This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Morality
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
My previous posts tell you nothing? : /People contradict themselves all the timeWhatever, the point is, anyone below 17 is definately too young to be consenting with an adult, that and an adult shouldn't want to have sex with anyone that young. It's not subjective that someone around 10-12 is too young, and I don't give two flying ^&*!s if someone thinks otherwise, they're too young, objectively. Common sense alone should tell someone that, and a grown adult should not be attracted to someone that young.
I've known some 16 year olds who are more mature than some 30 year olds. You have some militaries that have 16 year olds in them. You have 16 year olds in colleges, business owners. They can drive. Some 16 year olds are probably ready to deal with the mental and physical rigors of sex. "Common sense" is not an argument. Provide better reasoning for your position.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
http://www.webistry.net/jan/consent.html
I might be off-topic but can someone clarify the meaning of footnote 2? It is confusing as hell.
It means that in those states, if a female is over 12 but under the legal age of consent, but the man she's with is not her first partner, he isn't charged with a crime because she was already sexually active. Not a great addendum to the law, and definitely an out-dated one :/
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Tho, I'm pretty sure you guys should've known that I misread, and not assume that's what I meant, based on my previous posts.No one assumed anything. You said it. If you misread, that's understandable, but don't expect that we can read your mind.
Whatever, the point is, anyone below 17 is definately too young to be consenting with an adult, that and an adult shouldn't want to have sex with anyone that young. It's not subjective that someone around 10-12 is too young, and I don't give two flying ^&*!s if someone thinks otherwise, they're too young, objectively. Common sense alone should tell someone that, and a grown adult should not be attracted to someone that young.
Then how come so many states in the US have an age of consent of 16?
http://www.webistry.net/jan/consent.html
The vast majority of the country disagrees with you by one year. And in other states, the age of consent is 18. So, according to enough of the population for those laws to pass, in those areas, you'd still be considered a pedophile.
Whatever, it's a matter of whether or not they can mentally consent, which, at 16, probably. It's more a matter of why is a grown adult (lets say 30-40) having sex with a 16 year old? If they're willing to do a 16 year old, there's a good chance they'd be willing to do a 15 or 14 year old, not much younger.
But in a state where the cutoff is 16, they usually define an adult as 17? Do you think it's weird or mentally unbalanced for a 17-year old to want to have sex with a 16-year old? Is it a crime?
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Because we're proving that there's no simple answer that doesn't evaluate situations based on all aspects of what's going on. You tried to give one, and had to amend it three times already because we brought up new aspects that you hadn't considered.
Why do you evade so many questions? Answer me that?
If there really was a single answer that was not subjective, wouldn't you have been able to give it and have it work in all situations, instead of having to change your answer three times and then try to deflect further questioning?
If your statement can't stand up to questioning, then you need to question your statement.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Whatever, it's a matter of whether or not they can mentally consent, which, at 16, probably. It's more a matter of why is a grown adult (lets say 30-40) having sex with a 16 year old? If they're willing to do a 16 year old, there's a good chance they'd be willing to do a 15 or 14 year old, not much younger.
You argue that a 16 year old may be able to consent, but that a 30 to 40 year old that would have sex with a 16 year old likely has a pattern of predatory behavior? Do you have data to back that up? What about a 25 year old? Can they have sex with a 16 year old, and it not be predatory?
Eventually, you are going to be pinned up between two numbers, with no definitive reason why those two numbers are so divisive, separated by midnight on a birthday. One minute a person could have sex with someone, and the next minute they couldn't. Provide moral reasoning why.
Personally, I reject the age factor as a moral reasoning for sex. I accept it for legality, though. For morality, I believe that some people come into the age at which sex is appropriate nearing the age of 16, and others never come of age. I think someone needs to consent to marriage before sex. I think there is a lot of factors that go into sex besides "penis + vagina = fun". To enter that, morally, both people need to be married, financially stable, prepared for children, and consenting. Sex is treated entirely to lightly in today's society.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
A 16 year old doing a 17 year old is fine, who gives a crap? It's a 1 year age difference, same with 17 and 18 year olds. Seriously, who cares? That's not remotely comparable to a 50 year old with a 15 year old. There's you're answer. Question, if I, and lets say, 10,000 other people, disagree that 2+2 equals 4, and we think it equals 5, are we objectively wrong? Answer that.
Right- because if any aspect of morality is subjective, then clearly the laws of the universe state that there are no observable, quantifiable or mathematical facts in the world that are not. Because clearly, in a single universe there cannot be both things that are measurable, and things that are up for debate.
2 + 2 equals 4. We can prove it mathematically. We can display it visually with 4 of everything. To then extrapolate and say if we can prove one thing, then that means that every other thing that I think must be 100% immutable and not subject to opinion is an asinine statement.
Your example is like saying this: "Fine, whatever. So you can prove that thousands of people think purple goes with green, even though I don't. Does that mean that when I fill a gallon jug with water, if 10,000 people think it looks like a quart of water, that it's really a quart?"
We are arguing that there are certain aspects of moral decisions that can be approached from multiple viewpoints- not all of them, but certain ones and most on at least a few points of definition. You are telling us that this is wrong, and all moral questions are fact and not up for debate. Using your own statements, I have gotten you to change your stance 4 times now, based on my questions, which means that you have admitted that either there is no set answer, or you have had a really hard time coming up with it.
Your argument, when I asked about you evading questions, was to evade THAT question, and compare the situation we've been debating (and which you have already proven by changing your own answer that YOU believe, to not be without grey area) to a math problem. You have already lost, and so you seek to somehow correlate observable formula to moral opinion, as though that makes sense.
So, to answer it directly. Not- if a bunch of people think 2+2 =5, it doesn't make it true. And if one specific person thinks that a math formula is the same thing as the moral, physical and mental aspects of major moral issues, that ALSO doesn't make it true.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@Sold
So I notice that a lot of your responses when we ask questions start or end with "Who cares, so what, no one cares, it's not a big deal," etc. As though you don't understand why we would think those are big differences. I think what you fail to realize is that we don't think 16-17 is a big deal, but your absolutist approach doesn't allow for variables that we're bringing up- how there's a lot of debate where the age of consent falls for teenagers, that there's a lot of debate about whether there should be a stipulation about young adults with teens, who are not too far apart age-wise but who are on opposite sides of the cut-off.
When you say there is no room for debate, don't get angry because we bring up questions that have no hard answers. It's how you reach the best conclusions, you know- you evaluate things, question them, think about the consequences and various situations surrounding them. We ask questions because we like to have opinions that are well-thought out and supported. If you don't like questions, what does that say about your opinions?
Post by
MyTie
Whether 2+2 equals 4 or 5 is a matter of axiom. And sorry, but there are no pre-agreed axioms in morality - you can mock the Greeks' morals and they'd have mocked yours, but there's nothing you can point to that objectively makes your version or theirs superior. Yours is newer, sure, but that's the most you can say.
Religion.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Whether 2+2 equals 4 or 5 is a matter of axiom. And sorry, but there are no pre-agreed axioms in morality - you can mock the Greeks' morals and they'd have mocked yours, but there's nothing you can point to that objectively makes your version or theirs superior. Yours is newer, sure, but that's the most you can say.
Religion.
But in the modern world, there are debates of a moral nature that haven't been addressed by religion. Things like right to privacy, censorship, what is considered fair in terms of overtime pay, etc.
Post by
MyTie
But in the modern world, there are debates of a moral nature that haven't been addressed by religion. Things like right to privacy, censorship, what is considered fair in terms of overtime pay, etc.
There were things in Jesus's time that he didn't address. Religion isn't a book of dos and don'ts. It's a way of life. Try following the Bible, I mean, making it a way of life, and then most things will fall onto the moral compass pretty clearly.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
But in the modern world, there are debates of a moral nature that haven't been addressed by religion. Things like right to privacy, censorship, what is considered fair in terms of overtime pay, etc.
There were things in Jesus's time that he didn't address. Religion isn't a book of dos and don'ts. It's a way of life. Try following the Bible, I mean, making it a way of life, and then most things will fall onto the moral compass pretty clearly.
I'm sure it's not too much of a stretch to make decisions about those topics based on related or similar situations that are addressed in the bible. I was pointing out that even in using religion as your foundation, there is still some internal decision making and evaluation that is involved. There are plenty of people who will look at topics like these and come to different conclusions, still rooting it in the same religion.
Post by
MyTie
Raises different question. Which to follow? Even Christianity has so many branches.
The teachings of Christ. They vary? They are written down. 2+2=4. See that. It doesn't branch out either. You may have different sects of people that believe that 2+2=5, or even that 2+2=potatoes, but that doesn't stop 2+2 from equaling 4.
I'm sure it's not too much of a stretch to make decisions about those topics based on related or similar situations that are addressed in the bible. I was pointing out that even in using religion as your foundation, there is still some internal decision making and evaluation that is involved.
Agreed. Morality requires it, whether you have a rule book or not.
Post by
gamerunknown
I found a very handy heuristic in addressing age of consent. Age/2+7 as a minimum. The period it breaks down (minimum older than age) - the individual should not be sexually active anyway.
I also tend towards moral objectivism rather than strict agnosticism (can't assign a heuristic value judgement to behaviour) or normative relativism (that behaviour is equally valid as my one). I think there's a paradox inherent in normative relativism that's exacerbated by moral objectivism (if there are no right and wrong answers, then moral objectivism is just as valid as relativism so they may as well be moral objectivists). I think morality (and by extension culture) can be ranked ordinally if not rationally.
Edit:
They are written down.
But stuff like overtime pay and pirating music weren't explicitly addressed by Jesus.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.