What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Huggy Bear]

You should already know I don't make baseless assertions.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-26392-po...#pid679293

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?

I don't have this automatic assumption that younger folks shouldn't have relations with older ones, it depends largely on the circumstances surrounding the pairing. It's context dependent.

Given this, I don't find myself personally bothered by Milk's actions just presented as they had been in the thread, as nobody had established that Milk's actions were predatory, and so the contention GC had within that thread isn't the hypocrisy he seemed to think. However, this is a separate issue entirely from whether or not Milk was a statutory rapist, which he absolutely was, given the laws at the time of his actions. But whether something is legal is not the same thing as whether something is moral; they're separate questions which you're conflating, either through ignorance or through dishonesty I don't know. From what I know about you, it has even odds of being either one.

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?

You're doing that conflation thing again, only this time I'm pretty sure it's ignorance: I asked you, in a previous post, whether a soldier would be a rapist if he and his army kidnapped all the women of a given group, regardless of their consent, with their virginity being the determining factor of whether they're taken or killed. You responded with the statutory rape thing and nothing else, which is a dodge to avoid answering the question I asked, which you still haven't.

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

Not if you literally think the act did not occur. Like I said, a person who thinks the holocaust was a huge fabrication is not attempting to justify or excuse the holocaust, because their position is that there's nothing to justify or excuse, period. If I am to take your own words seriously, then you don't believe that the act in question was ever depicted in those passages, and therefore you have nothing to justify either. The context of my statements there was specifically about the ridiculous lengths you'll go to to act as though nothing immoral has ever happened in the bible, not the lengths you'll go to to excuse the immoral actions within it.

*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? 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.

In the KJV the words "slave" and "slavery" each appear only once, and neither in the context of what were speaking of. The word servant is used in the other cases Proving there is a distinction between the words "servant" and "slave" in the original text. Yet you guys tend to continue to use newer translations which have been dumbed down and proven to be in error, all because it fits your agenda.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_slavery

Biblical era

Ancient Israelite society allowed slavery; however, total domination of one human being by another (as the Israelites suffered under Egyptian rule) was not permitted.[16][17] Rather, slavery in antiquity among the Israelites was closer to what would later be called indentured servitude

I don't know how I can make this any clearer for you.

---

---

---

I'll give you an example of dishonesty....
http://atheistforums.org/thread-32260-po...#pid905650

Law and order has betrayed me several times over. Even so, I still hold onto my morals because I would rather do what is right and set a good example for my children, despite the wrong that was done to me.

As for whether or not I would remain I would remain moral - if you are asking whether or not I would kill someone for my own survival, I can't honestly answer that. I have never killed anyone and don't know what that feels like.

I suppose if it meant shoving one of my children out of harms way and bearing the brunt of that harm, possibly getting killed in the process, then I don't believe I would be compromising my morals because I would be trying to protect my child. And I would do whatever was necessary achieve that.

All in all, it depends on the scenario. If my children were somewhere safe and all I had to do was worry about myself, I probably would die. Killing just doesn't seem to be an option.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-32313-p...#pid906588

And yeah, I don't commit murder because I AM afraid of the death penalty. That and I obey the laws because Prison Orange isn't my color. I have a list of five people who I would happily off right now if I knew that I could get away with it. So your argument is invalid.

This is an example of the nonsense I have to put up with, you guys seem to switch positions whenever it's convenient for your argument.

I'll propose a challenge, provide one instance where I've been "dishonest", and I'll provide ten from Atheists.... you up for it?