Violet,
Your first answer to my point that we will never agree is:
"Because views never change, am I right? "
Your second answer to my point that it is impossible to tell what my moral position on anything would be were I borne in a different time or place is to state how sure you are yours would be exactly the same.
See any contradiction there much? According to you your views don't change - even when your circumstances are massively different. Actually I think you are being incredibly naive but that's common throughout your entire argument.
Of the 2 of us which is taking the more theist position here. I am stating I regard morality as relative. You are stating yours as an absolute.
You are still willfully ignoring both the potential for abuse of a child by an adult and even when it is presented to you as actual abuse (lobotomy) where it is spelled out that the child has not understood enough to able to give anything resembling consent bar the words themselves you won't see it.
The probability, if not certainty, that a sexual relationship between an adult and child is based on abuse is the main reason society reacts worse to it that it does to people of the same age having a sexual relationship.
Your theism then continues with your assumed right to judge my parenting skills (based on the slim evidence of this discussion).
Partly responsible and parenthood to not marry well together. If there is a couple bringing up one or more children then jointly responsible applies until such point as the child has developed sufficiently to make their own decisions and look after themselves. Should the child have developmental issues (severe mental disability for example) then that responsibility may be till death - unless they can get support (for example state support) that will act in their stead.
"None of the above: I said that I don't give a rat's left ankle about what a person I trust MAY do... but I certainly do care about what they DO do. "
A child walks up to a cliff edge on a windy day. You don't give a rats left ankle that they may fall off but you will be there to pick up the pieces when they do. Me? I won't wait till they do.
Consider in the above:
The child's judgement of the situation.
The child's ability to judge risk.
The experience the child can call on to make any and all of these decisions.
Apply to any and all of the above what growing up means. Is the transition from child to adult purely one of size? What is learning? What is experience? Is a child as socially adept as an adult (should be)? Can a child be expected to understand that someone who offers you sweets is not necessarily your friend? How easy is it to distract a child with a promise of puppies or kittens?
Try applying the above to the subject of paedophilia and come back to me (as undoubtedly you will).
Your first answer to my point that we will never agree is:
"Because views never change, am I right? "
Your second answer to my point that it is impossible to tell what my moral position on anything would be were I borne in a different time or place is to state how sure you are yours would be exactly the same.
See any contradiction there much? According to you your views don't change - even when your circumstances are massively different. Actually I think you are being incredibly naive but that's common throughout your entire argument.
Of the 2 of us which is taking the more theist position here. I am stating I regard morality as relative. You are stating yours as an absolute.
You are still willfully ignoring both the potential for abuse of a child by an adult and even when it is presented to you as actual abuse (lobotomy) where it is spelled out that the child has not understood enough to able to give anything resembling consent bar the words themselves you won't see it.
The probability, if not certainty, that a sexual relationship between an adult and child is based on abuse is the main reason society reacts worse to it that it does to people of the same age having a sexual relationship.
Your theism then continues with your assumed right to judge my parenting skills (based on the slim evidence of this discussion).
Partly responsible and parenthood to not marry well together. If there is a couple bringing up one or more children then jointly responsible applies until such point as the child has developed sufficiently to make their own decisions and look after themselves. Should the child have developmental issues (severe mental disability for example) then that responsibility may be till death - unless they can get support (for example state support) that will act in their stead.
"None of the above: I said that I don't give a rat's left ankle about what a person I trust MAY do... but I certainly do care about what they DO do. "
A child walks up to a cliff edge on a windy day. You don't give a rats left ankle that they may fall off but you will be there to pick up the pieces when they do. Me? I won't wait till they do.
Consider in the above:
The child's judgement of the situation.
The child's ability to judge risk.
The experience the child can call on to make any and all of these decisions.
Apply to any and all of the above what growing up means. Is the transition from child to adult purely one of size? What is learning? What is experience? Is a child as socially adept as an adult (should be)? Can a child be expected to understand that someone who offers you sweets is not necessarily your friend? How easy is it to distract a child with a promise of puppies or kittens?
Try applying the above to the subject of paedophilia and come back to me (as undoubtedly you will).
