|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 12, 2018 12:25:32 GMT
you're not really interested in my views per se God! The nerve of some people not paying full attention.... Does that phrase have meaning in your idiotic head?... to the guy that is arguing for legalized kiddie fuking! We're all just kinda hoping you'd learn how stupid you're being... …It seems you lack the equipment for that possibility So just how superior is your intelligence when you'd think that not being interested in someone's views as their views, and instead being adversarial and assholish would maybe lead to them changing anything about their views? Truly intelligent people don't sit in poverty, or remain unrecognized for their brilliance, or not accomplish their goals, etc. while blaming their lot on the prevalence of stupid people. Truly intelligent people observe and adapt, manipulating all of those stupid people into making them rich, recognizing their genius, providing them with what they want, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jun 12, 2018 12:39:04 GMT
So just how superior is your intelligence when you'd think that not being interested in someone's views as their views, and instead being adversarial and assholish would maybe lead to them changing anything about their views? 1) I'm not interested in establishing/ranking "superior intelligence"... I just know... like most average people... that you don't fuck children. 2) Eventually giving up on a guy who believes his lunacy is the superior intellectual.. is pretty par for the course. The fact that you're arguing this point from the get-go is pretty much worthy of ridicule from the start of the conversation... let alone on the 10th page. The fact that we are 10 pages in on a thread because you want to argue against the basic premise " younger children's bodies are not ready for sex with an adult, so they 'ought' not do it." is worthy of you being treated like the brain-dead moron that you are acting like. The fact that this is a thread had to be started to continue the argument from a previous thread... well... I'd say "You get the point"... ...but, I seriously doubt you do.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 12, 2018 12:48:00 GMT
So just how superior is your intelligence when you'd think that not being interested in someone's views as their views, and instead being adversarial and assholish would maybe lead to them changing anything about their views? 1) I'm not interested in establishing/ranking "superior intelligence"... I just know... like most average people... that you don't fuck children. That would be far more believable if you didn't mention intelligence versus stupidity in some manner in every single post you make. That you do that shows that obviously it's a big concern of yours, and it's pretty clear that it's sourced in insecurities about this big concern of yours. Again, the only reason you believe that I'd believe that especially my moral/ethical views are somehow superior intellectually is that you're so obsessed with relative intelligence. And this is part of what I was talking about re there being a problem with not being interested in my views per se, and instead only being interested in being an adversarial asshole. I've said over and over again, in many different threads, including this one in response to goz earlier, that in my view, ethical/moral stances have nothing to do with intelligence. You might disagree with that, but it wouldn't be the case that I believe that my ethical or moral stances are somehow superior intellectually. You'd know this and not waste your time with such an obvious straw man if you were at all interested in my views rather than just wanting to be an asshole because you're bored or whatever. It's just a matter of whether you believe that uncreative, unimaginative ridicule is a good way to spend your time. Again, it had better be accomplishing some self-entertainment, because it's not accomplishing anything else. I couldn't care less how you treat me. It's just that hopefully you have made a self-assessment whether you feel you're spending your time in a worthwhile manner, which is going to depend on what you want to accomplish. Again, if you're just trying to kill some time by trolling, then job well done. You're achieving your goal.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jun 12, 2018 13:00:56 GMT
1) I'm not interested in establishing/ranking "superior intelligence"... I just know... like most average people... that you don't fuck children. That would be far more believable if you didn't mention intelligence versus stupidity in some manner in every single post you make. That you do that shows that obviously it's a big concern of yours, and it's pretty clear that it's sourced in insecurities about this big concern of yours. Well.... You are just underestimating just how stupid you really are. It is a pretty big factor in this conversation.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 12, 2018 13:02:22 GMT
That would be far more believable if you didn't mention intelligence versus stupidity in some manner in every single post you make. That you do that shows that obviously it's a big concern of yours, and it's pretty clear that it's sourced in insecurities about this big concern of yours. Well.... You are just underestimating just how stupid you really are. It is a pretty big factor in this conversation. Yeah, you're definitely not concerned with relative intelligence.
|
|
islandmur
Sophomore
All religions have messages of peace and love yet all religions are used for wars and hatred...
@islandmur
Posts: 320
Likes: 180
|
Post by islandmur on Jun 12, 2018 14:40:35 GMT
Truly intelligent people don't sit in poverty, or remain unrecognized for their brilliance, or not accomplish their goals, etc. while blaming their lot on the prevalence of stupid people. Truly intelligent people observe and adapt, manipulating all of those stupid people into making them rich, recognizing their genius, providing them with what they want, etc. What? What has intelligence to do with being recognized? Do you think everyone wants to be recognized for their brilliance? (those that have it that is?). Not everyone wishes to be famous, being intelligent does not preclude one from also being lazy or unmotivated or just plain wanting to live quietly.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 12, 2018 14:43:40 GMT
Truly intelligent people don't sit in poverty, or remain unrecognized for their brilliance, or not accomplish their goals, etc. while blaming their lot on the prevalence of stupid people. Truly intelligent people observe and adapt, manipulating all of those stupid people into making them rich, recognizing their genius, providing them with what they want, etc. What? What has intelligence to do with being recognized? Do you think everyone wants to be recognized for their brilliance? (those that have it that is?). Not everyone wishes to be famous, being intelligent does not preclude one from also being lazy or unmotivated or just plain wanting to live quietly. Is the part of the sentence that starts with the word "while" simply decoration?
|
|
islandmur
Sophomore
All religions have messages of peace and love yet all religions are used for wars and hatred...
@islandmur
Posts: 320
Likes: 180
|
Post by islandmur on Jun 12, 2018 15:14:58 GMT
What? What has intelligence to do with being recognized? Do you think everyone wants to be recognized for their brilliance? (those that have it that is?). Not everyone wishes to be famous, being intelligent does not preclude one from also being lazy or unmotivated or just plain wanting to live quietly. Is the part of the sentence that starts with the word "while" simply decoration? I missed it actually.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 12, 2018 15:18:29 GMT
Is the part of the sentence that starts with the word "while" simply decoration? I missed it actually. No problem. Just pointing out that it was a conditional.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jun 12, 2018 21:05:37 GMT
Someone who has penetrative sex with a baby has serious mental issues. The law will ensue consequences for these actions—not very well I might add—but ultimately, it is what it is. The wrongness of what you see, is 'only' a projection of your own emotions, because it is born out of your own sense of ethics and morality which has stirred disgust in you. That is understandable, but it is your revulsion, born out of your own ideals about life and the world around you. Is the care and concern you project really that genuine?
No... the wrongness is wrong because it's contrary to the laws of nature. Even animals do not have sex with their youngs until they have reach sexual maturity. Sorry, I disagree. You made some good points, but the argument that something is "contrary to the laws of nature" is a terrible one. It's the type of argument ignorant people use when arguing against homosexuality.
First, it's false; everything happening in the real world can be called "natural". And some animals are cannibals and eat their young. I don't believe that's more moral than raping them. Second: Even if animals didn't treat their children badly: There are lots of things humans do that animals don't (unless conditioned by humans): Wearing clothes, using computers, driving cars, practising religions... Animals don't do any of it. Humans do (most humans do at least one of these things). Does this make it "unnatural"? And more importantly: Does this make it "bad"? There are plenty of good arguments against adults raping children. "It's contrary to the laws of nature" is not one of them.
|
|
islandmur
Sophomore
All religions have messages of peace and love yet all religions are used for wars and hatred...
@islandmur
Posts: 320
Likes: 180
|
Post by islandmur on Jun 12, 2018 21:59:42 GMT
No... the wrongness is wrong because it's contrary to the laws of nature. Even animals do not have sex with their youngs until they have reach sexual maturity. Sorry, I disagree. You made some good points, but the argument that something is "contrary to the laws of nature" is a terrible one. It's the type of argument ignorant people use when arguing against homosexuality.
First, it's false; everything happening in the real world can be called "natural". And some animals are cannibals and eat their young. I don't believe that's more moral than raping them. Second: Even if animals didn't treat their children badly: There are lots of things humans do that animals don't (unless conditioned by humans): Wearing clothes, using computers, driving cars, practising religions... Animals don't do any of it. Humans do (most humans do at least one of these things). Does this make it "unnatural"? And more importantly: Does this make it "bad"? There are plenty of good arguments against adults raping children. "It's contrary to the laws of nature" is not one of them. I will reply to you, since you are not making fun at my expense. I realise I used "laws of nature" in a context it's not meant for. That being said, I meant that It's physically wrong, it would be akin to forcing a 1 month old to walk or run. The body is not ready. As for the animals, there I maintain my stance, even animals who do not have moral issues do not do it. I'm not saying that we don't do things that animals dont... nope. I'm a bit tired right now had a horrible day so I'm not really explaining myself well. Sorry about that.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 12, 2018 22:06:44 GMT
Well, it is weird that you give credence to your particular world and board view over others that are just as legitimate. What is intrinsically 'better' about intellectualism than practical reality, especially when we are dealing with real world problems? Practical solutions can also be 'unemotional'.... your own personal buzzword, possibly to obfuscate your paedophilic preferences as exhibited here. Why would that be weird? How could you possibly think that anyone doesn't give preference to their own views over competing views? That wouldn't even make any sense. "In my view, P, but I give equal credence to ~P." If the person gives equal credence to ~P, then in what sense is P even their view? If your think that I believe that anything is intrinsically better than anything else, then you sure don't know or understand my views. At any rate, I didn't say anything about "intellectualism" versus anything else. And my philosophical views are in no way separated from anything practical or real-world. Rather that's just what they're about. I don't at all have "pedophilic preferences." I simply have a view that consent shouldn't hinge on age, it should hinge on ability.So again, that is all your view amounts to. You denied it before.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 12, 2018 22:17:53 GMT
Why would that be weird? How could you possibly think that anyone doesn't give preference to their own views over competing views? That wouldn't even make any sense. "In my view, P, but I give equal credence to ~P." If the person gives equal credence to ~P, then in what sense is P even their view? If your think that I believe that anything is intrinsically better than anything else, then you sure don't know or understand my views. At any rate, I didn't say anything about "intellectualism" versus anything else. And my philosophical views are in no way separated from anything practical or real-world. Rather that's just what they're about. I don't at all have "pedophilic preferences." I simply have a view that consent shouldn't hinge on age, it should hinge on ability.So again, that is all your view amounts to. You denied it before. I never denied that my view is that consent shouldn't hinge on age, it should hinge on ability. That's been my view for decades and I've repeated exactly those words many times. Re "I simply have a view"--in other words, the fact that that's my view is often mistaken as in indication that I must be a pedophile (by folks who either aren't too bright or who can't conceive of having a stance that's not fueled in some personal benefit, because the person in question only has stances that are fueled by personal benefit).
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 12, 2018 22:44:02 GMT
In short we who oppose your view think that it is So again, that is all your view amounts to. You denied it before. I never denied that my view is that consent shouldn't hinge on age, it should hinge on ability. That's been my view for decades and I've repeated exactly those words many times. Re "I simply have a view"--in other words, the fact that that's my view is often mistaken as in indication that I must be a pedophile (by folks who either aren't too bright or who can't conceive of having a stance that's not fueled in some personal benefit, because the person in question only has stances that are fueled by personal benefit). Then I think we have wasted ten pages of script, and the discussion would be better based around ( as I have tried a few pages ago) to decide what benefit your view has to society, how if could be implemented and the either benefits or consequences. It is my view that there would be no benefit to society and that there would be dangers and difficulties that are either addressed now more simply and effectively and/or raise more dangers and difficulties for young children. It seems unfortunate for you, that in having this view, you lay yourself open to the paedophilic view, because this view ( whether you knew it or not) has been peddled by the paedophilia movement and IMGO you are being disingenuous not to expect that others should doubt you on this account. You claiming that you are squeaky clean and it is only a philosophical highly intellectualised viewpoint, hasn't washed here on this board...has it? Especially when you get others with professed less altruistic viewpoints supporting you. It is unfair for you to castigate those you see your viewpoint yet are unimpressed with your stating of it, due to obfuscations such as over emotionalism or natural care for young humans. In short, those of us who believe that children's maturity is even more complex than BOTH age and ability to consent to things are naturally dubious about those not seemingly understanding fully the biology psychology and sociology of human maturation and merely wishing to apply to it ONLY one intellectual theory, on such important and complex matters as the trip from babyhood to adulthood. I am talking in general terms, butt I think it is important in the argument to make sexual maturity as a special matter, because it does NOT completely align to any other area of human development and so deserves special consideration, in my view.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 12, 2018 22:59:41 GMT
In short we who oppose your view think that it is I never denied that my view is that consent shouldn't hinge on age, it should hinge on ability. That's been my view for decades and I've repeated exactly those words many times. Re "I simply have a view"--in other words, the fact that that's my view is often mistaken as in indication that I must be a pedophile (by folks who either aren't too bright or who can't conceive of having a stance that's not fueled in some personal benefit, because the person in question only has stances that are fueled by personal benefit). Then I think we have wasted ten pages of script, and the discussion would be better based around ( as I have tried a few pages ago) to decide what benefit your view has to society, how if could be implemented and the either benefits or consequences. It is my view that there would be no benefit to society and that there would be dangers and difficulties that are either addressed now more simply and effectively and/or raise more dangers and difficulties for young children. It seems unfortunate for you, that in having this view, you lay yourself open to the paedophilic view, because this view ( whether you knew it or not) has been peddled by the paedophilia movement and IMGO you are being disingenuous not to expect that others should doubt you on this account. You claiming that you are squeaky clean and it is only a philosophical highly intellectualised viewpoint, hasn't washed here on this board...has it? Especially when you get others with professed less altruistic viewpoints supporting you. It is unfair for you to castigate those you see your viewpoint yet are unimpressed with your stating of it, due to obfuscations such as over emotionalism or natural care for young humans. In short, those of us who believe that children's maturity is even more complex than BOTH age and ability to consent to things are naturally dubious about those not seemingly understanding fully the biology psychology and sociology of human maturation and merely wishing to apply to it ONLY one intellectual theory, on such important and complex matters as the trip from babyhood to adulthood. I am talking in general terms, butt I think it is important in the argument to make sexual maturity as a special matter, because it does NOT completely align to any other area of human development and so deserves special consideration, in my view. I don't know what happened to the idea of us talking about maturity systematically. Anyway, I wish you'd write posts that don't have 10-15 different things to address. Re this: "children's maturity is even more complex than BOTH age and ability to consent," in the vein of my approach, you'd simply say that a particular stage of maturity is part of having the ability to consent. So then maturity couldn't be more complex than it. It is (part of) it. The benefit to society by the way is that we don't prohibit people from doing things they consent to doing (when those people are capable of consent --getting rid of an age of consent doesn't imply that one thinks that two-year-olds are capable of consent). Re the other thing, people making incorrect assumptions isn't my problem. It rather just undermines those folks' critical thinking abilities. So I'm usually happy to let it sit because of that, happy to let folks be hoisted by their own petard, even if I'm the only one to realize it. It's their responsibility to be brighter than that.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jun 12, 2018 23:10:52 GMT
Is it right or wrong for a grown man to have sex with a baby? Under the current law this is illegal and punishable by long jail sentences because it is wrong in that it causes irreparable harm to a baby who could not consent due to immaturity and whose body was too small. Someone who has penetrative sex with a baby has serious mental issues. The law will ensue consequences for these actions—not very well I might add—but ultimately, it is what it is.
I am not sure what you mean by baby. I will like you to make it clear would you consider a person who has penetrative sex with 4 year old kids to have mental issues? Are you fine with people allowed by law to have sex with 4 year old as long as the 4 year old has given consent?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 12, 2018 23:26:40 GMT
In short we who oppose your view think that it isThen I think we have wasted ten pages of script, and the discussion would be better based around ( as I have tried a few pages ago) to decide what benefit your view has to society, how if could be implemented and the either benefits or consequences. It is my view that there would be no benefit to society and that there would be dangers and difficulties that are either addressed now more simply and effectively and/or raise more dangers and difficulties for young children. It seems unfortunate for you, that in having this view, you lay yourself open to the paedophilic view, because this view ( whether you knew it or not) has been peddled by the paedophilia movement and IMGO you are being disingenuous not to expect that others should doubt you on this account. You claiming that you are squeaky clean and it is only a philosophical highly intellectualised viewpoint, hasn't washed here on this board...has it? Especially when you get others with professed less altruistic viewpoints supporting you. It is unfair for you to castigate those you see your viewpoint yet are unimpressed with your stating of it, due to obfuscations such as over emotionalism or natural care for young humans. In short, those of us who believe that children's maturity is even more complex than BOTH age and ability to consent to things are naturally dubious about those not seemingly understanding fully the biology psychology and sociology of human maturation and merely wishing to apply to it ONLY one intellectual theory, on such important and complex matters as the trip from babyhood to adulthood. I am talking in general terms, butt I think it is important in the argument to make sexual maturity as a special matter, because it does NOT completely align to any other area of human development and so deserves special consideration, in my view. I don't know what happened to the idea of us talking about maturity systematically. Anyway, I wish you'd write posts that don't have 10-15 different things to address. Re this: "children's maturity is even more complex than BOTH age and ability to consent," in the vein of my approach, you'd simply say that a particular stage of maturity is part of having the ability to consent. So then maturity couldn't be more complex than it. It is (part of) it. The benefit to society by the way is that we don't prohibit people from doing things they consent to doing (when those people are capable of consent --getting rid of an age of consent doesn't imply that one thinks that two-year-olds are capable of consent). Re the other thing, people making incorrect assumptions isn't my problem. It rather just undermines those folks' critical thinking abilities. So I'm usually happy to let it sit because of that, happy to let folks be hoisted by their own petard, even if I'm the only one to realize it. It's their responsibility to be brighter than that. LOL whoooooooosh!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 12, 2018 23:40:20 GMT
The benefit to society by the way is that we don't prohibit people from doing things they consent to doing (when those people are capable of consent --getting rid of an age of consent doesn't imply that one thinks that two-year-olds are capable of consent). Re the other thing, people making incorrect assumptions isn't my problem. It rather just undermines those folks' critical thinking abilities. So I'm usually happy to let it sit because of that, happy to let folks be hoisted by their own petard, even if I'm the only one to realize it. It's their responsibility to be brighter than that. Are you saying that people are not able to consent until they graduate college? High school? How exactly do you define "capable" of consenting? What makes you a pariah on this board is that you really do not have a definition. You proceed on the assumption that there is one and the law can easily apply it. That shows what a superficial understanding of the issue, and a superficial understanding of the law and society you have. You suffer from the delusion that the law can work with perfect knowledge of anything. It cannot. There are various opinions and the law tries to find some point suitable to most of the various disciplines. Whatever point the law chooses, there might be some people who reach that point and yet are not ready to consent. College being what it is today there might even be college graduates so unprepared for life they cannot give proper consent. Maybe I exaggerate just a bit. To pass a law that defines "capable" of consent is not practical. The definition would necessarily be based on value judgements that could not be universally enforced. The laws that prohibited business on Sundays could not be enforced because the definition of the necessary exceptions was based on value judgements that are not universally understood or enforceable. If he can sell that on Sunday, why can't I sell this? Therefore with the age of consent the law chooses a point based on age. It is universally understood and enforceable. Your argument fails. You do not have good critical thinking abilities and are not very bright. It is because you don't have good critical thinking abilities that you imagine you do.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 12, 2018 23:45:43 GMT
The benefit to society by the way is that we don't prohibit people from doing things they consent to doing (when those people are capable of consent --getting rid of an age of consent doesn't imply that one thinks that two-year-olds are capable of consent). Re the other thing, people making incorrect assumptions isn't my problem. It rather just undermines those folks' critical thinking abilities. So I'm usually happy to let it sit because of that, happy to let folks be hoisted by their own petard, even if I'm the only one to realize it. It's their responsibility to be brighter than that. Are you saying that people are not able to consent until they graduate college? High school? How exactly do you define "capable" of consenting? What makes you a pariah on this board is that you really do not have a definition. You proceed on the assumption that there is one and the law can easily apply it. That shows what a superficial understanding of the issue, and a superficial understanding of the law and society you have. You suffer from the delusion that the law can work with perfect knowledge of anything. It cannot. There are various opinions and the law tries to find some point suitable to most of the various disciplines. Whatever point the law chooses, there might be some people who reach that point and yet are not ready to consent. College being what it is today there might even be college graduates so unprepared for life they cannot give proper consent. Maybe I exaggerate just a bit. To pass a law that defines "capable" of consent is not practical. The definition would necessarily be based on value judgements that could not be universally enforced. The laws that prohibited business on Sundays could not be enforced because the definition of the necessary exceptions was based on value judgements that are not universally understood or enforceable. If he can sell that on Sunday, why can't I sell this? Therefore with the age of consent the law chooses a point based on age. It is universally understood and enforceable. Your argument fails. You do not have good critical thinking abilities and are not very bright. It is because you don't have good critical thinking abilities that you imagine you do. Holy crap Planet Arlon, for once that was truly excellent!
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 13, 2018 0:50:34 GMT
I don't know what happened to the idea of us talking about maturity systematically. Anyway, I wish you'd write posts that don't have 10-15 different things to address. Re this: "children's maturity is even more complex than BOTH age and ability to consent," in the vein of my approach, you'd simply say that a particular stage of maturity is part of having the ability to consent. So then maturity couldn't be more complex than it. It is (part of) it. The benefit to society by the way is that we don't prohibit people from doing things they consent to doing (when those people are capable of consent --getting rid of an age of consent doesn't imply that one thinks that two-year-olds are capable of consent). Re the other thing, people making incorrect assumptions isn't my problem. It rather just undermines those folks' critical thinking abilities. So I'm usually happy to let it sit because of that, happy to let folks be hoisted by their own petard, even if I'm the only one to realize it. It's their responsibility to be brighter than that. LOL whoooooooosh!!!!!!!!!!Do you want to be an asshole or do you want to have a serious discussion?
|
|