This is just typical of you Fuji, it is all about getting caught. Not that it is repugnant behaviour
The Bash Fuji Thread
- Thread starter havingfun
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Its pretty simpleI 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.
1, I would never lust after someone else's wife. I have respect for the vows they made to each other and would not think of betraying that trust.
2. A friends wife? never in a million years. A friend is someone I respect and would never betray them or the trust they have in me
That is what defines a friend for me
Do not try and muddy the waters with conditions after the fact
The issue is not what I would do, its what you would do
I guess you do not have true friends, just acquaintances
This was your claim, here are your words: Fuji admitted to scheming to screw his friends wife.No my claim was not false
You were then and still are an immoral, untrustworthy person
It is false. I never said any such thing. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly but you persist in your false claim. Perhaps earlier you could have claimed ignorance. Now you are simply lying.
No, you're a pompous ass who never knew as much as you thought you did.Bye the way, I have forgotten more than you will ever know
There you go again. You apparently believe this statement to be a truism. You threw it up before, which was fine, but then I attacked it. I said that my moral system is not a popularity contest. I said that my morals are based on principles. That's a counter-claim to your claim that morals are generated by society at large, and imposed in some sort of democratic fashion.It is not my moral system it is societies moral system.
Now that doesn't necessarily mean you've lost the debate just yet but you have to defend your point. You can't just repeat it! But you do just repeat it. You apparently view it as some sort of truism, some tautology, that can stand on its own, without needing any support. What happens next? I'll continue to attack your point, and this will confound you. You think you've said something true, you've pronounced "it is societies moral system" and you are confounded when I don't believe you. Instead of looking at your assumption and going to find reasons to support it you just conclude that I am being obstinate, and not agreeing with your obvious truth.
But it's not an obvious truth. There is no reason to believe that there is such a thing as "societies moral system", or if there is, that there is any reason why anyone should accept it.
The law represents the lowest common denominator morality, and perhaps not even that. Sometimes the law lags behind morality and takes some decades to catch up, for example, it took a long time to catch up with gay rights, and earlier, a long time to catch up with women's rights, and with the rights of blacks before that.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
In any case it's not an issue in this debate: The law has nothing whatsoever to say about sexual infidelity. You can cheat on your wife, your girlfriend, with your friend's wife, with your brother's wife, or even all of them together at the same time, and the law just doesn't care. It's not illegal. About the only consequence you will ever face is that it can be used as evidence that a relationship has ended, giving it the same moral status in the eyes of the law as a year's separation. So other than speeding up a divorce and making it happen sooner the law just doesn't care about infidelity.
You're making a very basic mistake. You think that because I disagree with you on one moral question that I must not have any morals at all whatsoever. I am a strongly moral person. If you review my posting history on terb you will find on thread after thread after thread me taking a strongly moral position on a variety of topics: Respect for the rule of law, the rights of the accused, abhorrence of torture, the rights of civilians to live free from attack, the right to a fair trial--even at Gitmo, the rights of women to free choice, the rights of women generally, the rights of the gay community, and so on. All those positions I couch in strongly moral terms.b) a business relationship- smart people will recognize you can not be trusted
I'm a person of strong integrity, I absolutely commit myself to the betterment of the people around me. In my work I'm recognized throughout my industry as a straight dealing person of integrity, and in fact it's part of my job to reach out to people around the world and build collaborative relationships, which requires building confidence, and relies on trust, and an ability to cross cultural borders.
In short, you are wrong to assume that my life and my actions are not governed strongly by moral principles. They are. I simply disagree with you over how morality applies (or doesn't) in the realm of sexual cheating. I am an advocate for sexual cheating, that may be anathema to you, but it doesn't mean that my actions are ungoverned by morality. Maybe a different morality than yours, but a strong morality nontheless.
Certainly one that, in the practical real world, has won me the trust and respect of my peers around the globe, and in a way that I've been able to translate into a top 1% income bracket job.
I'm not going to let some vigilante scare me off from doing what's right. I'm not a coward. Maybe you are.c) a really big and very pissed off husband or brother of some woman you abuse for your amusement
You really have to be _____ing us. Having an affair with the wife of your "best friend" is "doing what's right"?!I'm not going to let some vigilante scare me off from doing what's right. I'm not a coward. Maybe you are.c) a really big and very pissed off husband or brother of some woman you abuse for your amusement
It isn't clear what woman JohnLarue was talking about in his point c) but I don't think it was specific to wife of a best friend. All that's clear is that he has a moral outlook in which people shouldn't be allowed to have sex with whoever they like, and if they do they should be met with violence. I'm not going to be intimidated by that sort of Saudi Arabian style barbarism.You really have to be _____ing us. Having an affair with the wife of your "best friend" is "doing what's right"?!
It is very telling that the mods and admin let this thread run on unabated.
Obviously they don`t think much of fuji either. :thumb:
Obviously they don`t think much of fuji either. :thumb:
Ask capitalguy if he agrees.It is very telling that the mods and admin let a this thread run on unabated.
Obviously they don`t think much of fuji either. :thumb:
red. By the gods, Fuji, be generous, and tell me what you say that virtue is; for I shall be truly delighted to find that I have been mistaken, and that you and Gorgias do really have this knowledge; although I have been just saying that I have never found anybody who had.
Fuji. There will be no difficulty, red, in answering your question. Let us take first the virtue of a man-he should know how to administer the state, cheat on his wife, and to sleep with his friends wife thereby improving her lot; and he must also be careful not to suffer harm himself. A woman's virtue, if you wish to know about that, may also be easily described: her duty is to order her house, and keep what is indoors, and obey her husband. Every age, every condition of life, young or old, male or female, bond or free, has a different virtue: there are virtues numberless, and no lack of definitions of them; for virtue is relative to the actions and ages of each of us in all that we do. And the same may be said of vice, red.
red. How fortunate I am, Fuji! When I ask you for one virtue, you present me with a swarm of them, which are in your keeping. Suppose that I carry on the figure of the swarm, and ask of you, What is the nature of the bee? and you answer that there are many kinds of bees, and I reply: But do bees differ as bees, because there are many and different kinds of them; or are they not rather to be distinguished by some other quality, as for example beauty, size, or shape? How would you answer me?
Fuji. I should answer that bees do not differ from one another, as bees. Though bumble bees are fat, i mean what's wrong with them, can't they control how much nectar they eat?
red. And if I went on to say: That is what I desire to know, Fuji; tell me what is the quality in which they do not differ, but are all alike;-would you be able to answer?
Fuji. I should as I have a 3.75 gpa.
red. And so of the virtues, however many and different they may be, they have all a common nature which makes them virtues; and on this he who would answer the question, "What is virtue?" would do well to have his eye fixed: Do you understand?
Fuji. I am beginning to understand because I read about this on the internet; but I do not as yet take hold of the question as I could wish.
red. When you say, Fuji, that there is one virtue of a man, another of a woman, another of a child, and so on, does this apply only to virtue, or would you say the same of health, and size, and strength? Or is the nature of health always the same, whether in man or woman?
Fuji. I should say that health is the same, both in man and woman. See it was false that I didn't understand the question. You are just being victorian.
red. And is not this true of size and strength? If a woman is strong, she will be strong by reason of the same form and of the same strength subsisting in her which there is in the man. I mean to say that strength, as strength, whether of man or woman, is the same. Is there any difference?
fuji. I think not, so it must be true. you know my wife is really hot but I still cheat on her.
red. And will not virtue, as virtue, be the same, whether in a child or in a grown-up person, in a woman or in a man?
fuji. I cannot help feeling, Socrates, that this case is different from the others. it is in the nature of man to cheat and its perfectly normal and moral as long I don't get caught.
red. But why? Were you not saying that the virtue of a man was to order a state, and the virtue of a woman was to order a house?
fuji. I did say so. but you are taking it out of context becuase of your victorian level thinking, really you are not very bright and probably didn't have 3.75 gpa. This is typical of you right wingers only focused on the words and not the meaning or value of the words. If you check this link http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/meno.html it proves my point if you read just the title.
Fuji. There will be no difficulty, red, in answering your question. Let us take first the virtue of a man-he should know how to administer the state, cheat on his wife, and to sleep with his friends wife thereby improving her lot; and he must also be careful not to suffer harm himself. A woman's virtue, if you wish to know about that, may also be easily described: her duty is to order her house, and keep what is indoors, and obey her husband. Every age, every condition of life, young or old, male or female, bond or free, has a different virtue: there are virtues numberless, and no lack of definitions of them; for virtue is relative to the actions and ages of each of us in all that we do. And the same may be said of vice, red.
red. How fortunate I am, Fuji! When I ask you for one virtue, you present me with a swarm of them, which are in your keeping. Suppose that I carry on the figure of the swarm, and ask of you, What is the nature of the bee? and you answer that there are many kinds of bees, and I reply: But do bees differ as bees, because there are many and different kinds of them; or are they not rather to be distinguished by some other quality, as for example beauty, size, or shape? How would you answer me?
Fuji. I should answer that bees do not differ from one another, as bees. Though bumble bees are fat, i mean what's wrong with them, can't they control how much nectar they eat?
red. And if I went on to say: That is what I desire to know, Fuji; tell me what is the quality in which they do not differ, but are all alike;-would you be able to answer?
Fuji. I should as I have a 3.75 gpa.
red. And so of the virtues, however many and different they may be, they have all a common nature which makes them virtues; and on this he who would answer the question, "What is virtue?" would do well to have his eye fixed: Do you understand?
Fuji. I am beginning to understand because I read about this on the internet; but I do not as yet take hold of the question as I could wish.
red. When you say, Fuji, that there is one virtue of a man, another of a woman, another of a child, and so on, does this apply only to virtue, or would you say the same of health, and size, and strength? Or is the nature of health always the same, whether in man or woman?
Fuji. I should say that health is the same, both in man and woman. See it was false that I didn't understand the question. You are just being victorian.
red. And is not this true of size and strength? If a woman is strong, she will be strong by reason of the same form and of the same strength subsisting in her which there is in the man. I mean to say that strength, as strength, whether of man or woman, is the same. Is there any difference?
fuji. I think not, so it must be true. you know my wife is really hot but I still cheat on her.
red. And will not virtue, as virtue, be the same, whether in a child or in a grown-up person, in a woman or in a man?
fuji. I cannot help feeling, Socrates, that this case is different from the others. it is in the nature of man to cheat and its perfectly normal and moral as long I don't get caught.
red. But why? Were you not saying that the virtue of a man was to order a state, and the virtue of a woman was to order a house?
fuji. I did say so. but you are taking it out of context becuase of your victorian level thinking, really you are not very bright and probably didn't have 3.75 gpa. This is typical of you right wingers only focused on the words and not the meaning or value of the words. If you check this link http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/meno.html it proves my point if you read just the title.
I can't really get into a thread dedicated to shitting on one particular member but glanced at the last page and caught this statement. I might be Fuji #2 (I'm not going back to read his dribble in this thread) but I don't agree with #1 and agree with #2.Its pretty simple
1, I would never lust after someone else's wife. I have respect for the vows they made to each other and would not think of betraying that trust.
2. A friends wife? never in a million years. A friend is someone I respect and would never betray them or the trust they have in me
That is what defines a friend for me
I have no problem lusting (appreciating beauty, looking at and imagining sex) with any sexy woman. If my friend's sexy bikini clad girlfriend is sun bathing, bending over to pat poochie, etc I won't stare but my dick (which has no conscience) will be lusting.
As in #2, there is no way I'm going after his girl, or flirt or even given an opportunity (he's out of town and she tries to seduce me) would I do anything.
I am afraid not.You're making a very basic mistake. You think that because I disagree with you on one moral question that I must not have any morals at all whatsoever. I am a strongly moral person. If you review my posting history on terb you will find on thread after thread after thread me taking a strongly moral position on a variety of topics: Respect for the rule of law, the rights of the accused, abhorrence of torture, the rights of civilians to live free from attack, the right to a fair trial--even at Gitmo, the rights of women to free choice, the rights of women generally, the rights of the gay community, and so on. All those positions I couch in strongly moral terms.
You can not pick and choose morality when it is a convenient excuse for you.
A moral person either treats with respect, trust and dignity or he does not
Again, it is not your evaluation of your morals which matters
That is for others to judge.
Even worse in your case you are allowing your dick to decide what is moral for you.
Hiding behind a supposed justification of thinking on a higher level has to be the most pathetic excuse for inappropriate behavior I have ever heard.
That is tooo funnyI'm a person of strong integrity, I absolutely commit myself to the betterment of the people around me.
News flash for you
a) Again Integrity is not a self proclaimed virtue. Other people judge and determine if you have integrity. (read below, so you will understand what the words you are using actual mean)
b) Integrity is not a word used to describe some who cheats and lies to the ones he supposedly cares about
c) A slithering snake has more integrity that you do Fuji, as the snake does not lie or deceive anyone.
Any attempt to justify lying, cheating and deceiving others is self-serving
It also waters down any legitimate message you may have on other issues, simply because you
a) display the ability to deceive when it is convenient for you
b) apply morals inconsistently and in a manner which is convenient for you
Fuji & Integrity ?
HA HA, like oil and water
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity
Integrity is a concept of consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations, and outcomes. In ethics, integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness that is a verb or accuracy of one's actions. Integrity can be regarded as the opposite of hypocrisy,[1] in that it regards internal consistency as a virtue, and suggests that parties holding apparently conflicting values should account for the discrepancy or alter their beliefs.
The word "integrity" stems from the Latin adjective integer (whole, complete).[2] In this context, integrity is the inner sense of "wholeness" deriving from qualities such as honesty and consistency of character. As such, one may judge that others "have integrity" to the extent that they act according to the values, beliefs and principles they claim to hold.
This was your claim, here are your words: Fuji admitted to scheming to screw his friends wife.
It is false. I never said any such thing. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly but you persist in your false claim. Perhaps earlier you could have claimed ignorance. Now you are simply lying.
.
I know what you wrote
Its in black and white type
All the other readers know what you wrote as well
So the way I figure, its up to them, to judge if you have morals or integrity, as it should be.
I am a strongly moral person. If you review my posting history on terb you will find on thread after thread after thread me taking a strongly moral position on a variety of topics: Respect for the rule of law, the rights of the accused, abhorrence of torture, the rights of civilians to live free from attack, the right to a fair trial--even at Gitmo, the rights of women to free choice, the rights of women generally, the rights of the gay community, and so on. All those positions I couch in strongly moral terms.
A very simple question for you
If you are the only person capable of judging your morals and integrity, why do you write post after post defending your morals and integrity?
If others opinion about your morals and integrity is completly moot, why not just ignore what they write ?
After all in your words " I am OK with that"
I bet you do not have the stones to answer this question in a straight forward and direct manner
The truth of the matter is that you know and believe that morals and integrity are in fact judged by others , however you have deluded yourself into thinking you are smart enough to argue your way out of anything, including inappropriate behavior.
This thinking on a different level crapola is just a convenient excuse for self -indulgence and betraying others.
Actually no, the source is clearly the paper I linked to.The source for the stats is clearly from the work of Alfred Kinsey
No. The point is not "there is cheating". The point is "there is a lot of cheating", specifically "so much cheating that it is ordinary, normal behavior".Fine, let's grant that point. Why not. Cheating happens quite a bit. The real issue is what follows from the fact that cheating happens, that there is cheating? See below for where Fuji takes it.
At a meta-moral level I claim that it is wrong to have moral principles that condemn ordinary behavior inherent to the human condition. Note that I am borrowing from Nietzsche and Lawrence here, and asserting that it is sensible to criticize a moral code itself, and say that some moral codes are good, and other moral codes are bad. There are a plurality of moral codes in the world, and it's important we be able to determine which of them are any good. So what we have here is a criticism of morality itself: I am asserting the conditions under which a moral code can be a good moral code.
My own criteria is that for a moral code to be a good moral code it must be a life affirming moral code. Not everyone holds that view, there are a fair number of religious zealots who think that practically the entire human race is evil and practically everyone lives in sin. These people hold moral codes that condemn regular, ordinary behavior. They hold positions that are fundamentally denials of life, and they freely admit that. They use phrases like, "we love death more than you love life", to signify that they anticipate getting all of their reward in the afterlife.
It's a logically consistent position, and you are free to hold that position. Personally I don't. I hold a position that embraces life, affirms life, and asserts that what we have and who we are is wonderful. Therefore, if you want to adopt a life affirming moral code then you must not have moral prescriptions that fundamentally condemn features of ordinary life.
If you prefer a life-denying moral code, such as many fundamentalist/extremists religious people would hold, then we will just agree to disagree. I respect your position logically, but I personally think it is crazy to do anything but affirm life.
What slight of hand? If 50% of people are engaging in extra-marital sex at least once in their life then it is ordinary, normal, mainstream behavior. Even if it were only 20% of people that would be the case. The fundamental point being that it is not some deviant, aberrant, strange, behavior. It is something that everyday, ordinary people do in the course of their everyday, ordinary lives.Note the sleight-of-hand? Fuji cites stats as justification for his characterization of commonplace and normal, as if the terms are derived from the stats. Makes it all scientific. But even when Fuji admits the stats mean one thing and not another, the derived characterization remains unchanged. By rights, the derived characterization ought to be changed as well.
This is unlike, for example, murder or murder. Very few of us will ever rape or murder anyone during our lives. Many of us will commit adultery.
I'm afraid so. I'm not going back and forth with you any more on this: You lied. People can see that you lied. You are too much of a pompous ass to admit that you lied.I am afraid not.
At no point on any thread did I ever say that I had slept with my friend's wife, nor at any point did I ever say I was going to, or that I was formulating a scheme to. You attributed that to me, and it's false.
What I did is talk about whether it would be moral or immoral to do so, and asserted that if you knew there was no chance of being caught that it would not be immoral. That's all I ever said.
The further statements you attributed to me were lies. Initially you could be excused for perhaps misreading the earlier thread, which is why I gave you opportunities to restate. However even after having reviewed the thread, and even though you utterly failed to find any quote from me confirming your view, and even though I've pointed out repeatedly what I ACTUALLY said, you persist with your lie.
That demonstrates conclusively that you are a pompous ass who will never admit he's wrong even when he's shown conclusive proof. In this case there's no debate--my words were clear. What you attributed to me I never said, and YOU KNOW IT.
I did predict that you would take that as a truism and just repeat it over and over and over again, but it is not a truism, it is an ASSUMPTION on your part. You have NOT provided any reason why anyone should believe it.Again, it is not your evaluation of your morals which matters
Each and every one of us determine for ourselves what moral codes we will live by. There are, in fact, a variety of moral codes that we can choose to live by. You could follow a Suffi Muslim moral code, or you could follow a Hindu one, or you could follow a fundamentalist Christian one, or any of a variety of other choices. There are also a variety of moral codes that are not determined by religion, but rather come from secular sources.
I have outlined the one that I follow, and I have outlined why I think it is a superior moral code to the alternatives.
My moral code is different than yours, and I think mine is superior to yours, and I have told you why.
To reiterate, my moral code is a life affirming moral code. Yours is a life denying moral code. Whether you prefer a life affirming, or a life denying moral code is really a matter of preference, but I prefer life over death, action over inaction, growth over decay, and ultimately that means I prefer humanity over some platonic ideal.
I agree with you here. I am not going to reveal myself on terb, and neither are you, so we will just come down to a he-said, she-said here. But I did not get to an income in the top 1% of Canadians by being seen as someone lacking in integrity. We will just have to leave it at that.a) Again Integrity is not a self proclaimed virtue.
It depends on the context. Practically any morality will allow you to lie during a poker game. Practically none will allow you to lie in order to defraud someone. Life-denying moralities condemn people for committing infidelity. Life-affirming moralities do not.b) Integrity is not a word used to describe some who cheats and lies to the ones he supposedly cares about
Which I think speaks more to your knowledge of human sexuality research than it does to SW1's statement being incorrect.Actually no, the source is clearly the paper I linked to.The source for the stats is clearly from the work of Alfred Kinsey,
There are times you make sense and I agree with you, but you are so far off base on this issue it isn't even funny!
Blah, Blah, ................BlahI'm afraid so. I'm not going back and forth with you any more on this: You lied. People can see that you lied. You are too much of a pompous ass to admit that you lied.
At no point on any thread did I ever say that I had slept with my friend's wife, nor at any point did I ever say I was going to, or that I was formulating a scheme to. You attributed that to me, and it's false.
What I did is talk about whether it would be moral or immoral to do so, and asserted that if you knew there was no chance of being caught that it would not be immoral. That's all I ever said.
The further statements you attributed to me were lies. Initially you could be excused for perhaps misreading the earlier thread, which is why I gave you opportunities to restate. However even after having reviewed the thread, and even though you utterly failed to find any quote from me confirming your view, and even though I've pointed out repeatedly what I ACTUALLY said, you persist with your lie.
That demonstrates conclusively that you are a pompous ass who will never admit he's wrong even when he's shown conclusive proof. In this case there's no debate--my words were clear. What you attributed to me I never said, and YOU KNOW IT.
I did not lie, I just copied and pasted what you wrote in 2010
Just like morals and integrity, others will judge who is the morally reprehensible and untrustwothy one here.
Hey who is this thread about? ................Fuji the Fool
Fuji, You appear to have omitted responding to a simple direct question, as I predictedA very simple question for you
If you are the only person capable of judging your morals and integrity, why do you write post after post defending your morals and integrity?
If others opinion about your morals and integrity is completely moot, why not just ignore what they write ?
After all in your words " I am OK with that"
I bet you do not have the stones to answer this question in a straight forward and direct manner
The truth of the matter is that you know and believe that morals and integrity are in fact judged by others , however you have deluded yourself into thinking you are smart enough to argue your way out of anything, including inappropriate behavior.
This thinking on a different level crapola is just a convenient excuse for self -indulgence and betraying others.
Surely a self-proclaimed deep thinker like your self can answer a simple two line question
Bye the way please keep the response short, concise and to the point, you tend to ramble on and we will have to deduct points for that.
Surely a man of (far too) many words like yourself is not put off by a simple two line question
Surely a confident (egomaniac) self-assured person who only needs to answer to himself can reconcile these obviously divergent two views.
We are waiting
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
