The Bash Fuji Thread

[FatOne]

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.

I know I am smart and cool, my mom told me so.

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.

Again this is all fictional on his part, but there are real life people with his sort of world view who do try to get as many chicks preggers are possible. Come on babe, if you love you, you won't use birth control. Not much removed from pimps they are. If he really does believe everything he said, the only thing to keep him from trying to knock these chicks up are the potential child support payments, and I doubt his McDonalds check would have much garnishing room.

This thread should be the BAN fuji thread. Someone this dishonest and stupid should not be allowed in terb. We should have some standards here.

Standards, what do you think this is MERB?

Ya know, there's a sincerity and honesty here that I believe for the most part. I'm not sure a manager of a Fortune 500 company is in the top 1% and I'm not sure how you would access terb whilst at work, but given your limited level of intelligence I can see you as a corporate drone.

Actually now that I think about it, it calls into doubt his claim of working short hours. From what I understand if you want to get anywhere in Fortune 500 land in the management world, the way to do it is via long hours, almost a requirement. I could be wrong, much like Fiji I don't have much personal experience of that world, just what I've read.

 

[Possum Trot]

Okay enough. The guy is an obvious loser why waste the band width

 

[ogibowt]

and the wheels of the truck go round and round.................we are giving an amoral narcissist far too much publicity...and he is getting the attention he so obviously craves...

 

[groggy]

How's this as a better example of the pointlessness of Fuji's argument:

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

#2 - Cheating on taxes 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 on taxes 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

 

[Aardvark154]

How's this as a better example of the pointlessness of Fuji's argument:

Yes, that is a better analogy.

 

[fuji]

NoI noticed you gave zero consideration to how it might affect her

See my signature.

 

[fuji]

From what I understand if you want to get anywhere in Fortune 500 land in the management world, the way to do it is via long hours, almost a requirement.

Your inability to read what I wrote is not my problem. I wrote that I am in the office 10 hours a day, but I on many days I only work 4 or 5 of them. So yes, I am "working long hours", and some days they really are long hours of work.

 

[fuji]

Yes, that is a better analogy.

Last I checked taxes weren't at the driving point of the evolutionary spear. I have never cheated on my taxes, for the record. I'm one of those who thinks they should be higher.

 

[mur11]

See my signature.

With respect, that doesn't answer anything
That's just another example of you not giving a shit at all how she would feel about the situation. It's like a game, where one person is operating with a completely different set of rules than the other person. Which I guess is fine if it's a casual relationship, but seems pretty fucked if it's a marriage. You spout all this BS and self-justificatory talk about evolution, and morals, and whatever the fuck, and I'll admit you have some decent points and you've even made me think a bit, but you're still engaged in a web of deception every single day of your life, that taints every aspect of your marriage. Again, call me a naive child, but I can't imagine that a deception of the scale that you undergo, with all the civvies and SPs that you bang, cannot affect other portions of your marriage, rather than the bedroom aspect. I also cannot believe that a person who is capable of this deception, is completely honest and forthright in all other aspects of their life. I could be wrong, and obviously you'll respond that I am wrong, but to me, honesty isn't something that can be compartmentalized. And there's a difference between omission (for example not telling people that you hobby, or that you do coke on the weekends or whatever) and outright deception, especially to someone that you technically at least, come home to every night.

I just can't believe you spout all your talk with such little regard for your wife and her feelings.

 

[fuji]

That's just another example of you not giving a shit at all how she would feel about the situation. It's like a game, where one person is operating with a completely different set of rules than the other person.

The word you're looking for is "hypocrisy". I have championed sexual hypocrisy as self actualizing behavior throughout this thread, and on others too.

I also cannot believe that a person who is capable of this deception, is completely honest and forthright in all other aspects of their life.

That's your poverty, I guess!

 

[groggy]

Last I checked taxes weren't at the driving point of the evolutionary spear. I have never cheated on my taxes, for the record. I'm one of those who thinks they should be higher.

All irrelevant points.
The point is that if you apply your logic to cheating at taxes, you would be a tax cheater as well.
And what kind of moral code only approves of cheating on wives, not the government?
Why would you treat the government better then your wife?

 

[kissykisskiss]

All irrelevant points.
The point is that if you apply your logic to cheating at taxes, you would be a tax cheater as well.
And what kind of moral code only approves of cheating on wives, not the government?
Why would you treat the government better then your wife?

This thread is weird.

 

[mur11]

That's your poverty, I guess!

Meh, the less I understand about your motivations and worldview, and how you reconcile your actions, the better person I will be. You can call it intellectual poverty if you want, it's fine with me

 

[fuji]

All irrelevant points.
The point is that if you apply your logic to cheating at taxes, you would be a tax cheater as well.
And what kind of moral code only approves of cheating on wives, not the government?
Why would you treat the government better then your wife?

I don't have a sexual relationship with the government, and I've argued that sexual relationships are categorically different than other relationships. You're picking one part of the argument in isolation, and that doesn't work. Applying the full argument I note that the tax relationship isn't one that participants have an incentive to make ever more complex, that participants don't have any incentive to make the tax relationship ever more unfair, that taxation isn't inherently unfair, and so on. Therefore since none of that applies....

 

[fuji]

Meh, the less I understand about your motivations and worldview, and how you reconcile your actions, the better person I will be. You can call it intellectual poverty if you want, it's fine with me

Let me put it this way: You appear to want to live in a world in which nobody's feelings ever get hurt. That's a nice sentiment, but it's not the world we live in. Sexual relationships are unfair. Someone's feelings are going to get hurt.

Ask your wife to take your balls out of her purse and give them back to you.

 

[Aardvark154]

I don't have a sexual relationship with the government, and I've argued that sexual relationships are categorically different than other relationships.

Which seemingly is the most convoluted way of saying I think with my little head not my big head, which I have ever read.

 

[fuji]

Which seemingly is the most convoluted way of saying I think with my little head not my big head, which I have ever read.

It's been my point from the outset that sexual relationships are inherently too complex to regulate. I do not feel the same way about taxes. Is that clear enough?

 

[fuji]

Wrong. Back to Biology 101. Having more children is no use to an organism if the environment is such that the traits of those children are not selected for. You just get alot of dead children.

Meanwhile we don't have a lot of dead children, and the genetic record shows our DNA mixes more rapidly than monogamy would allow. So...... looks like the point carries!

 

[fuji]

- sexual relationships are subsets of human relationships and so one does not require a specific code against infidelity to subsume the wrongness of infidelity in broader moral codes and social

Infidelity does not transgress any universally recognized moral principle. For example, there is no universal principle against lying or against deception, those things are acceptable in some contexts, and unacceptable only in specific cases.

- one cannot move from cheating happens to cheating is good because that commits the naturalistic fallacy

And no-one has, that is a mis-representation of what I said, in two ways. It's plain you feel you cannot respond to my arguments without misrepresenting them. Since you like to name things, you are committing the straw man fallacy.

My argument is that cheating is normal, not just that it happens, and I move from that not to cheating is good, but to therefore it can't be bad. It's subsequent, different arguments that I use to argue that it is good. This argument I use merely to assert that it cannot be immoral.

- you cannot move from broader principles and assumptions to cheating is good because that commits the fallacy of falsified inductive generalization.

If you want to argue like that you're going to shoot your own previous argument in the foot. In that case you can't apply general moral principles to cheating either. Whoops.

Except that your argument here is just pedantry. The "cheating is good" claim, separate from the above arguments, is that it is self actualizing because it connects human desire to action, and in the absence of any reason to believe that it is immoral, or even just strongly immoral, that makes it a good thing.

This time try responding without committing the straw man fallacy, I know you can do it if you try.

 

[Aardvark154]

It's been my point from the outset that sexual relationships are inherently too complex to regulate.

Hmm, Family Court basically does that every day it is in session, although it is retroactive rather than proactive.