What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Esquilax]

That is both a sentiment I stand behind, and not a defense of statutory rape; GC brought up Milk being a pedophile, which is simply factually incorrect both under the definition of a pedophile, and in my view, morally. Like I said, the age of consent where I grew up is sixteen, which I feel is a sufficiently knowledgeable age, and no less arbitrary than eighteen either;

Whats your point? If you grew up in Mexico where the age of consent is 12, you'd be fine with that also?

Yeah, I guess you're right: the rest of my sentence after the words "the age of consent where I grew up is sixteen," really doesn't exist.

There is absolutely no reason that a 34 year old man should be romantically involved with a 16 year old kid. Or are you saying that if you had a 16 year old daughter, you be totally fine with her dating a 34 year old man?

I'm going to need more information: like I said, I'm not going to fall victim to knee jerk reactions based on what you, me, or anyone else instinctively finds to be icky except in cases where they can support those feelings with actual arguments, something you failed to do here.

If you're referring to an instance in the bible then post the relevant scripture.

The Amalekites, among others.

*emphasis mine*
Must I remind you that the conversation on "rape" never happened? So therefore how can you take my words seriously when they don't exist?

Which is why I took care to be generic with my language: if you look very closely, you'll see I never used the word "rape" in the section you quoted either. But the subject of the argument isn't the point under contention, as you did in fact make an identical argument regarding a few different things in the past, which I linked to in the initial thread.

Oh hey! You just got through asserting that I was talking about rape there, when I wasn't; in the same way that I simply must have been lying when I mistakenly said you'd made an argument about rape earlier and then corrected myself (something you continue to insist was a lie even on this page) does this mean that you were, ahem, "bald faced lying" just now when you said I was talking about rape when I wasn't?

Or have you suddenly discovered that people can be wrong without lying, now?

My position on slavery wasn't that it didn't exist, but that it wasn't slavery in the traditional sense but "indentured servitude", big difference. If you contracted to serve someone of your own free will, that is NOT slavery.

And as I reminded you at the time, and you've never, to my knowledge, even attempted to address, this was in regards to Hebrew slaves, whereas there is a second set of rules, consent irrelevant, with regards to foreign slaves.

2.Esquilax's dishonesty

Oh, is that so? So, if I was to go back and find my providing that verse several pages before you asked me to, that'd make the one lying here when you say I've never provided it, right? Twisting, self serving apologetics aside, you can't say I never provided the verse; you just disagree on what it means, but that's mostly because you're an idiot. The beating of slaves is never outright prohibited, and also never assigned a punishment: this is carte blanche to beat them. It's saying you can beat them, in the same way that you can do any other thing that doesn't have any laws against it. Your desperate obtuseness aside, this is hardly dishonesty; beating your slaves was permissible according to the bible. You could do it and not suffer any consequences. It's something that an old testament adherent can do.

[IATIA]

That is both a sentiment I stand behind, and not a defense of statutory rape; GC brought up Milk being a pedophile, which is simply factually incorrect both under the definition of a pedophile, and in my view, morally. Like I said, the age of consent where I grew up is sixteen, which I feel is a sufficiently knowledgeable age, and no less arbitrary than eighteen either;

Whats your point? If you grew up in Mexico where the age of consent is 12, you'd be fine with that also?

The age of consent in the bible is puberty.

[Randy Carson]

Well, your reactions were about what I expected.

As Cthulhu Dreaming is fond of saying, "This forum isn't for the thin-skinned."

Y'all can dish it out, but you can't take it.

You're mistaking "thin skinned," with "unwilling to put up with flat out grandstanding lies in aid of a smug rhetorical point."

It never seems to bother you so much when the "grandstanding lies" are posted by your side...where is your outrage then?

[Randy Carson]

Well, your reactions were about what I expected.

As Cthulhu Dreaming is fond of saying, "This forum isn't for the thin-skinned."

Y'all can dish it out, but you can't take it.

Ah; trolling, then.

Just adapting to the forum.

But come to think of it, maybe that's something I do need to examine my conscience about. Thank you, Stimbo.

[Randy Carson]

Well, your reactions were about what I expected.

As Cthulhu Dreaming is fond of saying, "This forum isn't for the thin-skinned."

Y'all can dish it out, but you can't take it.

The problem you have with understanding atheism is understanding what it isn't.  I don't care what other atheists think about rape, except to the extent that I would prefer that no one be in favor of rape.  Harris is not my ideal, nor my spokesman.   The fact that the religious regularly appeal to authority doesn't mean the rest of us do.

Beyond that, Harris didn't condone rape, and if you think he did, you aren't really thinking.  If you prefer to have your shin broken to having your kneecap broken are you expressing a fondness for broken knees?

I understand, Jenny. I read how Dawkins got into hot water over tweets to this effect.

My point was simply to illustrate that just as "Atheists Condone Rape" is a silly accusation, the idea that God condones rape is even more stupid.

[Cyberman]

But come to think of it, maybe that's something I do need to examine my conscience about.  Thank you, Stimbo.

Appreciated, man. Your conscience and the Rules.

[Esquilax]

You're mistaking "thin skinned," with "unwilling to put up with flat out grandstanding lies in aid of a smug rhetorical point."

It never seems to bother you so much when the "grandstanding lies" are posted by your side...where is your outrage then?

If that ever happens, then you'll see it. But vague handwaving in an attempt to show hypocrisy without ever demonstrating it isn't effective.

[Randy Carson]

Well, your reactions were about what I expected.

As Cthulhu Dreaming is fond of saying, "This forum isn't for the thin-skinned."

Y'all can dish it out, but you can't take it.

I do say that.

Problem is, you got fucking owned on that rhetorical point.

Opinions vary.

BTW, you should get to know Spacetime. He sounds a lot like you.

[Randy Carson]

Well, your reactions were about what I expected.

As Cthulhu Dreaming is fond of saying, "This forum isn't for the thin-skinned."

Y'all can dish it out, but you can't take it.

So....

You expected us to point out the fallacy you made and notice how you dishonestly quote mined Sam Harris and posted it anyway?

Great plan. 12/11 for effort, and a big F for being a disingenuous asshole.

By the way, I'm keeping my fucking promise Randy.

'Ethnic profiling is the only reasonable security measure that has been thwarted in the war on terrorism.' Ann Coulter's 'Mineta's Bataan Death March,' 2/28/02

Randy, and all xtians are blatant racists. One of them said it, that means they all believe it.

Racist.

OF COURSE I WAS MAKING A POINT.

Does anyone in their right minds think Sam Harris actually condones rape?

My post illustrated the absurdity of all those saying similar things about God.

Whoa. I never expected anyone to miss that...I need to lower my estimation of the group and quick.

[Randy Carson]

Obviously some have not read my sig.  

Never Argue With The Ignorant Because They Will Simply Pull You Down To Their Level And Beat You With Experience.

That's good. Here's another:

“There's nothing wrong with ignorance, per se. Ignorance with humility is harmless and curable, but ignorance combined with pride blossoms into arrogance, and is most often incurable, the patient being highly resistant to the only antidote.” - Jimmy Akin