pop morality

[TheRocketSurgeon]

...On the other hand, Hebephilia, which is adult sexual attraction to teenagers, is a slightly different proposition. If science discovers that we are wrong about this factor, then I can see the laws changing to suit a different figure than the ones we have artificially drawn (somewhere between 14 and 18, depending on the nation and/or the state in question)...

And so it begins. What was formerly unthinkable finds its way back into consideration.

The fuck are you talking about, calling it "formerly unthinkable"?

Until very very  recently in history, it was normal for a woman to marry in her early teens. My own grandmother was married just after her 15th birthday, and had my mother at 16. 

In many nations, the Age of Consent is 14 (and in 29 of the US states it's as low as 16, as well). In Mexico, it's 12. Twelve!

These figures are set almost arbitrarily, based on what that particular state/nation considers to be the age at which a person is capable of giving consent. As more data comes in, this figure could be revised upward or downward. I think the current science points to increasing the minimum age, not reducing it, but it is plausible that further discoveries could change that harm concept.

Far from being "back in consideration", it has always been in consideration; we simply have better ways to do it now, and it's possible legislators may take these factors into account when they raise or lower this number. I simply acknowledged that such is a possibility.

GTFOH with that judgmental bullshit, man.

[robvalue]

Thou shalt not kill*.

(*Unless there's a voice in your head telling you to do it. Then it's totez cool. But it has to be the right voice. Not just being crazy, or another god's voice. Not that there are any other gods of course. I know I said all that stuff about not worshipping other gods, but...)

[Brakeman]

...On the other hand, Hebephilia, which is adult sexual attraction to teenagers, is a slightly different proposition. If science discovers that we are wrong about this factor, then I can see the laws changing to suit a different figure than the ones we have artificially drawn (somewhere between 14 and 18, depending on the nation and/or the state in question)...

And so it begins. What was formerly unthinkable finds its way back into consideration.

Mohammad the prophet, piss be upon him, thought marrying girls even as infants was A-OK. It has been religion that has sanctified marriages of older men and child brides for centuries. It has been religion that has put a woman's sole value upon the fact that the woman cannot compare a man sexually, that she be a virgin.

It is today's humanistic reflection of empathy that we consider the real life implications of marrying an immature girl to a older man.

[Brakeman]

I don't think Drich really understands what Empathy is..  or has a clue..

Maybe the better question is "does Drich care what brakeman and his followers thinks about his lack of empathy?" Does drich care if he is labeled a sociopath because he can truly look at himself and the society he lives in objectively in such a real way his empathy is questioned?

If you answered yes to either of these questions then know you will have to try and find another way to manipulate me. I'd much rather be labeled a sociopath than be control by what douche bags think of me.

No, I don't expect you to be concerned with your seemingly socio-pathic lack of empathy. I further don't think you will consider the irony of it's hypocrisy with your stated claim of having jesus inside you.

That's ok though.
Just remember, we're laughing at you, not with you.

[Brakeman]

Except when it applies to your god's directed rape of captured virgin girls of other tribes, right?

As a posed to what the philosopher's/thinking mans reason for have sex/talking a child into sex?

Do you seriously want to pretend one is better than the other based on 'your moral values?'

Religious men such as lot, noah, moses, and mohammed, did not consider the feelings of the girls when commanding females into marriage.

Only today's thinking empathetic men do. And that is much better!

[Drich]

Your introducing a red herring while moving the goal posts!

In my senerio I go to great lengths to explain science has given it's blessing stating their is no physical or mental harm that comes to certain children. Likewise their is a genetic predisposition for pedophilia. Just like science gave it's blessing on homosexuality clearing the way from physical and mental concerns and is hasn't yet but is still striving to find that gay gene. It took it a step further even and verified a pedo gene, so technically their is a more legitmate reason for pedophilia in this senerio than homosexuality. Now using the very same metric that got homosexuality in every single show now on tv (pop culture/morality) explain why you have a reservation on pedophilia? Obviously science and reason are not working for you, because they contradict your morality. so what then tells you that 'science' got it wrong with pedophilia and right with homosexuality?

If you can/won't put a lable on it I can and will if you like.

Re: Goalposts... I have done no such thing. Your own counter-analysis shows why this is so.

I'm not sure what you mean by "certain children" are not harmed by someone having sex with them despite their inability to consent to the acts being performed on them. If you're trying to argue that pedophilia is not harmful to children, you're going to have an uphill battle (to put it nicely) against the people I've known who were deeply harmed by their childhood molesters.

While it is true that there seem to be genetic factors that contribute to the emergence of pedophilia, it does not follow that "well, it's genetic, therefore it must be acceptable behavior". Thus my discussion of the harm factor, which you (seem to have) deemed goalpost-moving. There are also genetic factors which make a person prone to fits of rage and violence, yet because of the harm factor (inflicting the desires of the perpetrator on those who do not wish to be harmed) we still prosecute them for Assault/Battery in the same way as those who simply chose to become violent for other reasons. It's literally the difference between sparring and assault... if I consent to spar with you, then no matter how bloody I become in our bout, it's not a crime. Indeed, it's a career for people like Holyfield, Tyson, Ali, etc. But the moment I say stop, or if you do it to me when I cannot or did not give consent to be punched, then you have committed a felony.

I am also unaware of science having "given it's [sic] blessing" to homosexuality, and as far as I am aware the development of human sexual attraction is an epigenetic or developmental factor, rather than there existing such a thing as "a gay gene". That changes nothing; it's clearly not a choice for people who are homosexual (nor is it a choice for pedophiles; this factor just does not matter when it comes to whether or not it's acceptable for the State to prohibit the behavior of consenting adults, just as whether or not predispositions to enjoy violence does not make it acceptable or unacceptable for two people to spar).

Science may contribute to the future acceptance of hebephilia, as I stated above, if it is shown that it is not harmful despite our current (including my own) reservations on the question. Pedophilia, on the other hand, remains a separate question, and I don't see a future in which science ever will say, "It's okay now, go ahead and screw kids."

I understand that, in the minds of Christians who have been taught all their lives that only male-female, procreative sex is acceptable behavior, it may seem that freedom for homosexuals equates to freedom for any and all "perversions" from that "norm", as you see it... but it does not follow that A = B. For a secular thinker (including by definition, the Law under a secular government), the question is always "does this liberty do harm to others, such that it must be restricted?", and homosexuality is not a category that qualifies, as you would know if you had read Lawrence v. Texas, the SCotUS case in which that prohibition was forever lifted.

The case did not say "okay, now, all sexual behavior is permissible". It said, quote:

The Court began its substantive discussion in Bowers as follows: “The issue presented is whether the Federal Constitution confers a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy and hence invalidates the laws of the many States that still make such conduct illegal and have done so for a very long time.” That statement, we now conclude, discloses the Court’s own failure to appreciate the extent of the liberty at stake. To say that the issue in Bowers was simply the right to engage in certain sexual conduct demeans the claim the individual put forward, just as it would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse. The laws involved in Bowers and here are, to be sure, statutes that purport to do no more than prohibit a particular sexual act. Their penalties and purposes, though, have more far-reaching consequences, touching upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home. The statutes do seek to control a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals.

This, as a general rule, should counsel against attempts by the State, or a court, to define the meaning of the relationship or to set its boundaries absent injury to a person or abuse of an institution the law protects. It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice. [...]

The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. “It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.” The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.

Protection from harm is a "legitimate state interest", the occurrence of which may be legislated to prohibit, as I stated above. The same applies to this moral question. That's why I won't say these things are "forever wrong", even though I express strong reservations about even the possibility of later acceptance of pedophilia. I'll leave you with the closing statement (bold emphasis my own) by Justice Kennedy, who wrote the Majority Opinion in the case:

"Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom."

Does someone want to explain what the word hypothetical means to this guy??

I presented you with a hypothetical scenario concerning pedophilia gaining legitimacy through 'scientific discovery' in "Certain children." Also 'Science' was use to identify a pedo gene in the scenario. You acknowledged ALL Of his in your first response. now it seems you are beating back a cowards retreat on the subject now that you see you are being made to make the same 'moral judgement' the church had to make concerning Homosexuality. In that Traditional values tells you it is wrong, yet science is telling it is what certain members of society are genetically preconditioned to engage in. This is The same science that supposedly was tapped to legitimize homosexuality in the very same way. The question being if 'science'/evolutionary need was used to legitimize Homosexuality, then Why cant it be used in the exact same way to legitimize sex with young children? In the scenario I presented It has been, in that All physical and psychological concerns were proved to be scientifically unfounded. So then why the hasty retreat, and data dump on what science is currently saying?

Nice.. All of the heavy hitters on the Athiest side of the evolution of morality with science being your guide line, Cower like little children afraid of the boogey man, at the thought of making a moral judgement that society has not already preapproved. Even though all of the 'check points' of scientific permission have been met as with the case of homosexuality.

This should freak all of you the Hell out if you have two brain cells to rub together!

For those who don't, what this is and what this means: is that 'science' or rather what science represents, (Fact based data the would support our evolutionary/physical health) is indeed not the foundation of your morality as you all seem to have thought it to be when defending homosexuality. Rather 'science' is a sometimes tool used to get what the driving force of pop morality wants... Which means it can be manipulated to say just about anything anyone wants... Just like when Hitler used absolute scientific Fact to turn Nazi Germany on the jews.

I know most of you want to pretend everything he said was a lie. Their are websites that have documented all of the 10's of thousands of pieces of Nazi propaganda, take the time look it up and read some of what was said. Most of you would no doubt be surprised at how factual the Nazi propaganda was. They paired real truth with their hate to make the hate seem more legit...

...Which again if you think 'science' prevents this very thing from happening again, guess again. because as I have demonstrated with my scenario, an opportunity to follow the logic that was used to provide a shift in pop morality concerning a sexual matter, and in this hypothetical again met all of the  same requirements on another sexual matter, and yet because 'pop morality' currently says it's wrong. NONE of you are even willing to think beyond pop moralities current limits, in fear of committing the unforgivable societal sin of being found 'immoral.'  How is this dangerous? It's control. It is dark ages church level of control over your very hearts and minds. And what's more to challenge this control before pop morality says it's ok, is the same as committing societal suicide.

Could you imagine all of the back lash, and self righteous clucking and bocking that would go on if one of the 'heavy hitters' (or worse yet a red letter member) that I presented this question spoke out of turn and said it was or would be ok for pedophilia if the science backed it?? That person's current moral standing would be call into question, simply because he is willing to pledge alliance to science (or pedophilia/that would be the question on everyone's mind) rather than to the pop moral standard...

Which is all find and dandy, but what if we have already cross the threshold of evil. what if this society already has Nazi like programs and tendencies already embedded into it? That is literally the current 'radical Muslim' justification for it's actions. What happens if like with the case of pedophilia scenario you want to follow logic or even tradition over pop morality, do you think society will be any less self righteous or judgmental? If you think their is room to argue with pop morality now as it is, Open a thread and tell your peers homosexuality is wrong, that Abortion is wrong/killing babies, that you don't agree with any of the major changes/issues of the last couple generations. Then out come the labels...

My personal concern? How long before pop morality dehumanizes those who fit the labels I just mentioned? Do you really think we are very far off from that? What does the term active terrorist or Radical Islam tell you it's ok to do? How many 'terrorist acts' would it take turn on a whole people? How many cities would have to be nukes or dirty bombed/rendered inhabitable? Could you Imagine if New York or London had to be abandoned because of such an attack? How long before genocide is put back on the table?

Without absolutes what takes it back off? Without absolutes who or what can reel in the act of using science to justify what we want? without absolutes how can we ever find center again if we do indeed have to put genocide back on the table, because we finally wake up and understand that is the war our enemy is fighting?

certainly, we can't on out own.. for those depending on empathy, after we start loosing our basic way of life know that your empathy will shift just like it did with the germans.. with them it only took 25 year great depression to sell their empathy for the Jews for a Home, food and work.

The down side to absolutes? you can no longer earn 'righteousness' with morality because we will never be able to live up to that standard. therefore things like pride and self righteousness must be kept in check, if we are to accept the atonement, that makes us righteous despite our failure to meet the absolute.

For those who don't know, the absolutes are God's standard, and He knows we can't meet them so He offers atonement. Once you accept this atonement, we are no longer judged by this standard. they become our center point, so when we know we are out side of His will/where to come back to and/or when to ask for forgiveness. Not as a means to define 'moral behavior' in the sense we must act a certain way to be found righteous, but as a means to identify self righteousness/morality trying to creep it's way back into to our mind sets. Because "moral/right" behaivor is a effect/result of righteousness, not it's cause.
God frees us from the law/morality to define our righteousness and 'morality' binds us to acts and popular opinion to define righteousness. If one ever truly understood God's freedom, why then would they ever seek to be 'moral?'

[Drich]

Actually alpo I did answer what you wrote. I just did not yield to your terminology. I am trying to drag you from a morality "A" or Morality "B" POV to seeing a third option. The reason it doesn't seem like I havn't answered your question is because you think the world is only chocolate or vanilla. I answered your question with strawberry

No, I showed how your world view fits into my terminology.  You didn't answer a third option, you just ignored the points I made and returned to your semantic argument.  Settling moral debts through atonement is every bit as much a system of arbitrary morals as settling moral debts through payback.  Just as arbitrary and just as relative.  You haven't escaped pop morality, you've just adopted a specific one, one based on atonement.

Again no. Morality at its core a set of rules defining good/bad behavior. Pop morality describes the origins of said rules.

Absolutes/Atonement is freedom from 'moral behavior' and a way to be found righteous despite our failures in morality.

Therefore the model that uses atonement can not be morality because behavior is not what is being judged.

[The Grand Nudger]

All I have to do to be righteous is get washed in the blood of the better man strung up for my sins and sing hosannah for the rest of my days?  Gee....I just -have- to get me some of that sort of righteousness, it sounds swell.



No, no..wait...I think I'm just gonna go ahead and continue to be a decent human being instead Drich. Uninterested.

[Drich]

under cognitive control. (most of the time.)

That doesn't sound right.

It describes limited use rather personal control of my empathy. Rather than what i am suggesting the rest of you are experiencing. (limitations set by soceity, but other wise being a slave to unchecked empathy)

The "sometimes" refers to sometimes it gets the better of me and forces action that I would not normally take.

[The Grand Nudger]

That your empathy is different from mine has never been something I wondered about.  It's been a fact in evidence from day one of our relationship.  

I'm happy to hear that your better half -sometimes- takes control away from your christard half..though.  You should try letting your empathy dicate your actions and positions more often, imo.