This coming from you Laddie, the King of Asian Soapies!?!?!?Well then, we are honoured to have you amongst us.
SARCASM ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yawn.No-one here has seriously taken issue with the following points, not in a credible way:
1. People desire multiple sex partners (whether they act on it or not)
2. People desire that their partners remain faithful
Whatever debate we may have over the origin of these desires it's futile to deny them, and it remains the case that actualizing BOTH of those desires is inherently hypocritical, and yet fulfilling. Suppressing EITHER of those desires is some form of self-denial. Thus both monogamy and open relationships are self denial. A monogamous relationship denies the desire for multiple sex partners. An open one denies the desire that partners remain faithful.
Only a relationship in which you have multiple sex partners, and your partners remain faithful, is truly fulfilling.
This coming from you Laddie, the King of Asian Soapies!?!?!?
Give your **** a shake!
Let he who is without sin cast the first muslamesque stone!!!....:fear:
Laddie - Run and get out now. Go, and don't look back. Trust me, you'll be glad you did.
Only a relationship in which you have multiple sex partners, and your partners remain faithful, is truly fulfilling.
Try that and tell me if it works for you.Ah, but the classy man would put that on the table before he starts screwing around.
probably about as good as your arguments on evolutionTry that and tell me if it works for you.
I have posted numerous posts containing your factual errors and lies. You are dishonourable and do not care. Feel free to be such a creature.It would be nice if you would actually post these "corrections" instead of just posting a lot of hot air like this about how you could, but then never do. This post, like most of your post, is full of unsubstantiated accusations that you never follow through on.
I've pointed out a few times your failure to apply common sense. You often wrap yourself up in the details in a way that causes you to miss the most basic point, for example, you come up with ridiculous things like it's legal for Canada to invade the USA. When I point out who fundamentally ridiculous and stupid these statements of yours are you throw a hissy fit like this, accuse me of lying, and whatever else.
Most recently you posted on the topic of evolution in a way that demonstrated you'd confused yourself. You actually tried to argue that the traits of those who reproduce more frequently do not become more common in the population. That is nonsensical no matter how you slice it. Is evolution a complex topic? Yes. Are there interesting and new ways of looking at things yes? Can we look at units of evolution other than the individual? Sure. Does they defy the fundamentals such that natural selection no longer operates? No. Only someone who lacks common sense would conclude that. But when this is point out to Your Majesty, that you have actually got something fundamentally wrong in your understanding--you throw your toys out of the pram and call me all sorts of names.
Grow up.
It was not an appeal to common sense, it was Fuji-sense, which was in conflict with the real world facts.It was an appeal to common sense, so I wouldn't expect you to get it.
Come on Fuji...step up and be a man...you quote a factual assertion I made and I provide sources...than I do the same for you...Originally Posted by fuji
You haven't provided any facts. You've only provided hot air. You've set yourself out as an authority who should be believed on what the current science says, without backing up anything you've said, or only in the most oblique ways. At the same time you've previously shown yourself to be the sort of fellow who fails miserably to understand such things--for example, misreading things in ways that defy common sense, such as when you proposed that it would be legal for Canada to invade the United States.
So sorry, but I don't believe you. I find it more likely that you've misunderstood what you've read, than that it says what you claim. Your claim defies common sense.
I will back up any scientific assertion I have made with a rock solid study or commonly accepted text in the field.
Let's play a game. Let's pick a factual assertion I have made in this thread and I will back it up. Then I will do the same with you. Are you up for it?
Originally Posted by fuji
Brillig. In the meantime, RLD compared the Wahhabi faith to Nazims, which is stupid. He's also essentially asserted that being a Wahhabi is fundamentally immoral in and of itself, also not so swift.
But on the main point of this thread: US trained terrorists who blow up jetliners are just as bad as Saudi trained terrorists who do.
My response:
You lie again. Show me where I did this or apologize.
And I point out you are the one who thinks Hitler's and MLK's ideologies are morally equivalent.
You do know better than to hold your breath.And while I am at it Fuji:
I still await your long overdue apology for this lie, but I would settle for a retraction:
Where do I buy"Biggie Weiners?"LOLI apologize for not responding directly to anyone who replied to my post as well as those who agreed with my view as well as those who didn't.
First off I understand what you all are doing. It's kind of like what owners of hyper, over energetic dogs do to their dogs, you get the dog all excited and raring to go then you fool him into chasing his own tail and have a good laugh wondering how long till he catches it or realizes that it's his own tail and stops. But you watch and laugh hard for an hour or so until that dog actually bites his own tail and whimpers, then you almost pee yourself with laughter at the sheer and utter stupidity that you witneSsed. The issue I have is this gets old fast. I mean wow over 30 pages and how long has he been going? Don't you get tired of it? Bored? The funniest is he sees this as a good thing and not as an arena where he is the fool performing for this court
If you think telling your girlfriend/wife up front that you plan on having sex with other women is going to work out, and you think that's common sense--well that says a lot about you.It was not an appeal to common sense, it was Fuji-sense, which was in conflict with the real world facts.
No, all you've demonstrated is that you don't understand the naturalistic fallacy, and you don't understand argument. The naturalistic fallacy applies to an attempt to combine two different propositions in a deduction. It cannot be applied to an assumption that is simply given. You are a bloody idiot.While I have previously shown this argument embodies a naturalistic fallacy
That's absolutely correct! A moral code that prescribes against farting is a failed moral code. EVERYONE WILL VIOLATE IT.Farting is normal behaviour, and it is life denying to prescribe against farting.
Overlapping. You know EXACTLY what I mean, you're just being a stupid pedant, as usual.1. 'Desiring multilple sex partners' is deliberately ambiguous about whether we want those multiple partners in serial or overlapping fashion
Those people are denying their inherent human desire for their partners to be exclusive to them. The same sort of denial that monogamous people subject themselves to. Yes, people are capable of this sort of self denial, and many do.2. Some do, yes. But it is a fact that some have open relationships, in which fidelity to agreed boundaries is more important than sexual fidelity.
Just keep lying and running. Everybody has seen through you and find you completely incredible.If you think telling your girlfriend/wife up front that you plan on having sex with other women is going to work out, and you think that's common sense--well that says a lot about you.
The ONLY factual question that really matters on this thread is whether or not individuals have an incentive to cheat. Most of the rest of the stuff you work was really tangential to the question. For example, arguing that more intelligent people have fewer partners is irrelevant, if it also turns out that they cheat.
You seem as befuddled as a Limbaugh lemming out of OxyContin, FFS.Ah Woody, you never miss a chance to show your confusion in all things.
I readily admit to being a hedonistic pig when it comes to the joys of Asia. I've never pretended otherwise.
