|
Post by Vegas on Jun 9, 2018 2:27:30 GMT
It's as if you somehow missed that I just wrote, and you just quoted, "We understand utterances." It's as of you're just an annoying asshole trying to be an even bigger annoying asshole.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 9, 2018 9:51:16 GMT
I wouldn't say that, and if we're talking about ethics, aesthetics, political philosophy, etc., then the things we express re stances, preferences, etc. are ultimately going to have nothing to do with rationality. Additionally, in my view, rationality, logic, mathematics, etc. are subjective, and I have a rather postmodernist view on that. What I'm challenging is the claim that the norms that people are exercising to control others are rational, especially in any objective sense. At least be curious about and try to understand my views and their motivations before you criticize them. I don't mean to judge you, I don't know you, however you come across this way in what you write on these Boards. I was just saying that if you want an accurate judgment it would be beneficial to make sure you know and understand my views, how I think about things, etc. first. It's easiest to simply ask. There is nothing that is objectively wrong. "Objectively wrong" is a category error. It's parsing something as having properties that aren't apt to it because of ontological facts. Things are right or wrong to individuals per how the individual feels about the thing in question. That's the accurate ontological realm for ethics. I don't frame any of my ethical views in terms of harm, because that's too vague in my view. In any event, I'd not be endorsing anything at all re sex that the people involved do not want to do. That's all spelled out in detail under my criteria for consent. So anything that would count as "harm" to someone (else) would be something that the person in question desires. If someone would think that any eight-year-old, say, couldn't possibly want to have sex with a forty-year-old, then there's absolutely nothing to worry about there--in a nutshell I'm not in favor of allowing anything that someone doesn't want to do. I'm not making any claims about what eight-year-olds want, what they're capable of (re my criteria for consent) or anything like that. I have no idea. I've not done any widespread empirical research about this re eight-year-olds. What I don't share is a categorical emotional revulsion to the idea of an eight-year-old having sex with a forty-year-old. If the eight-year-old would be capable of consenting per my criteria and they were to consent, then I'm fine with the idea, and I'd instead have a problem with people trying to prohibit it against the eight-year-old's wishes. (I also have a problem with people prohibiting eight-year-olds from listening to music they want to listen to, watching films they want to watch, etc.) If we go to ages more on the extremes of the current continuum, then I could say that definitely toddlers (and younger) wouldn't be able to consent per my criteria, and definitely many teens could. In between, I don't know. We'd have to do some empirical research (relative to my criteria for consent). But I wouldn't make a criterion of consent hinge on age, and that's just as much because people can't automatically consent just because they're eighteen as much as it is for any other reason. Consent should hinge on ability. Not age. You're thinking that the only reason I could have my views is because I'm a pedophile who wants some ad hoc justification to allow me to legally exercise my desires (and for some reason you're thinking that I couldn't care less about the desires of the other party). That's not at all the case. I have my views because (a) I thought to myself, "Does it really make sense that we hinge consent (and again, not at all just for sex) on age?" and I reached the conclusion , "No," and (2) I have a big moral problem with people wanting to control what other people can choose to do, what they want to do, and for one, there have been many cases of relationships involving teens and adults at least five years their senior that have been legally prosecuted despite the fact that the teen wanted the relationship. I have a big moral problem with a society that approaches things that way. That's not just about sex. If you follow my posts at all, you'll notice that I'm constantly railing against people wanting to control other people--what other people can choose to do, in all sorts of guises. It's why I have the views I do about speech, about immigration, about gender, about gay marriage, about just about any and everything.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 9, 2018 9:54:26 GMT
It's as if you somehow missed that I just wrote, and you just quoted, "We understand utterances." It's as of you're just an annoying asshole trying to be an even bigger annoying asshole. That's like Jeffrey Dahmer calling Vince Neil a murderer.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jun 9, 2018 10:27:24 GMT
It's as of you're just an annoying asshole trying to be an even bigger annoying asshole. That's like Jeffrey Dahmer calling Vince Neil a murderer. That's like an annoying asshole making a meaningless insult.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 9, 2018 10:30:32 GMT
That's like Jeffrey Dahmer calling Vince Neil a murderer. That's like an annoying asshole making a meaningless insult. I'm not surprised you can't assign much meaning to it. Although I think that part of the reason for that is that you're not really bothering to think about anything I post. You're barely bothering to read any of it.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 9, 2018 10:48:33 GMT
Murdering children can leave little league teams with fewer than the required number of players.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jun 9, 2018 10:59:10 GMT
Wow. You are a psychopath. Which might be true... if each person were their own planet. What the fuck is wrong with you?? Dude... People have asking you to spit out your views for 3 days... All you have done is be unnecessarily evasive.
Then you really are a fucking idiot... because that's exactly how we judge wrong from right... If it does harm. And it's not too vague... Harm is measurable.
There is no such thing.. and the fact that you think that this could ever be a possibility is mindboggling. Once again... You know who doesn't ever think that an 8-year old could consent to sex with an adult? Sane people.
Yes... Yes it does, dumbass.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jun 9, 2018 11:02:46 GMT
That's like an annoying asshole making a meaningless insult. I'm not surprised you can't assign much meaning to it. Although I think that part of the reason for that is that you're not really bothering to think about anything I post. You're barely bothering to read any of it. DING! DING! DING! Yes... At this point... You're just laughable. You are an idiot trying waaaayyy to hard to make his stupidity sound intellectual.
|
|
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 9, 2018 11:32:19 GMT
I don't mean to judge you, I don't know you, however you come across this way in what you write on these Boards. I was just saying that if you want an accurate judgment it would be beneficial to make sure you know and understand my views, how I think about things, etc. first. It's easiest to simply ask. There is nothing that is objectively wrong. "Objectively wrong" is a category error. It's parsing something as having properties that aren't apt to it because of ontological facts. Things are right or wrong to individuals per how the individual feels about the thing in question. That's the accurate ontological realm for ethics. I don't frame any of my ethical views in terms of harm, because that's too vague in my view. In any event, I'd not be endorsing anything at all re sex that the people involved do not want to do. That's all spelled out in detail under my criteria for consent. So anything that would count as "harm" to someone (else) would be something that the person in question desires. If someone would think that any eight-year-old, say, couldn't possibly want to have sex with a forty-year-old, then there's absolutely nothing to worry about there--in a nutshell I'm not in favor of allowing anything that someone doesn't want to do. I'm not making any claims about what eight-year-olds want, what they're capable of (re my criteria for consent) or anything like that. I have no idea. I've not done any widespread empirical research about this re eight-year-olds. What I don't share is a categorical emotional revulsion to the idea of an eight-year-old having sex with a forty-year-old. If the eight-year-old would be capable of consenting per my criteria and they were to consent, then I'm fine with the idea, and I'd instead have a problem with people trying to prohibit it against the eight-year-old's wishes. (I also have a problem with people prohibiting eight-year-olds from listening to music they want to listen to, watching films they want to watch, etc.) If we go to ages more on the extremes of the current continuum, then I could say that definitely toddlers (and younger) wouldn't be able to consent per my criteria, and definitely many teens could. In between, I don't know. We'd have to do some empirical research (relative to my criteria for consent). But I wouldn't make a criterion of consent hinge on age, and that's just as much because people can't automatically consent just because they're eighteen as much as it is for any other reason. Consent should hinge on ability. Not age. You're thinking that the only reason I could have my views is because I'm a pedophile who wants some ad hoc justification to allow me to legally exercise my desires (and for some reason you're thinking that I couldn't care less about the desires of the other party). That's not at all the case. I have my views because (a) I thought to myself, "Does it really make sense that we hinge consent (and again, not at all just for sex) on age?" and I reached the conclusion , "No," and (2) I have a big moral problem with people wanting to control what other people can choose to do, what they want to do, and for one, there have been many cases of relationships involving teens and adults at least five years their senior that have been legally prosecuted despite the fact that the teen wanted the relationship. I have a big moral problem with a society that approaches things that way. That's not just about sex. If you follow my posts at all, you'll notice that I'm constantly railing against people wanting to control other people--what other people can choose to do, in all sorts of guises. It's why I have the views I do about speech, about immigration, about gender, about gay marriage, about just about any and everything. Actually if a minor feels that they are capable of giving consent, they can apply for emancipation from their parents/guardians and be considered as adults in the eyes of the law. Very few minors take advantage of this. When you live within a society of millions of people you can not live with rules based on individual cases, that would be a nightmare. You may not have done research on such things but that does not mean that research hasn't been done. Are all laws fair on an individual basis? Of course not but you can challenge the law as an individual and changes can be made.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 9, 2018 11:40:09 GMT
Wow. You are a psychopath. Which might be true... if each person were their own planet. What the fuck is wrong with you?? Dude... People have asking you to spit out your views for 3 days... All you have done is be unnecessarily evasive.
Then you really are a fucking idiot... because that's exactly how we judge wrong from right... If it does harm. And it's not too vague... Harm is measurable.
There is no such thing.. and the fact that you think that this could ever be a possibility is mindboggling. Once again... You know who doesn't ever think that an 8-year old could consent to sex with an adult? Sane people.
Yes... Yes it does, dumbass.
It's pointless to attempt to teach you anything because you're incapable of learning. You'd have to drop the attitude first, but there's no way you're about to do that, especially on this board, because it's too much of a defense mechanism. It's easier if you and I just call each other names because that's all we'll practically achieve anyway. Intellectually, you're a mess. You can't even understand conditionals (the "if" statement you quoted from me above). You can't even parse direct statements when they're not what you expect to hear (re the comment about asking for my views). If you're that much of a mess it's no wonder we can't communicate and you have to resort to attitude, but you'd have to drop the attitude and we'd have to dismantle everything for you to be able to learn anything. Just stick to making jokes. At least you have some talent there.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 9, 2018 11:43:10 GMT
You may not have done research on such things but that does not mean that research hasn't been done Research on eight-year-olds re my criteria for consent has been done?
|
|
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 9, 2018 12:18:20 GMT
You may not have done research on such things but that does not mean that research hasn't been done Research on eight-year-olds re my criteria for consent has been done? Research on consent and research on sex and research on child developpement etc... Why should your criteria be a factor? Why don't you do your own research on your criteria if it's that important to you? Besides which, it's probable that some parts of your criteria was included in those researches.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 9, 2018 12:32:00 GMT
Research on eight-year-olds re my criteria for consent has been done? Research on consent and research on sex and research on child developpement etc... Why should your criteria be a factor? Why don't you do your own research on your criteria if it's that important to you? Besides which, it's probable that some parts of your criteria was included in those researches. What i wrote was a comment about my criteria of consent. That's why I made that explicit with the parenthetical. I was anticipating someone responding as you did, so I specified that I was talking about my criteria. My criteria should be a factor in my view because they're the criteria that I agree with after spending time conceptually analyzing the idea of consent. I'm not going to think that criteria i don't agree with should be the hinge, assuming that we're even talking about criteria being spelled out, which they often aren't. I didn't say anything about researching this being important to me.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 9, 2018 12:32:18 GMT
It's pointless to attempt to teach you anything because you're incapable of learning. You'd have to drop the attitude first, but there's no way you're about to do that, especially on this board, because it's too much of a defense mechanism. It's easier if you and I just call each other names because that's all we'll practically achieve anyway. Intellectually, you're a mess. You can't even understand conditionals (the "if" statement you quoted from me above). You can't even parse direct statements when they're not what you expect to hear (re the comment about asking for my views). If you're that much of a mess it's no wonder we can't communicate and you have to resort to attitude, but you'd have to drop the attitude and we'd have to dismantle everything for you to be able to learn anything. Just stick to making jokes. At least you have some talent there. I'm going to have to side with Vegas this time. You lack a foundation in right and wrong and are not connecting to reality well. I would say you are the one who needs to develop your ideas better. I have not read every message though, pardon me if I missed something. Please read this.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 9, 2018 12:34:50 GMT
It's pointless to attempt to teach you anything because you're incapable of learning. You'd have to drop the attitude first, but there's no way you're about to do that, especially on this board, because it's too much of a defense mechanism. It's easier if you and I just call each other names because that's all we'll practically achieve anyway. Intellectually, you're a mess. You can't even understand conditionals (the "if" statement you quoted from me above). You can't even parse direct statements when they're not what you expect to hear (re the comment about asking for my views). If you're that much of a mess it's no wonder we can't communicate and you have to resort to attitude, but you'd have to drop the attitude and we'd have to dismantle everything for you to be able to learn anything. Just stick to making jokes. At least you have some talent there. I'm going to have to side with Vegas this time. You lack a foundation in right and wrong and are not connecting to reality well. I would say you are the one who needs to develop your ideas better. I have not read every message though, pardon me if I missed something. Please read this. Ethics is subjective. That is reality. Everyone's foundation of right and wrong is how they feel (about the permissibility of interpersonal behavior that they consider more significant than mere etiquette). Aside from that, committees don't matter in these comments. Argumentum ad populums are fallacies. It's amusing, though, that to a large extent your response appears to be a plug for another thread of yours that isn't getting any traction yet.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 9, 2018 13:03:05 GMT
I'm going to have to side with Vegas this time. You lack a foundation in right and wrong and are not connecting to reality well. I would say you are the one who needs to develop your ideas better. I have not read every message though, pardon me if I missed something. Please read this. Ethics is subjective. That is reality. Everyone's foundation of right and wrong is how they feel (about the permissibility of interpersonal behavior that they consider more significant than mere etiquette). Aside from that, committees don't matter in these comments. Argumentum ad populums are fallacies. It's amusing, though, that to a large extent your response appears to be a plug for another thread of yours that isn't getting any traction yet. You are correct insofar as the majority is sometimes "wrong" as defined by some other measure than the majority. You overlooked two very important times when the majority is right. In much of politics the majority is right by definition. If the majority chooses John Cartwright as governor, then he is in fact governor for that reason. Perhaps by some other measure Lawrence Majors appears a "better" choice. Perhaps he has much more education. Using the measure of education is irrelevant though. It does not matter even if indeed he does have a better education. John Cartwright is governor because the majority chose him. You need to recognize this issue of relevance. This applies to you. The majority is also right those times all the other measures concur. This also applies to you because you have no other measure with which to challenge the majority view. To merely claim that their basis is insufficient does not mean your idea must be any better. Furthermore their basis is in fact anchored on thoroughly examined notions of right and wrong. Yours is not.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jun 9, 2018 13:05:14 GMT
It's pointless to attempt to teach you anything because you're incapable of learning. Here... Let's see if I can teach you something:
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 9, 2018 13:15:13 GMT
In much of politics the majority is right by definition. If the majority chooses John Cartwright as governor, then he is in fact governor for that reason. Perhaps by some other measure Lawrence Majors appears a "better" choice. Perhaps he has much more education. Using the measure of education is irrelevant though. It does not matter even if indeed he does have a better education. John Cartwright is governor because the majority chose him. You need to recognize this issue of relevance. This applies to you. The majority is right about what claim there? You don't understand what fallacies are about apparently. No one is saying that a majority can not be correct about something. The idea of the fallacy is that nothing is correct because a majority claims that it's so. It's the argument ad populum fallacy. In other words, an argument that something is so, or more likely so, because it has the backing of the population (usually taken to imply a consensus in a domain or a majority). It's important to remember that fallacies are talking about arguments per se--statements of premises and conclusions, where there's a claim of valid implication.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 9, 2018 13:16:18 GMT
Let's see if I can teach you something: You'd have to know something first.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jun 9, 2018 13:48:04 GMT
Let's see if I can teach you something: You'd have to know something first. I knew that it wouldn't happen.... Thanks for proving my theory.
|
|