If you got an SP pregnant, would you take responsibility for the child?

[Malibook]

Oh so you in your view laws are not an attempt by a society to enforce an ethical code of justice? Fairness, justice, those have no place in the creation of law?

You make me laugh sometime. You are so desperate to argue with me that you make the most ridiculous claims. Dig your hole a little deeper, I enjoy watching you flounder.

How the fuck did you dervive this idiotic bullshit from rld's post?

This is such a typical pathetic fuji tactic.
Come up with a sidetracking fantasy claim that is supposed to add credibility to the bullshit that he is spewing.
The fact that no such claim was ever really made is irrelevant to fuji.

 

[Malibook]

You tried to call me a hypocrit for criticizing child abandonment while engaging in sexual cheating. When I asked you to clarify why you thought they were equivalent you came back with lying. So you could abandon your argument that there is any hypocrisy here if you like, but if you don't want to abandon that argument, you will have to explain why lying should be considered equivalent to child abandonment.

I did not call you a hypocrite.

My comments about you were not made relative to dead beats or anybody else.

Of course there are worse lowlife assholes than you.
I didn't claim you were any worse or better than them.

Such comparisons are irrelevant and simply part of your pathetic sidetracking tactics.

 

[fuji]

How the fuck did you dervive this idiotic bullshit from rld's post?

I asserted that the lack of civil penalties for adultery was evidence that society does not view it as immoral. RLD challenged that claiming "His comment about civil penalties just makes no sense".

Now it's true that he's essentially said nothing there--flapped his gums without making any credible point. He could mean anything by that. I took it to mean that he disagreed with the claim that laws and civil penalties are meant to crack down on behavior that's viewed as immoral, unjust, or unfair.

Perhaps if that is not what RLD meant he can explain what he thinks the purpose of law is, if it's not to make people whole, not to ensure justice and fairness, equality, guarantee rights, and so on.

In short it stands to reason that if society thought adultery was immoral then society would impose some penalty on it. Society has not imposed any penalty, so it must not be a universally held view that it's immoral.

 

[rld]

OK... and this is evidence that adultery is immoral how? You're starting from the assumption that divorce is a bad thing? Can you explain how divorce is immoral or bad or in what way it's a bad outcome?

I mean if there was some punishment for the adulterer then you would have a point, but there isn't any such thing, so you have no such point.

I didn't even get into the adultery debate.

You were wrong about the state of the law in Canada. I corrected you.

You are just babbling to obscure being caught in a clear error.

 

[fuji]

I didn't even get into the adultery debate.

You were wrong about the state of the law in Canada. I corrected you.

You are just babbling to obscure being caught in a clear error.

Ok. So you were simply being a pedant. Fine.

 

[rld]

I asserted that the lack of civil penalties for adultery was evidence that society does not view it as immoral. RLD challenged that claiming "His comment about civil penalties just makes no sense".

Now it's true that he's essentially said nothing there--flapped his gums without making any credible point. He could mean anything by that. I took it to mean that he disagreed with the claim that laws and civil penalties are meant to crack down on behavior that's viewed as immoral, unjust, or unfair.

Perhaps if that is not what RLD meant he can explain what he thinks the purpose of law is, if it's not to make people whole, not to ensure justice and fairness, equality, guarantee rights, and so on.

In short it stands to reason that if society thought adultery was immoral then society would impose some penalty on it. Society has not imposed any penalty, so it must not be a universally held view that it's immoral.

As pointed out above society does not impose penalties on all acts it considers immoral. Nor are our laws the ultimate gauge of morality.

Only in Fuji world.

And Canada does not impose "civil penalties." Canada imposes criminal or quasi-criminal penalties, or regulatory penalties. It just shows you don't even understand the nomenclature of the field.

 

[rld]

Ok. So you were simply being a pedant. Fine.

If you feel that you should build your arguments or refute other people's arguments by stating things that are not true, you should not be surprised when people choose to point out that you are factually wrong.

 

[fuji]

As pointed out above society does not impose penalties on all acts it considers immoral.

I don't think you can find an example of an act that is universally considered immoral that is not grounds for some kind of penalty under law. I think in every example you raise you will find that some people consider it to be immoral, and other people don't.

You raised the example of lying before, but I came back with a few examples of lying that few people would consider immoral.

 

[Malibook]

Fuji may be a despicable dishonourable lowlife piece of shit but it's not nice to call him a hypocrite. :biggrin1:

This is not a claim that you are a hypocrite.
I was defending you while not endorsing or challenging such a claim.

 

[rld]

I don't think you can find an example of an act that is universally considered immoral that is not grounds for some kind of penalty under law. I think in every example you raise you will find that some people consider it to be immoral, and other people don't.

You raised the example of lying before, but I came back with a few examples of lying that few people would consider immoral.

You argument is silly. Nothing is universally considered immoral.

 

[fuji]

If you feel that you should build your arguments or refute other people's arguments by stating things that are not true, you should not be surprised when people choose to point out that you are factually wrong.

The argument I made stands just as well on the claim that there is no penalty under law for adultery. Happy now, pedant?

 

[fuji]

You argument is silly. Nothing is universally considered immoral.

Well I know you are a pedant so let's go with "generally considered immoral", or some other phrase meaning that almost everybody thinks it's immoral. For example, murder is something that we can pretty much all agree is immoral, perhaps with the exception of people like Charles Manson and Paul Bernardo. I think as a society we can probably discount the views of people like that, who are seen as evil/immoral people by everyone else.

In that respect I assert that child abandonment is pretty much universally viewed as an immoral act. Adultery, on the other hand, is not.

 

[Malibook]

In that respect I assert that child abandonment is pretty much universally viewed as an immoral act. Adultery, on the other hand, is not.

Of course most people who commit adultery would agree but I would think that the vast majority of people being fucked around on would disagree.
Let's ask your wife what she would think about your hypothetical fucking around on her.

 

[fuji]

Of course most people who commit adultery would agree but I would think that the vast majority of people being fucked around on would disagree.

People are inherently hypocritical when it comes to sexual relationships. Note that it can be the same person on both sides: A woman (or man) can be simultaneously outraged by her partner's cheating, all the while cheating herself.

This sort of complexity in sexual relationships is why we don't codify these things or treat them the same way as, say, murder or child abandonment.

 

[rld]

Well I know you are a pedant so let's go with "generally considered immoral", or some other phrase meaning that almost everybody thinks it's immoral. For example, murder is something that we can pretty much all agree is immoral, perhaps with the exception of people like Charles Manson and Paul Bernardo. I think as a society we can probably discount the views of people like that, who are seen as evil/immoral people by everyone else.

In that respect I assert that child abandonment is pretty much universally viewed as an immoral act. Adultery, on the other hand, is not.

Then I guess lying and breaking promises are back in.

I don't know, but I suspect, that most people in Canada consider adultery an immoral act.

 

[Narg]

Ok. So you were simply being a pedant. Fine.

Oh god, Fuji ...

That's basically a schoolyard response. You really are incapable of admitting any error, aren't you? If you make an incorrect statement, then whoever corrects you is the one at fault? Grow up.

 

[fuji]

Then I guess lying and breaking promises are back in.

So it's immoral to tell your wife she doesn't look fat in those jeans, when she asks?

I don't know, but I suspect, that most people in Canada consider adultery an immoral act.[/QUOTE]

Presumably not the large percentage of people who engage in it.

 

[rld]

So it's immoral to tell your wife she doesn't look fat in those jeans, when she asks?

I don't know, but I suspect, that most people in Canada consider adultery an immoral act.

Presumably not the large percentage of people who engage in it.[/QUOTE]

Going back to childish universalism again?

Think of it this way. If you took a survey and said "Is lying immoral." I suspect most people would answer yes.

 

[Malibook]

you will have to explain why lying should be considered equivalent to child abandonment.

Again, I never made such a comparison.
This comparison is just a sidetracking fantasy that you made up.

That being said, there are dramatic varying degrees to lies.
Some lies are harmless and humorous and some are malicious and evil.
There are plenty of lies that are legally actionable.

 

[Malibook]

Adultery is grounds for divorce.
It can cost you your marriage, house, kids, alimony, child support, and result in a dramatic reduction in your standard of living.
This is potentially far more costly than any fine the state would impose if this was illegal.

But at least it is not illegal like getting a parking ticket.