The ten solitudes of Toronto dating

[Samurai Joey]

No, it's not just the same thing as "lying". You know, and I know, that being cheated on feels a whole hell of a lot worse than, say, someone bluffing you in a poker game, or telling you that you don't look fat in your jeans (when really you do).

One could argue, however, that cheating feels much worse than, say, bluffing in a poker game because of the seriousness of the deception, because it lies at the core of trust. Put simply, if you are in a traditional, monogamous relationship (i.e. not an open relationship or swinging), you and your SO have both entered into an agreement (a contract, if you will) that the two of you will not have sexual relations with other people. By cheating, you are in essence violating that contract, and thus has the same degree of seriousness as a breaking the terms of a business contract (morally at any rate).

Ask yourself this question (if you have not already): if your SO finds out that you have been cheating, what would you expect her reaction to be?

 

[Davy.Biggie]

This one is tough.
I mean REALLY TOUGH.
Not because Fuji is trying to exploit the women he wishes to find, but in many ways, many of those same women are acually only interested in a "Canadian Guy" in order to be sponsored and get Canadian citizenship. And being a first generation Canadian I have hear horror stories of men and women here helping to legalize a person and in the end they get taken for a ride. I personally know 7 people who went through legalizing a partner from another country and only 1 of them is still together. The other 6 got divorced, taken for half of everything they worked to have, and in the end it turns out that their ex (Now that they are Canadians) then sponsored the person they were dating before coming to this country. So in effect he's taking advantage of them assuming they are just using him to become a citizen.
I know not everyone is like that (1 out of 7 I know proves this) so to save the ones who are honest I am refusing to help Fuji in this. The issue is I know Hundreds of men and women who are on visas here. They just think because I speak their language fluently and that I know and go to the places they hang out that I am in the same boat. Fact is Both my parents came as LEGAL IMMIGRANTS and were approved before they stepped foot on this land and I was born and raised here. I figure if my parents could do it themselves I shouldnt have to help anyone else become Canadian either.
And Fuji, Stay a Hypocrite. Keep the faith! You will serve as an example to us all. You already do in so many ways. You're a person, the likes of which we strive NEVER to become!

 

[Aardvark154]

Rather apropos: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/you/article-2018960/Ingrid-Seward-knew-husband-serial-adulterer.html

Sometimes there are reasons for our doing what we do, but there are almost always consequences.

 

[Blue-Spheroid]

many of those same women are acually only interested in a "Canadian Guy" in order to be sponsored and get Canadian citizenship.

Fair enough. However if they are open about what it is they want, the guy who chooses to date them will not be getting into something he does not expect.

 

[fuji]

If I read you correctly, you are saying broader moral codes are insufficient to explain the harm that arises from sexual betrayal?

Close. It is correct to say that you must deal with sexuality and the psychology of sexuality to understand the harm that arises from sexual betrayal. My only quibble is with "morality explains", technically the explanations lie elsewhere, in analysis of human behavior, and morality is an analytical response to those explanations--a bunch of fabricated rules designed to govern behavior. It is somewhat ok to say that harm can be explained by the violation of a moral principle, to the extent that we generally agree from other analysis that this principle was put in place to ward off harm.

You are thus implying some specific moral code is needed, some code specific to sexual relations, and you are denying such a code exists?

With the above quibble, yes.

You are also saying that if such a code existed it would be life denying because it would prescribe against normal behaviour?

Yes.

Now, I am confident I have already shown many fallacies embedded in the idea that a moral code prescribing against normal behaviour is a bad moral code.

You haven't. I've put that forward as an assumption, the life-affirming assumption. You've repeatedly failed to understand that it's not something I claim to have proven. I have always offered you the alternative life-denying assumption, which is that normal human behavior is fundamentally bad and should be suppressed.

I see the inter-locking moral codes and conventions that surround things like sex, honesty, lying, commitment keeping, promising, and so on, to be sufficient for handling sexual relations.

You cannot possibly explain, using only those things, the difference between these two cases:

-- I slip out in the evening, telling my wife that I am heading to the office to get some pressing work done, but really I am fucking another woman, breaking my promise to her that I will remain faithful

-- I slip out in the evening, telling my wife that I am heading to the office to get some pressing work done, but really I am sneaking off to the Tim Horton's to eat a donut, breaking my promise to her that I will diet

The lying, dishonesty, etc., violation of a promise, etc., is the same. The only difference is in the act. Without reference to the psychology of sexuality, or the sociology of sexuality, or some other analysis of sexuality and sexual relationships, you can't explain why she would be devestated by one, and only mildly annoyed by the other.

 

[fuji]

One could argue, however, that cheating feels much worse than, say, bluffing in a poker game because of the seriousness of the deception, because it lies at the core of trust.

Yes you can argue that, and I think you would be largely correct. However you've only put off the inevitable: Why is it a serious betrayal?

if your SO finds out that you have been cheating, what would you expect her reaction to be?

I'd expect her to get angry and move out.

 

[Samurai Joey]

Yes you can argue that, and I think you would be largely correct. However you've only put off the inevitable: Why is it a serious betrayal?

In my earlier post, I had stated that when you and your SO entered into a monogamous relationship, e.g. a marriage, the two of you entered into an agreement/contract that both of you will only engage in sexual activities with each other, and not with other people (unless if you are in an open relationship, which is another matter entirely). When you commit adultery, you are violating the terms of that contract, and that makes it a serious betrayal.

This is analogous to entering into a contract with a business partner or customer, where there are serious consequences if you break the terms of that contract (e.g. lawsuits, loss of business, etc.)

I'd expect her to get angry and move out.

An understandable reaction. You had also posted on a different thread that if you found out your wife was cheating, you would react in the same way.

Therefore, ask yourself these questions: (1) If you know your wife will feel betrayed by your cheating, why do you continue to do it? (2) Why is it OK for you to cheat, but not your wife?

In all fairness, if you cheat, then I believe this automatically gives your wife free license to cheat as well, if she chooses this option (what's good for the goose is good for the gander -- or following the Golden Rule).

 

[fuji]

Sw1 once and for all the naturaliic fallacy, or any other, applies to a deduction, not an assumption. Your grade on this point so far is F.

plainly it requires an assumption to cross from "is" to "ought", or to assign a value judgement in the first place. It's not possible to have a morality of any sort without some such assumption.

I've given you my assumption in a straight forward way. You can keep burbling about naturalistic fallacy but it just makes me think you are stupid.

 

[fuji]

First, it is categorically NOT true that fallacies apply only to deductions and not assumptions. For instance, one can make fallacious inferences, which means there are fallacies in inductive reasoning as well as deductive.

An assumption is not an inference. You fail. You're an idiot. We're done. Stop using big words that you don't understand.

"Naturalistic fallacy" is a deductive fallacy. It occurs when you assert that because something is of a particular nature, e.g. normal, THEREFORE it must be good. You can't make that deduction. You CAN however make that assumption and see where it leads.

If you don't make any assumptions you cannot have morality. All morality begins with assumption--we make it up. It's not something we observe. It's something we fabricate, it's a fiction created by us.

Most of the world's pre-modern moralities were based on the life denying assumption, that we're inferior to some perfect idea, and morality should guide us to be more like the perfect ideal that we're not. This is expressed in terms like "original sin" and the requirement for "confession". It's a perfectly workable morality, but it's one based on an assumption that I reject. As with all moves from pre-modern to modern thinking in morality there's a shift from the Platonic ideal to an appreciation that we're the originators of it all.

 

[Blue-Spheroid]

We won.

Everyone who stopped reading eight pages ago won.

 

[Blue-Spheroid]

We'd already won 8 pages ago, so I agree.

A true winner knows when to move on.

 

[fuji]

Fuji asserts fallacies only apply to deductions, not assumptions.

Deductive fallacies only apply to deductions. Duh. How dumb are you, really? Have you had your IQ tested?

You've long since stopped debating and now you're just pulling a snow job. You think if you keep posting, no matter how idiotically, that you'll give people who are reading idly the impression that you are still making points. You're not. Your last real point went down in flames long ago and since then you've just been spinning your wheels.

The naturalistic fallacy is a deductive fallacy. It asserts you cannot deduce A from B under some conditions. It applies when you say "B therefore A". It does not apply when you simply say, "Assuming A is true".

I don't know why you persist--few are still reading the thread. It's really just between you and me, and WE both know you are just bullshitting now.

 

[Blue-Spheroid]

Deductive fallacies only apply to deductions. Duh. How dumb are you, really? Have you had your IQ tested?

Actually, you're wrong too.

Since deductions can rely on assumptions, a false assumption is a form of deductive fallacy.

Now can you both please give it a rest?

 

[fuji]

Actually, you're wrong too.

Since deductions can rely on assumptions, a false assumption is a form of deductive fallacy.

Now can you both please give it a rest?

And that makes me wrong how? I never said assumptions couldn't be questioned, and plainly deductions rely on assumptions.

 

[fuji]

Sw1tch is idiotically trying to argue that you can't even start with an assumption like "normal human behavior cannot be bad". It's about the dumbest thing anyone has ever said on a message board, and he has spun it on for pages, dressed up in jargon to make it sound like he has a fucking clue what he's talking about. He's a complete blithering idiot who has no point whatsoever and yet he likes to write "we won" based on his blundering misunderstanding of some big words he once head in a philosophy class that he clearly failed.

This is even humouring his pretension that the naturalistic fallacy is a fallacy at all. It's a theory put forward by one philosopher and it certainly is not something that everybody agrees with. It's not a fallacy in the sense that "begging the question" is a fallacy, rather, it is the product of the idea that "good" is something undefinable. That's a view I reject anyway--good is defined by us, by people, we make it up. It's not some abstract that exists independent of us having created it, and we won't define it in a way that condemns our inherent nature. Thus the whole notion that there is a "naturalistic fallacy" at all is an impossibility in this case. We as the creators of good and evil will not create good and evil in a way that makes us inherently evil.

Wellllll.. some of us might: Those who make the life denying assumption might well create the concept good in a way that makes human beings inherently evil, but as I've said, I reject that assumption. Life affirming human beings will NOT define the concepts of "good" and "evil" in ways that make human beings inherently evil. They will create the concept of good in a way that affirms that who and what we are is fundamentally good.

 

[Blue-Spheroid]

Sw1tch is trying to argue that you can't even start with an assumption like "normal human behavior cannot be bad".

He's wrong, of course. You can start an argument with any assumption you want, even one as patently indefensible as the one in your example. The problem with arguing based on assumptions which cannot be verified, of course, is that the argument has little value unless its underlying framework can be shown to be valid.

Your assertion that "normal human behaviour cannot be bad" has no meaning unless you define the terms and specify the context. In Europe of the 1600s, it was normal human behaviour to bath infrequently, if ever. In twenty-first century Canada, this behaviour is seen as far from normal.

 

[fuji]

In Europe of the 1600s, it was normal human behaviour to bath infrequently, if ever.

Bathing infrequently is not immoral. It's unsanitary, and we have a better understanding now of health issues than we did then. Those are pragmatic considerations, not moral ones. Now it might be immoral to do something that you know would threaten the health of yourself and those around you--back in the 1600's people didn't know that infrequent bathing presented that sort of risk, but it seems to me that if in the 1600's people knew that they would have bathed!

I do have good reasons to justify the assumption that normal human behavior cannot be wrong. It stands as an assumption because we're into that philosophical territory that really nobody is going to be able to prove.

My reason for saying that normal human behavior cannot be bad is because WE humans make up morality. It's a fiction created by us, to serve our intersets. It does not have any "real world" existence. Now this is in part because I am not a deeply religious person--a deeply religious person might reasonably believe that morality was handed down by God, or has some other spiritual source. I don't share that belief. You may, I don't.

In light of morality being a fiction created by us it is, to me, absurd that we would create a morality that condemns who we inherently are. This is where we get into life-affirming/life-denying discussions. It is life denying to invent a self-loathing morality that condemns who and what we are. It is life affirming to invent a morality that describes who and what we are as good.

That's the basis for the argument there. That said, because we are in fact dealing with a bunch of fictions, and not things that arise empirically in the real world, it stands as an assumption. You can disagree with it. You could choose to say that morality is handed down by God. You could choose a life denying assumption instead of a life affirming one. It's a bunch of individual choices. I've made mine, I choose life, I affirm who and what we are.

 

[fuji]

The vast majority agree it is a fallacy.

The vast majority hold the wrong belief that morality arises independently of humanity and has some sort of other existence. This is the life denying assumption, fundamentally. The argument that there even is a naturalistic fallacy depends on morality having some sort of independent existence. There is absolutely no reason to believe that's true. We make morality up. It's a fiction created by us.

The rest of your post was a bunch of jibberish and nonsense that's not worth responding to, just you digging yourself deeper into the fail hole.

 

[Blue-Spheroid]

There was a time when the taking and keeping of slaves was "normal human behaviour". Even though it was widely practised, this behaviour was bad then; just as we RECOGNIZE it to be bad now. Some things are just wrong, whether people do them oin great numbers or not.

This is why your assumption is a steaming pile.

 

[blackrock13]

I fixed your post. There were just a few grammatical errors and I felt like helping you out this morning. I do agree with you, though, your attitudes, beliefs and justifications are indeed total fictions.

By the way, if as you say

Then what you're saying is X (normal behaviour) cannot be Y (bad) because of Z (humans make up morality).

But...

1. I am part of the WE, I am a human, so I am part of making up morality, and I say normal things can be bad. Therefore it is possible for X (normal behaviour) to in fact be Y (bad), depending upon the human. Your claim is thus completely refuted because you denied X could be Y given Z.

2. You failed to establish why anything about humans making up morality commits morality to any one particular set of interests, or why humans couldn't have an interest in not liking everything we do, etc, etc.

You so consistently bury yourself in your own fail hole that reading your convoluted justifications is like watching food scraps go down the organic waste blender in the sink. There is alot of noise and alot of different kinds of stuff fly about , but all that is being created is mush.

Damn that was good.