They don't know the english good over there anyways. Can't blame them, in historical terms they have only recently become foreigners and aren't very good at it yet.
The ten solitudes of Toronto dating
- Thread starter fuji
- Start date
Nope. Not unless you ridiculously want to assert that I was once in favour of rape and child molestation! Oh.. but yeah you're the guy who accused me of being a psychopath and a bunch of other ludicrous claims.
Sorry, no, but there is no camel nose in the tent here. What I agreed was that there were certain universal principles that applied, like a prohibition of violence.
There's no cause to move from that principle to denying reality, which is that it is observably true, in every day life, as an empirical fact, that in any sexual relationship there is an inherent unfairness that cannot be eliminated.
I further said that it made no sense to tailor rules of morality to sexual behavior. The prohibition against violence is general and does not need to be tailored to sexual behavior. It's wrong to use physical violence to force someone to dig a ditch. It's wrong to use physical violence to force them to give a blow job. It's wrong REGARDLESS of the action you try and force.
Not so infidelity. You tried vainly to take some weak concept of "don't lie" and assert it as a universal moral principle, but it's not. We accept that people lie all the time. We do not condemn it, universally, the way we condemn violence.
For example, we do not condemn someone as immoral when they tell a white lie we do not conclude that they are a horribly immoral criminal. "Do I look fat in these Jeans / No you don't", a common white lie, is not considered immoral.
There are similarly many other cases in life where deception is accepted as being ordinary normal behavior, and not immoral.
What we DO have are moral codes against SPECIFIC kinds of deception. We tailor these rules to specific circumstances, so for example, we have a financial version--deception to achieve a financial gain is fraud, and we prohibit that. But deception in other circumstances, other than financial gain, is not.
So no, you can't argue that way.
I hear immigrant women are going to wear tags that indicate when they are eligible to be looked at, spoken to and dated by local men. They are obviously to naive to be trusted to make social decisions on their own until that mystical time when they become nationalized.
At that time they can be interacted with like Canadian women. Just state your intentions up front (preferably before you even have a chance to get to know them). Unfortunately there's no information in the thread about where you might actually meet some so it's a moot point.
Now you're being dishonest, that is not quite what I said. What I said was that it's inappropriate to have moral imperatives that most people violate. As an extreme example, it would be inappropriate to have a moral principle saying that it was immoral to sweat. We all sweat. It's part of the human condition. Making it immoral is life-denying, by asserting that who and what we fundamentally are is immoral.
The claim is not "everybody does it leave me alone", the claim is that it is inherently human, like breathing, therefore it cannot be immoral.
You are again dishonest. I've answered this. I've said that I agree universal principles apply. I simply pointed out that there is no universal principle against cheating, or against lying, or against any of the other components of infidelity. There are moral imperatives against those things in specific contexts, but not as a general rule. For an obvious counter-example, it's not immoral to deceive someone as part of a practical joke, and it's not immoral to tell your wife that she does not look fat, when really you think she does. However in some specific context we agree that lying is immoral--for example, lying to someone purely for financial gain is considered fraud, except of course when it happens during a game of poker. Violence, on the other hand, is immoral no matter whether you commit it for a sexual purpose, a business purpose, or to win a game of poker.
Again not true. I don't agree that you can invent new moral codes just for sexual behavior merely because they are a subset of human behavior. You can apply the universal moral principles, like prescription against violence, but you cannot say "oh it's a subset of human behavior therefore it's OK to make up any rule I like."
I have argued persuasively that it's inappropriate to generate moral rules that try and regulate sexual behavior specifically, as opposed to violence generally.
It doesn't matter whether people want the same or different things. It will remain the case that one person in the relationship will be able to extract more of what they want from the other, meaning extract more concessions from the other party, while making the fewest concessions of their own.
This boils down to mundane things like the couple that always does what the wife does on a date, because the husband doesn't have "the balls" in the relationship to say no, actually, he'd rather watch the action movie. In more extreme cases it's the couple where the husband is able to extract concessions from the relationship which enable him to cheat, while imposing on the wife conditions which prevent her from doing so.
In an unfair relationship WHATEVER it is you desire from the relationship, which will no doubt be different from what someone else desires, you will get more of in a relationship in which you have more power.
No, it's not quite like that, because in a sexual relationship the commodity is the other person and has a will of their own. Thus you are no dividing up some third item, you are dividing up each other, negotiating the dynamic that will govern your interactions with one another.
I'm OK with this approach if you don't take it too far. I sense you're verging back into Victorian territory here, in that you're going to attempt to model sexual relationships as a bargaining process, and then make simplifying assumptions to try and draw some conclusions as to how they'll go. I will have a problem with your simplifying assumptions, as I have argued that participants in sexual relationships do everything they can to increase the complexity of the relationship.
So while I agree generally that there is a sort of bargaining going on there, the participants are going to do everything they can to avoid following any "rules of bargaining" you propose.
For example, the theory of negotiation as it's generally taught in a formal sense proposes that you can strengthen your bargaining position by understanding what your BATNA is, your best alternative to a negotiated agreement. So if you're negotiating for a house, your negotiating position is stronger if you know how much you would have to pay for your 2nd choice, if you walked away from your 1st choice. This is somewhat like the person who enters a sexual relationship knowing that they have a little trim on the side if they want it--it's much easier for them to walk away from the relationship as they've got a plan B, and that should increase their power: They can make ultimatums with more confidence, for example, and more easily stare down ultimatums made against them.
So has theory of negotiation taught us something useful about sexual relationships here? No not in reality. In reality a sexual partner will seek to act outside the model to defeat any strategy brought by the other partner. In the case of the trim on the side the participants can and often do invasively look for any signs that the other partner is even trying to assess BATNA and punish that act in extremely severe ways. So for example, some women (or men) will act in apparently outrageous ways just because their partner looked at another woman (or man) in public. Why? To send a clear message that even any attempt to assess the availability of an alternative will in and of itself be dealt with harshly, even unreasonably. Will their partner stand idly by and accept this constraint? It depends... and so the complexity grows.
Thus normal approaches to dictated by the theory of negotiation break down, as the existence of BATNA in and of itself itself becomes part of the sexual battleground, and the contest rises above the "rules of negotiating" into sexualized attack by both partners on the nature of the rules themselves, for a partner who can alter the rules in a way that enables them to assess the availability of alternatives, while denying the other partner the ability to do the same gains an advantage in the sexual relationship.
This is why you can't make simplyfying assumptions, because the rules themselves are subject to debate.
Hijacking the thread. . . a good discussion and learning experience!!
Please go back to post #1 and tell me how on earth anyone has hijacked the thread unless you consider advice as to how to exploit immigrants is of positive value.
Whobee, let me guess you've never corresponded with a woman from overseas, that relationship has never developed to the point where you actually traveled to meet each other.
I'll also take a wild guess that you've never dated an immigrant who wasn't from the U.S., the U.K. or a Western European State.
I hope you cleaned out all the dolls " human like openings" before taking 'her' back to the shop. danmand hates leftovers.
As you were
.
I've dated one immigrant from the Philippines and also one from the U.K. Before there is a complaint, I did not date them at the same time.
There is no room for levity when discussing the ramifications of social interaction with immigrant women.
I don`t advocate dishonesty. That`s a misrepresentation of what I have said. I advocate sexual infidelity, and dishonesty only for that purpose. I am wholly against dishonesty as a debating practice, and if you want to persist with dishonesty in your debating points then I have nothing further to say to you.
I`ve responded to that point here: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-Fuji-Thread&p=3634335&viewfull=1#post3634335
There`s no point to duplicate the reply again on this thread.
I`ve given you a strong reason why that is so, one which you haven`t had any counter to. Sexual relationships are unlike all other human relationships. They are central to the reproductive/evolutionary process. No matter how you define evolution, whether you think the individual is the evolutionary unit, or the family, or the gene, in any case the sexual relationship between two individuals is the nexus which in practice drives the evolutionary process. Choice of a sexual partner is literally core and central to natural selection.
Everything that we are, everything that we have, all of our systems are all constructed as a support for this ongoing reproductive process. Our ability to speak language, to reason, and to have philosophies all exist at some level to better serve the sexual relationship, to give us advantages, and enable us to reproduce.
Thus they are the most complex of all human relationships. They are more complex than our most complex philosophy, their complexity makes a mockery of our moral codes, and our laws. They defy our ability to categorize, label, or contain.
Were there to be generally accepted rules of sexual conduct that everyone was mean to abide by, anyone who violated those rules would immediately have an evolutionary advantage over those who followed them.
Correct.
No, as I have pointed out, violence and consent are universal principles that we apply to everything. I`ve agreed with you before that it is moral codes that are designed to control the sexual process itself that are problematic, not moral codes that apply generally to all human behavior.
You previously tried to do an end run around that by claiming there was some moral prescription against lying that was universal, but there isn`t. You were silent when I pointed out that in relationships between individuals lying and dishonest is not always considered to be immoral, there are many cases in which it`s acceptable. On the other hand violence is never accepted. A similar story can be told with respect to consent.
Sure, if infidelity were achieved by committing acts of violence, then the acts of violence would be wrong.
Yup. Supposing we had a moral code that said an individual ought not to do anything that would result in sweating. We might excuse that individual for sweating on a 32C day if their air conditioner was broken, while noting disapprovingly that they should have been a little more vigilant in keeping up with maintenance. On the other hand, we would absolutely condemn a woman who went out for a jog in that heat, and came home sweating like a disgusting pig. How immodest!
Such a moral code could be contemplated. It would be a life denying moral code. It would sit in opposition to human nature.
I agree. But enough people do it enough of the time that it cannot be described as deviant behavior. It is normal human behavior, even if you were to argue that only 20 or 30% of us do it.
I`m happy with the way the sentence reads if you remove the word "new":
"I don`t agree that you can invent moral codes just for sexual behavior merely because they are a subset of human behavior."
I`ll stand by that as well. I`m sorry if adding the word `new` made the statement different than yours, I tried to summarize your view accurately. In any case the point is that a moral code intended specifically to regulate sexual behavior is doomed to fail, the way a law against sweating would fail--it would be so widely violated that you would wind up having to call practically everyone immoral. Now you can do that, if you want to adopt a life-denying moral code, again, I choose life.
Yes. I think that my sexual behavior is ultimately self actualizing, life affirming behavior. Carpe diem.
The Reverend Robert Herrick said:
It was 8:40 and 8:44pm when you made those replies.It was late at night
If you think that was late, how old are you? 98 years old??
50 percent cheat therefore it is OK to cheat.
Almost everyone thinks Fuji is a twat, I guess that means he must be a twat, using his standards that is.
BTW last time I checked, logging off of World of Warcraft at 6 in the morning does not count as coming home, because you are still in your parents basement.
A normal person even if telling the truth, if confronted with telling something unbelievable will understand that and agree to disagree. Only a pathological liar would continue to insist they are telling the truth. At least that has been my experience. The more he brags, the move he proves that he is full of shit.
Oh yeah, I forgot he doesn't care what we think <smirk>
If you want to pop that puppy's can, you don't have to grease him so hard jarhead.
Almost everyone thinks Fuji is a twat, I guess that means he must be a twat, using his standards that is.
BTW last time I checked, logging off of World of Warcraft at 6 in the morning does not count as coming home, because you are still in your parents basement.
A normal person even if telling the truth, if confronted with telling something unbelievable will understand that and agree to disagree. Only a pathological liar would continue to insist they are telling the truth. At least that has been my experience. The more he brags, the move he proves that he is full of shit.
Oh yeah, I forgot he doesn't care what we think <smirk>
If you want to pop that puppy's can, you don't have to grease him so hard jarhead.
Never trust EE immigrants. Last time I did that was a few years back. The night was young and all was going smashingly. But she must have put something in my drink because next thing I knew I awoke with my hands and legs tied to a bedpost in a rundown motel on Lakeshore. The decor was something out of a bad 80s movie - green curtains, orange carpet, and there as a M*A*S*H re-run playing on the small tv set. I felt a sharp pain in my spine and looked back, and all I could see was this crazy bitch's forearm shoved deep up my ass! "You like it Vladimir? You like, don't you?" she said joyously in a thick Slavic accent. I couldn't understand why she was calling my Vladimir. I screamed for mercy and must have blacked out soon after. I came to in what must have been hours later. I was lying in the bed, the restraints on my arms and legs had been removed. I was naked except for my boxers. I was still in great pain and as I made my way off the bed I noticed a pool of sweat, blood, urine, and semen in the spot where my ass had been. Suddenly I heard a knocking at the door. "Anybody there? Is it ok if I clean the room?" It was the motel maid. "No! Fuck off!" I shouted back angrily. I quickly got dressed in my clothes that somebody had left neatly folded on a chair facing the bed. My wallet was still in my pant pocket but the money and credit cards were missing. I darted for the door and never looked back.
I filed a report with the police but they mocked me. They even had the audacity to suggest that there was a lack of evidence for any of the above and that the physical trauma sustained to my ass had been self-inflicted. You can't trust the police on matters like this. They're nothing but a bunch of perverts in blue uniforms.
I filed a report with the police but they mocked me. They even had the audacity to suggest that there was a lack of evidence for any of the above and that the physical trauma sustained to my ass had been self-inflicted. You can't trust the police on matters like this. They're nothing but a bunch of perverts in blue uniforms.
It was only 8:12pm when you posted your last response. Luckily you didn't wait another thirty minutes until it was late or your humour detector would have been asleep!
Fuji said
"I don't advocate dishonesty. That's a misrepresentation of what I have said. I advocate sexual infidelity, and dishonesty only for that purpose"
I think Paul Bernardo here is just putting us on. I don't advocate dishonesty, I only advocate dishonesty. I mean come on, really? Whats next, he isn't gay, he just loves the smooth taste of cock? He isn't a racist, he just thinks some races are genetically superior to others, He doesn't read comic books, except for Marvel and DC, he is a vegetarian except he also eats meat.
"I don't advocate dishonesty. That's a misrepresentation of what I have said. I advocate sexual infidelity, and dishonesty only for that purpose"
I think Paul Bernardo here is just putting us on. I don't advocate dishonesty, I only advocate dishonesty. I mean come on, really? Whats next, he isn't gay, he just loves the smooth taste of cock? He isn't a racist, he just thinks some races are genetically superior to others, He doesn't read comic books, except for Marvel and DC, he is a vegetarian except he also eats meat.
I'm not going to reveal my identity on terb, so you no doubt won't believe me, but I have a career in my industry built on being widely trusted and respected, my job involves organizing people across multiple continents and multiple cultures, and the only way you can ever succeed at something like that is to be the guy everybody trusts.
Of course this is terb, it's anonymous, and I'm sure as hell not going to out myself here. So you can just say "I don't believe you" and for our purposes here that will be the end of the debate, unless we want it to degenerate it into "yes I am / no you aren't / yes I am / no you aren't".
Alternately you could discount whatever you think of me and continue the logical, rational debate in terms of an abstract person who is dishonest only with respect to sexual infidelity. That depersonalizes it, so you don't have to make it about me.
Only a pathological liar would keep insisting they are telling the truth at this point, any sane normal person would give up on the "I'm so cool" line because even if it were true, the evidence is so far against it, a sane normal person would give up trying to prove it.
I mean seriously, you still have not dropped it.
I also notice that you kinda missed my obvious point.
What was your obvious point? You want to get into a he-said/she-said about whether I am dishonest outside of the sexual arena? I see no reason why you wouldn't just take my word for it that I'm not, and if you won't just take my word for it, then let's discuss the morality of a hypothetical person who is like that.
