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

[Narg]

Fuji, do you really not see the irony in a serial adulterer starting a thread intending to criticize the moral choices of others?

You are a self-described "womanizing slimeball", who repeatedly cheats on his wife. I'm curious? What jusitification do you use? Do you tell yourself that its her fault for getting older or for putting on a few pounds or for not putting out enough? Do you tell yourself that there's no real harm done, that you still love her and that what she doesn't know won't hurt her? Do you just tell yourself that you, being uniquely wonderful, are somehow entitled to cheat on your wife while denouncing others who don't share your impeccable moral sense? Fact is, you are repeatedly engaged in breaching your wife's trust in a manner that is very likely to cause her considerable emotional harm and possibly physical upset.

Do you have kids? If your wife dumps your cheating ass because she either finds out about your hobbying or (if you have an "open" relationship) gets tired of the accumulated emotional abuse, are you prepared to admit that you have abandoned your responsibilities to your wife and to your children? You may be willing to pay child and spousal support happily (which is much easier to claim in the abstract than when actually being put to the test), but you are apparently willing to risk breaking up your family and causing lasting emotional upset to your wife and kids just so you can bump uglies with a variety of SPs.

I don't see much difference between you and what you were accusing theMexi of being.

Just so it's clear, I am accusing you of hypocrisy.

 

[fuji]

Fuji, do you really not see the irony in a serial adulterer starting a thread intending to criticize the moral choices of others?

Nope, and I have a long history on terb of championing the view that adultery is not immoral. This is the point: Sex and sexual behavior is not fair and cannot be made fair.. Ethics, morality, justice, legal codes are designed to create fairness, but in this area, fairness is impossible.

At the spear point of evolutionary pressure where natural selection (read, mate selection) operates mercilessly human behavior becomes too complex for moral codes to analyze. We are all simultaneously driven to adultery, and simultaneously shocked and appalled when someone does it to us. We are inherently hypocrits in this area, but there is nothing immoral about being hypocrits in the sexual arena. I highlighted the word because I don't think this principle generalizes to behaviors further from the evolutionary spearpoint.

You are a self-described "womanizing slimeball", who repeatedly cheats on his wife. I'm curious? What jusitification do you use?

It's natural, normal, healthy human behavior.

Do you tell yourself that its her fault for getting older or for putting on a few pounds or for not putting out enough?

Nope. She has not put on weight and she is significantly younger than I am. Moreover, I cheated on her before we were even married, it has nothing to do with anything that she's done. It's part of the human condition. Those of you who do not cheat on your wives/girlfriends are fundamentally denying and suppressing your humanity and in my view are inferior people to those who cheat.

Do you have kids?

No, but it wouldn't change anything. My relationship with my kids would continue whether or not my wife ever divorces me.

You may be willing to pay child and spousal support happily

Certainly child support, assuming she has primary custody and isn't paying the support to me. My wife has a good job and contributed more or less half of the assets we have, so I don't imagine I'll end up having to pay spousal support.

 

[fuji]

For greater clarity:

Any law designed to make the sex act itself "fair" is either going to fail to be observed (like anti-prostitution and anti-adultery laws) or will be so draconian that it will have to trample many other far more fundamental human rights (like female genital mutilation and honour killings).

Sex cannot be made fair. It cannot be made ethical. It cannot be made moral. Mate selection is driven by real world pragmatics that are fundamentally hypocritically and cannot be made non-hypocritical. It is basic and innate to the human condition to seek to maximize your own sexual partners, while preventing your sexual partners from doing the same thing. Whether you will prevail in this, or be victimized by it, whether you will ever even find a sexual partner or have very many of them, will depend on your skill, your attractiveness, your personality, and any other aspect or quality of your being that you can bring to bear on the problem--which you will be driven by natural selection to do.

Simplistic systems such as legal codes, moral codes, codes of ethics cannot deal with this sort of complexity because all those systems seek "fairness" and "justice" and "equality" which simply does not exist when it comes to sex. Some guys get better and more girlfriends than others, get away with cheating, while others get nothing. It's just not fair.

 

[mur11]

Those of you who do not cheat on your wives/girlfriends are fundamentally denying and suppressing your humanity and in my view are inferior people to those who cheat.

Right there, you completely discredited every moral argument you made in this thread. Not only are you cheating on your wife with absolutely no remorse, but you actually think it's the right way to embark on a marriage. Wow
I really really hope that your wife sees this thread.
Adultery may be part of our lives unfortunately, but that doesn't make it right. Not at all. And to blame betraying your wife's trust on uncontrollable evolutionary urges is the ultimate cop-out. Each of us has a conscious, intellectual decision everyday to be a better man, and it's clear that not only do you choose the spineless opposite approach every single day, but you think it's right to make that decision . Either you have severe emotional/psychological issues, or you are ass-deep in denial. Either way, you're a sad excuse for a human, and I think most of us will dismiss anything you say further as a weak man trying to justify his cowardly behavior

 

[rld]

Pretty twisted shit eh?

 

[fuji]

Pretty twisted shit eh?

Yes it is. Sex is inherently unfair and anything related to it is fundamentally twisted.

 

[rld]

Yes it is. Sex is inherently unfair and anything related to it is fundamentally twisted.

That is a very healthy viewpoint.

 

[fuji]

That is a very healthy viewpoint.

Yes it is. It is a very human viewpoint. Any other viewpoint is anti-human and unhealthy.

 

[rld]

Yes it is. It is a very human viewpoint. Any other viewpoint is anti-human and unhealthy.

Yes because your answers are always definitively correct.

Except when you are wrong.

 

[fuji]

I explained why in post #303 and further in #304. You've had not replied to the substance of those posts. You, in your typical fashion, have simply come back with pedantic arguments, or as in this case pure fluff, which fails to cut to the heart of the matter.

But go ahead--convince me that mate selection is, ever has been, ever will be, or even conceivably could be "fair".

 

[rld]

I explained why in post #303 and further in #304. You've had not replied to the substance of those posts. You, in your typical fashion, have simply come back with pedantic arguments, or as in this case pure fluff, which fails to cut to the heart of the matter.

But go ahead--convince me that mate selection is, ever has been, ever will be, or even conceivably could be "fair".

It actually depends on what we know about mate selection. Evolutionary biology is not all that firm on the subject, with a lot of new data suggesting that the "Red Queen" approach is not accurate for all species in all environments.

It also depends on how you want to live and how you want to see humans. If you see humans as just another animal than some sort of evolutionary approach has some value. If you see humans as being able to and should be rising above the simply "animal" behaviours than you can take a whole different approach.

In evolutionary biology we are now trying to understand things like alturism, kin selection, in and out group evolution, meme survival and value, social evolution...and all sorts of mechanisms and factors that could lead to the extinction of the kind of very simply "mate selection" idea you propose.

Now, you could be right, but you simple way of stating your opinion as inassailable fact is fanatical. There are many approaches to mate selection and mate selection theory be they cultural, scientific, or just modeled. The reality is that you like to act like your preferred theory or opinion is the only one that is accurate but that does not make it so.

Your inability to see other viewpoints or acknowledge that other theories might be right seems to be where your problem lies.

At the very least you seem to have a need to go through some significant counter-cultural mental gymnastics to justify your activities.

 

[fuji]

RLD, the argument I'm making works regardless of which of those mate selection theories you want to apply. In any case, human behavior around mate selection is intensely complex, and in one way or another, either as individuals or as groups, we're in competition for mates, and whatever it is that is competing--individual, group, meme--does what it can to make the competition as unfair as possible.

But more than that, we all know when we go to a party that it's just not fair: Mates don't in this world go to the most deserving person. They go to the person who competes most successfully for a mate, possibly through very underhanded and unfair techniques.

 

[simon482]

while i would prefer her to get an abortion i would support whatever choice she made and if a baby came out of it i would do everything that a father is supposed to do and i would participate in raising that child and be the best parent that i could be. it is not the child's fault that the parents were careless and it would deserve the best chance at life possible.

as for the guys that deny the child is theirs, the kid is better off without them anyway.

 

[Narg]

I was thinking of quoting Fuji's posts 303 and 304 and replacing Fuji's references to adultery with the idea of paying child support for a child you do not want and did not plan for. Seems to me the argument would be the same (and equally fallacious).

Beneath all of Fuji's rationalizations is simple selfishness. He wants to do what he wants to do. If Fuji does it, it cannot be immoral. It if looks immoral, there must be some form of overarching societal or evoluntionary justification for the things Fuji wants to do. However, for the things Fuji wants to find represhensible and for which he wants to take the moral high ground and be indignant, there cannot possibly be any justification, evolutionary or otherwise.

Listen Fuji, using your "logic" (ahem), just as therei is no "fairness" about sex, there is no "fairness" about having kids. It is (how did you put it?) basic and innate to the human condition to seek to maximize the security of certain of one's off-spring by denying others conceived outside of the prevailing social norm (legitimacy vs bastardy). If adultery is a product of natural selection and other factors apparently outside your control, I would think that choosing to shun illegitimate kids in favour of legitimate ones would also be a product of natural selection outside of your control.

Personally, I think your reasoning is just a cowardly way of avoiding responsibility by reframing a conscious moral choice as something solely subject to external forces. That's the justification you are using to have your cake and eat it too - to repeatedly cheat on your wife and yet not admit you have made a conscious choice to do so ... poor little Fuji was compelled to cheat by factors outside his control ...

 

[Narg]

while i would prefer her to get an abortion i would support whatever choice she made and if a baby came out of it i would do everything that a father is supposed to do and i would participate in raising that child and be the best parent that i could be. it is not the child's fault that the parents were careless and it would deserve the best chance at life possible.

as for the guys that deny the child is theirs, the kid is better off without them anyway.

... but not better off without their money ...

 

[fuji]

I was thinking of quoting Fuji's posts 303 and 304 and replacing Fuji's references to adultery with the idea of paying child support for a child you do not want and did not plan for. Seems to me the argument would be the same (and equally fallacious).

Nope. Children have a universally recognized right to care, and parents have a universally recognized duty of care to their children. All is fair in love and war, but not in raising children.

Listen Fuji, using your "logic" (ahem), just as therei is no "fairness" about sex, there is no "fairness" about having kids.

Tell that to the judge. There is a reason why we have "no fault" divorce, but do not have any equivalent concept surrounding child care.

 

[blackrock13]

I was thinking of quoting Fuji's posts 303 and 304 and replacing Fuji's references to adultery with the idea of paying child support for a child you do not want and did not plan for. Seems to me the argument would be the same (and equally fallacious).

Beneath all of Fuji's rationalizations is simple selfishness. He wants to do what he wants to do. If Fuji does it, it cannot be immoral. It if looks immoral, there must be some form of overarching societal or evoluntionary justification for the things Fuji wants to do. However, for the things Fuji wants to find represhensible and for which he wants to take the moral high ground and be indignant, there cannot possibly be any justification, evolutionary or otherwise.

Listen Fuji, using your "logic" (ahem), just as therei is no "fairness" about sex, there is no "fairness" about having kids. It is (how did you put it?) basic and innate to the human condition to seek to maximize the security of certain of one's off-spring by denying others conceived outside of the prevailing social norm (legitimacy vs bastardy). If adultery is a product of natural selection and other factors apparently outside your control, I would think that choosing to shun illegitimate kids in favour of legitimate ones would also be a product of natural selection outside of your control.

Personally, I think your reasoning is just a cowardly way of avoiding responsibility by reframing a conscious moral choice as something solely subject to external forces. That's the justification you are using to have your cake and eat it too - to repeatedly cheat on your wife and yet not admit you have made a conscious choice to do so ... poor little Fuji was compelled to cheat by factors outside his control ...

You've learned so much in so little time, grasshopper; well put.

 

[simon482]

... but not better off without their money ...

this is the grey area in my view. i think that if the father walks out and says he has and wants nothing to do with the baby and she either tricked him or lied to him and it wasn't a choice made by both and he walks and she knows he is gonna walk then he shouldn't have to contribute in anyway. i am just stating my own way and if a woman said she was gonna have it then i would step up and do what i had to do, that is just me though.

 

[fuji]

this is the grey area in my view. i think that if the father walks out and says he has and wants nothing to do with the baby and she either tricked him or lied to him and it wasn't a choice made by both and he walks and she knows he is gonna walk then he shouldn't have to contribute in anyway. i am just stating my own way and if a woman said she was gonna have it then i would step up and do what i had to do, that is just me though.

The woman may make a series of wrong choices. Thing is once the kid is born he has his own rights. The relationship between father and child, and the responsibilities, have nothing to do with the mother once the kid is born.

 

[fuji]

You've learned so much in so little time, grasshopper; well put.

Of course you yourself have nothing to add. You never do have anything to add.

In any case he's wrong: It is evident that sex cannot be made fair. It is equally evident that childcare HAS been made reasonably fair--maybe not perfect, but reasonably so.

So he can substitute the words like that if he wants, but it's at odds with reality.