|
Post by goz on Jun 12, 2018 1:31:59 GMT
WTF? Without wishing to get involved in an Argumentum ad populum, there are some issues about which sane people of most cultures agree, and this is the sanctity of our children Faux intellectuals like you and Terepin like to fel superior by pointing out something which I actually agree with, which is that there is no objective morliaty HOWEVER there are rights and wrongs in most cultures due to their inherent nature of harm such as murder, torture, rape and sex with young children. Those with a paedophilic bent go through hoops to justify their desires with faux intellectualism of consent, butt we all really know that exactly what you said is true someone who has penetrative sex with a baby has serious mental issues. You agree to this yet carry n about how I am 'projecting my emotions, or some such crap. Hypocrite. Was that an example of "real" intellectualism? No. Why should it be? We are not dealing with cardboard cutouts here we are dealing with the health care welfare and future of immature human beings.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 12, 2018 1:50:08 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. We know that humans can act more animal than animals at times. But nature will still do what it does, and some humans will defy what we see as our own projected moral sense or stance of nature, be it perceived as right or wrong. If humans are then acting like animals, that is just nature also. It is all nature and it doesn't matter what you 'personally' feel about it, there is not a damn thing you can do about it. The pedophile is not going to see your sense of rightness or wrongness, they have their own agenda, just as you do yours. Clearly, as you and Terrapin exhibit. Just be aware that if paedophiles act on your agenda, governments have set up penalties for such behaviours. Your personalised faux intellectual moral stance with all its' 'butt the 14 year old choir boy consented or the four year old girl willingly stroked my willy' won't amount to a 'hill o' beans' in court. Ask the Catholic priests!
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 12, 2018 1:57:54 GMT
It's impossible to do anything contrary to the laws of nature. A basic and common understanding of the world around us, and they are in denial of it. Just who is 'they' in this case"?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 12, 2018 2:00:51 GMT
In saying this you are ignoring certain biological facts. YOU say they are imposed by societal norms, and I SAY that there are and should be, biological provisos on what immature people can and should be allowed to do according to their maturity, physically mentally and emotionally And I'm sure you'll be amenable to systematically examining those concepts--maturity, etc., right? Yes. Because it is central to this argument.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 12, 2018 2:08:53 GMT
You would be dumb enough to think that, wouldn't you? Yeah... You're right. It would be dumb to think that you fully understand anything. Exactly. A fortiori because the phrase "full understanding" is balderdash.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 12, 2018 2:10:52 GMT
Was that an example of "real" intellectualism? No. Why should it be? We are not dealing with cardboard cutouts here we are dealing with the health care welfare and future of immature human beings. Weird that folks have so many problems parsing questions on this board. A question like I asked doesn't imply a normative. It's just a question.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 12, 2018 2:13:26 GMT
And I'm sure you'll be amenable to systematically examining those concepts--maturity, etc., right? Yes. Because it is central to this argument. Cool. So let's start by giving the definition of maturity that you prefer. Note that we may have to define terms in the definition, too.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 12, 2018 2:16:15 GMT
No. Why should it be? We are not dealing with cardboard cutouts here we are dealing with the health care welfare and future of immature human beings. Weird that folks have so many problems parsing questions on this board. A question like I asked doesn't imply a normative. It's just a question. 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.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 12, 2018 2:20:20 GMT
Yes. Because it is central to this argument. Cool. So let's start by giving the definition of maturity that you prefer. Note that we may have to define terms in the definition, too. Physically, biologically, intellectually, mentally, emotionally, by number age, philosophically, by legal definition, by parental definition, by peer definition, by societal definition,religious definition, by proposed sexual partner's definition....which?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 12, 2018 2:24:12 GMT
Weird that folks have so many problems parsing questions on this board. A question like I asked doesn't imply a normative. It's just a question. 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.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 12, 2018 2:25:43 GMT
Cool. So let's start by giving the definition of maturity that you prefer. Note that we may have to define terms in the definition, too. Physically, biologically, intellectually, mentally, emotionally, by number age, philosophically, by legal definition, by parental definition, by peer definition, by societal definition,religious definition, by proposed sexual partner's definition....which? You used the word "maturity" in your comment that sparked this tangent, right? Use the sense(s) you were employing in that comment.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 12, 2018 2:34:40 GMT
Physically, biologically, intellectually, mentally, emotionally, by number age, philosophically, by legal definition, by parental definition, by peer definition, by societal definition,religious definition, by proposed sexual partner's definition....which? You used the word "maturity" in your comment that sparked this tangent, right? Use the sense(s) you were employing in that comment. ...and yet I can see ALL those different yardsticks of 'maturity' and it would be unfair to stick to just one, or even a few, because humans ( young ones in particular) had such variation in their individual differences. This is central to our discussion because the issue of ability to give consent, is also problematic for young humans on all these vectors.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jun 12, 2018 2:37:08 GMT
You used the word "maturity" in your comment that sparked this tangent, right? Use the sense(s) you were employing in that comment. ...and yet I can see ALL those different yardsticks of 'maturity' and it would be unfair to stick to just one, or even a few, because humans ( young ones in particular) had such variation in their individual differences. This is central to our discussion because the issue of ability to give consent, is also problematic for young humans on all these vectras. Don't worry about this idiot, Goz… Apparently, he can't fully understand anything that you are saying.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 12, 2018 2:45:53 GMT
What a ridiculous,illogical hypocritically emotional, stupid post this is. This is a frickin message board and we are discussing whether it is acceptable for children to have sex, how, with whom and that it is unacceptable for all the reasons I have mentioned that it is not acceptable for young children to have sex. WTF are YOU discussing? Is your head boiling madame ? goz, you don't have much of an argument anymore, except for attempting to defend your own limitations and control issues, because you have been deflated. For someone intelligent, you are also being very simpleminded and in denial. The again, so are most of the herd. The emotional shrillness in your responses is proof in the pudding. Now go and slay some pedophiles, to make the world a safer place. Now, there you go again. Projecting emotionalism onto me when this post is defensive and worrying. Even implying that most of the herd doesn't descry the activities of paedophiles is really concerning. Sir, you betray yourself. All the hallmarks of paedos is on view between what you and Terrapin argue, the faux intellectualism, the issue of intellectual consent of the young and now the 'shooting the messenger' once you have betrayed yourselves. It is, in fact your limitations and control issues over the young, sexually who are thankfully protected by law, that is your problem here, not people like me and most of the rest of the board seeing through your translucent paedophilia.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 12, 2018 10:43:45 GMT
You used the word "maturity" in your comment that sparked this tangent, right? Use the sense(s) you were employing in that comment. ...and yet I can see ALL those different yardsticks of 'maturity' and it would be unfair to stick to just one, or even a few, because humans ( young ones in particular) had such variation in their individual differences. This is central to our discussion because the issue of ability to give consent, is also problematic for young humans on all these vectors. That's fine. Again, just use whatever sense( s) you were using in your comment. Surely you had something specific in mind in your comment, even if that was plural senses. So how are we defining the sense(s) you were employing in your comment?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 12, 2018 10:45:43 GMT
...and yet I can see ALL those different yardsticks of 'maturity' and it would be unfair to stick to just one, or even a few, because humans ( young ones in particular) had such variation in their individual differences. This is central to our discussion because the issue of ability to give consent, is also problematic for young humans on all these vectras. Don't worry about this idiot, Goz… Apparently, he can't fully understand anything that you are saying. Right. A fortiori because "fully understand" is a nonsensical phrase that reflects misconceptions about what understanding is and how it works.
|
|
|
Post by Morgana on Jun 12, 2018 11:13:45 GMT
Don't worry about this idiot, Goz… Apparently, he can't fully understand anything that you are saying. Right. A fortiori because "fully understand" is a nonsensical phrase that reflects misconceptions about what understanding is and how it works. So in a nutshell, what your whole faux intellectualism is saying, is: nothing means anything, and everything means nothing?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 12, 2018 11:20:36 GMT
Right. A fortiori because "fully understand" is a nonsensical phrase that reflects misconceptions about what understanding is and how it works. So in a nutshell, what your whole faux intellectualism is saying, is: nothing means anything, and everything means nothing? I made a number of comments above that should make it clear that I wouldn't agree with the silliness of "Nothing means anything." See my definition of "understanding" on the previous page, for example. The problem--and not just with you, but with a number of folks bothering with this thread or similar conversations with me in other threads--is that you're not really interested in my views per se (at least to familiarize yourself with different views than your own, because you have some intellectual curiosity about different views). You're only interested in being adversarial and kind of assholish. That's fine if your aim is just to spend some of your time more or less trolling, because you're really bored and you find trolling self-entertaining and you really want to kill some time, but for any other purpose, having basically zero interest in my views and only being interested in being adversarial and kind-of-assholish isn't going to accomplish anything (else) you might hope it would accomplish.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jun 12, 2018 12:09:39 GMT
Right. A fortiori because "fully understand" is a nonsensical phrase that reflects misconceptions about what understanding is and how it works. So in a nutshell, what your whole faux intellectualism is saying, is: nothing means anything, and everything means nothing? Sounds like you fully understand.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jun 12, 2018 12:22:02 GMT
So in a nutshell, what your whole faux intellectualism is saying, is: nothing means anything, and everything means nothing? 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
|
|