(July 31, 2012 at 11:40 pm)Ryantology Wrote:(July 31, 2012 at 10:43 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: Beastiality?
In many forms of beastiality the animal giving consent is the human.
Obviously.
Quote:Pedophilia?
Suppose a pedophile argues (the standard libertarian line) that it's not hurting anyone / what's it got to do with you / keep your moralizing, reactionary, biggoted nose out of my business.
A child cannot consent. I do agree that the legal age limit is arbitrary and that this is a legitimate concern. I also despise the fact that pedophiles are considered subhuman by so many people. Some of them are terrible predators, but not every case is equal. A 25 year old sleeping with a consenting 15 year old is not the same, to me, as a 40 year old violently raping a toddler or infant. It is a sticky situation we tend to not want to deal with.
Quote:Rape?
Yes, well you seee heres where all the... look animals are doing it too ''brigade'' suddenly go all quiet and do their goldfish impersonation,
open/close/open/close mouth... no sound comes out.
What they should do, if they react that way, is realize how utterly absurd it is to suggest that homosexuality and rape are in any way comparable in moral terms and laugh at anyone who makes any of the slippery slope comparisons between homosexuality and non-consensual sex.
The pedophile can argue the same (libertarian) reasoning as the person who thinks animals can give consent.
It goes like this...
Where's the harm? It's just a few pictures. They have no idea what's going on. Look everybody, they are enjoying it.
Moral equivalence -
a) If they can hunt animals why cant I do ''xyz'' with my dog?
b) If they can circumcise their sons, why can't I do ''xyz'' with my son?
