The ten solitudes of Toronto dating

[red]

So...

Fuji tried to argue there is no such thing as a fair sexual relationship, thus everyone strives to make them unfair. When it was pointed out this involves a contrary relationship, to the effect both cannont be true, leaving his claim false or banal, Fuji just tried to say the logical error was mine. It makes no difference to Fuji that I was copying his reasoning and showing it to be false or banal.
End result: Fuji backed into a banal argument (degrees of fairness)

Fuji tried to reason from cheating happens to cheating is good. That is the naturalistic fallacy. Fuji responded no, no fallacy, because he was saying cheating happens alot. Still the naturalistic fallacy.
End result: Fuji doesn't recognize the naturalistic fallacy as a fallacy

Fuji tried to establish that power dynamics are all there is to sexual relationships by presuming power dynamics are all there is to sexual relationships and concluding that power dynamics are all there is to sexual relationships. Technically this is special pleading, a fallacy in which the reasoner assumes a definition or model they are trying to establish is the only viable one.. On Fuji's case, he presumes a model of sexual relationships as based on power dynamics as the only model of sexual relationships.
End result: Fuji wants sexual relationships to just be the dirtiest player wins, so he invents a convoluted argument to pretend that is the only kind anyway. Special pleading.

Fuji tried to derive his social ideology from first principles. That turned put to be a "no true Scotsman" fallacy, a fallacy in which a definition of a word or articulation of a problem is included in the wording or articulation of a thing attempting to be proved. In Fuj's case, he pretended to establish something about human nature (cheatng) by including in his definition of human nature cheating.
End result: Fuji cannot reason properly even from principles he invents.

But apparently it is I that offer botched attempts at formal logic. Which Fuji demonstrats by showing where the error in my logic arises.....nope, he just says I botched things and calls me names. That just won't do. Put up or shut up when it comes to logic.

All Fuji's logical errors strongly support the conclusion that Fuji is seeking any old way to justify being a total low life. It is not a coincidence that psychopaths are typically high social functioning individuals, capable of spinning yarns and sustaining public lives to mask their hidden lives.

I feel very sorry for Fuji's wife. The combination of a (male) narcissist and psychopath typically means their (female) partner will fall closer to the ends of a spectrum: on one end a drama queen and on the other an empathetic caregiver. It's likely poor Mrs Fuji is one of these. The partners always get frustrated for one reason or the other, in the end, and poor Mrs fuji probably won't share Fuji's belief that he was good for her. More like a waste of her time.

why on earth would you believe he is married?

 

[fuji]

When it was pointed out this involves a contrary relationship, to the effect both cannont be true, leaving his claim false or banal, Fuji just tried to say the logical error was mine.

There is no contrary relationship. In order to pretend that there was a contrary relationship you had to mis-state my claims. When they are stated properly there is no contrary relationship. The proper statement:

1- People have an incentive to increase the unfairness present in sexual relationships
2- Sexual relationships are inherently unfair

Statement 2 is simply observed fact. Statement 1 arises from contemplating evolutionary pressures, and could be proposed as the cause of 2.

Fuji tried to reason from cheating happens to cheating is good.

No, I did not do that. That is a misrepresentation of what I said. I see a pattern here now--you continually attempt to misrepresent my views, because that's the only way you can argue against them.

I made two claims here, separate claims:

1. Any moral code that specifically restricts sexual behavior is a bad moral code

2. Maximizing the number of sexual partners you have connects human desire with action and is life affirming

Claim #1 serves only to shut down any moral code that asserts cheating is wrong.

Claim #2 independently provides reasons why cheating is good.

Fuji tried to establish that power dynamics are all there is to sexual relationships by presuming power dynamics are all there is to sexual relationships and concluding that power dynamics are all there is to sexual relationships.

NOWHERE did I argue that power dynamics are all there is to sexual relationships. I have only asserted that power dynamics exist in all sexual relationships. I have not said that there is nothing more to sexual relationships!

Sw1tch I appreciate that you are actually trying to tackle the issues, many posts are not--but can you make an effort to do so without misrepresenting my views? It's somewhat boring to point out to someone that they are misrepresenting you. Now sometimes that happens by accident, maybe you misread something, maybe my statements weren't clear. But now that I've given you a hopefully clear understanding of what my position is I'd appreciate your responding to MY position, rather than some distorted, misrepresented, straw man version of it.

 

[rld]

You have clearly not contemplated "evolutionary pressures" very much.

And for you to criticize someone else for allegedly mischaracterizing your arguments is the height of hypocracy.

 

[fuji]

...

Where's the beef? Another content free post from you. Bunch of insinuations, but nothing of substance.

 

[rld]

Where's the beef? Another content free post from you. Bunch of insinuations, but nothing of substance.

I don't have to adduce, evidence you are the one trying to prove the theory.

Where is your evidence that evolutionary pressures on sexual selection have led to your pattern of conduct? There is none.

At least I don't indulge in your favourite tactic of "argument from self-aggrandizement."

 

[fuji]

Where is your evidence that evolutionary pressures on sexual selection have led to your pattern of conduct?

What are you disputing here, that people cheat?

That sexual relationships are complex?

You're not disputing anything. You're just making a bunch of random insinuations.

 

[rld]

What are you disputing here, that people cheat?

That sexual relationships are complex?

You're not disputing anything. You're just making a bunch of random insinuations.

I am suggesting there is no evidence for your suggestion that human "cheating" has been caused by natural selection.

Nothing random about it.

I am also suggesting you are so ignorant in this field you don't even know what kind of evidence is required to prove that a trait or behaviour has come to pass through natural selection.

 

[fuji]

So what has led to human cheating being such a commonplace, ordinary, normal behavior, in your view?

 

[rld]

So what has led to human cheating being such a commonplace, ordinary, normal behavior, in your view?

If it is commonplace, and I don't know that it is, the simple answer is; I don't know.

 

[fuji]

If it is commonplace, and I don't know that it is, the simple answer is; I don't know.

The argument on this thread hasn't required the evolutionary line, you know. It's much simpler on this thread. Just that it's wrong to prescribe against ordinary behavior, that such a morality is not useful. Why it's ordinary behavior isn't important. Then, having eliminated any objection to cheating, I've given some reasons why it's a positive things, in terms of being life affirming.

Yes you can add on some evolutionary arguments as an adjunct to all that, to explain why cheating is so common, or why it is life affirming, but it's not strictly necessary here for the argument to carry.

That said I'm going to have another good belly laugh if you REALLY want to claim that mate selection doesn't result in the selected mates reproducing more.

 

[rld]

The argument on this thread hasn't required the evolutionary line, you know. It's much simpler on this thread. Just that it's wrong to prescribe against ordinary behavior, that such a morality is not useful. Why it's ordinary behavior isn't important. Then, having eliminated any objection to cheating, I've given some reasons why it's a positive things, in terms of being life affirming.

Yes you can add on some evolutionary arguments as an adjunct to all that, to explain why cheating is so common, or why it is life affirming, but it's not strictly necessary here for the argument to carry.

That said I'm going to have another good belly laugh if you REALLY want to claim that mate selection doesn't result in the selected mates reproducing more.

I have never claimed your dishonest last line. The only way for your arguments to hold water is for you to blantently lie, multiple times. How sad is that?

Your assertion that it is wrong to prescribe against "ordinary behaviour" is also foolish. This is not a concession that cheating is "ordinary behaviour."

Let's say I found a place where 50%+ of the people thought it was okay to discriminate on the basis of race, or a place where 50% of the people thought it was okay to own human slaves...or a country where people thought it was "ordinary" to want to wipe Israel off of the map...

I would have thought even you would have seen that obvious flaw...

And the term "life affirming" makes your argument completely self centered, and a waste of time. The simple fact is that you don't have the balls to engage in a real debate or argument, you run for distractions or crutches at the first sign of reality...

 

[fuji]

Let's say I found a place where 50%+ of the people thought it was okay to discriminate on the basis of race, or a place where 50% of the people thought it was okay to own human slaves...or a country where people thought it was "ordinary" to want to wipe Israel off of the map...

Two answers:

1. Cheating appears to be commonplace behavior universally, not just in "a place"

2. It's commonplace behavior in our place

 

[rld]

Two answers:

1. Cheating appears to be commonplace behavior universally, not just in "a place"

2. It's commonplace behavior in our place

Your argument was that ordinary behaviours should not be prescribed by a moral code. The examples I have given have proven why that cannot be the case. You need to adjust the foundation of your argument or pull the ripcord on this loser.

It seems you are having a rough day. Your logic is getting slaughtered on another thread, and multiple requests for evidence to support the evolutionary part of your theory have resulted in you abandoning it. Oh well.

 

[fuji]

Your argument was that ordinary behaviours should not be prescribed by a moral code. The examples I have given have proven why that cannot be the case.

No, you have proven nothing. My point #1, that you quoted and ignored, what that cheating is commonplace everywhere, like breathing and sleeping, not just in "a place", as in your example.

Second, do you REALLY want to advance the argument that our society is wholesale immoral? That's what I"m getting at with #2, you have to make that argument, if you want to advance this particular counter-claim.

 

[fuji]

Any? Really? ANY?

Sorry, you're right: I allowed that you could choose to adopt a life-denying morality, and in that case I would just agree to disagree with you.

 

[rld]

No, you have proven nothing. My point #1, that you quoted and ignored, what that cheating is commonplace everywhere, like breathing and sleeping, not just in "a place", as in your example.

Second, do you REALLY want to advance the argument that our society is wholesale immoral? That's what I"m getting at with #2, you have to make that argument, if you want to advance this particular counter-claim.

I am not advancing a counterclaim, but why would I expect you to notice that.

Another dishonest diversion.

You have neither logic, nor evidence. Your argument is completely empty.

Comparing cheating to eating and sleeping shows just how desperate you have become.

 

[fuji]

suggestion they deem it socially unacceptable.

You've failed to comprehend this point a few times, the difference between empirically observing what people do, versus listening to what they say is right/wrong, so I'm going to give this its own post:

Although I think a great many people have no real issue with cheating (when it's not being done TO THEM), for the sake of argument I am willing to grant that cheating is deemed socially unacceptable in our society at this time.

That has no bearing on the argument I'm making. Stop and consider why. Make sure you understand.

The observation is that, regardless of what is deemed or not deemed socially acceptable, cheating is commonplace human behavior. Therefore the morality that condemns it is a bad morality, even if that is the currently prevailing moral view. It is causing people to feel guilty about doing something that is a natural, human activity.

 

[fuji]

I am not advancing a counterclaim, but why would I expect you to notice that.

OK, then your'e just farting. You began a line of argument as an objection to mine which, if your point is true, would require you to condemn the behavior of a majority of men in our society, perhaps including yourself. However you aren't really doing that, so you're doing what? Insinuating? Farting?

 

[fuji]

...

Aside from pedantically questioning the definitions of some words, Sw1tch, you haven't demonstrated any real credible problem with the argument. You're trying to argue it down to the "I think therefore I am level" to distract from the fact that, if you answer charitably, without being a pedant, you don't really have a counter-claim.

Cheating is observably normal behavior, no matter how much you may want to pedantically quibble with the words "cheating" and "normal". Everybody gets the point. Including you. This is just fact in evidence.

The debate, if there is one, is going to be around the framework by which moralities themselves are judged. My position is a pragmatic one, drawn from Nietzche and Lawrence, that a morality is a good morality if it is life-affirming, promoting healthy human growth and development. The alternative is generally pitched as Platonic, that moralities derive from some first principles, or are handed down by God, and serve as ideals. Perhaps you can argue for some different standard by which to judge moralities.

 

[rld]

OK, then your'e just farting. You began a line of argument as an objection to mine which, if your point is true, would require you to condemn the behavior of a majority of men in our society, perhaps including yourself. However you aren't really doing that, so you're doing what? Insinuating? Farting?

Losing your cool Fuji?

Your premise that common place behaviour should not be prescribed and must be someone "life affirming" is simply silly and does not withstand the slightest scrutiny. Your table has no legs.

It is not me who is making, or has a need to make, self-centered pronouncements about what is right in the world.