The ten solitudes of Toronto dating
- Thread starter fuji
- Start date
no- you might fuck sarah because its life affirming but not because you enjoy it.Whereas I just fuck sarah because it feels right.
The words of a weak minded, lesser man. You won't get the respect of your betters until you demonstrate a capacity to win arguments through force of reason rather than ad hominem attack.Nope. It's just that my "cornering Fuji" post is just as true in this thread as in the other.
So far your self promoted "logic" had relied on misrepresentation and pedantry.
Absolutely you lose. You know it. I know it.
Now respond with some childish bluster so that those with the feeblest minds may be left with some shred of respect for you.
Ever more confidence that my view is correct.Again, what is it you believe you have won?
Are sexual relationships the only concept (activity, thing ...) that you consider "so complex that they cannot be analyzed rationally"? If not, please provide examples of some of the others. You seem to be trying to establish a unique status for sexual relationships as a precursor to applying your rationale that "moral principles cannot be brought to bear on sexual behaviour". Is this your position?...lots of nice things that may apply in other areas of life. My claim is fundamentally that sexual relationships are so complex that they cannot be analyzed rationally, and therefore rational machinery, such as Kant would bring to bear, fails to be relevant. Any attempt to apply it implies that you believe you can effectively analyze a particular sexual relationship, but you can't.
This is the essence of why I think moral principles cannot be brought to bear on sexual behavior, unless those principles are SO universal that no analysis of the sexual behavior itself is required. For example, we universally reject violence, there is no nuance that could ever make violence in a sexual concept appropriate. On the other hand, whether a lie is moral or immoral generally does depend a great deal on nuance.
Boy SW1 did you call this or did you call this!The words of a weak minded, lesser man. You won't get the respect of your betters. . . Now respond with some childish bluster. . . .
Another stinging reply from the "I know you are but what am I" school of debate.Do you have any reasons to believe this is true?
Yes. It is my position that sexual relationships are unique, that in fact from an evolutionary standpoint the rest of our lives, all our thought and language, our physical being, our emotions, our desires, our culture and our abilities all exist only to serve the sexual relationship.You seem to be trying to establish a unique status for sexual relationships as a precursor to applying your rationale that "moral principles cannot be brought to bear on sexual behaviour". Is this your position?
Sexual relationships are complex enough that they're not even properly describable using the language we have, so how can you use that language to construct a moral code for them?Please, oh Lord, do tell us mere lesser minds where resides the argument to establish the incompatibility between complex relationships and rational analysis.
This is why our courts have wisely chosen to avoid these topics, and stick to things like division of property, custody, and so on, carefully avoiding wading into the impossible intricacies of the sexual relationship.
Where by "win" you mean "misrepresent the other position and then dishonestly claim victory after attacking a straw man".We win.
You may convince weak minded fools like blackrock13 that you've won--he'll cheer on even potty humour--but you know, and I know, that you're a fraud, and that your arguments are fake, pedantic, and bogus. You have only been able to debate with my by systematically misrepresenting what I've said.
Post 321 contains another misrepresentation of what I said, and another attack on a straw man. You appear to be unable to confront my argument head on, so you misrepresent it, and make a show of pretending to debate with me. But you fail.Post #321.
I never argued this: "So he would be back to saying: if sexual relationships are complex, and because complexity defies rationality, sexual relationships defy rationality."
That is not what I said. What I said is this:
1. Sexual behavior too complex to be satisfactorily described in human language
2. Codifying a moral prescription requires a satisfactory description of the behavior to be regulated
3. Therefore sexual behavior cannot be effectively regulated through codified morality
You simply misrepresent my view in one post after another because you have no effective way to debate the points.
Sexual relationships ARE routinely analyzed by people using the FULL RANGE of human intelligence: emotional as well as analytical thinking. People are fully capable of reacting to the intricacies of a sexual situation, but not through the application of codified rules, but rather by applying their whole range of experience to the situation, drawing on both emotional and rational intelligence. However, we don't have any good way of writing down and codifying lessons from emotional intelligence and experience, our language is too imperfect to capture such things in any way that can be codified. Poetry, perhaps, gets across these sorts of ideas--language that we understand emotionally, rather than logically.
There is a reason for this. The mating dance that we engage in, mate selection, through mate retention, infidelity, and everything in between, is so competitive that we use all of our faculties, emotional, experiential, cognitive, to play the game. Thus the game is played at a level that supercedes a simplified analysis using only one of our faculties, say, only a cognitive, or only an emotional response. Human mating processes draw on the full capabilities of the participants, and are nuanced in every possible way that the participants are capable of nuancing them.
Fuji= Lil Kim? The evidence. The similarities are scary.I just mean what everyone else means by "win". We won, you lost. Post #321 was the last in a series of posts showing your position to be untenable and just a mask for serious immaturity. You could not reply to it because you fear any discussion where you have to do more than spout the same illogical nonsense.
We win.
Interesting ... and far more extreme than I was expecting.Yes. It is my position that sexual relationships are unique, that in fact from an evolutionary standpoint the rest of our lives, all our thought and language, our physical being, our emotions, our desires, our culture and our abilities all exist only to serve the sexual relationship.
You are arguing that every thought, expression (linguistic, cultural, artistic, mathematical, philosophical, theological, sociological, etc.), desires (such as for food, warmth, clothing, physical and financial health, family, friendship, prestige, acknowledgment, self-development, etc.), abilities (physical and mental), emotions (anger, fear, hatred, love, etc.) all exist only to serve the sexual relationship.
How does friendship (absent sexual desire) exist only to serve the sexual relationship? For that matter, how do calculus, coal mining, cancer research, cartography and calligraphy exist only to serve our sexual relationships?
Last edited:
Sw1tch, you are a fool and an idiot. Worse, a pedant. There are MANY posts where I made it clear to you that I believe participants strive to make sexual relationships as complex as they can, that language cannot adequately describe them, and so forth.
Your failure to have comprehended that is YOUR failure. Really. Your misrepresentations and smug rebuttal of your own made up versions of my arguments were pathetic.
Primarily your issue is that you do not know how to conduct yourself in a debate. Instead of striving to comprehend the point the other side is making, and answer it substantially, you look for specific wordings to misrepresent and attack, and then you pretend that you've said something meaningful. You haven't.
The claim has ALWAYS been that "sexual relationships are so complex that they cannot be analyzed rationally", and that the reason for their complexity is that human participants strive to increase their complexity in every possibly way, using all of their faculties and abilities to do so. Having an emotional advantage in a relationship can occur for complex and subtle reasons, and can be the difference between selected/unselected, married/single, mated/unmated. I have said that repeatedly. Explicitly. You simply misrepresented my view.
You may be able to communicate the nuances of a sexual relationship through poetry, or other forms of art, but you aren't going to be able to capture them in a codified way that is amenable to rational analysis, and therefore you can't write down a moral prescription, like "Adultery is wrong", with a suitable number of caveats to make it a reasonable prescription. It is just going to be broken and wrong, and fail to apply to real human relationships.
Your failure to have comprehended that is YOUR failure. Really. Your misrepresentations and smug rebuttal of your own made up versions of my arguments were pathetic.
Primarily your issue is that you do not know how to conduct yourself in a debate. Instead of striving to comprehend the point the other side is making, and answer it substantially, you look for specific wordings to misrepresent and attack, and then you pretend that you've said something meaningful. You haven't.
The claim has ALWAYS been that "sexual relationships are so complex that they cannot be analyzed rationally", and that the reason for their complexity is that human participants strive to increase their complexity in every possibly way, using all of their faculties and abilities to do so. Having an emotional advantage in a relationship can occur for complex and subtle reasons, and can be the difference between selected/unselected, married/single, mated/unmated. I have said that repeatedly. Explicitly. You simply misrepresented my view.
Codified means a set of moral prescriptions that you could write down and apply in a meaningful way by rationally applying the moral prescriptions to the facts of a situation. It cannot be done.1. I take it this is an application of points 1, 2 and 3 above?
2. Does codified rules mean formal, algorithmic rules or heuristic rules-of-thumb, or both?
3. If the former, your thesis is utterly banal. Most human behavior requires the invocation of social conventions to explain how rules are grounded in practice. Few suppose algorithms do the trick.
4. If the latter, again banal, because of point 3 above.
5. If codified means neither algorithmic or heuristic, then you just have a confusion of terms, because most regard heuristics as tied up with situated experience and so on.
You may be able to communicate the nuances of a sexual relationship through poetry, or other forms of art, but you aren't going to be able to capture them in a codified way that is amenable to rational analysis, and therefore you can't write down a moral prescription, like "Adultery is wrong", with a suitable number of caveats to make it a reasonable prescription. It is just going to be broken and wrong, and fail to apply to real human relationships.
That statement would I’m sure be quite interesting to many philosophers and theologians.Codified means a set of moral prescriptions that you could write down and apply in a meaningful way by rationally applying the moral prescriptions to the facts of a situation. It cannot be done.
Hmm, over the time I've been on TERB, I've seen it been done rather nicely.you can't write down a moral prescription, like "Adultery is wrong", with a suitable number of caveats to make it a reasonable prescription.
Yup.YOU claim 'sexual relations are so complex they cannot be analyzed rationally'
Nope. You didn't. You added your own wrong and weird interpretation to what I said, something that I don't agree with.I quote you to that affect. Then I show a bunch of problems with that claim.
No. You are a pedantic fool for picking away at language that you ought to have clarified.You say I am a pedantic fool and idiot for misrepresenting you.
No. You quoted that, and then elaborated it with your own wrong misinterpretation.Then you say you always made the claim 'sexual relations are too complex for rationality, which is exactly the claim I quoted and criticized and which you said I misrepresented you about when criticizing you.
You're some sort of failure at real life.
Brilliant!
This is script material. I have come to a conclusion, after reading fully to this article, Fuji is beyond help but I must say he is at fault no matter if look at it morally or ethically.
As a humanist, I must speak to separate right and wrong, to prevent humanity from peril. Setting out a statement for future generations is key for a healthy society. Scumbags like Fuji here is degrading humanity and society altogether. For those of you who does not speak up of this will encourage him to do more or so the same thing.
Fuji you have 2 options:
A. Reply to my thread if you want to save face and call me conservative and childish for judging you over the Internet and insult me saying I live in momy's house. That will also misdirect the audience.
B. Instead of insulting me, and paraphrasing only a sentence of my whole paragraph to find an opening to strike. You choose to ignore this and continue to make society more unsubstantial.
This is script material. I have come to a conclusion, after reading fully to this article, Fuji is beyond help but I must say he is at fault no matter if look at it morally or ethically.
As a humanist, I must speak to separate right and wrong, to prevent humanity from peril. Setting out a statement for future generations is key for a healthy society. Scumbags like Fuji here is degrading humanity and society altogether. For those of you who does not speak up of this will encourage him to do more or so the same thing.
Fuji you have 2 options:
A. Reply to my thread if you want to save face and call me conservative and childish for judging you over the Internet and insult me saying I live in momy's house. That will also misdirect the audience.
B. Instead of insulting me, and paraphrasing only a sentence of my whole paragraph to find an opening to strike. You choose to ignore this and continue to make society more unsubstantial.
It doesn't matter whether I agree with what you claim I said?????? You are an idiot.It does not matter whether you agree with it or not.
You're not debating with me. You're debating with yourself. You're making up stuff, pretending I said it, and then debating with the stuff you're pretending I said. That's just pathetic.
Childish tripe.....
I'm going out with that immigrant girl again tonight, hope your Saturday night is as enjoyable as mine's going to be!
