The Bash Fuji Thread
- Thread starter havingfun
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
More double talk tryng to whitewah the issueYou are just repeating your ideology, apparently convinced that it is a truism. This is what I mean by your ideological narrow blindness.
Let me know if you ever have any reasons for the things that you think.
A morality based on principles is superior to mimicry.
You asked
I reposnded with the factors rational people consider when making a moral choicePut 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?
These factors you ignoreRational people like myself take into account
a) Societies norms
b) the affect our actions will have on others
c) the opinions of others
Rational people like myself do not try to
a) mislead, lie and cheat the ones we care about
b) dulude ourselfs with self-serving justifications for behaviour we know is immoral
So while I do take responsibility in the end for my moral decisions, I also give due consideration to how my actons might affect others, how most of society views the issue, and most importantly will I be put into a very uncomfortable position of having to mislead or lie to someone I care about.
Taking responsibility does not mean lying or cheating and it cetainly does not mean dulude ourselfs with self-serving justifications for behaviour we know is immoral.
You use words like repsonsibility, morals , integrity and you do not have the first clue what they mean.
Oh So now you are able to determine what society agrees withSociety does not agree, neither do I, and you appear to have no reason for the things you think.
Have you taken a quck curb side poll of what people think of you cheating on your wife and your so called thought experiment where you betry your frined by fucking his wife?
I am glad you disagree, I would hate to think you and I had anything in common.
When you cheat on your wife is that respectful of her ? No absolutely not, You think she is far too stupid to catch you
Similarly when a thief breaks into you house, he is displaying no respect for you
However , here is the catch, the theif usually chosses at random, while you do a dirty to someone you care about
Stolen property can be replaced, stolen trust is gone for good.
Finally a thief will not generally try to justify his crime with all the deep thinking babble bullshit you come up with
He would come out and say, I wanted the money.
In my opinion you are worse than the thief
I pitty your poor wifeI am strongly in favor of sexual hypocrisy. Better people are able to impose constraints on their sexual partners that they themselves avoid. You see it every day. The more desirable person in a relationship calls the shots and gets away with fucking around.
Long term exposure to a narcissistic, deceiving uncompromising knob like you is probably not good for her
Now your response will be to claim how you have enriched her life
Save your breath as "I do not believe you"
You're boring when you just restate your ideology over and over without any argument to justify your statements. No, I didn't consider you an authority, you are a narrow minded ideologue and if you want me to believe you then you are going to have to have reasons for the things you think.These factors you ignore
I don't consider the factors you have given to be relevant. If you have a reason why I should think do please provide it. If you have no reason just say it's a faith based religion and we will agree to disagree.
Last edited:
We have some objective data on this particular question, we know that an awful lot of people commit adultery. As previously linked on this thread and on others, we know that over 50% of men cheat, and that more would if they could. That's validated by genetic data which indicates our genes mix faster than monogamy would allow. Study after study confirms it -- adultery is a widespread and commonplace phenomena. Always has been. Always will be.Oh So now you are able to determine what society agrees with
According to you, but I don't believe you.Just because there is no specific law against adultery, it still is a socially unaccpetable behaviour.
Yup!Both actions display the same lack of respect for others.
Do not think for a second you are morally superior to common thief
Again right on the moneyYou are missing the issue altogethrer
Laws are passed based upon a societies collective beliefs and morals.
Just because there is no specific law against adultery, it still is a socially unaccpetable behaviour.
To dismiss that as irrelavant implies you do not realy care about societies morals
You will at some point apply that self-rightous justification to some other activity contrary to societies morals and you will pay a heavy price
While you can not be fined or inprisioned for adultery, if you wife get a divorce lawyer, "getiing fucked" will have a whole new meaning for you
I suspect a LOT more of them commit adultery, than commit white collar theft. Wouldn't you agree?Millionaires likely do not committ property crime, they may committ white collar theft though.
According to just about everyone I know.According to you, but I don't believe you.
Answer this
If is socially acceptable, why do not more people admit to it ?
Why do people go to extraordinary lengths to hide their shameful behavior ?
I don't believe you.According to just about everyone I know.
Because if your SO finds out you're cheating on her then (s)he will leave you. That has to be the dumbest question you have ever asked...If is socially acceptable, why do not more people admit to it ?
News flash for youAccording to you, but I don't believe you.
What you believe is completely 100% irrelevant to me
Do you think for one second, I give a rats ass what a moral degenerate like you believes ?
Do you think for one second that I am trying to convince you to change your evil ways?
No, you proved years ago that among other unsavory character flaws, you are incapable of compromise.
I only post her because it is "Kick a Fuji Day" and I enjoy exposing you for what you really are
For the record I don't give a rat's ass what a narrow minded ideologue who can't reason his way out of a paper bag thinks either. At least I have reasons for the things I think...News flash for you
What you believe is completely 100% irrelevant to me
Do you think for one second, I give a rats ass what a moral degenerate like you believes ?
Do you think for one second that I am trying to convince you to change your evil ways?
No, you proved years ago that among other unsavory character flaws, you are incapable of compromise.
I only post her because it is "Kick a Fuji Day" and I enjoy exposing you for what you really are
Now despite your distasteful personality and your plainly limited ability to reason, if you WERE to make debating points, with reasons for the things you think, I would be happy to respond to them. But you need to stop passing yourself off as some sort of authority, because you have the credibility of a house mouse, and I've got a mouse trap. You aren't the pope and I'm not catholic anyway, so try providing REASONS for the things you think. You know--REASONS.
Once again:
You need to provide reasons for the things you think, not just mindlessly and endlessly repeat your ideological view as though it stands on its own as a truism.
You do have reasons for the things you think, don't you???
Thus far it seems to be along the lines of I cheat, therefore I am.At least I have reasons for the things I think...
If she finds out she's cheating on you? Wouldn't she be the first to know?I don't believe you.
Because if your SO finds out she's cheating on you then (s)he will leave you. That has to be the dumbest question you have ever asked...
You go in circlesYou're boring when you just restate your ideology over and over without any argument to justify your statements. No, I didn't consider you an authority, you are a narrow minded ideologue and if you want me to believe you then you are going to have to have reasons for the things you think.
I don't consider the factors you have given to be relevant. If you have a reason why I should think do please provide it. If you have no reason just say it's a faith based religion and we will agree to disagree.
"I do what I want, because I am OK with it
If you disagree with me, That might force me to not do what I want
Because you disagree with me, I will call yoiur logic ideology and irrelavant
Because your logic is irrelavant, I do what I want"
You are demanding reasons for the things I think ?
Let me straighten you out
1. I suspect that is inappropriate use of the english language (Did you lose something in the transalation ?)
2. You demand nothing from me, get that clear in your head
3. The arguement I am making are clear and understood by all. You are choosing to brush them off because you do not have a logical response
4. Do you really think that your are fooling anyone with that crapola you just wrote?
Haha, I've corrected my typo, but that's funny.If she finds out she's cheating on you? Wouldn't she be the first to know?
We go in circles because you keep making circular arguments. You wrote (several times) things like "it is not my moral system it is societies moral system" and I challenged that by saying that my moral system was not a popularity contest, that my moral system was based on principles. Ultimately your support for your original statement was just to come back and say "Rational people like myself take into account a) Societies norms..".You go in circles
It's completely circular. Your justification for saying that it's society's moral system is to say that rational people take into account societies norms.
I think it's not obvious to you that this is circular. I think that's because you are an ideologue. You have bought into this idea, and you now see it as a truism. You don't see any reason why you should have to defend a statement like "rational people like myself take into account societies norms". Why would rational people do that?
I have already told you that rational people base their morality on principles. We now have two competing propositions--moralities are based on social norms, or they are based on principles. I'm defending one, you're defending the other. If you want anybody to believe your proposition over mine you had better come up with some reasons!!
Now we can just agree to disagree at this point--you could say something like "I have no idea why basing morals on societies norms is better than principles, but that's how I do it, and it's a religious matter to me, I just believe in that."
Alternately you could try and produce some sort of reason WHY anyone should believe that basing your morality on "societies norms" is the right thing to do.
I can, and will, give you a lot of good reasons why it makes more sense to base morality on principles. I think most of the figures in history who are seen as eminently moral people were motivated by principle, rather than mimicing the norms of their society. I think there is much argument that norms of a society are generally a reasonable default, for evolutionary reasons, but not necessarily a GOOD morality.
In any case, if you get nothing out of this post, please at least get this:
You can't justify a statement by repeating it. You can either say it's just your belief, and admit that it is a faith-based assumption, or you can try and come up with some reasons why anybody should believe you.
OH...... Did I hurt your feelings?For the record I don't give a rat's ass what a narrow minded ideologue who can't reason his way out of a paper bag thinks either. At least I have reasons for the things I think...
Now despite your distasteful personality and your plainly limited ability to reason, if you WERE to make debating points, with reasons for the things you think, I would be happy to respond to them. But you need to stop passing yourself off as some sort of authority, because you have the credibility of a house mouse, and I've got a mouse trap. You aren't the pope and I'm not catholic anyway, so try providing REASONS for the things you think. You know--REASONS.
Once again:
You need to provide reasons for the things you think, not just mindlessly and endlessly repeat your ideological view as though it stands on its own as a truism.
You do have reasons for the things you think, don't you???
I have made very sound arguments which other appear to agree with
Its called understanding societies norms and conforming to societies expectations
Yet you seem to want to dismiss these because
a) I do not confirm to your very specific mode of logic, which is the root of the issue by the way
b) It pokes a hole in your self-serving justification
c) you do not like because it affects what you want- like a spoiled child would view it
I can out reason you any day of the week , because I morally correct
You on the other hand must lie, deceive and cheat, because that is your nature
And because of that nature you have no credibility
You try and compensate for this lack of credibility, by trying to
a) impose restrictions on the argument
b) Spin , spin, spin
No-one is buying your pathetic act
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
