The Bash Fuji Thread

[fuji]

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?

As I told you my morals are based on principles. As such it's interesting to explore moral questions through debate. It's part of the process of reasoning about things. Shouldn't that be obvious???

 

[Aardvark154]

As I told you my morals are based on principles.

Pray tell what "principle" is it that says seducing your friends wife is a good thing?

 

[JohnLarue]

As I told you my morals are based on principles. As such it's interesting to explore moral questions through debate. It's part of the process of reasoning about things. Shouldn't that be obvious???

Q1. Why would you debate your morals or principles if your judgement of them is the only judgement that matters and is absolute and above question ?

Q2 If it is the process of reasoning , then it to seek out the answer to questions. However that does not apply since according to you, you are OK with your messed up approach to your morals and you are the only one who can properly access / judge your morals ?

Please try again

 

[fuji]

Pray tell what "principle" is it that says seducing your friends wife is a good thing?

First you're aware that's a thought experiment based on the unrealistic assumption that he would never know?

The principle is practically a pragmatic one: Individuals who are able to be selected more often, by more sexual partners, are leading more fulfilling lives, being validated by their life choices, and in doing so affirm life.

 

[fuji]

Q1. Why would you debate your morals or principles if your judgement of them is the only judgement that matters and is absolute and above question ?

All I've asserted, JL, is that we are each the final arbiter of what we believe, and we choose for ourselves which moral system, which religion, which philosophy, which ideology we are going to follow in our lives. Plainly we exist in a social context, none of us entirely make these things up ourselves, we learn about the alterantives that exist in our society, we choose between them, and hopefully we are each able to incrementally add on to what we've learned from others.

I answered this question already, "it's interesting to explore moral questions through debate. It's part of the process of reasoning about things."

I'm not sure what part of that answer you have difficulty comprehending.

Q2 If it is the process of reasoning , then it to seek out the answer to questions. However that does not apply since according to you, you are OK with your messed up approach to your morals and you are the only one who can properly access / judge your morals ?

The counter question is who else is going to decide for you, JL, what morals you will believe in? Plainly at the end of the day you're the only one who can choose which religion you will follow, which moral system you will subscribe to.

Your question implies that we could all possibly be just zombies, forced into a certain path, with no personal choice whatsoever.

I would think, given the ideology that you so blatantly subscribe to, that you would be a big believer in personal choice!

 

[fuji]

My point was that Fuji commits the naturalistic fallacy, in reasoning from there is cheating to there ought to be cheating

That's still not really what I said. Let me put it in a numbered form so that it is blatantly obvious:

#1 - It is better to affirm life than to deny life. This is an assumption, you can disagree with it.

#2 - Cheating is so widespread that it can only be described as normal human behavior. This is simply fact in evidence.

#3 - A moral code which prescribes against normal human behavior would not be a life affirming moral code, it would be in opposition to life, a life denying moral code

#4 - A moral code which prescribes against cheating would be prescribing against normal human behavior

#5 - Such a moral code would be life denying, rather than life affirming

#6 - Thus such a moral code would be a bad moral code

Now you can indeed challenge the assumption in point #1. In crying "naturalistic fallacy" you appear to be doing that, and I note that many fundamentalist religious groups do so. For example, the Muslim extremists who cry "we love death more than you love life" plainly do not agree that a moral code should be a life affirming moral code. There are also many variants of Christian theology which describe the entire world as an immoral, evil, disgusting, horrible place.

I don't have any way to persuade you that it is better to affirm life rather than deny life, I think that's a personal choice. If you want to say "I love death more than you love life" then I will accept that's your view.

But I choose life.

 

[JohnLarue]

I answered this question already, "it's interesting to explore moral questions through debate. It's part of the process of reasoning about things."

I'm not sure what part of that answer you have difficulty comprehending.

!

What a pile of shit

Look, You have clearly conflicting issues here
On one hand , you are able to justify your inappropriate behavior by stating that you are the only judge of your behavior which really matters
On the the other hand you expel a huge amount of time , effort trying defending your inappropriate actions.

All your bullshit about exploring morals through debate, thought experiment and reasoning process is illogical double talk.

The counter question is who else is going to decide for you, JL, what morals you will believe in? Plainly at the end of the day you're the only one who can choose which religion you will follow, which moral system you will subscribe to.

The answer to that question is society
If a persons behavior is unacceptable, then they are
a) fined
b) Jailed
c) shunned
d) executed
e) subject to ridicule and abuse (like 110 posts)
f) encouraged to leave and find a society which accepts their immoral behavior (hey, lets explore that one for you)
Depending on the severity of the offense and the society


However you feel that in your case, societies judgment of your behavior is irrelevant, which is a sad commentary on your character.

It also indicates a strong probability that at one point you will cross the line and justify a far more serious behavioral problem with "I am OK with this , therefore thats all that matters".

I doubt a judge will give much of a break with that line of defense, you would be better to plead insanity and ask for professional help

or "Honest Your Honor I was just conducting a thought experiment and it all when bad"
or
" Well your Honor, how about we engage in a reasoning process to see if we can resolve this problem ?"

or
" Hey buddy, put down that Bat, I am an honorable man with strong morals and impeccable integrity (because I say I am).
I screwed your wife because after long and thoughtful self assessment, I determined "I am OK with That" and how it affects you is not important to me"

Your grade on this assignment is "F"

Take a step back and listen to your self objectively
A reasonable person would question their own judgment if subjected to redicule and abuse from so may as you have been

Surly you do not think your self to be so superior that there is no chance in hell any of the posters in this thread (or hundreds of others threads where your morals were questioned) might be smarter than you?

No chance in hell someone else may have a better a better understanding of morality, integrity or mental health ?

 

[Aardvark154]

So Fugi again how is your great statement that cheating left right and sideways isn't a failing but rather a great good any different than the following:

Murder is so widespread that it can only be described as normal human behavior. This is simply fact in evidence.

A moral code which prescribes against normal human behavior would not be a life affirming moral code, it would be in opposition to life, a life denying moral code

A moral code which prescribes against murder would be prescribing against normal human behavior

Such a moral code would be life denying, rather than life affirming

Thus such a moral code would be a bad moral code

What a load of codswallop!

 

[Aardvark154]

What a pile of shit"

Hey buddy, put down that Bat, I am an honorable man with strong morals and impeccable integrity (because I say I am). I screwed your wife because after long and thoughtful self assessment, I determined "I am OK with That" and how it affects you is not important to me"

You can certainly say the first again, and boy isn't the second on the money.

 

[fuji]

So Fugi again how is your great statement that cheating left right and sideways isn't a failing but rather a great good any different than the following

Because murder isn't so widespread and cannot be described as normal, ordinary behavior. Shouldn't that be obvious????

 

[fuji]

Look, You have clearly conflicting issues here
On one hand , you are able to justify your inappropriate behavior by stating that you are the only judge of your behavior which really matters
On the the other hand you expel a huge amount of time , effort trying defending your inappropriate actions.

Put yourself on the line: Is it your view that someone else is choosing your morals for you? Or do you take responsibility for your own morality, at the end of the day?

You like to talk, but I can't fathom how you can disagree with the point that each and every one of us is ultimately the arbiter of our own morality.

Your idea that we cannot discuss morality because we all end up choosing for ourselves in the end is... inane.

 

[fuji]

The answer to that question is society

No. That's law. Society implements law, not morality. And I have already pointed out to you that society has rejected the idea of criminalizing or punishing adultery. The law's view on adultery is that it is equivalent to a one year separation--it's grounds for a divorce. Nothing more. Nothing less. That is very reasonable--it leaves it in the hands of individuals to decide how they want to deal with their sexual relationship in the face of adultery. The law doesn't take a stand, one way or another, other than it acknowledges that if the parties want to end the relationship adultery can be a reason to do so.

 

[fuji]

Hey FatOne, if you're tracking my posts on terb to see if I have a life, just a note that I'm going out on my date now.

See you guys tomorrow! Have a great Saturday night.

 

[Malibook]

I doubt a judge will give much of a break with that line of defense, you would be better to plead insanity and ask for professional help

I`m sure fuji could find numerous character witnesses who can back up his insanity plea or he could just give the judge access to his TERB account. :biggrin1:

 

[Malibook]

If everybody put fuji on ignore, would the self-absorbed arrogant attention whore still make noise? :blah:

 

[Aardvark154]

Because murder isn't so widespread and cannot be described as normal, ordinary behavior. Shouldn't that be obvious????

Murder, Attempted Murder and Aggravated Assault certainly are quite common in certain locations.

 

[afterhours]

That's still not really what I said. Let me put it in a numbered form so that it is blatantly obvious:

#1 - It is better to affirm life than to deny life. This is an assumption, you can disagree with it.

#2 - Cheating is so widespread that it can only be described as normal human behavior. This is simply fact in evidence.

#3 - A moral code which prescribes against normal human behavior would not be a life affirming moral code, it would be in opposition to life, a life denying moral code

#4 - A moral code which prescribes against cheating would be prescribing against normal human behavior

#5 - Such a moral code would be life denying, rather than life affirming

#6 - Thus such a moral code would be a bad moral code

Now you can indeed challenge the assumption in point #1. In crying "naturalistic fallacy" you appear to be doing that, and I note that many fundamentalist religious groups do so. For example, the Muslim extremists who cry "we love death more than you love life" plainly do not agree that a moral code should be a life affirming moral code. There are also many variants of Christian theology which describe the entire world as an immoral, evil, disgusting, horrible place.

I don't have any way to persuade you that it is better to affirm life rather than deny life, I think that's a personal choice. If you want to say "I love death more than you love life" then I will accept that's your view.

But I choose life.

Theft is also wide spread. Doesn't make it right.

 

[Aardvark154]

Society implements law, not morality.

Where on earth do you get that idea.

society has rejected the idea of criminalizing or punishing adultery.

Actually that isn't the case, in several Common Law jursidictions it is still a criminal offense.

Further to say that merely because something has been decriminalized means society thinks it is just hunky dory is total nonsense.

 

[afterhours]

Where on earth do you get that idea.

Actually that isn't the case, in several Common Law jursidictions it is still a criminal offense.

Further to say that merely because something has been decriminalized means society thinks it is just hunky dory is total nonsense.

I have heard a female judge saying regarding female adultery "when a woman is denied affection she will look for it elsewhere". (The guy was convicted for harassment.)

So it would seem that at least a female adultery is totally hunky dory.

 

[JohnLarue]

No. That's law. Society implements law, not morality. And I have already pointed out to you that society has rejected the idea of criminalizing or punishing adultery. The law's view on adultery is that it is equivalent to a one year separation--it's grounds for a divorce. Nothing more. Nothing less. That is very reasonable--it leaves it in the hands of individuals to decide how they want to deal with their sexual relationship in the face of adultery. The law doesn't take a stand, one way or another, other than it acknowledges that if the parties want to end the relationship adultery can be a reason to do so.

And just what do you think laws are based upon?

When the legislatures pass a law (e.g. outlawing the distribution of cocaine) it is based on what they feel is the moral beliefs of thier constituants or what they feel is the morally correct coarse of action.

Have you ever heard of the phrase socially unacceptable (e.g reference to smoking in resturants) ?

Your behaviour wrt to your wife is socially unacceptable
Your behaviour wrt your friends wife is socially repugnant.

Your saving grace is that you have not thus far been caught
You will get caught one day and the ones you say you care for ( bullshit) will view you in an entirly new (and very negative) light.

You will tell your wife "Look I am OK with it"
She will kick you in the nuts and say "Well I am not OK with it"