pop morality

[Drich]

Your silver rule is just another form of train empathy that you borrowed from Christianity. I'm asking if one abandons God/God's righteousness completely what is left to return them to center? what is to anchor someone/you if society sets it's sights say on Children as being sexually viable partners? I asked someone   (red letters are used to spell his name) this question and got no response, so I will ask you since you seem froggy.

Lets say in a few years, while in search of the ever illusive 'gay gene' a pedophile gene is found.. a gene that when active makes certain people only sexually attracted to children. then another scientific break through occurs when mapping brain wave activity that states that children as young as 10 have the mental capacity to be completely responsible for any and all sexual activity, but only if this brain wave/activity is present.. This is studied 100 ways to sunday and low and behold it is true. Children as young as 10 have been properly documented and recorded in having said brain activity...

so then 'Nambla' starts pushing for access to Children but society says no.

Now does your 'silver rule' push you to write another paper putting pedophiles together with children? (in effect Does your 'silver rule state that just because someone can do something they should be allowed?) or are their limits? if so why do homosexuals get a pass and pedophiles don't?

To start with, I'm not aware of any wording in the NT that reflects the 'Silver Rule'. The first I encountered it was by way of Hillel. And before you start beating the drums and insisting that I've latched onto a 'religious' principle, I'd challenge you to explain in what sense the 'Silver Rule' requires belief in a deity. It strikes me as perfectly consistent with a secular viewpoint.

Maybe look up the word 'religion.' While religion can mean the worship of a deity, it also means a particular system of faith worship of DEVOTION.

A rule silver, gold or platinum indicates a system of belief because rules outline boundaries. That my friend when applied to how one rules or so orders his life is a religious system by definition.

It's only not 'religion' when you or people like you change the definition of the word to only mean the worship of deity.

As for your hypothetical, I would need to know how exactly one goes from mapping brain wave activity to determining that the subject is mentally capable of forming mature, responsible choices regarding sexuality -- especially given that the subjects in your hypothetical are pre-pubescent. Needless to say, I'm skeptical that the conditions that might establish a strong correlation could even be defined much less established experimentally. And even at that, you're still a long, long way from establishing a causal relationship. We know that the brains of children continue to grow and develop; that is indisputable. So your goofy hypothetical already flies in the face of what we know about physiology and child development, and you've made no effort to define the parameters by which one could jump to the conclusion that "Brain wave pattern A" = mature/responsible sexual self-awareness. You're grasping at straws.

Don't get your panties in a knot. I am not saying their is science out there, it a hypothetical designed to test your 'morality' and it's ability to decern right and wrong apart from how popular culture defines it. You yourself boasted of a "controlled story" where you via your religion beliefs that transcends pop morality were able to Identify a moral short coming of society. I am simply putting your 'morality' to the test. Now because this is just a hypothetical all of your concerns are easily remedied with a few taps of the key board!
Now lets say that Every concern you have is 100% scientifically proven to support my initial hypothetical senerio, and you are now complete satisfied that the findings are correct.

Does your morality have you write a paper supporting Nambla or any other sex with children group Even if soceity given all of this information still says no?

Regardless, the genetic proclivities of those who might harm others (pedophiles, psychopaths, etc.) don't provide ethical or legal cover -- much as you'd like to lump consenting gay adults into that group, which tells me a hell of a lot more about you than it does anyone else. There is nothing about the Silver Rule that necessitates anyone placing others in harm's way just because predators might have a certain genetic disposition.

Again sport don't try and back out of this. The science in this senerio proves that a certain portion of the population is not 'in harms way medically of psychologically in this senerio.' The the only 'harms way' of this senerio is a prudish society who wishes to stick with traditional values rather than follow the god of science.
Where does the silver rule draw the line for you? Again don't pretend that 'harms way' has anything to do with these children, because again science has undermined your 'bronze age values' and has proven their to be absolutely no harm with a small portion of the population.
So again does Your silver rule state that just because someone can do something they should be allowed to do it or are their limits?

The fact that you would even ask, "Does your silver rule state that just because someone can do something they should be allowed or are their limits?" shows that you don't grasp the most basic thing about it.

The silver rule is "do under other as others have done unto you." This makes no sense in your initial story that you felt bad for gay people who wanted to get married but couldn't, as 'they' didnt get a say on whether or not You or anyone else got married in 1985. (when you wrote your paper)

That means you have your own version that mirrors the golden rule because you were treating the gay people of 1985 the way you wanted to be treated.. But you claim not to follow that either so that is why I asked what does YOUR Silver rule say about...