The Bash Fuji Thread

[fuji]

i said what i had to say and i am not commenting on the topic at hand anymore. i am just gonna go back to picking sides. not that i was beaten or bested in anyway, just can't convince a man that he is a not a man when he has no idea what being a man is.

You should update your understanding of what a man is.

 

[kissykisskiss]

Did you read what i said?

 

[fuji]

Now I asked you which is more plausible, that sexual relations are subsets of human relations or that they are separate from human relations.

Nope, you're making a basic error in reasoning: You haven't established that any but universal morals apply to ALL subsets of human relations, and we've already agreed that those apply. So your argument fails.

- if you concede that sexual relations are subsets of human relations then the strong form of your argument, that they are separate, goes out the window

Nope, it doesn't. You can't use set theory this way. Do you really need me to explain why not?

Let's say we have four items, they are all food. Three are vegetables. One is meat. In our little universe of four items it is possible to say that meat is a subset of food, like all the other things, but that it is also different than all the others, in that it is the only one that is not also in a subset of vegetable.

Your reasoning is riddled with these basic errors.

- if you concede the subset point, and retreat to the unique and different point, then you need an argument why they are so different to escape the property you concede all the other sets in the subset have (infused by moral codes)

First, I've given you that argument. Second, you haven't established that ALL human behavior is infused by moral codes, other than those universal codes such as the prescriptions against aggressive violence.

You haven't come up with any new arguments here, I think we're done. If you were a better man you would have politely conceded the debate by now.

 

[kissykisskiss]

You all need to get outside........maybe have a picnic.

 

[simon482]

You should update your understanding of what a man is.

a real man is someone that gives his word or makes a promise and keeps it. a man is someone that treats women with respect. a man is honourable and can be trusted on a hand shake.

you are none of that. now leave me out of your gay debate.

 

[simon482]

You all need to get outside........maybe have a picnic.

you pack the picnic and tell me where to show up. i don't like cheese, onions or butter on my samich's

 

[cye]

This thread is for fuji bashing not gay bashing Simon.

 

[Davy.Biggie]

Maybe you can explain to me why you think they're contradictory. I think you are confusing pragamatic advice with moral advice. If I tell you that you will get burned if you touch a hot stove that's not moral advice that's pragmatic. It doesn't mean that it's immoral to touch the hot stove. If you know someone is likely to cheat on you, and you don't want to be cheated on, then my pragmatic advice is not to trust that person as a sexual partner. Plainly if someone knew my entire history of cheating, and they didn't want to be cheated on, pragmatic advice would be for them not to be my sexual partner. That's not a moral imperative, that's just pragmatic advice.

So, how are the two statements contradictory?

The two statements are contradictory in the fact that you claim to have codes of conduct you engineered for sexual behavior with your wife and your girlfriend and your
Imported Girl and your SP's and claim that those engineered codes of conduct are specifically and exclusively for sexual conduct, meanwhile you said yourself that

you cannot engineer codes specifically for sexual behavior. There is nothing whatsoever arbitrary about it

So a better question would be "If you lie and cheat on someone you love what would stop you doing the same to someone you hardly know or hate?"

But you will find some way of avoiding a direct question and try to defer attention to another topic or sidestep. I think I give up. I think my IQ is diminishing just by interacting with you. You tend to be like a black hole but except that instead of making everything (including light) disappear, you do it to intelligence. Your lack of intellectual prowess and being devoid of logic show. Your miniscule mind is only overshadowed by your lack of reasoning. Your moral compass is so twisted I have no idea how you make it out of the bedroom in the morning. And in reality, your seem to be happy living oblivious to reality. Some live in reality, others make it up as they go along.

I understand now what your existence is for. You're a poster child for condom use and pro life activists would change their minds if pro choice activists used you as their mascot.

In closing, I will quote the immortal words of R. Lee Ermey as Gny. Sgt. Hartman "Looks like the best part of you ran down the crack of your momma's ass and ended up a brown stain on the mattress."

 

[fuji]

Davy, I don't claim to have a moral code of conduct for sexual behavior with my wife, girlfriend, etc., note that "moral code" means two things. First it means a value judgement that something is right or wrong. Second it means a rule that codifies that value judgement in a reusable way. I can't see why you think I've done anything like that.

Some examples of things that are NOT moral codes: If you touch the stove it will burn you. If you betray me I will leave you. The first is a warning, the second is an ultimatum, neither is a moral code. A moral code would restate those as "if you touch the stove you're a bad person" or "if you betray me you're a bad person". Or, what's more relevant to the topic, be it resolved that "if you cheat you're a bad person". I say no, not true.

"If you lie and cheat on someone you love what would stop you doing the same to someone you hardly know or hate?"

Absolutely nothing--but the question must be restricted to sexual behavior, and so we are talking only about sexual cheating here. I would never lie or cheat anyone in other contexts. I've been clear about that.

But you will find some way of avoiding a direct question and try to defer attention to another topic or sidestep.

Nope, I answered your question head on, again. That's what, the second or third time you've predicted I would not answer directly? And each time I have. How many wrong predictions are you going to make before you re-evaluate the theory that is generating these wrong predictions?

As for your closing potty humour--I'll leave the potty humour to you, and I'll stick to the rational arguments. But help yourself to as much potty humour as you like, though I don't think it will help your argument. Although you have hurled a few crass insults at me so far I haven't hurled any back at you. Think about that. Surely if you keep up with the schoolyard insults I will eventually form an opinion about what kind of person would do that--but so far I haven't, so maybe knock it off.

 

[Davy.Biggie]

Fuji,
It's been a blast.
I stand humbled and educated in your presence and you have proved to me that some of my fears of mankind's evolution weren't nearly as bad as reality could produce.

 

[fuji]

Fuji,
It's been a blast.
I stand humbled and educated in your presence and you have proved to me that some of my fears of mankind's evolution weren't nearly as bad as reality could produce.

Ok, maybe stick to potty humour then.

 

[Davy.Biggie]

Ok, maybe stick to potty humour then.

Too easy. Not going to say more than this.
You proved my point for me.

 

[Petzel]

If you all want this thread to die, as i do, then stop posting!

 

[groggy]

Absolutely nothing--but the question must be restricted to sexual behavior, and so we are talking only about sexual cheating here. I would never lie or cheat anyone in other contexts. I've been clear about that.

And on what basis would we restrict this to talk only of sexual behaviour?
Your word?
You admit to cheating and lying, your word is no good by your own admission.

 

[fuji]

I only lie and cheat in sexual relationships. That's just a fact, and yes you have to take my word for it. Not like you have a choice, I'm sure as hell not identifying myself.

Realistically you have to confront the argument itself anyway, not persist with infantile ad hominem. Whatever ignorant presumption you may have about me, the argument stands.

 

[groggy]

I only lie and cheat in sexual relationships. That's just a fact, and yes you have to take my word for it.

That's funny.
I would never believe someone who lies and cheats and calls it 'classy'.

 

[afterhours]

I only lie and cheat in sexual relationships. That's just a fact, and yes you have to take my word for it. Not like you have a choice, I'm sure as hell not identifying myself.

Realistically you have to confront the argument itself anyway, not persist with infantile ad hominem. Whatever ignorant presumption you may have about me, the argument stands.

that is illogical
why would you not cheat somebody who is not close to you when you are OK with cheating somebody who is close to you?

 

[fuji]

afterhours, that's a very good question. empirically it's the case: i really would NEVER cheat a friend, a business partner, not even a stranger on the street. however, sexually, i cheat all the time. strange huh? but true. by empirical observation, that's just the case, that's me. some moral majority fanatics around here would like to deny it but it's absolutely true--i'm a completely honest, trustworthy, responsible guy, right up until it comes to fucking.

it's the reason why once upon a time i posed that thread: would you fuck your best friends wife? most of us here on terb cheat on our OWN wives all the time. by your logic that should be worse than cheating on a friend, right? i mean, wife is closer than friend. in the circle of "closeness" it has to be worse to cheat on your own wife than to cheat on your friend with his wife.

however we all know, viscerally, that this is not true--it's worse to cheat with your friends wife than to cheat on your own wife.

so the logic you're outlining, this notion that it's worse to cheat on the people you're closest too--well it plainly doesn't work logically. it just doesn't. sexuality defies that kind of analysis. at the end of the day it's just not as logical as everyone here would like it to be. at the end of the day fucking behind your own wife's back is not as bad as fucking your friend's wife behind his back. explain that one, without reference to the complexity of human sexuality...

my conclusion--sex is just different. we apply different rules to it. the "moral majority", sw1tch et al, can deny it--but everyone here knows it to be true.

p.s. -- i'm appealing to humanity rather than logic in this post because i'm drunk, it's 3am, i just got home, was out with a good friend of mine and had a great night. ask me for a more logically succinct answer tomorrow, if you don't like this booze laden one.

 

[fuji]

Shudup, go to bed and fuck your wife. If you can get it up you boozer. You lying, cheating, whore.

LOL, ok, i will!

 

[simon482]

I only lie and cheat in sexual relationships. That's just a fact, and yes you have to take my word for it. Not like you have a choice, I'm sure as hell not identifying myself.

Realistically you have to confront the argument itself anyway, not persist with infantile ad hominem. Whatever ignorant presumption you may have about me, the argument stands.

you admit to being a liar then ask us to take your word for it. you lie about one thing you lie about everything, sorry about your luck. okay no i'm done.