Fuji wrote "chance of success", admitted he was not being clear and that he changed his wording to answer my objection
You are so full of shit, and desperate to score debating points, no matter how cheaply. You really lose and continue to lose.
There was ambiguity in my original statement. I meant it one way. You took it another. Similarly, when I wrote "forcing" before I meant it one way, you took it another. Just because you took it the wrong way doesn't mean I've changed anything you 'tard.
As for broader moral codes and social conventions being inter-locking enough and situationally flexible enough to apply to sexual conduct, fuji has NOT shown this to be in error. Instead he just repeated his life affirming philosophy claptrap and tried to wheel in evolutionary arguments, neither of which worked.
You can't make this true just by repeating it over, and over, and over, and over.
You actually have to respond to the criticisms. You have to explain how these universal rules that supposedly explain everything can explain why it's worse to sneak out for a fuck rather than sneak out for a donut. You can't, and haven't, and won't.
You will cowardly just keep repeating your blustering but wrong statement hoping nobody will notice that it's in flames.
Here is the challenge, fuji, which you have failed to meet: how is that it is more plausible to treat sexual relations as separate from human relations rather than as subsets of them?
I have told you why repeatdly: Because, unlike all other human relations, sexual relations are the point and the cause and the reason for our existence. They are far more fundamental than any other kind of human relationship, they are unique in that regard. Nothing else in human relations--except perhaps war--is so existentially at the driving point of natural selection.
Moreover you once again have a false dichotemy here. You are setting up a false alternative, that something is either a "subset of other human activities" versus being different than other subsets. In fact it's entirely possible (and is my argument) that it is both. As a subset it is subject to the few universal rules, like "aggressive violence is wrong", meanwhile it does not admit some of the moral analyses that apply to many of the other subsets of human behavior.
You made a basic logic error in arguing basically "B is a subset of A, C/D/E are also subsets of A, X is true of C/D/E, therefore X must be true of B".
Once again, you fail. Disconnect from the internet and cancel your ISP.
As for Fuji's attempted analogy involving sneaking out for sex and sneaking our for donuts, well even the fattest among us has more of a relationship with sexual conduct than with donuts, and so we think more hangs on the former than the latter. Only the Fuji's of the world want to make eating a donut without permission as morally equivalent to cheating. And trust me, Fuji will want to take the analogy to that conclusion if you let him!
I plainly think that sneaking out for a fuck is going to result in greater harm than sneaking out for a donut. That is MY point you bloody idiot. You are the one who has no viable way of explaining why one is worse than the other. I'm perfectly capable of explaining why, my theory allows that. Your theory isn't powerful enough to explain the difference.
According to you all the harm arises from breaking a promise, being dishonest, lying, and so on. But all those elements are present in both examples. A guy's wife is unhappy with his weight gain, made him promise to be on a diet, and he sneaks out for a donut. It's equivalent, in YOUR way of thinking, to the guy's wife making him promise to be monogamous.
Of course we all know that the wife is going to care a hell of a lot more about his monogamy than his diet! But you are at a loss to explain why.
Moreover if you look at it in greater depth it comes into even stronger focus: She's likely to forgive him slipping up on the diet once or twice, but she's NOT likely to forgive a couple of slip-ups on the monogamy side. It's VERY different.
I wanna be included now.
