pop morality

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Does someone want to explain what the word hypothetical means to this guy??

You keep forgetting I'm a scientist by education and former career-training. I know exactly what hypothetical means. The problem is that you weren't really offering a hypothetical, but a syllogism: "if allowing homosexuals to do what they want is justified by science, and therefore socially acceptable, then how can we stop the pedophiles from being next by using the same argument?"

The problem is that it doesn't work that way. Science has had very little to contribute to the social debate over whether or not to allow consenting adults to have sex with each other if they wish to do so. That's why I cited the Lawrence case, to show you exactly what the rationale actually is. As I also said, and you also ignored, it doesn't matter if there's a gene for a certain propensity or desire, as far as the social/moral questions you're asking go.

I presented you with a hypothetical scenario concerning pedophilia gaining legitimacy through 'scientific discovery' in "Certain children." Also 'Science' was use to identify a pedo gene in the scenario. You acknowledged ALL Of his in your first response. now it seems you are beating back a cowards retreat on the subject now that you see you are being made to make the same 'moral judgement' the church had to make concerning Homosexuality. In that Traditional values tells you it is wrong, yet science is telling it is what certain members of society are genetically preconditioned to engage in. This is The same science that supposedly was tapped to legitimize homosexuality in the very same way. The question being if 'science'/evolutionary need was used to legitimize Homosexuality, then Why cant it be used in the exact same way to legitimize sex with young children? In the scenario I presented It has been, in that All physical and psychological concerns were proved to be scientifically unfounded. So then why the hasty retreat, and data dump on what science is currently saying?

Let me be really clear, here: Science. Did. Not. Legitimize. Homosexuality. Science has less bearing on public policy and lawmaking than I'd like to see, to be sure, but it certainly had nothing to do with this one. Gays coming "out of the closet" and making themselves known, so that people realized their own friends, family, neighbors, etc., were gay is what legitimized it-- people began to have empathy for those who had formerly been forced to live in hiding because of fear of what Christians would do to them, once the rest of us who weren't bent into bigots by religion actually got a chance to know members of the gay community.

As the others have been trying to tell you, much of what the Bible condones, such as slavery, was rejected by society once people began to have empathy for the oppressed, and to see them as fellow human beings. None of this has anything to do with the question of whether we let people harm our children just because they have urges that may or may not be rooted in their genomic defects.

In other words, who cares if there's a genetic propensity for pedophilia? There's also a gene-set for tendencies toward extreme and unreasonable violent reactions... it's still illegal for that guy to punch people who piss him off. And what "traditional values" are you talking about? On the one hand, you seem to be implying that I'm only against pedophilia because it has traditionally been banned (which is only loosely true; the modern trend has been toward protecting children more than in the past), while on the other I'm being attacked by Wooters for acknowledging that it may be possible that it changes in the future, as more information about the nature of the harm done comes to light. For reasons I already stated, I don't think that number will move downward, but I acknowledge the possibility that it could be so.

Nice.. All of the heavy hitters on the Athiest side of the evolution of morality with science being your guide line, Cower like little children afraid of the boogey man, at the thought of making a moral judgement that society has not already preapproved. Even though all of the 'check points' of scientific permission have been met as with the case of homosexuality.

This should freak all of you the Hell out if you have two brain cells to rub together!

Holy shit, Drich. Seriously, your holiness is shit. You're the only one here who's saying "If science says ____, then ____ is permissible." We may use scientific knowledge to inform our own moral judgment making (we more than most!), but your entire argument is based on a false premise. So take your childish insults and provocations, reach waaaaaaayyyy back, and shove them up your ass.

I'm going to go ahead and skip a few paragraphs of gibberish as you meandered around the point of saying that science may be misused (or, alternately, partial science or outright pseudoscience promoted in place of actual, conclusive research) for the purposes of peoples' agendas. That's indeed true, and it's why scientific literacy is so important. But I feel like I need to say it one last time: finding that gay people have some sort of epigenetic, genetic, or developmental predisposition such that they cannot like anyone but their own gender (which the science seems to indicate is the case) is not the reason they're allowed equal rights with the rest of us. It's very simple. There is no legitimate reason, other than your religious bullshit, to stop them from doing so. With violent people and pedophiles, there's a harm element to be considered, and so we force those people to restrain their impulses lest they harm those who would not wish to be harmed (consent is key).

Seriously, Drich, did it seriously enter your head that I might not know the meaning of hypothetically? Good grief, man. Work on your "slippery slope" arguments, already!