|
Post by Vegas on Jun 8, 2018 13:33:21 GMT
FUCK OFF!!! More dumbass questions?? THE ANSWER IS "NO"... IT WILL ALWAYS BE "NO". The rest is you just being a dumbass trying to justify you being a moron. Just curious if you went to university. Your manner is amusing, but it doesn't seem like the manner of someone oriented towards intellectual inquiry. It reminds me of a good friend of mine who couldn't wait to get out of high school so he could work as a carpenter. I'm curious if you are on a national registry. Look, shithead... You not understanding basic words and concepts doesn't make you an intellectual. Btw.. Yes. Gots me a degree on my wall and everything.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 8, 2018 13:34:56 GMT
Just curious if you went to university. Your manner is amusing, but it doesn't seem like the manner of someone oriented towards intellectual inquiry. It reminds me of a good friend of mine who couldn't wait to get out of high school so he could work as a carpenter. I'm curious if you are a national registry. Look, shithead... You not understanding basic words and concepts doesn't make you an intellectual. Btw.. Yes. Gots me a degree on my wall and everything. "I'm curious if you are a national registry." --You must have an odd ontology. That might be interesting to talk more about it, but I don't think you'd be interested. So what did you study at university?
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jun 8, 2018 13:42:39 GMT
I'm curious if you are a national registry. Look, shithead... You not understanding basic words and concepts doesn't make you an intellectual. Btw.. Yes. Gots me a degree on my wall and everything. "I'm curious if you are a national registry." Already fixed.
I can honestly say it wasn't "How Not To Get Into Discussion With Dipshitted Morons On The Internet".... I should have taken that class.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 8, 2018 13:47:45 GMT
I can honestly say it wasn't "How Not To Get Into Discussion With Dipshitted Morons On The Internet".... I should have taken that class. Sure. So what was it?
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Jun 8, 2018 21:46:56 GMT
I should have taken that class. Then you would've had to SHUT UP AND LISTEN!!!
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 8, 2018 22:20:23 GMT
You are a fucking endless fountain of stupidity. I swear... Just put on a straight jacket.. sit in your rubber room... and bang your head against the wall... endlessly asking stupid questions. - "What is sex?... What means risk?.... What is understanding?... What is responsibility?... What is sex?...What means risk?... What is understanding?...What is...." Edit: Here... Let's just end this shit now... Answer this question: Do you believe that an 8-year old could ever have the mental capacity to give full consent to have sex with an adult?
The crux of the matter in a nutshell... which is taking you 3 fcking days to get to.... How are you defining "full consent"? It's impossible to answer if we don't know what that's referring to. If you know what it's referring to it should be a simple matter to explain it, in a straightforward way, in some detail. Part of the problem we're having conversationally, by the way, is that I actually have very little interest in the idea sex with minors. What I'm interested in is the logic of argumentation, the logic of justification, the ways that people try to rationalize something that's purely emotional, and I'm particularly interested in that when it comes to things that have a control upshot--that is, where the ideas are presented as a justificational support of controlling others, including incarcerating them. But you're only interested in outrage over the idea of adult-minor sex. I couldn't care less about that. I care about how people reason and the ways that they try to control other people with respect to their reasoning. As an outsider to this ridiculous conversation, I can see where you are both coming from. You, in your quest for intellectual 'purity' logic and reason, want to disassociate emotional arguments from this particular debate. Vegas' opinion is that you cannot do this when it comes to viewing the concept of adults having sex with children. I wish to make a few points on both sides. 1. Biologically, and in general in all nature 'maturity' and sexual maturity in particular, is the means by which the organism reaches adulthood and hence the ability to procreate its species. Unemotionally, it cannot do that until it is physically able. 2. In higher primates and some mammals there is the issue of mating behaviour for other than pure reproduction. 3. In man, in our modern societies, for the most part, there is the issue of consent or what society has designated 'the age of consent, both psychologically and legally. 4. Physically there are reasons why a child have sex is inadvisable on a sliding scale of 'harm' from a baby to a young person approaching physical maturity, which obviously differs between individuals in terms of numeric age. It can be the relative size of their sexual organs or the danger (in the case of girls) of a high risk pregnancy. 5. Emotionally there are reasons why a child having sex is inadvisable on a sliding scale as above. This can be due to the ignorance of the child of the sexual process, the inability to fully understand what this process involves in the mid to long term and countless other issues. If you put all these points together IMHO you come up with rational, intellectual reasons why, on a sliding scale from birth to the 'age of consent (yes it is arbitrary) that there are good solid logical reasons why children should not be having sex. Logically those at the lower end should never be exposed and at the higher end there may be extenuating circumstances for such exposure.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 8, 2018 22:31:55 GMT
You, in your quest for intellectual 'purity' logic and reason, want to disassociate emotional arguments from this particular debate. I actually don't. I just want people to be honest, including with themselves, so that folks have some self-awareness about this. Don't pretend that something has coherent, consistent rational foundations when it doesn't. If it's a stance that's primarily emotional, admit that. There's no way to argue with anyone saying, "I'm advocating blah blah blah, and I'm doing so purely because of an emotional attachment; it's simply how I feel, I feel strongly that way, etc." "Physically there are reasons why a child have sex is inadvisable . . . " The first thing we'd have to deal with there is that you're apparently issuing a normative based on a fact. That's the is/ought problem. Are you aware that you're doing this, and how would you address that it's apparently ignoring the incompatibility of is's and oughts? There are other issues with your comments, but one thing at a time if you're going to claim a rational foundation.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 8, 2018 22:59:30 GMT
You, in your quest for intellectual 'purity' logic and reason, want to disassociate emotional arguments from this particular debate. I actually don't. I just want people to be honest, including with themselves, so that folks have some self-awareness about this. Don't pretend that something has coherent, consistent rational foundations when it doesn't. If it's a stance that's primarily emotional, admit that. There's no way to argue with anyone saying, "I'm advocating blah blah blah, and I'm doing so purely because of an emotional attachment; it's simply how I feel, I feel strongly that way, etc." "Physically there are reasons why a child have sex is inadvisable . . . " The first thing we'd have to deal with there is that you're apparently issuing a normative based on a fact. That's the is/ought problem. Are you aware that you're doing this, and how would you address that it's apparently ignoring the incompatibility of is's and oughts? There are other issues with your comments, but one thing at a time if you're going to claim a rational foundation. It 'is' a fact that younger children's bodies are not ready for sex with an adult, so they 'ought' not do it.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jun 8, 2018 23:00:56 GMT
"Physically there are reasons why a child have sex is inadvisable . . . " The first thing we'd have to deal with there is that you're apparently issuing a normative based on a fact. That's the is/ought problem. Are you aware that you're doing this, and how would you address that it's apparently ignoring the incompatibility of is's and oughts? Are you aware that it sometimes makes sense to derive an ought from an is? I give you an example. A Bunsen burner emits a flame of several thousands degrees, which can set flammable materials on fire. A house with wooden walls is build in order to provide shelter for living beings in cold climates. Therefore, a Bunsen burner should not be used as a hammer in a wooden house. Because it would burn down the walls. I provided two "is" and one "ought". Even from a Utilitarian standpoint, it makes sense. Because if you want to, say, hang a picture on the wall of your cozy mountain chalet, and you use a working Bunsen burner as a hammer, then not only do you not have a picture on the wall, you also don't have a picture at all, and no wall, and probably no chalet. You create suffering. Hume might have been a smart man; but this does not mean that what he said should be applied everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Jun 8, 2018 23:04:27 GMT
Here's a question...when are Vegas and Terrapin Station going to let this thread go back to it's original topic of who we miss from the old board? Just askin'...
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 8, 2018 23:10:20 GMT
I actually don't. I just want people to be honest, including with themselves, so that folks have some self-awareness about this. Don't pretend that something has coherent, consistent rational foundations when it doesn't. If it's a stance that's primarily emotional, admit that. There's no way to argue with anyone saying, "I'm advocating blah blah blah, and I'm doing so purely because of an emotional attachment; it's simply how I feel, I feel strongly that way, etc." "Physically there are reasons why a child have sex is inadvisable . . . " The first thing we'd have to deal with there is that you're apparently issuing a normative based on a fact. That's the is/ought problem. Are you aware that you're doing this, and how would you address that it's apparently ignoring the incompatibility of is's and oughts? There are other issues with your comments, but one thing at a time if you're going to claim a rational foundation. It 'is' a fact that younger children's bodies are not ready for sex with an adult, so they 'ought' not do it. So just pretend that there's no is/ought problem? No fact implies any normative. Okay, but let's charitably ignore that for a moment and look at the fact you're presenting. "Not ready for" isn't really a fact, by the way, but we could just say something like "Sex (and I'm assuming you're only talking about coitus or anal sex where the child is on the receiving end) between an adult and a typical <however-many-year-old and younger> can lead to injury." Is that basically what you're saying? And are you suggesting a principle such as "Any activity that could result in an injury to a child should be prohibited"? Is that right, or would you need to qualify that further?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 8, 2018 23:11:33 GMT
Here's a question...when are Vegas and Terrapin Station going to let this thread go back to it's original topic of who we miss from the old board? Just askin'... No one is prohibiting anyone from posting anything they'd like to post.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Jun 8, 2018 23:17:06 GMT
Here's a question...when are Vegas and Terrapin Station going to let this thread go back to it's original topic of who we miss from the old board? Just askin'... No one is prohibiting anyone from posting anything they'd like to post. Then why don't you start a thread on the topic you have been debating so posters can click on that if they want to read or discuss, and people who click on this thread can actually read about the original topic without wading through all this? To be honest, it kind of turns my stomach...
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 8, 2018 23:21:41 GMT
"Physically there are reasons why a child have sex is inadvisable . . . " The first thing we'd have to deal with there is that you're apparently issuing a normative based on a fact. That's the is/ought problem. Are you aware that you're doing this, and how would you address that it's apparently ignoring the incompatibility of is's and oughts? Are you aware that it sometimes makes sense to derive an ought from an is? I give you an example. A Bunsen burner emits a flame of several thousands degrees, which can set flammable materials on fire. A house with wooden walls is build in order to provide shelter for living beings in cold climates. Therefore, a Bunsen burner should not be used as a hammer in a wooden house. Because it would burn down the walls. I provided two "is" and one "ought". Even from a Utilitarian standpoint, it makes sense. Because if you want to, say, hang a picture on the wall of your cozy mountain chalet, and you use a working Bunsen burner as a hammer, then not only do you not have a picture on the wall, you also don't have a picture at all, and no wall, and probably no chalet. You create suffering. Hume might have been a smart man; but this does not mean that what he said should be applied everywhere. That example doesn't work. "A house is built for" isn't a fact beyond It being a fact that a particular individual has something in mind as a purpose or goal. "Things should meet the goals we have in mind for them" is an implicit claim in your argument that's not at all a fact. It's a normative that people can have in mind. It's already an ought. It's not an is, and it's not implied by any is.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 8, 2018 23:22:39 GMT
No one is prohibiting anyone from posting anything they'd like to post. Then why don't you start a thread on the topic you have been debating so posters can click on that if they want to read or discuss, and people who click on this thread can actually read about the original topic without wading through all this? To be honest, it kind of turns my stomach... Why don't you just post whatever you want to post and ignore the stuff you don't like?
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jun 8, 2018 23:23:57 GMT
That example doesn't work. "A house is built for" isn't a fact beyond It being a fact that a particular individual has something in mind as a purpose or goal. "Things should meet the goals we have in mind for them" is an implicit claim in your argument that's not at all a fact. It's a normative that people can have in mind. It's already an ought. It's not an is, and it's not implied by any is. Yes it is. Because if the goal (in this case, shelter) wasn't there, the house wouldn't exist.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 8, 2018 23:25:54 GMT
That example doesn't work. "A house is built for" isn't a fact beyond It being a fact that a particular individual has something in mind as a purpose or goal. "Things should meet the goals we have in mind for them" is an implicit claim in your argument that's not at all a fact. It's a normative that people can have in mind. It's already an ought. It's not an is, and it's not implied by any is. Yes it is. Because if the goal (in this case, shelter) wasn't there, the house wouldn't exist. And? The house doesn't have to exist. There's no fact that it should, that it needs to, etc.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Jun 8, 2018 23:27:58 GMT
Then why don't you start a thread on the topic you have been debating so posters can click on that if they want to read or discuss, and people who click on this thread can actually read about the original topic without wading through all this? To be honest, it kind of turns my stomach... Why don't you just post whatever you want to post and ignore the stuff you don't like? Because I don't want to read through all the other stuff. It's simple, really... The thread topic should stay with the original subject. Only very few posts in this thread have anything to do with the topic.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jun 8, 2018 23:29:45 GMT
Yes it is. Because if the goal (in this case, shelter) wasn't there, the house wouldn't exist. And? The house doesn't have to exist. There's no fact that it should, that it needs to, etc. But it does. That's a fact, an "is". Another thing: I agree with rachelcarson1953 that this has nothing to do with the old IMDb board. How about you start a new thread, if you are interested in pursuing this discussion?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 8, 2018 23:29:49 GMT
Why don't you just post whatever you want to post and ignore the stuff you don't like? Because I don't want to read through all the other stuff. It's simple, really... The thread topic should stay with the original subject. Only very few posts in this thread have anything to do with the topic. If you don't want to read through the other stuff, don't read it. Ignore it.
|
|