 

[fuji]

...

That's fine, if you can't fess up to being wrong, that's ok. Everyone already knew that was the sort of person you were anyway, no-one's surprised.

And your list is a pretty good list of your stupidity, those threads were all examples where you weren't able to parse facts because you're blinded by your ideology. You do know that in most cases I agree with you that markets are better, but you blindly apply that in ludicrously inappropriate circumstances because you ideologically think it is a universal, unquestionable rule, a truism even, and so wind up looking like a fool.

It would do you some good to be a little more practical and pragmatic, and a little bit lest of a blind ideologue. If you could get past that failing you'd probably be a pretty smart guy. As it is, it causes you to fail and say really stupid things sometimes.

 

[Narg]

Hmmm.... I'm thinking two threads of this is overkill. I have my differences with fuji, but many of his posts are well reasoned. Perhaps we might give it a rest for a while ...? No matter how arrogant, no one enjoys being insulted over and over again (especially by the same cast of characters).

Let it go.

 

[groggy]

Nice try, John B, but in the same way that Fuji will never admit he's wrong or apologize he also refuses to admit he does any of those things.
Instead he'll just say that he IS always right.

Hmm, I think I hear his mother calling.....

 

[blackrock13]

Nice try, John B, but in the same way that Fuji will never admit he's wrong or apologize he also refuses to admit he does any of those things.
Instead he'll just say that he IS always right.

Hmm, I think I hear his mother calling.....

Now G, you just don't know what you're talking about AGAIN. He has admitted he was wrong a few time, but they could be termed strategic admissions, with conditions attached to them. I know they happen so seldom that you could be forgiven.

 

[fuji]

Fuji, you must have pissed off quite a few people.

I don't shy away from controversial positions. You would think that an escort review board would be a liberal and open-minded place, but in reality it's populated by highly conservative men who are shocked and appalled by adultery. Hypocritically, I think, because I am guessing most of them engage in it. But they can't conscience someone championing it as I do. It really sends quite a few of them right over the edge.

As for the name calling if you're fair about it I engage in it much less than anybody else on this thread. I'm also far more likely than anyone else here to cut all the name calling out of a post and respond rationally and objectively to the lone real debating point lost in the midsts of 20 lines of name calling.

For advocating in favour of cheating I have been called everything from a "psychopath" to a "sexual predator" here, and many things in between, mostly by people who had very little to add to the debate. However, I sincerely doubt that even those writing those words actually believe I'm a sexual predator or a psychopath or whatever else I have been called here--it really is just name calling. On the other hand I do mean the things I write, even when I engage in name calling. I am guessing that makes my name calling hit home a little harder than what I receive in return.

I call groggy a propaganda clown because he is one. As harsh and blunt as this may be, I called you a bigot, and if you're really honest with yourself, when it comes to the homosexual community--you are one. Blackrock13 is ridiculously ill equipped to enter into a direct conversation with me, and I say so. And so on.

I'm sorry if that sounds arrogant. No wait, actually, I'm not. I will just go on calling a spade a spade.

 

[fuji]

Study which actually shows this? Further is this single lifetime episode (perhaps deeply regretted) or serial?

Also seemingly you are admitting that it is neither "normal" nor "mainstream."

See the link in post #133, which you were actually replying to. I understand the 50% statistic to mean that the married person has engaged in extra-marital sexual intercourse at least once in their life. If you define "cheating" more broadly many more people than that cheat, as in all the many threads on terb about whether a lapdance/blowjob/handjob/bodyslide from a stripper/MPA/SP is really cheating (where he says no but she would file for divorce if she knew). Moreover when you break down the statistic you also find that those who have greater opportunity to cheat do so much more frequently. The implication, of course, is that those who aren't cheating simply haven't had the opportunity to do so. In other words, while only 50% of men succeeded in cheating, many more would have if they could have.

The limiting factor on cheating by men appears to be women. Only 26% of them cheated in their marriage, though we may expect to see this number increase as women become increasingly empowered. Presumably the gap between male and female cheating is being filled, in part, by our friendly neighbourhood SP's, MPA's, and strippers, whom we welcome so warmly here on terb.

It would be outrageous to call an activity participated in by half the male population, and which the other half is aching to do too, "deviant" or "abnormal". The only way to describe such widespread behavior is to use words like "normal", "ordinary", and yes, "mainstream". When over half the population either does it, or wants to do it, it's mainstream.

 

[Aardvark154]

See the link in post #133.

Oh I see "Mr. I don't have the time to read books," now wants us all to head off to the nearest Medical Library to find a decade old copy of the Journal of Family Psychology.

If I ask for a search tomorrow how many articles am I going to find refuting this article?

 

[fuji]

Oh I see "Mr. I don't have the time to read books," now wants us all to head off to the nearest Medical Library to find a decade old copy of the Journal of Family Psychology.

If I ask for a search tomorrow how many articles am I going to find refuting this article?

I don't know, but here's the real question: Do you think you're going to refute it by much? Let's say it's only 25% of the population that engages in cheating. How is that not still "ordinary", "normal", and "mainstream"? As I said there are other studies, which I have linked in past debates on this topic, that all back up the same point.

Our DNA has mixed, historically, faster than it could have if we were monogamous.

Studies of the number of children whose father is not the husband of their mother consistently reveal widespread sexual infidelity, in multiple cultures.

The exact rate of cheating is no doubt hard to nail down, but what's indisputable is that it is commonplace, and always has been.

 

[groggy]

As for the name calling if you're fair about it I engage in it much less than anybody else on this thread.

....blah blah blah.....

I call groggy a propaganda clown because he is one.
I called you a bigot
Blackrock13 is ridiculously ill equipped to enter into a direct conversation with me,
...
your list is a pretty good list of your stupidity
...
I see you're back to your pointless school-yard blather.
...
In fact you've behaved like a pathetic child
...
You probably weren't smart enough
...

That's only from the last two pages, I'd go on but Fuji's Mom might get mad.
Mr Pot, allow me to introduce you to Mr Kettle.

By the way, my favourite nickname for buddy is Romeo.
As in Romeo Cormier.

 

[JohnLarue]

That's fine, if you can't fess up to being wrong, that's ok. Everyone already knew that was the sort of person you were anyway, no-one's surprised.

And your list is a pretty good list of your stupidity, those threads were all examples where you weren't able to parse facts because you're blinded by your ideology. You do know that in most cases I agree with you that markets are better, but you blindly apply that in ludicrously inappropriate circumstances because you ideologically think it is a universal, unquestionable rule, a truism even, and so wind up looking like a fool.

It would do you some good to be a little more practical and pragmatic, and a little bit lest of a blind ideologue. If you could get past that failing you'd probably be a pretty smart guy. As it is, it causes you to fail and say really stupid things sometimes.

I was not wrong, so nothing to apologize for
I pointed out you lack morals.
I have proved it by pointing out you value not getting caught and do not place any value on the impact to others
That is the definition of immoral and any reasonable person would agree.

As long as we are discussing relative intelligence, most rational people might take note of how many people are opposed to him and re-evaluate his position.
Take a second and ask yourself "Why is Fuji about as popular as a bad smell in an elevator"
"Perhaps Fuji might be wrong?"

However I suspect the ego part of your mind overpowers the rational part.

PS
I have debated many topics on this board with many people and for the most part it has been civil
With You, WoodPeker and some other knob it became heated
I have tried many times to patiently debate many subjects with you only to have you arrogantly dismiss very well thought out and convincing arguments.
I have also patiently requested you provide facts to back your your absurd theory's only to be ignored or arrogantly dismissed

Do not for one second think that you are any position to lecture me on being practical and pragmatic
WoodPeker is a simpleton, however you are a whole different level of bad news

 

[fuji]

I was not wrong, so nothing to apologize for

So these were not your words: "Fuji admitted to scheming to screw his friends wife."

I even gave you a chance to go back and check, because the thread was on the topic of the morality of that, and it would be understandable that you misremembered what I really wrote there, so I gave you a chance to correct it. However, you're a pompous ass, so you did not back down from your statement. Nowhere did I ever say that I did that, or that I was going to do that. I did talk alot about the morality of that, and concluded that it can't be any worse than cheating on your own wife.

But of course you are a pompous ass who will never admit to being wrong. This is why, while you often start out well in debates, you always end off looking foolish. You apply your ideology blindly, and wind up committing yourself to untenable positions. You then find yourself unable to back down from that foolishness and the debate turns into drivel because you can't tell the difference between a fact and and ideological belief. You take things like "markets are better" to be a truism, rather than just something that is generally, but not always, true.

I have proved it by pointing out you value not getting caught and do not place any value on the impact to others

Except you haven't proved anything. You've CLAIMED that I don't place any value on impact to others, but that's not something that you know. That's something you've made up, extrapolating from a few statements here and there to an unsupportable generalization. I care very much for the people around me. I just don't evaluate sexual cheating, and sexual hypocrisy the same way you do.

Do not for one second think that you are any position to lecture me on being practical and pragmatic

I don't believe you know what the words "practical" and "pragmatic" mean. I take you to be a complete ideologue who is blinded by an almost religious belief in an extreme version of capitalist economics. The real world is much fuzzier than you will ever acknowledge. You talk a lot about market theories without comprehending the assumptions on which those theories rest, or the ways in which those assumptions can be violated in the real world. You don't even grok the concept of market failure.

If I want to get you going and cause you to say some pretty irrational things all I have to do is bring up some examples of cases where your ideology leads to wrong conclusions. For example, if we start a discussion about the benefits of minimum wage you will likely go ape shit and say absurd things. Sure, the minimum wage has downsides, but your blinded ideology causes you only to see the downsides, and never the upsides. There's lots of other ways to get you to say impractical, irrational things.

The funny thing is that in the general case I agree with you. Where we differ is in the edge cases. I'm pragmatic enough to know what the limits of theory are, where you go blindly applying it to situations the theory simply can't cope with, because your application of it is impracticably faith based rather than pragmatic.

 

[fuji]

I absolutely think that someone who is "not comfortable" with "Toronto becoming the gay capital of the world" is bigoted against homosexuals. Absolutely.

 

[Anynym]

Not according to any commonly accepted definition of sexual predator.

According to most commonly accepted definitions which do not confuse the term with criminal behaviour.

 

[fuji]

According to most commonly accepted definitions which do not confuse the term with criminal behaviour.

Nope.

 

[JohnLarue]

Except you haven't proved anything. You've CLAIMED that I don't place any value on impact to others, but that's not something that you know. That's something you've made up, extrapolating from a few statements here and there to an unsupportable generalization. I care very much for the people around me. I just don't evaluate sexual cheating, and sexual hypocrisy the same way you do.
.

Again you miss the point
You do not not get to evaluate your morals.
Your morals are evaluated by others

Most people learn and understand this at a very young age

You have miserably failed at both the understanding of morals and how to apply them

Just as you are able to evaluate and justify your immoral actions as acceptable, I am pretty sure Hitler, Stalin, Saddam and Osama were able to evaluate and justify their unacceptable actions one way or another.

While their crimes are not at all comparable to cheating on ones wife or lusting after a friends wife (as long as you do not get caught), the thought process for the justification is the same
They just like you, did not place any value on Thier actions relative to others and assumed they were superior

I don't believe you know what the words "practical" and "pragmatic" mean.

As I said you are in no position to lecture me or anyone else on being practical or pragmatic

I'm pragmatic enough to know what the limits of theory are, where you go blindly applying it to situations the theory simply can't cope with, because your application of it is impracticably faith based rather than pragmatic.

No you are slimy enough to try and justify inappropriate behavior with a lot of bullshit

If I want to get you going and cause you to say some pretty irrational things all I have to do is bring up some examples of cases where your ideology leads to wrong conclusions. For example, if we start a discussion about the benefits of minimum wage you will likely go ape shit and say absurd things. Sure, the minimum wage has downsides, but your blinded ideology causes you only to see the downsides, and never the upsides. There's lots of other ways to get you to say impractical, irrational things.

Do not flatter yourself
Remember you are ignore because I find you to be utterly despicable in addition to being an uncompromising arrogant fool
I thought I would toy with you for a while as long as it was "Kick a Fuji the Fool day"

You will soon be back on ignore as I again grow weary of the drivel you spew out and it is clear you are still despicable

 

[fuji]

Again you miss the point

No, you miss the point. You made a claim. Your claim was false. I gave you an opportunity to modify your false claim, and you did not. I've pointed out clearly now that your claim is false, and you STILL haven't backed down from it.

When I first gave you an opportunity to back down from your false claim gracefully you pompously called me a "lying fuck". That's how much of a pompous ass you are.

You do not not get to evaluate your morals.

Of course I do, and I do it more intelligently, more insightfully, more pragmatically, and in a more informed way than you do.

Your morals are evaluated by others

Utter nonsense. YOUR moral system may be a popularity contest, perhaps according to YOU the only things of value are things that win you the praise of others. My morals are based on principles, on the other hand, not on popularity contests. In the evaluation of moral principles I am much more interested in what a variety of philosophers and great thinkers have to say on the subject than what some moron thinks.

That's why I don't give a rats ass that a bunch of underachieving idiots on terb hurl insults at me. On the other hand, if someone raises a solid, logical point you will find me spending paragraphs upon paragraphs responding to it because I do care about the principles involved.

Just as you are able to evaluate and justify your immoral actions as acceptable, I am pretty sure Hitler, Stalin, Saddam and Osama were able to evaluate and justify their unacceptable actions one way or another.

Hitler, Stalin, Osama, and JohnLarue are dangerous people because they are ideologues. I also apply principles, reason, logic to work through moral questions, but unlike the four of you I also bring a healthy dose of pragmatism to real world moral questions. A good example would be that "fuck friends wife" thread. I think that's an interesting moral question, but as I've said repeatedly (statements repeatedly ignored by you) I probably will never do that.

Why not? It would fit my ideology perfectly to do that. But it's a pretty radical action, fraught with peril. I'll avoid it on purely pragmatic grounds because I recognize the limits of ideology.

It's been demonstrated a few times on a few threads that you do not recognize the limits of ideology. You get an idea into your head and you apply it to everything, properly in some cases, but completely in defiance of all common sense in other cases.

What unites dangerous people like Hitler, Stalin, Osama, and you, is a blind faith in an ideological world view, facts to the contrary be damned.

 

[fuji]

The moral issue is not if you are OK with cheating on your wife or fucking your friends wife.
The moral issue is how it affects them

I missed this earlier. Funny, then, that you missed the precondition on that thread, which is would you do it if you were sure your friend would never find out? In other words, it would never affect them because they would never know. According to what you just wrote, then, you should be absolutely fine with cheating with your friend's wife under that condition. That was the condition posited in post #1 of the thread you're referring to.

That is what makes it a "thought" experiment. In the real world there is a real probability that your friend's wife is going to confess it all to your friend, or something else will go wrong, so you can't really be sure he will never find out.

 

[JohnLarue]

[

QUOTE=fuji;3632714]No, you miss the point. You made a claim. Your claim was false. I gave you an opportunity to modify your false claim, and you did not. I've pointed out clearly now that your claim is false, and you STILL haven't backed down from it.

When I first gave you an opportunity to back down from your false claim gracefully you pompously called me a "lying fuck". That's how much of a pompous ass you are.

No my claim was not false
You were then and still are an immoral, untrustworthy person
You cheat on your wife and lust after your friends wife and you have zero respect for any of them
END OF STORY

Of course I do, and I do it more intelligently, more insightfully, more pragmatically, and in a more informed way than you do.

Pure bullshit that you use to justify inappropriate behavior and inflate your ego.
Bye the way, I have forgotten more than you will ever know

Utter nonsense. YOUR moral system may be a popularity contest, perhaps according to YOU the only things of value are things that win you the praise of others. My morals are based on principles, on the other hand, not on popularity contests. In the evaluation of moral principles I am much more interested in what a variety of philosophers and great thinkers have to say on the subject than what some moron thinks.

It is not nonsense.
It is not my moral system it is societies moral system.
Your ego deludes you into thinking you are a better judge of appropriate behavior than the rest of society
That is a recipe for disaster as you will cross the line of acceptable behavior at one point and run a foul of
a) the law
b) a business relationship- smart people will recognize you can not be trusted
c) a really big and very pissed off husband or brother of some woman you abuse for your amusement

Life has a way of evening the score on assholes like you
Sleep well

That's why I don't give a rats ass that a bunch of underachieving idiots on terb hurl insults at me. On the other hand, if someone raises a solid, logical point you will find me spending paragraphs upon paragraphs responding to it because I do care about the principles involved.

You would not know a principle if it bashed you up side the head
An example of a principle is "Respect others and do not betray their trust"
Your so called friend trusts you not to lust after his wife.
You would betray that trust , as long as you do not get caught (your words not mine)
Your wife trusts you to be faithful
Yet you betray her trust on a regular basis

Is the betrayal of trust not a convenient principle for you, so you just ignore that one?

Fuji and Principles are two incongruent words

Hitler, Stalin, Osama, and JohnLarue are dangerous people because they are ideologues. I also apply principles, reason, logic to work through moral questions, but unlike the four of you I also bring a healthy dose of pragmatism to real world moral questions. A good example would be that "fuck friends wife" thread. I think that's an interesting moral question, but as I've said repeatedly (statements repeatedly ignored by you) I probably will never do that.

No the first three are dangerous because they gained power and were able to justify really bad behavior / actions
Had they not gained power they would have been harmless fools very similar to yourself and limited their damage to those close to them

It's been demonstrated a few times on a few threads that you do not recognize the limits of ideology. You get an idea into your head and you apply it to everything, properly in some cases, but completely in defiance of all common sense in other cases.

Give me a break, you have proved nothing
On many occasions I asked you to back up statements with facts and you were unable to deliver nothing more than hot air
Facts please
Show me an example, based on hard verifiable facts, not your self severing rhetoric

What unites dangerous people like Hitler, Stalin, Osama, and you, is a blind faith in an ideological world view, facts to the contrary be damned.

Thats funny
As you say, facts to the contrary
Please show me the facts
You are long on self serving rhetoric , yet short on facts
Pick a past subject and I will find an example of where I asked for facts and you ignored the request

Here are a few examples
(global warning, The Oil sands, Govt sponsored welfare baby machines, Chinas right to pollute until the plant dies etc)

Take a hint Fuji.........Find another board to inflate your ego, it will take them about six months before they grow tired of your act