The Bash Fuji Thread

[simon482]

wow 4tees going from intelligent argument to insulting the mans wife and lifestyle. i read a few pages of this and for the most part as much a really fucking hate to admit it, fuji kept it legit with facts and clever responses while 4tees has gone to just all out ignorant insults and bashing and the lowest form of internets asshole, a grammar nazi.

i put fuji as the winner over 4tees.

 

[JohnLarue]

wow 4tees going from intelligent argument to insulting the mans wife and lifestyle. i read a few pages of this and for the most part as much a really fucking hate to admit it, fuji kept it legit with facts and clever responses while 4tees has gone to just all out ignorant insults and bashing and the lowest form of internets asshole, a grammar nazi.

i put fuji as the winner over 4tees.

Read more of his work and then determine if he sticks to facts.
Fuji has a rather significant credibility issue.

 

[Malibook]

wow 4tees going from intelligent argument to insulting the mans wife and lifestyle. i read a few pages of this and for the most part as much a really fucking hate to admit it, fuji kept it legit with facts and clever responses while 4tees has gone to just all out ignorant insults and bashing and the lowest form of internets asshole, a grammar nazi.

i put fuji as the winner over 4tees.

This is The Bash fuji Thread.

Just because fuji wants to try to hijack this fine thread and blow his load over himself doesn`t mean this is the appropriate place for you to join him. :crazy:

 

[fuji]

You don't exactly grasp the concept of "fact" JL, you think a fact is any statement that agrees with your ideological view. When empirical reality contradicts you, you insist that it must be wrong and blindly stick to your narrow ideology.

Similarly you think an argument can be made by repeating your assumptions over and over, and then expressing frustration that others are "fools" for not agreeing. You're the worst kind of fool in that regard.

Anyone who reads that other thread will see me repeatedly asking you to back up your assumptions, and you repeatedly either unable our unwilling to do so.

 

[Narg]

fuji, any chance you might answer the question I asked you on the other thread?

 

[groggy]

Sw1tch nailed Fuji early on for faulty logic and premises.

 

[JohnLarue]

You don't exactly grasp the concept of "fact" JL, you think a fact is any statement that agrees with your ideological view. When empirical reality contradicts you, you insist that it must be wrong and blindly stick to your narrow ideology.

Similarly you think an argument can be made by repeating your assumptions over and over, and then expressing frustration that others are "fools" for not agreeing. You're the worst kind of fool in that regard.

Anyone who reads that other thread will see me repeatedly asking you to back up your assumptions, and you repeatedly either unable our unwilling to do so.

And anyone who reads this thread will see that I make well thought out and reasoned arguments, most of which are self evident
They will also see that you like to make up the rules as you go along
ie. Give me the reason for what you are thinking. WTF !

OK here is one
I am think that Fuji is an untrustworthy, self absorbed, immoral, attention seeker and anything he says can not be taken at face value as truthful

The reasons for my thinking this are
a) He deceives his wife on a regular basis by cheating on her. If he is willing to deceive the one he supposedly care about,he will be willing to deceive anyone. Especially anonymous board members. A low risk lie for him.

b) He conducts mind experiments (who the fuck does this?) where he plots to screw his best friends wife. Again Completely void of the trust others have place in him and downright inappropriate behavior.

c) He dismisses societies morality as not applicable to him. He has examined the cheating issue and he is OK with it and that is all that matters
Not a thought or concern about how his actions affect others. Not the kinda guy anyone should trust.

d) He believes he is smarter than all others and figures he can lie and talk his way out of anything. Unfortunately, everyone knows at least one knob like this and generally they do not trust knobs like this

e) He craves the attention. How many posts in a thread bashing him? Yet he comes back for more? Why ?

e) Finally, most of his posts at some point lead to a point where he is able to inflate his ego.
He has a hot wife, lots of hot woman to cheat with, he enriches the life of the ones he lies and cheats on (ie the ones he supposedly cares about) he is outstanding physical shape, he is in the top 1% of his field, he gets paid a very lucrative salary , yet he able to spend all day on the INTERNET and he is very knowledgeable in all subject matter (Just ask him).

ie. He is braggart and a deceiving one at that.

Those are the reasons for thinking Fuji is untrustworthy self-absorbed pathological lair.

 

[desert monk]

I think fuji is just a good troll. Or a narcissistic, psychopathic, delusional egomaniac with a very distorted view of reality stemming from some deep-rooted trauma and years of antisocial thinking.

 

[fuji]

Your "arguments" are only "self evident" to you, johny boy. You aren't actually smart enough to distinguish between assumption and fact. You're one of those lunk heads who thinks that the things you believe are "obvious", but what is obvious is your metal limitation in that regard.

If you want top be taken seriously demonstrate that you are aware of your assumptions.

 

[simon482]

I dare you to read the full thread, along with this one https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?343552-The-ten-solitudes-of-Toronto-dating, and still conclude Fuji kept things legitimate and factual. I would also suggest Fuji`s so-called clever responses are mostly masks for having a nonsense position that requires him to misdirect to avoid legitimate debate.

i didn`t say his facts were legit or real or even based on anything, i just said he presented facts. don`t ask me if i think he is a hypocritical blow hard that has no real grasp on life, just ask me if he won the e-fight lol.

 

[JohnLarue]

Your "arguments" are only "self evident" to you, johny boy. You aren't actually smart enough to distinguish between assumption and fact. You're one of those lunk heads who thinks that the things you believe are "obvious", but what is obvious is your metal limitation in that regard.

If you want top be taken seriously demonstrate that you are aware of your assumptions.

Well I am smart enough to spot a narcissistic, lying knob when I see one.

I guess you describe mental limitation as the condition when someone does not buy into your twisted view of the world

I can 99.9 % guarantee that I am taken a whole lot more seriously here than you are

Even the WoodPeker , the clown, is taken more seriously than you ,as he
a) embellishes, but does not purposely deceive
b) does not disrespect the people he cares about
c) does not try to portray himself as something he is not

Go lie to someone else.
Your act is wearing real thin

 

[JohnLarue]

i didn't say his facts were legit or real or even based on anything, i just said he presented facts. don't ask me if i think he is a hypocritical blow hard that has no real grasp on life, just ask me if he won the e-fight lol.

Its somewhat easier to appear to have won an e-fight if one is able to deceive and misrepresent issues, arguments and people in general

 

[fuji]

Bunch of sore losers here.

The reason why you need to acknowledge your assumptions, johnny, is that it would show that you can see the limits of your ideology. You might even then be able to grasp some of the points that were made here that contradicted your assumptions.

You were asked several times to justify your view that morality is a popularity contest, aka, imposed by society. You failed to even demonstrate that you are aware you're making an unsupported assumption there, let alone give any reason to believe it's true. You just repeated it hoping that stating it a second time would deflect any need to defend it.

 

[fuji]

Sw1tch, I pointed out exactly how and where you misrepresented me. It's obvious you don't have any credible way to continue the debate. As others have noted you've descended to the school yard insult.

I'll respond to you again if you ever actually say anything real.

 

[rld]

Bunch of sore losers here.

The reason why you need to acknowledge your assumptions, johnny, is that it would show that you can see the limits of your ideology. You might even then be able to grasp some of the points that were made here that contradicted your assumptions.

You were asked several times to justify your view that morality is a popularity contest, aka, imposed by society. You failed to even demonstrate that you are aware you're making an unsupported assumption there, let alone give any reason to believe it's true. You just repeated it hoping that stating it a second time would deflect any need to defend it.

The only place you have succeeded is in your own mind.

The only way your theory works is if you ignore the reality around us.

You live in a fantasy world. I guess it is safer for Fuji-child to be that way. Enjoy your fiction bubble.

 

[groggy]

I think the problem is that Fuji just can't understand the counter arguments, yet thinks he has successfully debated them.
He resorts to ignoring points he can't argue then claiming he won the argument.

 

[Malibook]

I think fuji is just a good troll. Or a narcissistic, psychopathic, delusional egomaniac with a very distorted view of reality stemming from some deep-rooted trauma and years of antisocial thinking.

I must defend fuji and let you know that he is not a troll. :biggrin1:

 

[fuji]

Here's an example of Sw1tch misrepresenting what I said:

I also said Fuji commits the naturalistic fallacy in moving from cheating happens to cheating is good

I never moved from "cheating happens" to "cheating is good". That's not what I said. Sw1tch relies heavily on this misrepresentation of my argument in most of his replies.

What I actually said is that cheating is normal behavior, and as such it cannot be wrong behavior. The justification for calling it good behavior lies elsewhere. Moreover there is an incredible difference between "cheating happens" and "cheating is normal", but Sw1tch relies on the slight of hand of pretending these are the same thing in his pretend responses.

 

[fuji]

No, 4tees, Sw1tch specifically relied heavily on this misrepresentation in several of his posts if you go back and read them. His arguments in fact have relied heavily on a very literalist pedantry. That misrepresentation is the whole basis for his claiming "naturalistic fallacy", which is the crux of his objection. He buried that slight of hand in a lot of pedantic mumbo jumbo so you can be forgiven if you didn't notice it--I'm sure the intent of all his babbling was to hide the slight of hand, just so you wouldn't notice it.

If you allow that cheating is normal behavior then you can't use THAT line of argument to attack the proposition "Moral codes which prescribe against normal behavior are bad moral codes because they are life denying".

You'd have to instead debate the assumption that a moral code should not be life denying, which he hasn't done. He did make a feeble attempt at one point, challenging me to define the terms--but when I did clarify them further he had no further reply on that line of argument.

 

[Narg]

fuji ... from another thread ... just so I cannot be accused of misrepresenting your argument, I have quoted one of the more straightforward comments you have made. I am looking forward to hearing your defence of the claim that all thought and language, etc. "all exist only to serve the sexual relationship". That seems patently ridiculous to me, but I'm curious how you intend to back up your argument.

Yes. It is my position that sexual relationships are unique, that in fact from an evolutionary standpoint the rest of our lives, all our thought and language, our physical being, our emotions, our desires, our culture and our abilities all exist only to serve the sexual relationship.

Interesting ... and far more extreme than I was expecting.

You are arguing that every thought, expression (linguistic, cultural, artistic, mathematical, philosophical, theological, sociological, etc.), desires (such as for food, warmth, clothing, physical and financial health, family, friendship, prestige, acknowledgment, self-development, etc.), abilities (physical and mental), emotions (anger, fear, hatred, love, etc.) all exist only to serve the sexual relationship.

How does friendship (absent sexual desire) exist only to serve the sexual relationship? For that matter, how do calculus, coal mining, cancer research, cartography and calligraphy exist only to serve our sexual relationships?

fuji, I think your premise (that all of our thought etc. "all exist only to serve the sexual relationship") is going to be very hard to justify. Nevertheless, I would like to see you try. Is there any chance you might answer my question above?