Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: April 28, 2024, 8:42 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The harms of religion
#21
RE: The harms of religion
StatCrux Wrote:You think that sex between two consenting 16 year old children is acceptable.

You're misusing language to create a straw man. 16-year-olds are not children; they are adolescents. You keep throwing in that word to illicit a reactionary response, and that's intellectually indefensible.

With that in mind, yes, 16-year-old adolescents are perfectly capable of engaging in consensual protected sex.
[Image: hoviksig-1.png]
Ex Machina Libertas
Reply
#22
RE: The harms of religion
Quote:And I answered with what I thought to be acceptable
Annik

Interesting response..

(June 6, 2012 at 7:39 pm)Annik Wrote: What does his ideas have to do with mine?

Who are we to limit their personal freedoms, provided they are not hurting themselves or others?

OK, so promiscuous sexual behavior amongst 16 year old persons is perfectly fine providing they use contraception?
Reply
#23
RE: The harms of religion
(June 6, 2012 at 7:42 pm)StatCrux Wrote:
(June 6, 2012 at 7:39 pm)Annik Wrote: What does his ideas have to do with mine?

Who are we to limit their personal freedoms, provided they are not hurting themselves or others?

OK, so promiscuous sexual behavior amongst 16 year old persons is perfectly fine providing they use contraception?
How many people does one have to sleep with to become promiscuous?
[Image: SigBarSping_zpscd7e35e1.png]
Reply
#24
RE: The harms of religion
(June 6, 2012 at 7:41 pm)Hovik Wrote:
StatCrux Wrote:You think that sex between two consenting 16 year old children is acceptable.

You're misusing language to create a straw man. 16-year-olds are not children; they are adolescents. You keep throwing in that word to illicit a reactionary response, and that's intellectually indefensible.

With that in mind, yes, 16-year-old adolescents are perfectly capable of engaging in consensual protected sex.

Are any persons perfectly capable of engaging in consensual protected sex? As in the original proposition by brian37?
Reply
#25
RE: The harms of religion
(June 6, 2012 at 7:58 pm)StatCrux Wrote:
(June 6, 2012 at 7:41 pm)Hovik Wrote: You're misusing language to create a straw man. 16-year-olds are not children; they are adolescents. You keep throwing in that word to illicit a reactionary response, and that's intellectually indefensible.

With that in mind, yes, 16-year-old adolescents are perfectly capable of engaging in consensual protected sex.

Are any persons perfectly capable of engaging in consensual protected sex? As in the original proposition by brian37?

Er, yes? What does someone else's original proposition matter? Anybody at an age at which they are mentally competent enough to have sex should be able to do so, just so long as the sex is consensual and practiced safely.

StatCrux Wrote:[...] promiscuous sexual behavior [...]

Yet again, setting up a straw man.
[Image: hoviksig-1.png]
Ex Machina Libertas
Reply
#26
RE: The harms of religion
(June 6, 2012 at 7:57 pm)Annik Wrote:
(June 6, 2012 at 7:42 pm)StatCrux Wrote: OK, so promiscuous sexual behavior amongst 16 year old persons is perfectly fine providing they use contraception?
How many people does one have to sleep with to become promiscuous?

You don't understand the term promiscuous? Or do you wish to redefine it?

(June 6, 2012 at 7:58 pm)Hovik Wrote:
(June 6, 2012 at 7:58 pm)StatCrux Wrote: Are any persons perfectly capable of engaging in consensual protected sex? As in the original proposition by brian37?

Er, yes? What does someone else's original proposition matter? Anybody at an age at which they are mentally competent enough to have sex should be able to do so, just so long as the sex is consensual and practiced safely.

StatCrux Wrote:[...] promiscuous sexual behavior [...]

Yet again, setting up a straw man.

No, setting up societal norms, do you want to challenge them regarding age of consent?
Reply
#27
RE: The harms of religion
(June 6, 2012 at 8:05 pm)StatCrux Wrote:
(June 6, 2012 at 7:57 pm)Annik Wrote: How many people does one have to sleep with to become promiscuous?

You don't understand the term promiscuous? Or do you wish to redefine it?

I want you to tell me exactly how many people you need to sleep with to become promiscuous. 1? 4? 10? 56? How many?
[Image: SigBarSping_zpscd7e35e1.png]
Reply
#28
RE: The harms of religion
(June 6, 2012 at 5:03 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Well, this link doesn't state the change over the years, but here's a break down by country. Noticed the U.S., on of the greatest advocators of abstinence only education, is responsible for nearly 60% of all teenage births worldwide.

The irony of your last statement is delicious. The vast majority of those advocating abstinence only sex education are the same people that hold up a case where abstinence didn't work as an indicator of their savior's divinity.
Reply
#29
RE: The harms of religion
(June 6, 2012 at 8:09 pm)Annik Wrote:
(June 6, 2012 at 8:05 pm)StatCrux Wrote: You don't understand the term promiscuous? Or do you wish to redefine it?

I want you to tell me exactly how many people you need to sleep with to become promiscuous. 1? 4? 10? 56? How many?

It's not a matter of notches on a bedpost, it's more to do with attitude to bedpost notches.
Reply
#30
RE: The harms of religion
(June 6, 2012 at 8:05 pm)StatCrux Wrote:
(June 6, 2012 at 7:57 pm)Annik Wrote: How many people does one have to sleep with to become promiscuous?

You don't understand the term promiscuous? Or do you wish to redefine it?

(June 6, 2012 at 7:58 pm)Hovik Wrote: Er, yes? What does someone else's original proposition matter? Anybody at an age at which they are mentally competent enough to have sex should be able to do so, just so long as the sex is consensual and practiced safely.


Yet again, setting up a straw man.

No, setting up societal norms, do you want to challenge them regarding age of consent?

Yes, you are setting up a straw man. By injecting an arbitrary term like 'promiscuous' into the phrasing, you're setting up a false precedent for the argument. You're essentially rewording the argument so that it will illicit an emotional reaction to discredit the argument itself.

Societal norms are passively determined by society. Societal norms don't reflect how things should be done based on rational thinking.

So yes, I do challenge the "societal norms" regarding age of consent because they're based on a flawed understanding of the psychology of adolescents and sexual development.
[Image: hoviksig-1.png]
Ex Machina Libertas
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Religion hurts homosexuality but homosexuality kills religion? RozKek 43 10738 March 30, 2016 at 2:46 am
Last Post: robvalue
  Terrorism has no religion but religion brings terrorism. Islam is NOT peaceful. bussta33 13 4909 January 16, 2016 at 8:25 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Religion's affect outside of religion Heat 67 19829 September 28, 2015 at 9:45 pm
Last Post: TheRocketSurgeon
Rainbow Gay rights within the template of religion proves flaws in "religion" CristW 288 49338 November 21, 2014 at 4:09 pm
Last Post: DramaQueen
  Religion Vs Religion. Bull Poopie 14 5189 September 8, 2010 at 9:02 pm
Last Post: Oldandeasilyconfused



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)