Blondie Massage Spa

The Bash Fuji Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,931
3,525
113
I treat everyone around me with a great deal of respect, I'm always someone they can count on, I'm trustworthy, responsible, reliable, a good listener, and a good friend.
Bullshit
Obviously you do not understand what respect is.
Trustworthy ?? You must be joking. You admit deceiving and cheating on your wife as well lusting after your friends wife. You are bent if you think that is trustworthy

In fact as I pointed out to you before I built up my career and got the position I have today by being somebody everybody feels they can trust. The role I have, organizing people globally, requires an ability to build trust relationships across cultural barriers. Apparently I'm quite good at it.
Another self-congratulatory boast.
Since you are untrustworthy,(see above) I do not believe you.
Nor does anyone else

Note -- I don't care whether you believe me, but because you made up all kinds of ignorant and untrue things to say about me, I thought I should set the record straight, lest anyone believe your unfounded lies.
Too bad for you, as you are the one with the credibility issue.

FYI: I suggest you not be concerned about whether I am able to convince anyone here.
I am very confident the majority of Terbites had you pegged long ago.

Your first clue might be the 24 page - Bash Fuji thread
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
46,940
5,741
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
Too bad for you, as you are the one with the credibility issue.

FYI: I suggest you not be concerned about whether I am able to convince anyone here.
I am very confident the majority of Terbites had you pegged long ago.
WOW!
You really suffer from Fuji envy Johnny boi!

Give it up, you are out of your league.
You will only be squashed like a little piece of baby poop if you keep it up Layruoooeee....
 

simon482

internets icon
Feb 8, 2009
9,965
175
63
Oh, thank god.
look back. he spews out some bullshit and you guys jump all over it. he says whatever and 4 or 5 of you respond like crazy. you come back with whatever and he says you are wrong. he is in your head and you are playing his game right now. the only way you can come out of this not looking stupid is to back off and not respond to him anymore. otherwise he will keep throwing shit out there and you will keep responding and amusing him.

do yourself the small favour and save the little e-dignity you got left.
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
46,940
5,741
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net

simon482

internets icon
Feb 8, 2009
9,965
175
63
In all fairness, this is true. Fuji does win the war of attrition, and this is a good point. It takes two to throw shit, doesn't it.

I do, however, have to say, I don't care about my e-dignity.
he is all up in your head and pwning you. whether he is right on wrong don't matter to him. having a controlling force over your life for the time being is what matters. you are in a fight you were gonna lose from the start, hell everyone in this thread except fuji has lost to fuji.

except me of course, i am an internets legend.
 

groggy

Banned
Mar 21, 2011
15,260
0
0
look back. he spews out some bullshit and you guys jump all over it. he says whatever and 4 or 5 of you respond like crazy. you come back with whatever and he says you are wrong. he is in your head and you are playing his game right now. the only way you can come out of this not looking stupid is to back off and not respond to him anymore. otherwise he will keep throwing shit out there and you will keep responding and amusing him.

do yourself the small favour and save the little e-dignity you got left.
Why, its entertaining watching Fuji embarrass himself.
 

simon482

internets icon
Feb 8, 2009
9,965
175
63
Why, its entertaining watching Fuji embarrass himself.
but that is the thing. he is not at this point. read back, he offers no reason why he is right all he says is they are wrong and gives bullshit examples why they are wrong. he is knows what he is doing and anyone that thinks he looks bad is thinking wrong. he is playing the game and playing it very fucking well, better than the people he is playing it with.

he would almost make a good addition to the darkside. i should invite him there, take a special person to hang there and he is just about full of shit and a big enough asshole to hang.
 

groggy

Banned
Mar 21, 2011
15,260
0
0
but that is the thing. he is not at this point. read back, he offers no reason why he is right all he says is they are wrong and gives bullshit examples why they are wrong. he is knows what he is doing and anyone that thinks he looks bad is thinking wrong. he is playing the game and playing it very fucking well, better than the people he is playing it with.

he would almost make a good addition to the darkside. i should invite him there, take a special person to hang there and he is just about full of shit and a big enough asshole to hang.
I've sadly read all 24 pages of this thread and Fuji did put out a rationale for cheating, poking it apart is easy work but the real fun is to watch Fuji squirm and try to change the subject while making it very apparent he doesn't have any clue about the argument.

Besides, a recent study has answered why it is that Fuji cheats.
Men who suffer from performance anxiety are more likely to cheat than their more confident counterparts, according to a new study from the University of Guelph on infidelity.
http://www.healthzone.ca/health/newsfeatures/article/1030201--performance-anxiety-can-lead-men-to-stray-study-shows

He cheats 'cuz he can't get it up.
Just like he can't think straight, his dick also can't get straight as well.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,010
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
OMFG!!!!!! You have completely misunderstood what Sw1tch is saying. Sw1tch is saying that ANY move from IS to OUGHT is a logical fallacy.
Which is wrong. Every moral code moves from "is" to "ought" by way of assumption, just as I have. There is no such thing as a moral code that can be derived from first principles (Sorry Emmanuel K) nor from empirical observation. Sooner or later you need an assumption that crosses that divide, and I've given mine: A good moral code affirms life.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,010
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
Obviously you do not understand what respect is.
OK, prove it. Without regard to the issue of sexual hypocrisy or sexual cheating, give examples from my life that substantiate your view.

Oh yeah, you don't know the fuck what you're talking about--but that never stopped you before, so why would it now?
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,010
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
Oh, well that fixes everything. I mean, one can avoid a logical error just by introducing an assumption that says the logical error is not a logical error.
Now you're back-pedalling. It might serve you well to pedal all the way back to the beginning of the thread where I first pointed out this assumption to you, instead of realizing only now, at this late hour, that you have been full of shit the whole time.

Sooner or later EVERY moral code requires an assumption because moral codes deal in value judgements, and there is no way to derive those from first principles, and no way to derive them from empirical observation.

I've given you my assumption: Affirm life. Feel free to choose the alternative assumption, I look forward to your chants of "I love death more than you love life", go for it.

In any case your slowness to catch on, your inability to comprehend the points you are responding to, your dull misrepresentations of my arguments--well they're making you look like a fool, and worse than that, they're getting boring. If you can find two neurons to rub together maybe you can finally grasp the argument you're facing and, for once, respond intelligently? Oh that's probably asking too much.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,010
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
If this is your argument, I don't agree with it. If we were animals in the wild, then I would agree - but we live in a society. A fundamental fact of living in a society is that we must all give-up certain rights and freedoms in order to live together.
Sure, you're right--we do. My assertion is that we ought not to give up on who and what we are, on our core identity. When you've got by varying accounts between a quarter and a half of the population engaged in a behavior it's not something deviant, it's a basic, core, fundamental human behavior. It's not like theft, murder, or rape--outlier acts committed by deviants--it's stuff regular, ordinary people do in the course of their regular, ordinary lives. Making moral codes that prescribe against such fundamentally human behavior is nonsensical. Or rather, life denying.

Besides, I don't quite know what you mean by "life-denying".
It's an assumption, and I have clarified it a few times, and I'm happy to clarify it again. I'm drawing heavily on Nietzsche here, also from D H Lawrence, if you want more elaborate explanations of the concept.

But in short all moral codes require an assumption at some point. They've value judgements, and we, as human beings, are the creators of value. Sooner or later we just make it up. The question is, what's a good moral code to make up? There have been varying answers over the history of the human race.

One of those most common assumptions out there is the life-denying assumption. This is the core assumption embedded in the moral codes of most of the world's religions. The idea underlying this assumption is that the real world is a bad place, that should be resisted in favour of a more perfect, ideal after-life of some sort. Major religions from buddhism to christianity are founded on this principle. The Buddhists perceive the real world to be a corrupt illusion, the goal of life being to transcend the corruption of the real world. Christianity perceives the world to be tainted by original sin, a horrible place in need of redemption, full of sin, to be rejected in favour of a better afterlife.

The life denying assumption underlying the world's religions is that who and what we are is a bad thing, to be resisted and opposed through moral codes which deny and suppress fundamental human wants and desires in favour of a more perfect idea.

That's a perfectly valid assumption, as far as they go, but it's not one that I choose. I choose to affirm life. I choose to say that who and what we are is a good thing, that our existence should be celebrated, and that who and what we are is desirable, to be furthered, to be championed. That there is not some more perfect idea--that Platonic notions of a more perfect world are illusory. That this world is real, and that what we are, who we are, how we are made, are good things that should be celebrated.

I take it a bit further than that. I believe in life in the sense that I believe in growth, in adaptation, in the ongoing process of improvement and development that underpin the whole progress of not only human society, but life itself.

In any case, by "life" I mean who and what we are, essentially, and by "life denying" or "life affirming" I mean moral codes which either devalue who and what we are, such as Christian or Buddhist moral codes, or affirm who and what we are, such as mine.

If you want to choose a life denying moral code I don't have any way to debate that, other than by saying that personally, I choose life. Sooner or later we all have to make some assumptions about what we will value.
 
Last edited:

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,010
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
Women in Love, Chapter 14

DH Lawrence said:
They found Birkin and Ursula sitting together by the boats, talking and laughing. Birkin had been teasing Ursula.

`Do you smell this little marsh?' he said, sniffing the air. He was very sensitive to scents, and quick in understanding them.

`It's rather nice,' she said.

`No,' he replied, `alarming.'

`Why alarming?' she laughed.

`It seethes and seethes, a river of darkness,' he said, `putting forth lilies and snakes, and the ignis fatuus, and rolling all the time onward. That's what we never take into count -- that it rolls onwards.'

`What does?'

`The other river, the black river. We always consider the silver river of life, rolling on and quickening all the world to a brightness, on and on to heaven, flowing into a bright eternal sea, a heaven of angels thronging. But the other is our real reality --'

`But what other? I don't see any other,' said Ursula.

`It is your reality, nevertheless,' he said; `that dark river of dissolution. You see it rolls in us just as the other rolls -- the black river of corruption. And our flowers are of this -- our sea-born Aphrodite, all our white phosphorescent flowers of sensuous perfection, all our reality, nowadays.'

`You mean that Aphrodite is really deathly?' asked Ursula.

`I mean she is the flowering mystery of the death-process, yes,' he replied. `When the stream of synthetic creation lapses, we find ourselves part of the inverse process, the blood of destructive creation. Aphrodite is born in the first spasm of universal dissolution -- then the snakes and swans and lotus -- marsh-flowers -- and Gudrun and Gerald -- born in the process of destructive creation.'

`And you and me --?' she asked.

`Probably,' he replied. `In part, certainly. Whether we are that, in toto, I don't yet know.'

`You mean we are flowers of dissolution -- fleurs du mal? I don't feel as if I were,' she protested.

He was silent for a time.

`I don't feel as if we were, altogether,' he replied. `Some people are pure flowers of dark corruption -- lilies. But there ought to be some roses, warm and flamy. You know Herakleitos says "a dry soul is best." I know so well what that means. Do you?'

`I'm not sure,' Ursula replied. `But what if people are all flowers of dissolution -- when they're flowers at all -- what difference does it make?'

`No difference -- and all the difference. Dissolution rolls on, just as production does,' he said. `It is a progressive process -- and it ends in universal nothing -- the end of the world, if you like. But why isn't the end of the world as good as the beginning?'

`I suppose it isn't,' said Ursula, rather angry.

`Oh yes, ultimately,' he said. `It means a new cycle of creation after -- but not for us. If it is the end, then we are of the end -- fleurs du mal if you like. If we are fleurs du mal, we are not roses of happiness, and there you are.'

`But I think I am,' said Ursula. `I think I am a rose of happiness.'

`Ready-made?' he asked ironically.

`No -- real,' she said, hurt.

`If we are the end, we are not the beginning,' he said.

`Yes we are,' she said. `The beginning comes out of the end.'

`After it, not out of it. After us, not out of us.'

`You are a devil, you know, really,' she said. `You want to destroy our hope. You want us to be deathly.'

`No,' he said, `I only want us to know what we are.'

`Ha!' she cried in anger. `You only want us to know death.'
Something to ponder.
 

Possum Trot

New member
Dec 7, 2009
1,093
1
0
Well the one positive thing you can say is the little guy has posting stamina. Of course this probably means he isn't out trying to trick immigrants or cheat on his blow-up doll because he's too busy posting. It's all getting rather tedious now and listening to him bleet lost interest at about page 3
 

groggy

Banned
Mar 21, 2011
15,260
0
0
Every moral code moves from "is" to "ought" by way of assumption, just as I have.
That's so wrong its funny.
This assumption business is besides the point.
Your system, which you described as logical, has a basic logical fault.

And all you can do is 'assume' its still correct.
We can all 'know' its wrong.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,010
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
That's so wrong its funny.
This assumption business is besides the point.
Your system, which you described as logical, has a basic logical fault.

And all you can do is 'assume' its still correct.
We can all 'know' its wrong.
Ok, idiot, prove your moral code from first principles. Go ahead and try.
 

simon482

internets icon
Feb 8, 2009
9,965
175
63
Simon you certainly have a point that debating Fuji is a bit like finding an open sewer and going for a swim. Even if you win, you lose. That said, with all due respect, either there is no such thing as e-dignity so one may as well have fun making fun of an egocentric tool, or e-dignity is something like dignity, in which case those with it sometimes stand on a soap box and call bullshit. It just helps in this case that it is personally amusing to witness the flying leaps of contorted argument taken by the subject. Each to their own I guess.
the fact you think you are in a debate right now and not in a one sided fucking says something.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,010
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
the fact you think you are in a debate right now and not in a one sided fucking says something.
He thinks he's in a one sided conversation. That's why in all of his replies he rewrites whatever I said, and responds to his imaginary version of what I wrote, rather than responding to what I actually wrote.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts