What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Huggy Bear]

No need to go all hypothetical since this very scenario has taken place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_bride

No the soldiers aren't "rapists"....

That is the most disingenuous comparison I've seen in a while and I've seen some doozies on the forum of late.  The women the Hebrews married were taken captive and hauled away from their homes after all of the men in their village were killed.   Then the Hebrews married them.  Consent?  Sure, after all marriage, slavery, or death is a choice, right?  Kinda like your money or your life.

Oh please! you do realize women didn't have a say in who they married anyway, marriages were arranged... women's consent just wasn't a factor when it came to marriage....

Also you act like I'M the one that brought up the comparison of "American soldiers".

In extreme contrast, the U.S. war brides were not forced to marry servicemen, they did not immigrate until after they had decided to marry servicemen, and they certainly weren't shipped stateside and told they could either agree to marry servicemen or starve in a foreign country.  Nor were servicemen encouraged to take war brides.  The U.S. military and immigrate policy was strongly against enemy war brides.  Soldiers marrying Japanese and and German women faced significant hurdles in getting the marriages recognized and their wives home.  Without the full cooperation and even determination of the wives it couldn't have been done. http://www.americainwwii.com/articles/war-brides/

The point is, these women chose to marry men who were enemies and could have possibly killed members of their family.

Australian women, who in case you missed out on the WWII section in your high school history class were allies not captives and it's hard to imagine in what way they could have been coerced into marrying servicemen.  The Vietnamese and South Korean women were also allies, not captives.   And again, it was not easy to get the wives home.  And without the wives' full cooperation it simply couldn't be done.

In case YOU missed it, I only emphasized the part about German women.

[Nope]

Huggy, let me make certain I understand you.  You believe that the young girls and women who saw their villages massacred and were taken captives by the Hebrews consented to marry and have sex with the killers of their families?

Let me ask you the same question that I asked Randy. If a group of American soldiers massacred an entire Middle Eastern village and brought home the virgins for their wives, would you consider the soldiers rapists? It is a simple question.

No need to go all hypothetical since this very scenario has taken place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_bride

War bride is a term used in reference to wartime marriages between soldiers and foreigners, especially–but not exclusively–during World War I and World War II.

One of the largest and best documented war bride phenomenons is American soldiers marrying German "Fräuleins" after World War II. By 1949, over 20,000 German war brides had emigrated to the US.[1] Furthermore, it is estimated that there are "... 15,000 Australian women who married American servicemen based in Australia during World War II and moved to the US to be with their husbands"

No the soldiers aren't "rapists"....

So, did those soldiers kill their brides' parents? I have known a few soldiers with foreign wives and their spouses were able to go home occasionally and see their parents so no, the American soldiers did not take their brides captives or destroy their entire village. You are being dishonest here, Huggy.

Remember the bible verse says that the captives would be given a month to mourn their families before their new husbands could rape them

[dyresand]

The internet allows for people to anonymously express their most repellant views with little concern for the consequences.  You should be thankful if you are only encountering two slavery apologists and two rape apologists.

I dread to think how much I would see on some Christian forums

Ehhh.... let me answer that there is more atheists on the one christian forum i am a member of and....
they have a whole area devoted to circular logic and apologist tactics....

[Huggy Bear]

Rich, coming from a guy on record defending a statutory rapist...

Do you actually have that record? Because unsurprisingly, your wild, baseless assertions don't mean anything to me.

You should already know I don't make baseless assertions.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-26392-po...#pid679293

16 is the age of consent where I am. Bit shaky, but I don't find this particularly objectionable on its own, and certainly not enough to label the guy a pedophile. Seems like classic theistic stretching beyond their means to me.

Also, you're dodging the question.

I was at work, which is why I couldn't respond to your post in full. Just so were on the same page, what was your objection about your quote?

The phrase "there was no rape," cannot be a justification for the rape that the phrase is explicitly claiming did not happen. It is impossible to argue in favor of a thing when your argument directly contains the premise that the thing does not exist.

I didn't dodge anything, I explicitly addressed that.

You made the statement: "I remember one of my first interactions with Huggy was on a certain rape-related issue in the bible, and his entire position was that no rape happened because the actual word "rape" was never used in the text, despite the context making it very clear what was happening."

it is YOUR position that a rape has occurred in fact you used the phrase "very clear what is happening".

If it is  "very clear" that a rape occurred yet it is my contention that none occurred because (insert reason here), then by definition I am attempting to justify or excuse the act.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/justify

Justify
verb (used with object), justified, justifying.
1.to show (an act, claim, statement, etc.) to be just or right:
The end does not always justify the means.
2.to defend or uphold as warranted or well-grounded:
Don't try to justify his rudeness.
3.Theology. to declare innocent or guiltless; absolve; acquit.
4.Printing.
 a.  to make (a line of type) a desired length by spacing the words and letters, especially so that full lines in a column have even margins both on the left and on the right.
 b. to level and square (a strike).

verb (used without object), justified, justifying.
5.Law.
  a. to show a satisfactory reason or excuse for something done.
  b. to qualify as bail or surety.

[Longhorn]

Huggy. no.

Pedophilia is the attraction to *prepubescent* children. Esq was right.

(Hint: 16 is NOT prepubescent. Wink)

[Huggy Bear]

Huggy. no.

Pedophilia is the attraction to *prepubescent* children. Esq was right.

(Hint: 16 is NOT prepubescent. Wink)

I said he was on record defending a statutory rapist.....

[Longhorn]

Huggy. no.

Pedophilia is the attraction to *prepubescent* children. Esq was right.

(Hint: 16 is NOT prepubescent. Wink)

I said he was on record defending a statutory rapist.....

....when he was objecting calling that guy a pedophile.

I read the thread you linked. Nothing Esq said was in defense of what Milk did. The issue he took was clearly with calling him a pedophile.

But why am I expecting you to be intellectually honest again? Silly me. Proceed with your pointless derail -_-

[Huggy Bear]

I said he was on record defending a statutory rapist.....

....when he was objecting calling that guy a pedophile.

I read the thread you linked. Nothing Esq said was in defense of what Milk did. The issue he took was clearly with calling him a pedophile.

But why am I expecting you to be intellectually honest again? Silly me.

*Emphasis mine*

Read carefully...

16 is the age of consent where I am. Bit shaky, but I don't find this particularly objectionable on its own, and certainly not enough to label the guy a pedophile. Seems like classic theistic stretching beyond their means to me.

*Again emphasis mine*

In case you have trouble comprehending what he's saying, and it seems you do, he's stating that he doesn't have a problem with a thirty-something year old having sex with a 16 year old kid, which was AGAINST THE LAW in this scenario..... statutory rape.

Also, I wasn't the one that brought up pedophilia....

Proceed with your pointless derail -_-

You didn't see the part where Esquilax requested the evidence for my "assertion"?

[Longhorn]

I thought he was talking about the age of consent being shaky. No other post of his in that thread indicates otherwise.

You didn't see the part where Esquilax requested the evidence for my "assertion"?

Yes. I also saw the part when you brought it up first -_-

[IATIA]

Read carefully...

16 is the age of consent where I am. Bit shaky, but I don't find this particularly objectionable on its own, and certainly not enough to label the guy a pedophile. Seems like classic theistic stretching beyond their means to me.

*Again emphasis mine*

In case you have trouble comprehending what he's saying, and it seems you do, he's stating that he doesn't have a problem with a thirty-something year old having sex with a 16 year old kid, which was AGAINST THE LAW in this scenario..... statutory rape.

It may be against the law at that location, but that does not make it "particularly objectionable on its own".  In and of itself, that does not make him a pedophile.  Legally, an 18y/o could be charged with "statutory rape".  Does that make the 18y/o a pedophile?