The ten solitudes of Toronto dating

[fuji]

1. I am part of the WE, I am a human, so I am part of making up morality, and I say normal things can be bad.

That's the life denying assumption. I told you you're welcome to make it. I don't have any dispute with your taking that view, other than perhaps you should change your signature to "I love death more than you love life". But it's a perfectly rational assumption to make. I choose not to make that assumption, I choose life instead.

2. You failed to establish why anything about humans making up morality commits morality to any one particular set of interests, or why humans couldn't have an interest in not liking everything we do, etc, etc.

Read Beyond Good & Evil and get back to me. Women in Love has a slightly more appropriate version of the same notion.

 

[mur11]

Okay, for my own edification, let me see if I can sift though 25 some-odd pages of bickering and distill Fuiji's position.

First he begins with the overall assumption that sexual behavior for humans is predicated on having sex with multiple desirable partners. The more desirable you are, based on physical factors at the beginning of humankind, and later other factors such as wealth and power, the more sexual partners you will have, and the better 'genetically' they will be. Most of human evolution is based on the more advanced and genetically superior humans having as many sexual partners as they could, thus giving their genetically superior material the best chance to be passed on to future generations. Partly because of this, sexual behavior become a fundamentally hypocritical activity with the stronger (predominantly male) partners spreading their seed as much as they could, while at the same time limiting their weaker partners ability to do so. Ethics insofar as disclosing their infidelities with their partners, did not enter their sexual decision-making. Gradually some of the baser instincts (ie. sex without consent, mating with the threat or use of violence) died away as cultural norms evolved, however at the basest level, sexual hypocrisy is still practiced. Essentially monogamy for the strongest and most desirable sexual partners is a dead concept as there is no evolutionary basis, and thus no moral basis for it. The artificial construct of monogamy is only useful in terms of limiting the weaker sex's mating opportunities

Now we've gotten to a point where monogamy is falsely considered to be 'normal' behaviour, however it still goes against life-affirming or 'natural' human behaviour. The assumption is that those who do engage in monogamy are either unable to attract another mate, or are denying their human nature, and are the worse for it. As well, many times when one member in a relationship is engaged in monogamy, the other partner is not, and as a result dominates the relationship. Lying and cheating is not only permitted, because there are no moral codes, save for the code against violence and non-consent, but is the natural behavior for the superior (in terms of sexual attractiveness and power) mate in any relationship, whether it be a short-term fling or a decades-long marriage. Essentially, the dominant partner is predisposed (almost required) to use any means at their disposal to have as many sexual partners as possible, including lying to their partners in order to keep as many balls in the air as possible, so to speak. All this is possible, because from the very beginning, humans have never been able to codify a set series of morals involving sex. All monogamous relationships (if these actually exist) are life-denying and go against human nature.

With all this being said, it is possible, and Fuiji himself practices this, to compartmentalize this normal course of dishonesty to strictly the sexual arena and yet be completely honest and forthcoming in all other interactions with people, from business dealings, to friendships. This is possible because for all other human interactions, there are codified morals and standards against dishonesty. It is just in this one area of sexual behaviour that rationality and morality cannot be applied. Love, commitment, and honesty in the name of love and commitment are all artificial constructs practiced by the sexually weak or life-denying people. No matter how much one professes to love their mate, if they have the opportunity, they will cheat on that mate, because love itself has no place in the sexual arena and is secondary to the life-affirming behavior of cheating. Lying about playing poker with the guys is immoral, whereas lying about banging your secretary is moral.

As well, if the stronger mate discovers their mate is cheating on them, even they are also engaged in cheating, they are almost required to leave their mate immediately, with no looking back, because sexual hypocrisy is life-affirming behaviour, while denying your partner's ability to cheat (again, barring the use of violence) is also life-affirming behaviour

Is this an accurate representation of your position Fuiji? If I am misrepresenting you, please let me know

 

[fuji]

mur11, not bad, but there are a few things I'd want to quibble with in that summary.

First the idea that it's "predominately male" or that there is a "weaker sex". I think the opposite. Women have just as much an incentive to cheat as men do. It's in a woman's interest to mate with the strongest/healthiest available males, but have her children raised by the most successful/wealthiest. In addition both men and women have a genetic advantage in mating with multiple partners--greater diversity and gene mixing--so even if you're only going to have 2 or 3 kids, it makes sense not to have them with the same person. Moreover in any relationship the concept is that one partner may have the upper hand, in terms of being relatively more attractive, enabling them to extract more concessions in the relationship, and also more likely to have alternate sexual opportunities. That partner is as likely to be female as male.

Second I wouldn't say that monogamy is "falsely considered to be normal behavior", I think the whole range of sexual activity is normal behavior. Plainly there are significant organizational advantages in monogamous relationships, which is why they are the default mode--cheating, after all, is only well defined relative to monogamy. People will choose a relationship mode that maximizes their opportunities. I find it very rewarding to have a wife or girlfriend, even as I cheat on her. Also people with few realistic opportunities for adultery are likely to value monogamy, as are people who are in relationships where they're unable to extract the concessions necessary to commit it. That's a normal, realistic, pragmatic choice based on the capabilities and expectations that individual has about their opportunities. Others with more ability to attract multiple partners and to extract concessions are going to engage in adultery. Both choices are normal, and depend on the individuals attractiveness, situation, and abilities. It is still "life denying" to choose monogamy in those cases, but since the individual has not really got the opportunities to live a fully self actualized life, choosing monogamy, and some measure of self-denial, is in fact a sensible and therefore normal choice for that person.

I also don't know if you can really say that morality can be codified for "all other human interactions", but it certainly seems possible for most of them. The other example that comes to mind where codified morality is notoriously difficult is war, hence not coincidentally that famous aphorism, "all is fair in love and war". Well, not ALL is fair--in both cases we disapprove of aggressive violence--but many of the ordinary rules we live by elsewhere break down both in the case of sexual relationships, and in the case of military confrontation. In both cases you have individuals striving in an existential competition--the winner reproduces, the loser does not, and participants bring all capabilities, skills, and abilities to bear in an endlessly complex and frequently surprising way. Both activities also rely heavily on deception and appearances, so just as you can say "truth is the first casualty of war", it's probably just as accurate to say that "truth is the first casualty of love".

I don't agree with this: "Love, commitment, and honesty in the name of love and commitment are all artificial constructs practiced by the sexually weak or life-denying people." Love, commitment, honesty are not artificial constructs, they are real, fulfilling, and important aspects of being human, but love in particular exists within a spectacularly complex space that tends to defy rational analysis. In both love and war you will find people doing apparently irrational things that, if you were fully in their shoes actually makes perfect sense, but only in full context using deep knowledge of the relationship, including much of that is simply raw human intuition, empathy, emotional/social intelligence, and cannily accurate hunches rather than formal logical analysis. Literally in both love and war people grapple with "I think that he thinks that I think that he thinks that I will do X next, therefore I'm doing Y." Stuff like that depends far more on intuition and emotional intelligence than on any ability to apply rational thought--it's just too complex, with too many unknowns and too much uncertainty. Yet people are good at it.

Finally I think it's worth highlighting that there are some outright assumptions there, things that you could disagree with. The main one is the "life affirming" assumption, which essentially defines "good" in terms of our own humanity and thus something that is fundamental to who we are at least cannot be bad. That's an outright assumption. It is possible to make the "life denying" assumption, and many people do. The life denying assumption is that there is some more perfect ideal, handed down from somewhere (God?), independent of our existence, and compared to which we are inferior and bad. Thus there are moralities with concepts like "original sin", or the Buddhist notion that the entire world is some false illusion to be transcended. Plainly the "life denying" assumption is an equally valid assumption and many people live by it. It's a choice, one I've made, and not a conclusive argument. I just agree to disagree with those who think humanity is inherently evil/bad/wrong.

I agree with much of the rest of what you wrote, at least in general you have the gist correct, with a few quibbles like that.

 

[afterhours]

There was a time when the taking and keeping of slaves was "normal human behaviour". Even though it was widely practised, this behaviour was bad then; just as we RECOGNIZE it to be bad now. Some things are just wrong, whether people do them oin great numbers or not.

This is why your assumption is a steaming pile.

I think taking and keeping slaves is pretty damn good as long as you can keep your slaves from revolting. Its even better than getting a mcdonald franchise and having people work for you for minimal wage.

 

[rld]

First the idea that it's "predominately male" or that there is a "weaker sex". I think the opposite. Women have just as much an incentive to cheat as men do. It's in a woman's interest to mate with the strongest/healthiest available males, but have her children raised by the most successful/wealthiest. In addition both men and women have a genetic advantage in mating with multiple partners--greater diversity and gene mixing--so even if you're only going to have 2 or 3 kids, it makes sense not to have them with the same person. Moreover in any relationship the concept is that one partner may have the upper hand, in terms of being relatively more attractive, enabling them to extract more concessions in the relationship, and also more likely to have alternate sexual opportunities. That partner is as likely to be female as male.

As usual you are getting the science wrong.

Just what is this mechanism by which our genes tell us they want to be mixed and diversify and make us want to all act like mini-Fujis, and why are our genes only successful in getting about 20% of us to do so?

Your theory has never come close to passing the reality test.

And while you are at it, why don't you tell us what the rates of cheating were in the Roman empire and other ancient societies, or even elizabethan England if rome is too hard for you.

And how does homosexuality fit your theory?

 

[fuji]

Just what is this mechanism by which our genes tell us they want to be mixed and diversify

You don't even remotely understand evolution and natural selection. Genes do not tell us anything. Some strategies work better than others. Greater genetic diversity increases the odds of the survival of at least one offspring.

 

[fuji]

I told you that you're welcome to make the life denying assumption. If it is your view that humanity is inherently bad and evil you're welcome to that assumption. I make the opposite assumption. This is an almost spiritual/religious point, debating it is about as productive as debating whether or not God exists. In fact, it'll quickly boil down to debating exactly whether or not God exists, and if he exists, whether he's involved in morality in any way. It'll come down to where you think morality comes from--do we just make it up? Or does it exist without us, was it given to us inscribed on stone noodle bowls by the flying spaghetti monster?

If you want to read more about the life affirming assumption and why it's superior to the life denying assumption I highly recommend you pick up a copy of Beyond Good & Evil. A more refined version, directly relevant to this debate, can be found in Women In Love. If you want to learn more about the life denying assumption then instead start with the Bible, the Koran, or a degenerate like Socrates.

Now, if you accept the life affirming assumption, if you believe morality is a fiction invented by us, then it's ridiculous to think that we would invent a morality that asserts that we are fundamentally evil people. Or rather, if we did that, we would be self loathing creatures, practically by definition. I'm assuming(!) that we are not self loathing creatures, and therefore that the moralities we make up should affirm who and what we are in a positive way.

 

[fuji]

There are just as many punishments as there are rewards

Not in evidence.

and given that punishments and rewards are socially sustained patterns of distributing goods and bads

Outright false, and a very BASIC error in reasoning. While it's true moral transgressions usually result in some sort of punishment, it is NOT true that all punishments result from moral transgressions. People punish for non-moral reasons ALL THE TIME. In fact non-moral punishments are probably far more common than moral punishments.

Moreover, in addition to all those flaws you fail to address the fact that we are discussing moral codes. We acknowledged that people bring all their faculties to bear on sexual relations, whereas codes derive only from rational analysis. Thus someone may conclude that something is immoral for uncodifiable reasons and set about punishing the immoral behavior. That does not allow you to declare that you can codify sexual behavior, since they reached that conclusion in uncodifiable ways.

The rest of your argument falls apart because your initial points are so badly flawed.

sexual dimorphism

This argument has been repeatedly refuted on other threads. Why do you wholesale repeat it? You continue to pretend that human behavior is black/white and that the presence of ANY dimorphism means there must be NO cheating. It's an absurd and stupid argument that says a lot about how bereft you are of any intelligence. Plainly we organize ourselves into monogamous relationships, which explains the dimorphisms, but then we cheat.

Your whole line of argument is invalidated by that simple fact, and you've been told that repeatedly, but you keep on bringing up these refuted points. Why?

Non psychopathic people don't delight in harming others.

You're basically asserting that what, 70 to 80% of the members on terb are psychopaths???

If both are normal then it is just a prejudice of yours to single out one option as denying life and another as affirming it.

Good thing, then, that I haven't done that! I have said that it's life affirming for individuals to optimize their behavior in light of their situation. For many individuals the best they can do is monogamy. That's still life affirming, if it's the best they can do. It's only life denying to choose monogamy when you had better options.

Assumptions can be fallacious and yours is, as has been pointed out. It begs the question. It is special pleading. It is also just dumb, I lay mans terms. One does not deny life when one dissents from your stupid assumption, one just thinks with an actual brain.

Now you're being pretentious--all your arguments have been shot down, you have no basis for any of these claims. Pretending that you've won the argument, after having lost practically every point, is fucking ludicrous.

 

[Blue-Spheroid]

Has this thread not been closed yet?

You're both wrong but only one of you is immoral. Now get over yourselves.

 

[fuji]

Lest it go unsaid, absolutely nowhere did you touch on the points raised from comparative primatology.

Except of course when I wrote this: Plainly we organize ourselves into monogamous relationships, which explains the dimorphisms, but then we cheat.

You keep bringing up this dimorphism argument and you keep ignoring my refutation. I have pointed out to you, repeatedly, on multiple threads, that we would EXPECT to see these things in a society that is "monogamy plus". We would NOT expect to see traits that are associated with fully non-monogamous species.

Fuji wants to say it is our nature to cheat. What I am saying is that cheating obviously exists, but that it is more plausible to locate it as a primarily a human socio-cultural adaptation

Your primatology argument does not exclude cheating. It provides SOME evidence that you would expect us to be monogamous. You can't conclusively argue monogamy on the basis of that kind of evidence, you can only argue for a monogamous tendency. Plainly we do organize ourselves into "monogamous pair bonds", that is a basic organizational unit in our society. Thing is we then go on to cheat on that.

It is ludicrous, and belies an absolute ignorance on your part, that you think you can can argue that there is no cheating in our nature, on the basis of this kind of evidence.

Once again you show yourself to be a raging fool.

 

[fuji]

And what is it you are refuting?
That humans have comparatively low levels of sexual dimorphism (compared to our ape cousins)?

I'm saying it's entirely consistent with cheating. You are assuming wrongly that the level of dimorphism in a monogamous-with-cheating population would look like the dimorphism in a fully promiscuous population and that's just fucking retarded. Of course the dimorphism in a monogamous-with-cheating population is going to look almost identical to the dimorphism in monogamous-without-cheating population.

It is ludicrous, and belies an absolute ignorance on your part, that you think you can can argue that there is no cheating in our nature, on the basis of this kind of evidence.

It is ludicrous [to] argue that there is no cheating in our nature

Holy misrepresentation batman! I wrote that you cannot use that sort of evidence to argue that there is no cheating in our nature, and you contracted it to that, and then pretended you didn't know what I was saying.. WOW, you really are blatant in your misrepresentations now.

 

[fuji]

Clearly I never said the primatology examples exclude cheating.

Q.E.D.

Equally clearly I said the low levels of sexual dimorphism, medium testes size, concealed ovulation, and likely non-variance of sexual receptivity with estrus, add up to a picture in which monogamous pair-bonding amongst humans is no fluke.

And I've agreed. The problem for you is this doesn't preclude cheating, which is so clearly in evidence from other data. We cheat. We have always cheated. We will always cheat. The word "cheat" in and of itself implies that there is an underlying monogamous pair bonding entirely consistent with the observations you've listed here.

We lack the things our ape cousins have that are correlated with their polygynous

Gee maybe that means we are not fully polygnous/polyamorous??? Duh duh duh. How dumb are you?

We are a society of cheaters. Cheating implies monogamy as a base case--how many times have I had to write this? When is it going to make it into your thick skull?

Again, we cannot be denying life by not cheating if being monogamous is absolutely no fluke given our evolutionary history.

Wrong. Fallacy of the excluded middle. We are organized in a monogamous fashion AND WE CHEAT. You are denying the "and we cheat" part of our nature.

 

[fuji]

YouThe degree of sexual dimorphism in humans is less than in either polygynous species like gorillas or polyamorous species like bonobos.

That makes sense because we are not polygnous nor are we polyamorous, we're cheaters.

Yes, you did. You agreed that the primatology examples don't exclude cheating, but that they also point to not cheating being no fluke.

I can't see how you draw that conclusion. You're just making it up. You post some good data showing that we're organized around monogamous principles, but then you draw this weird, controversial, and unsupportable conclusion from it.

No, we are not. You have admitted it previously. The stats you quoted clearly indicated that it was a minority of society that cheats.

Nice try using the word "minority" as if this were a democratic question where you need 50% of the population to do something before it becomes normal behavior. By your definition of "normal" being an accountant is not normal. A behavior that a quarter of the population engages in--and many more wish they could--is plainly normal.

My point was that, if our evolution pushed us toward monogamous pair bonds

You don't understand evolution if you think it "pushes" us. Rather historic selection has made us who we are, and our continuing choices in the face of our environment will select who we become.

 

[cye]

I agree with Fuji. Every organized society has tried to formally proscribe cheating, but yet from biblical times to modern no moral or legal threat seems to be able to stop a statistically relevant portion of the population from trying to cast their DNA where it will go.

 

[blackrock13]

I agree with Fuji. Every organized society has tried to formally proscribe cheating, but yet from biblical times to modern no moral or legal threat seems to be able to stop a statistically relevant portion of the population from trying to cast their DNA where it will go.

Incorrect in a couple of points and I'm not sure 'proscribe' is the right word, although you've rightly described it as 'statistically relevant'. Greek and Roman empires were, shall we say, quite soft on it's concept and many of today societies today expected it. Most clear thinkers know you can't stop/eliminate it, no matter what you do. You can make it clear in your little part of the world or wherever, it's not acceptable. As for an argument, that it's hardwire in our DNA, poppycock. I'l possibility say it's possible at the epigenome level, but that area of the cell changes as you live life, so the hardwiring doesn't follow. Then you're left with the classic 'nature or nurture' argument and there, in my mind, the jury is still out with no clear cut facts.

 

[afterhours]

Originally Posted by fuji
We are a society of cheaters
No, we are not. You have admitted it previously. The stats you quoted clearly indicated that it was a minority of society that cheats. So you are hoist with your own statistical petard. We do cheat, but it does not define our society as you would hope it does. It takes a sick mind to be forced to assert everyone is like him just so that he doesn't have to ask any tough questions about his behaviour.

we are not a society of cheaters because we are preoccupied with consumption. We have no time for cheating because we choose to work 9 to 9 instead of 9 to 5. As well, the thought of moving out of your matrimonial home and having to pay both mortgage and rent makes our dicks limp.

3rd world countries are big on cheating because there is not much else to do other than fuck around, and there is no financial consequences.

 

[fuji]

In any case at least 25% of us do it in our society, likely many more than that, and a much higher percentage than that here on terb. Of those who haven't done it it, many would like to. Our own society does not impose any penalty whatsoever on it.

The reality is that we're a society of sexual hypocrites: We disapprove of OTHER people doing it, but we all do it ourselves.

That's just a fact weather you like it or not. As to the nature/nurture aspect of it, plainly it's going to be a little of both. Our sexual desires are going to be hardwired, and our behaviors are a socialized outlet for our hardwired desires.

 

[blackrock13]

Originally Posted by fuji
We are a society of cheaters
No, we are not. You have admitted it previously. The stats you quoted clearly indicated that it was a minority of society that cheats. So you are hoist with your own statistical petard. We do cheat, but it does not define our society as you would hope it does. It takes a sick mind to be forced to assert everyone is like him just so that he doesn't have to ask any tough questions about his behaviour.

we are not a society of cheaters because we are preoccupied with consumption. We have no time for cheating because we choose to work 9 to 9 instead of 9 to 5. As well, the thought of moving out of your matrimonial home and having to pay both mortgage and rent makes our dicks limp.

3rd world countries are big on cheating because there is not much else to do other than fuck around, and there is no financial consequences.

Once again, even though FUji is hung by his own words and facts, he'll now start to bring in unverifiable ponti-facts or FUJI-facts, that few if anyone believes. The fact is that most of the TERB members are here and we have secrets and common interests, but he'll stretch that to mean we are all hypocrites because we aren't open about the 'hobby'. The big different between him and most on this BB is that he brags about it and then take it beyond that and claims that those who don't are being dishonest. He's simply and pathologically trying to justify his habits and ideas. In most cases it's clear it falls short.

 

[fuji]

it does not define our society as you would hope it does

It defines us to the same extent that sports define us, or owning pets define us, or any of the other ordinary, normal things that a "minority" of us do. It's a common, ordinary behavior in our society.

 

[cye]

The desire to cheat is not hardwired into us, but neither is the desire to construct elaborate moral codes to regulate behavior. For millions of years humans didn't cheat they had intercourse for the sole purpose of insuring the survival of the species. In the face of daunting man made and natural challenges we fucked to make sure there was always some of us around. With some pleasurable physiologic effects to motivate our need to keep fucking we have plastered the planet with people. The decision to place moral strictures on our behavior came very late in the game and are easily overwhelmed.
When you see the pictures of infants suffering in Somalia it is clear that they were conceived long after conditions had started their descent into hell. Why in the face of such suffering would people continue having sex and risk bringing children into the world unless the need for sex was so ingrained it prempted rational thought.
Of course we have seen that catholic priests with their faith are able to resist the temptations of flesh and deny their hardwiring. They live happy and celibate lives. In the face of all temptation they easily resist their desires and can be trusted with our young.
This essential part of human nature doesn't mean cheating is desirable but rather begs for an honest discussion of how powerful these desires are. But I bet certain self indulgent, narcissistic, smug individuals enjoy the selfish enjoyment of a double standard more than an honest relationship.