The Bash Fuji Thread

[JohnLarue]

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..".

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.

Blah, Blah, Blah

You are wrong and you know it, otherwise you would not have to decieve your wife

 

[The Fruity Hare]

Blah, Blah, Blah

You are wrong and you know it, otherwise you would not have to decieve your wife

Someone I worked for some time ago had the idea that he was vastly intellectually superior to everyone around him. He thought he was being very smooth in using his psychology on everyone around him. He didn't realize that everyone could see through him, the emperor had no clothes, so the joke was actually on him for many years.

He thought he was so smart (SMRT!) that he had an affair with a member of staff. His wife found out, left him, took the house and he had to sell his business.

There are some parallels here, but those people who think they are too smart don't realize they really aren't until it's too late. Then they still can't face reality. But everyone else can see it from a mile away.

 

[fuji]

Fruity, I have been caught cheating before. That time by my live in gf of four years. In the end I just married the woman I had been cheating with. Much as I don't think I will be caught again (some lessons learned) if I was it wouldn't be the end of the world.

Sure she would get half the house, but you know since she paid for half I think that's fair, and since I don't have trouble finding attractive women I guess i'll be ok.

 

[JohnLarue]

Fruity, I have been caught cheating before. That time by my live in gf of four years. In the end I just married the woman I had been cheating with. Much as I don't think I will be caught again (some lessons learned) if I was it wouldn't be the end of the world.

Sure she would get half the house, but you know since she paid for half I think that's fair, and since I don't have trouble finding attractive women I guess i'll be ok.

Absolutly no consideration for the affect this might jhave on your cuurent wife.
Its all about Fuji..................and absolutly noone else matters

The only difference between your morals and a bag of dog poo, is the bag

 

[fuji]

Meanwhile for you morality is merely a popularity contest. A smarter man than you would have been able to continue the debate intelligently, providing reasons for what he thinks. That would have been enjoyable. Sw1tch is your better as he at least gave it the old college try. You on the other hand ran out of intellectual oomph and fell back on potty humor.

 

[groggy]

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.

and

The more desirable person in a relationship calls the shots and gets away with fucking around.

These are two very interesting quotes, that I'll get to in a few minutes.

Most of this discussion has been on the topic that Fuji wants us to debate, is cheating common enough to be considered acceptable, but sidesteps the real moral issues of cheating. Assuming that what Fuji tells us is correct (he's a rich studmuffin married to a hot lady he screws and cheats on, and he's so successful he only needs to work either 10 hours a day or 3 hours a day - note suspension of disbelief while carrying argument on), he has taken some kind of traditional wedding vow with some 'hot' woman. Those wedding vows come with either an overt or an implied commitment to monogamy. Breaking that vow is breaking a social contract often punishable by the loss of half of your wealth. That's one social faux pas, but adding on to it lying takes it one level further. If he told his 'hot' wife 'look honey, I base my sense of self worth entirely on how many hot women I can screw so I'm going to screw lots' or even 'look honey, in the interest of affirming life I'm going to pay to screw lots of other hot women' he would at least give the appearances of being open to changing the terms of his wedding contract. In this day and age open relationships and modalities sanctioned by Dan Savage are socially acceptable, but all based on commitment to these terms by both parties. Once you start screwing around, lying about it and paying for it without informing the other half, it puts you in the social status of John Edwards. But we all know that on here, what's kept us all going for 13 pages is watching Fuji squirm as he tries to justify himself.

Sw1tch's posts have all nailed Fuji's logical fallacies so clearly, that I really don't even want to touch them.
Instead, I'd rather talk about the moral repercussions of those two quotes and Fuji's moral position.

Quote #1 - So Fuji believes that his life is validated and his self worth is based on how many 'hot' women he can sleep with. Typical of a sociopath, his self worth can only be based on pleasure to himself, his validation doesn't include others except as a mirror to how 'hot' he is. Even on an escort board, this type of rationale is childish to the extreme. Here we have a man how validates himself by the number of hot chicks he screws on a board where he can find hot chicks that will pretend to like screwing him for money. Can Fuji's life choices be validated by paying for sex? Is the paid illusion of attractiveness as life affirming as actually being hot?

Quote #2 - Summed up as 'if you're hot and rich you can get away with it'. This flies in the face of his 'rich people don't cheat and steal as much as poor people' argument, seems its more likely that his proposal should be that rich people just think they can get away with it (this is just following his argument and for the sake of amusement assuming that he is actually rich and representative of other rich folk).
More importantly and getting back on topic, all his moral mumbo jumbo is revealed as noise to justify him getting away with it, based off his thinking that he is hot and rich and can get away with it. Take this with his preference for paid dates and his requests for info on where to meet immigrant women, and this places him as one who seeks out ways to get the upper hand on women to get sex in order to validate his self worth.

So now he needs sex while holding the upper hand in order to validate himself. That is why we can declare him morally the bottom of the barrel on an escort review board. This is what places him as a sexual predator in the same moral standing as one Romeo Cormier.

Nice work, Romeo, in showing us where you stand.

 

[fuji]

Assuming that what Fuji tells us is correct

If you feel more comfortable discussing an abstract person that's fine with me.

Breaking that vow is breaking a social contract often punishable by the loss of half of your wealth.

I disagree. The proper division of the assets of a couple upon dissolution of a marriage is not punishment. It's the equitable division of property between two people who contributed, in various ways, to creating it. Yes, my wife would get half the house if we split up--but since she paid for half the house, isn't that fair? Oh yeah, I did marry a woman who pulls her weight.

If he told his 'hot' wife 'look honey, I base my sense of self worth entirely on how many hot women I can screw

Plainly you would have to be a moron to tell her that. I guess that's part of natural selection? Those dumb enough to say things like that simply aren't selected...

Sw1tch's posts have all nailed Fuji's logical fallacies so clearly, that I really don't even want to touch them.

Try connecting with reality one of these days. Sw1tch has made a few good points here and there, but many of his posts have been rife with basic logical errors, especially when he pretended to apply formal logic. However, I will say that he's about the only poster here who has actually taken the time to respond to what I'm saying, in two or three of his posts.

The rest of the replies have all been mindless.

So Fuji believes that his life is validated and his self worth is based on how many 'hot' women he can sleep with.

Is that the only thing I care about? No. But you would be lying if you tried to tell me it doesn't matter to you. Part of your measure as a man is the number and quality of women you can attract. Sex itself, although it's the objective, and a whole lot of fun, is in one way not what really validates you--it's being selected over other men.

Can Fuji's life choices be validated by paying for sex? Is the paid illusion of attractiveness as life affirming as actually being hot?

You're right that the civilian conquests are worth much more than the paid ones. There's two senses in which fucking hot women is validating. As I mentioned above, there is being selected. Plainly when it's an SP you are "selected" because you have the cash on hand, and for very few other reasons. So that's not very fulfilling. Then of course at a basic level there is connecting human desire to action--sex is a lot of fun, it is in and of itself at least a little fulfilling.

But, I take your point, and would agree that sex with an SP is really just glorified porn, it's a lot of fun, and any healthy, self actualized person is going to have fun and enjoy their life, but it isn't really a differentiator.

Not quite the same way that having a hot wife is a differentiator, or better yet, having a couple of civilian women on the side that are hotter than most other men's wives.

Quote #2 - Summed up as 'if you're hot and rich you can get away with it'. This flies in the face of his 'rich people don't cheat and steal as much as poor people'

I didn't say if you're hot and rich you can get way with it. That is just not what I said. I said that if you are hot and rich you have opportunities. The reason why lesser men cheat less often is not that they wouldn't be able to get away with it--it's that they don't have as many opportunities. They can't afford as many SP's, and they can't attract as many civilian women.

 

[rld]

Without wasting much time I should point out that Fuji's attempts to prove that there is an evolutionary or natural selection basis for his point are really, really ridiculous.

 

[fuji]

Without wasting much time I should point out that Fuji's attempts to prove that there is an evolutionary or natural selection basis for his point are really, really ridiculous.

Right, because even if you take the unit of evolution to be the gene, or the family, mate selection has nothing whatsoever to do with natural selection??????????????

You know, RLD, you're a funny guy. You read something, and then you make it overly complicated, and confuse yourself, and wind up saying something that just does not pass the laugh test. Like how you went on record that it would be fully legal for Canada to invade Maryland because we've got a common enemy on the other side of the planet.

Now you're trying to tell people that mate selection has nothing to do with evolution or natural selection because you read a few books that pointed out there's complex questions surrounding the issue. And you can say that with a straight face?

 

[rld]

Right, because even if you take the unit of evolution to be the gene, or the family, mate selection has nothing whatsoever to do with natural selection??????????????

You know, RLD, you're a funny guy. You read something, and then you make it overly complicated, and confuse yourself, and wind up saying something that just does not pass the laugh test. Like how you went on record that it would be fully legal for Canada to invade Maryland because we've got a common enemy on the other side of the planet.

Now you're trying to tell people that mate selection has nothing to do with evolution or natural selection because you read a few books that pointed out there's complex questions surrounding the issue. And you can say that with a straight face?

Mate selection only has to do with natural selection, when there are children being produced. You are not producing children in all these trysts now are you.

You are also trying to make what is known in scientific parlance as a weak "just so" argument (I am not even sure that it rises to that level). It is entirely possible that how females select mates in our culture has nothing to do with biological imperatives. It may be entirely a Lamarkian phenomena or predominantly so, which has nothing to do with natural selection.

And yes, I do read things and try to understand them. Unlike yourself.

And I never said it would be fully legal for Canada to invade Maryland. So, once again, you are lying.

Like many others who choose to abuse what natural selection means, and how it works, you are trying to justify your self-centered philosophy by a scientific theory which has nothing to do with it.

And you just ignore the second level of reasoning involved in the question. No surprise there either.

 

[fuji]

Mate selection only has to do with natural selection, when there are children being produced. You are not producing children in all these trysts now are you.

In that past that is exactly what would have happened. It's only been quite recently that we have had things like condoms, and they have only been in widespread use--if they even are in widespread use--for the past few decades. Hardly long enough to have had any evolutionary significant impact on our behavior.

It is entirely possible that how females select mates in our culture has nothing to do with biological imperatives.

True, but it's entirely impossible that how females select mates in our culture has nothing to do with biological consequences. In other words, women probably select mates for reasons like "pleasure" and "status" without contemplating directly what the biological implications are going to be, but the biological implications ARE going to be.

And I never said it would be fully legal for Canada to invade Maryland. So, once again, you are lying.

Maybe it was Maine. I specifically asked, and you specifically answered, that it would be acceptable for the JTF-2 to go after a target inside the United States if that target were related to Al Qaeda in some way, without bothering to get US consent. That is just a patently ridiculous claim that does not pass the laugh test.

It's typical of you: You read something, you make it complex in your own mind, you draw RIDICULOUS conclusions, and then you advance them with a straight face. You seem to be missing that sort of laugh-test audit that others have.

Right now you are advancing the patently ridiculous claim that mate selection has no effect on evolution.....

 

[rld]

In that past that is exactly what would have happened. It's only been quite recently that we have had things like condoms, and they have only been in widespread use--if they even are in widespread use--for the past few decades. Hardly long enough to have had any evolutionary significant impact on our behavior.

Your behaviour offers you no evolutionary advantage, by definition. There is also no evidence for your particular theory of sexual selection being an evolutionary trait. You can repeat the claim as often as you like, but you offer no evidence that the behaviour pattern that you are discussing relates to evolution at all. I suspect you don't even know what kind of evidence is needed to prove that a trait has come to exist through natural selection. Your ignorance in the field of evolution is profound.

True, but it's entirely impossible that how females select mates in our culture has nothing to do with biological consequences. In other words, women probably select mates for reasons like "pleasure" and "status" without contemplating directly what the biological implications are going to be, but the biological implications ARE going to be.

Which has nothing to do with natural selection now does it? This paragraph may actually defeat your entire argument on its own.

Right now you are advancing the patently ridiculous claim that mate selection has no effect on evolution.....

You seem to have this backwards. Don't you mean to argue the reverse, that natural selection has an impact on mate selection? I am quite comfortable in saying that mate selection has no impact on evolution...

You can't even get your own argument the right way round. No wonder the fact that the natural world is complex baffles you so.

 

[fuji]

Your behaviour offers you no evolutionary advantage, by definition.

Having multiple sexual partners has no evolutionary advantage?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Hahahahahahaha

Hahahahahahhahahhahahahahaha hahahahaha ahahahaha

oihhhhhh

ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

<breath>

hahahahahahahha ha hahahhaha hah ahah aha hhahahahaha hhaha haha hahahahahaha

hahahahaha

hahahahahahahahahahahaha

Thanks for the laugh, RLD!

 

[fuji]

Don't you mean to argue the reverse, that natural selection has an impact on mate selection?

Sorry, had to catch my breath there, I was laughing too hard.

It goes like this, I'm sorry if this is too complex for you:

For men: Those who have more sexual partners have more children, thus their traits are selected over the traits of people who have fewer sexual partners.

For women it's more complex, but there are a few ways to derive advantages from infidelity and/or multiple sexual partners. One is that mixing DNA with a wider selection of mates is going to maximize the odds that at least one of her offspring winds up with a desirable trait. Two is more social, that she can select the most physically healthy male to mate with, while persuading the most financially successful male to support her.

 

[rld]

Having multiple sexual partners has no evolutionary advantage?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Hahahahahahaha

Hahahahahahhahahhahahahahaha hahahahaha ahahahaha

oihhhhhh

ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

<breath>

hahahahahahahha ha hahahhaha hah ahah aha hhahahahaha hhaha haha hahahahahaha

hahahahaha

hahahahahahahahahahahaha

Thanks for the laugh, RLD!

You have mastered the run away. You get your own arguments backwards and don't have the balls to admit it. Some things never change.

You can have all the women in the world, but if you are not having children with them...it offers you no evolutionary advantage.

And you again, offer no evidence for your theory. Because there is none.

You are simply intellectually bankrupt.

 

[fuji]

Wait wait wait... are you still saying there is no evolutionary advantage to having multiple sexual partners?????????

Really?????

Or is it your argument that evolved human behavior has changed as rapidly as technology, that the last ~50 years or so is enough generations of humans to undo the last ~million years of evolution?

You really need to learn to audit what you say to check whether it passes the laugh test. Throwing up all kinds of false complexities might work for you in some contexts, but on a message board, it's just going to produce howls of laughter when you say something completely implausible, like Canada can legally invade the USA, or like this.

 

[rld]

Wait wait wait... are you still saying there is no evolutionary advantage to having multiple sexual partners?????????

Really?????

Or is it your argument that evolved human behavior has changed as rapidly as technology, that the last ~50 years or so is enough generations of humans to undo the last ~million years of evolution?

That is not what I said. I said there is no evolutionary advantage in your conduct...because you are not producing children. In fact your process...having multiple partners without having children, would seem to be a contra-evolutionary conduct. But I suspect you are not smart enough to see how obvious that is.

Where is your evidence Fuji? The first thing you need to prove is that evolution works at the genetic level...and by what mechanism that takes place. But you are too dumb to even understand the issues. You just keep babbling. Which is why people think so poorly of you.

And do you agree that mate selection does not effective evolution? You got it backwards...

If you had an honest bone in your body you would admit it, but you don't.

What you need to do is realize that you are not well informed in many areas, including obviously law and basic evolutionary biology, and stop saying such stupid things.

Try this simplified version (since you the whole process backwards and defeated your own argument...):

What survival advantage does having sex with multiple partners offer an organism?

And what evidence is there for that advantage.

Then you can tell us about how Giraffes' necks evolved...

 

[fuji]

I just have to say this... There is no way in he'll that Fuji is rich, married to a hawt woman or beds as many hot civilian women as he says.

To clarify, I am not rich. I have a very good income, but I do have to work for a living. In my books you are "rich" when you no longer have to work.

Fuji - what is your net worth and how did you make your money?

I have a fairly senior position in the Canadian branch of a fortune 500 company, where I manage a team of people, most of whom earn in the ~100k range. My net worth I'm not going to discuss with you. I've previously said my income is roughly in the top 1% in Canada and I'll leave it at that.

My work day is such that if there are no major fires to fight I have a lot of free time during the day, when things are going well my guys are all pretty self managing. Other days, other weeks, I have no time at all. My work either slams me completely, or leaves me with free time. Basically if I'm doing my job well there should not be a crisis to solve and I should have a lot of free time. Doesn't always work out that way, but I usually have several days a week with a lot of slack in the ~10hours/day I'm in the office.

I noticed he said that his wife contributes a lot financially to the marriage - I bet he leeches off of her.

Also if you're wealthy that means she's wealthy. How did she make her Moolah?

I make more money than she does, but she does have a good income. We have an agreement to share all the joint costs in the marriage, so for example she owns and paid for half of our home. She has what would be considered a good job in finance, though it is not as good as my job. Her goal is to break into iBanking though at which point she could realistically out-earn me, but she's not there yet.

She does earn more money than I did when I was her age (she's 10 years younger).

 

[fuji]

I'm not sure a manager of a Fortune 500 company is in the top 1%

For reference, top 1% starts roughly around the $200k mark.

 

[fuji]

Well we started off pretty bad. "Life". Does that term meaningfully delimited the elements it is meant to subsume?

Who and what we are, our existence in this world, as opposed to in some religious afterlife.

I note that now you have become a pedant, challenging terms that everybody understands just to avoid admitting that you've lost the debate. Do you want to keep trying to reduce this until it comes down to a mathematical construct? At that point you are not debating, you are engaging in pedantry.

Sure, in some sense you can keep going until we are defending "I think therefore I am", but that is a pedantic way to proceed. In good debating you have an onus to strive to understand your opponent's point, not pedantically start challenging definitions of basic, commonly accepted words, where doing so adds nothing constructive to the debate.

This time "normal", which in it's use here obscures whether the behavior, cheating, is normal in the sense that everyone does it, most do it, a significant proportion do it, if it is done is it done few times or many, is it broadly sanctioned even when done, and so on and so on.

More pedantry. If you think you can win the debate by being a pedant you are a fool. You simply make yourself look like a pedant.

You do not honestly have trouble comprehending this sentence: A moral code is a bad moral code if it prescribes against things most people do..

Has Fuji fully explained cheating prior to #4?

Your pedantry has reached such a level that you are now expecting us to believe you have trouble understanding the word "cheating".

There have indeed been many interesting discussions on terb. One narrow definition, used in the research that says 50% of men cheat, is that cheating is simply sexual intercourse by a married man with someone who is not his wife. However on terb we have generally agreed on a broader definition, which in terb speak is "it's cheating if your partner would say it's cheating", or if you are such a pedant that you need that stated more explicitly, it's sexual activity by one partner, kept secret from the other partner, which the other partner would not approve of if knew about it. That broader definition allows sexual intercourse with a 3rd person to be NOT cheating if it's approved, meanwhile condemning a mere blowjob as cheating if the wife wouldn't have accepted that. (In the example of male cheating. Substitute female anatomy to produce the female example, if you want to be pedantic.)

Technically

Drop the pedantry. It's boring. If you have a point to make, make it. Challenging terminology that everybody understands, for no point, other than to pedantically argue with anything and everything, makes you look foolish.