Pedophilia; I can't accept it.

[Violet]

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.

My moral structure, Max... my process. And that structure is something that only could be taken from anyone by something akin to brainwashing. The specifics of one's morals is based off OF their process. You've stated that your process is modifiable according to when and where you exist... that is to say: 'you'... are in flux. On the other hand, I state that mine are independent of which society I happen to live in (which is really pretty well evidenced, but I could get into it further if you want).

It's actually very fascinating psychologically that a being's moral processes are likely to remain very true to their nature regardless of nurture, and that while the lesser specifics might change with the times: to upset the whole paradigm is something you're likely only to see in cases of significant and long-term stressors (war, abuse, rape, accidents, serious mental illnesses, etc).

Another way of looking at it (and morals apply as such, FYI)... is that while I might value <a thing> more or less according to a situation: the system by which I achieve valuation is identical regardless of any situation which doesn't compromise that (and assuming I still possess this brain identically: it won't happen unless something is *seriously* impairing its function).

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.

And now you're jumping to conclusions and putting words in people's mouths

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.

Get this straight: lobotomy is not an abuse because someone doesn't understand it and undergoes it (that would mean there's never been a morally just lobotomy)... lobotomy in this case is an abuse because it treats the recipient in such a way as to cause serious harm to another person, it is also a very specific medical procedure that was likely misused (unjust practice), further: the trust of a client/charge was broken by conceit (just saying: if she didn't consent, or if she or another person demanded damages afterwards: he's getting hit by a truck). Not that you asked me *any* of that, regarding this scenario. Guess what: if the child consents, and the consent of the being is what is in question, and NOTHING ELSE: doc's off the hook, easy.

I see plenty, Max. But I do not see ghosts in the shadows.

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.

You mean the assumption? Yeah... well if you brand one thing illegal, and the person wishing to engage in the activity recognizes that it's illegal: why not do other illegal things while they are at it? The funniest thing about laws like these (drug laws too, if you are looking for a perfect parallel), is that they make for a self-fulfilling prophecy. Something fascinating about rapists? They're the common joe, in most cases... who get caught up in the moment. Sure, predators exist out there too... but these people would be such regardless of their bent.

You want to end abuses in the world? Law is clearly not a very effective method. I'd love to tell you a whole swath of more effective methods, and also a whole bunch of seemingly evident realities as to 'what causes a person to commit <a crime> (or really, to do anything)'... but I'd like to test them myself, first Do you know how society should act when *anyone* gets abused? Exactly like they act when a child is abused.

I don't buy it: owning a thousand jewelry shops across a country allows for the probability, if not certainty, that someone is going to come up one day and swipe something. Should I not react with sadness for my fellow man when his garage sale is stolen from? That's less ridiculous than special pleading with children, and it's still pathetic.

Your theism then continues with your assumed right to judge my parenting skills (based on the slim evidence of this discussion).

Theism and assumptions of rightness? Different things entirely, regardless of how they sometimes go hand-in-hand. Everyone has the right to judge everyone (or really, there are no rights for anything, but you don't want to hear how things work)... you judge me for some things, and I judge you for other things, and the woman looking out her window thinks we should both get off her lawn and judges us as urchins and drug dealers.

But your parenting skills are shit, just so you know.

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.

Sure they do. That only takes them to about four... what then? Not my problem, but they should probably go with the whole state bit, if they don't want to take care of a drooling mess of worthlessness

"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.

Me? I try to keep my children away from cliffs if I think they're retarded enough that they might saunter off of them. Streets are the same way. Why must mentally retarded children roam this Earth?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh5kZ4uIUC0

That said, if I see someone in immediate danger, I will usually intervene. Has nothing to do with my responsibilities to the person at all... it's just who I am. Oh well, let's ignore your ridiculous insinuation, and get to your shit.

*It's a cliff, and they are heading over to stand on it. If they've never fallen before, I could see it being a problem, but surely they've taken at least one spill. Over-protective parents don't seem to understand that pain is one of the first messages anybody receives.
*Should be fine... what, are we saying that this kid's a mental cripple? Gotta love cripples, everyone's gotta work extra just for them.
*Just how many times have you taken this fucker to the cliff's edge without giving him secondhand experience? Are you sure that you should have that kid?

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).

Oh dearie me... I don't know what growing up means. What does growing up mean? Heavens if I know.

Using 'purely' in that question forces 'no', because it's only mostly so (the other bit is that they're hopefully just that much less stupid, but you know how that turns out).

If you really wanted me to tell you what learning and experience are: you'd actually be getting somewhere. Not where you want to be... but hey, it's better than where you are.

Depends on the child... what I find is that 'social adeptness' is really quite arbitrary and changes with the hour.

Yes.

Depends on the child, probably about as easy as it is to distract anyone else who likes puppies and kittens. Ever seen a magic show? Them magicians could show you a thing or two about distraction.

Umm, I'm not feeling anything here, Puss... are your boots on too tight?