Since you knew that those that spoke against him were concentrating on the issue of consent, one wonders why you were so disingenuous as to posit that something else was being considered.
I'm not sure what you are talking about. All the point of my criticism was that they cannot simply say their system has correct labels and his incorrect labels, in order to advance their argument.
Tal obviously uses a moral system which is not based on the same criteria (consent is not part of it). To say it does not generate the same moral labels as one which is based on consent is a point of fact, but not an argument for why his is more wrong (in an absolute sense). You like to pretend you understand logic, so you ought to at least understand that simply logical problem.
quote:
I was only arguing that any moral position regarding minors and sex, would have the same absolute basis as a moral position regarding gay sex.
—me
To which you reply...
Does the word "consent" mean nothing to you? Are you seriously saying that consent is correlated with a person's sex? Are you seriously saying that consent is not correlated with a person's age?
Do you not understand that I am discussing moral systems from a subjectivist vantage point? The above points out that from a subjectivist/relativist position the two different moral systems do not have any more absolute basis in reality (they are not true in any absolute sense). I guess this is the time for you to decide if there are absolute moral truths or not.
The fact that one might use consent and another might not, does not make any one more truthful, just different. Note, as a subjectivist my argument cuts both ways and would shield schraf and berb from any arguments Tal might make along the same lines.
As it stands I do not believe any one of you are actually using "consent" in order to determine harm or wrong or legality. Whether it varies with age or sex or some other criteria I have not stated nor even tried to imply. That might make an interesting topic.
But Paul was pulling all this shit out of his ass. Paul directly contradicts Jesus in many places. Why should we trust his opinion about anything?... And, of course, this doesn't even begin to get into the fact that what Paul was talking about was not what we mean when we say "homosexuality."
These are valid forms of argument against his position which is what I was saying to schraf. The problem is that he can simply say he is accepting the common understanding of those passages and then there is nothing you or I can say other than to note that he doesn't seem to care about investigating the source of his moral system for historical accuracy.
By your logic, it would be perfectly reasonable to start with a loving, committed couple and then say that it is equivalent to a rapist/victim relationship. After all, they both involve sex so therefore the two acts are equivalent. Why are you so obsessed over comparing consensual relationships with nonconsensual ones? Are you trying to tell us something?
I have not presented any logic which can be used to create a moral system within this thread. The topic is whether as a subjectivist, I can criticize other moral systems, and how. I participated in this thread before Tal brought up a pedophilic example, and was arguing the same stuff now as I was then.
The fact that you believe I have taken a moral position in this thread, or was even trying to, is your projection. Look in the mirror bud, I didn't try to compare any action to any other action, much less obsessively bring it up.
quote:
Protection of children from predation is a completely separate subject from whether a romantic kiss, or sex with a minor is morally wrong.
—me
The above is a statement that issues of legal protection are separate from issues of morality. It was meant to suggest that not everything that is wrong must necessarily mean it is illegal, nor that anything that is illegal must necessarily be a moral wrong. That is all I was saying.
To which you reply...
(*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? Are you seriously saying that preventing the sexual molestation of a child is not connected to protection of children from predation?
It appears you blinked too soon and missed the point of my comment. I have no idea how you pulled your stated position out of the words I wrote.
quote:
And I will point out again, that just being on a different mental and physical level does not make interacting with someone abusive.
—me
Here I am saying that interactions between two people of different mental or physical levels does not necessitate that the interaction will be abusive. This does not mean that abuse is not possible, nor that in that circumstance abuse cannot be aided by the difference in levels. It is just a point of fact that different levels does not inherently mean abuse (ie that someone is taking advantage of someone else).
(*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? It is not abuse to take advantage of people due to their mental and/or physical deficiencies? Are you trying to tell us something, holmes?
You are right, I did not say whatever you thought I said. Once again you seem to have blinked to soon. You cannot draw your conclusion from my statement.
(*ahem*) Don't we get to take the kid's word for it? They pretty much say that they didn't want it to happen and were harmed by the experience (notice, I simply said "harmed" and not "completely destroyed and incapable of living a fulfilled existence.")
This is going to draw us way off topic and the admin's have decided kids can't play together on that topic in a separate thread.
I will only note that your "they" and "pretty much" and "harmed" are not exactly objective statements backed up by any evidence. We both know from the articles in the other thread that even in a western culture like GB "they" didn't always say that it wasn't wanted (only homosexual relations contained a majority stigma like that), or that they were harmed by the experience (a max of 5% above normal population in one specific category).
As has been pointed out by Q, other cultures do not have that stigma at all. Unless you are going to say those silly blacks just don't know they are wrong and feeling bad?
This is in comparison to the history of examination of gay people where the only people the psychologists knew about where those who were seeking counseling. That is, until Dr. Evelyn Hooker thought that perhaps they should look at the gay people who aren't in mental hospitals. It was amazing how normal they seemed. It seems obvious now, but at the time it never really occurred to the psychologists and psychiatrists that they had a biased sample. If you only look at people who have neuroses to begin with, you tend to conclude that they have neuroses.
Interesting point, although in addition to seeking counseling it was also people imprisoned or considered victimized and so forced into government custody. Now extend it into the real world beyond just homosexuals. Other cultures have already been pointed out. Even clinical examples (biased studies) show less harm from sexual contact than from homosexuality, and greater harm from homosexual child sexual contact than heterosexual child sexual activity. I am of course not discussing the cases of overt or violent rape or coercion in any case (child or adult).
And again I am not using this to argue for a moral position, just use of harm, or in this case the state of evidence for harm, that can go into moral calculations. There are of course nonsexual issues which lead to physical and psychological harm. These could be looked at as well. In all cases this must be carefully screened and kept in mind that harm may be socially defined, and socially reinforced.
(*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? Are you trying to tell us something, holmes?
No, you continue to not discuss what I actually say, and instead quote mine in order to build a strawman you can burn down. Burn away.
That said, I am trying to tell you something something (and all the other personalities which go into your "us"). Stop replying to my posts, or take more than a few moments to read and respond. You rarely seem to understand anything I say.
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)
™ Version 4.2