What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Esquilax]

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?

Yeah, I guess you're right: the rest of my sentence after the words "the age of consent where I grew up is sixteen," really doesn't exist.

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?

I'm going to need more information: like I said, I'm not going to fall victim to knee jerk reactions based on what you, me, or anyone else instinctively finds to be icky except in cases where they can support those feelings with actual arguments, something you failed to do here.

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

The Amalekites, among others.

*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?

Which is why I took care to be generic with my language: if you look very closely, you'll see I never used the word "rape" in the section you quoted either. But the subject of the argument isn't the point under contention, as you did in fact make an identical argument regarding a few different things in the past, which I linked to in the initial thread.

Oh hey! You just got through asserting that I was talking about rape there, when I wasn't; in the same way that I simply must have been lying when I mistakenly said you'd made an argument about rape earlier and then corrected myself (something you continue to insist was a lie even on this page) does this mean that you were, ahem, "bald faced lying" just now when you said I was talking about rape when I wasn't?

Or have you suddenly discovered that people can be wrong without lying, now?

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.

And as I reminded you at the time, and you've never, to my knowledge, even attempted to address, this was in regards to Hebrew slaves, whereas there is a second set of rules, consent irrelevant, with regards to foreign slaves.

2.Esquilax's dishonesty

Oh, is that so? So, if I was to go back and find my providing that verse several pages before you asked me to, that'd make the one lying here when you say I've never provided it, right? Twisting, self serving apologetics aside, you can't say I never provided the verse; you just disagree on what it means, but that's mostly because you're an idiot. The beating of slaves is never outright prohibited, and also never assigned a punishment: this is carte blanche to beat them. It's saying you can beat them, in the same way that you can do any other thing that doesn't have any laws against it. Your desperate obtuseness aside, this is hardly dishonesty; beating your slaves was permissible according to the bible. You could do it and not suffer any consequences. It's something that an old testament adherent can do.