Total Posts:99|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

There is nothing 'wrong' with raping babies

Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 9:44:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Full topic: "There is nothing wrong with raping babies for fun"

Given that my position is the default position, it is for you guys, secular or otherwise, to prove me wrong.

Good luck!
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 9:46:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 9:44:09 AM, Envisage wrote:
Full topic: "There is nothing wrong with raping babies for fun"

Given that my position is the default position, it is for you guys, secular or otherwise, to prove me wrong.

Good luck!

Note: This is my genuine position. While it may appear to be provocative (it's intended to be), the point is not trivial. I genuinely do not believe that raping babies for fun is 'wrong'.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 9:53:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
If wrong is considered an overwhelming sense that's it's wrong, it's wrong. Apparently everybody has this sense considering that no society in the recorded history of mankind has allowed infant rape.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 10:08:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 9:44:09 AM, Envisage wrote:
Full topic: "There is nothing wrong with raping babies for fun"

Given that my position is the default position, it is for you guys, secular or otherwise, to prove me wrong.

Good luck!

So, then there is nothing wrong with rape, by the same morality, correct?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 10:10:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 9:44:09 AM, Envisage wrote:
Full topic: "There is nothing wrong with raping babies for fun"

Given that my position is the default position, it is for you guys, secular or otherwise, to prove me wrong.

Good luck!

Your position isn't the default position though.

And you're wrong.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 10:17:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 10:10:43 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/18/2014 9:44:09 AM, Envisage wrote:
Full topic: "There is nothing wrong with raping babies for fun"

Given that my position is the default position, it is for you guys, secular or otherwise, to prove me wrong.

Good luck!

Your position isn't the default position though.

It's the default position to assume things are 'wrong' a priori? That's an unsound stance to take.

And you're wrong.

Why?
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 10:19:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 10:08:47 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/18/2014 9:44:09 AM, Envisage wrote:
Full topic: "There is nothing wrong with raping babies for fun"

Given that my position is the default position, it is for you guys, secular or otherwise, to prove me wrong.

Good luck!

So, then there is nothing wrong with rape, by the same morality, correct?

What is morality? What does that have to do with rape being 'wrong'. By wrong I am only referring that it is a departure from the way things ought to be.

The reason why there is nothing wrong with raping babies is because there is no brute way things ought to be.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 10:20:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 9:53:58 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If wrong is considered an overwhelming sense that's it's wrong, it's wrong.

What is an 'overwhelming sense'?

Apparently everybody has this sense considering that no society in the recorded history of mankind has allowed infant rape.

That's not an argument.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 10:23:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 10:19:49 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/18/2014 10:08:47 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/18/2014 9:44:09 AM, Envisage wrote:
Full topic: "There is nothing wrong with raping babies for fun"

Given that my position is the default position, it is for you guys, secular or otherwise, to prove me wrong.

Good luck!

So, then there is nothing wrong with rape, by the same morality, correct?

What is morality? What does that have to do with rape being 'wrong'. By wrong I am only referring that it is a departure from the way things ought to be.

The same morality in which you state rape of babies is okay, it must stand to reason that rape in general is okay. You know, for fun.

The reason why there is nothing wrong with raping babies is because there is no brute way things ought to be.

That is to say that there is no individual free will or autonomy. The strongest will make the rules, even if they are subject to change by the next strongest individual. Raping YOU would be okay, because there is no brute way things ought to be.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 10:23:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 9:55:25 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
I feel like I'm becoming a meme around here.

It wasn't targeted at you, although I did take your example. I could have used anything though, my stance is the same. Be it raping babies, or torturing them whilst mutilating.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 10:26:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 10:23:17 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/18/2014 10:19:49 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/18/2014 10:08:47 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/18/2014 9:44:09 AM, Envisage wrote:
Full topic: "There is nothing wrong with raping babies for fun"

Given that my position is the default position, it is for you guys, secular or otherwise, to prove me wrong.

Good luck!

So, then there is nothing wrong with rape, by the same morality, correct?

What is morality? What does that have to do with rape being 'wrong'. By wrong I am only referring that it is a departure from the way things ought to be.

The same morality in which you state rape of babies is okay, it must stand to reason that rape in general is okay. You know, for fun.

Morality is a rather meaningless concept, as I argued just below:

The reason why there is nothing wrong with raping babies is because there is no brute way things ought to be.

That is to say that there is no individual free will or autonomy.

How? This doesn't follow.

The strongest will make the rules, even if they are subject to change by the next strongest individual.

Rules =/= establishing an ought.

Raping YOU would be okay, because there is no brute way things ought to be.

Yup. I have yet to see an objective argument that establishes otherwise.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 10:26:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 10:17:31 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/18/2014 10:10:43 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/18/2014 9:44:09 AM, Envisage wrote:
Full topic: "There is nothing wrong with raping babies for fun"

Given that my position is the default position, it is for you guys, secular or otherwise, to prove me wrong.

Good luck!

Your position isn't the default position though.

It's the default position to assume things are 'wrong' a priori? That's an unsound stance to take.


Depends on what you're talking about.

And you're wrong.

Why?

Because raping babies is wrong. The onus is on you to show how it isn't. You're going against endoxa.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 10:29:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 10:26:26 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/18/2014 10:17:31 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/18/2014 10:10:43 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/18/2014 9:44:09 AM, Envisage wrote:
Full topic: "There is nothing wrong with raping babies for fun"

Given that my position is the default position, it is for you guys, secular or otherwise, to prove me wrong.

Good luck!

Your position isn't the default position though.

It's the default position to assume things are 'wrong' a priori? That's an unsound stance to take.


Depends on what you're talking about.

My position makes no assumptions, it does not require the notion of ought, which is why it is more rational a priori.

And you're wrong.

Why?

Because raping babies is wrong.

Ipsie dixit. That statement assumes indeed there is a way things ought to be, and that raping babies is excluded from it.

The onus is on you to show how it isn't.

False.

You're going against endoxa.

So?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 10:30:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 10:26:05 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/18/2014 10:23:17 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/18/2014 10:19:49 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/18/2014 10:08:47 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/18/2014 9:44:09 AM, Envisage wrote:
Full topic: "There is nothing wrong with raping babies for fun"

Given that my position is the default position, it is for you guys, secular or otherwise, to prove me wrong.

Good luck!

So, then there is nothing wrong with rape, by the same morality, correct?

What is morality? What does that have to do with rape being 'wrong'. By wrong I am only referring that it is a departure from the way things ought to be.

The same morality in which you state rape of babies is okay, it must stand to reason that rape in general is okay. You know, for fun.

Morality is a rather meaningless concept, as I argued just below:

The reason why there is nothing wrong with raping babies is because there is no brute way things ought to be.

That is to say that there is no individual free will or autonomy.

How? This doesn't follow.

Because those that are strongest would just simply enslave those that aren't.

The strongest will make the rules, even if they are subject to change by the next strongest individual.

Rules =/= establishing an ought.

Thats okay, I meant rules as tongue in cheek, as with such a circumstance, there wouldn't be 'rules'. Just a series of justifications, if that.

Raping YOU would be okay, because there is no brute way things ought to be.

Yup. I have yet to see an objective argument that establishes otherwise.

Personal feelings to the contrary don't count? Rape/kill/torture, all pretty much the same if there is no brute way.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 10:33:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 10:30:23 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/18/2014 10:26:05 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/18/2014 10:23:17 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/18/2014 10:19:49 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/18/2014 10:08:47 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/18/2014 9:44:09 AM, Envisage wrote:
Full topic: "There is nothing wrong with raping babies for fun"

Given that my position is the default position, it is for you guys, secular or otherwise, to prove me wrong.

Good luck!

So, then there is nothing wrong with rape, by the same morality, correct?

What is morality? What does that have to do with rape being 'wrong'. By wrong I am only referring that it is a departure from the way things ought to be.

The same morality in which you state rape of babies is okay, it must stand to reason that rape in general is okay. You know, for fun.

Morality is a rather meaningless concept, as I argued just below:

The reason why there is nothing wrong with raping babies is because there is no brute way things ought to be.

That is to say that there is no individual free will or autonomy.

How? This doesn't follow.

Because those that are strongest would just simply enslave those that aren't.

So? What's wrong with that?

The strongest will make the rules, even if they are subject to change by the next strongest individual.

Rules =/= establishing an ought.

Thats okay, I meant rules as tongue in cheek, as with such a circumstance, there wouldn't be 'rules'. Just a series of justifications, if that.

You are basically conceding the argument with that.

Raping YOU would be okay, because there is no brute way things ought to be.

Yup. I have yet to see an objective argument that establishes otherwise.

Personal feelings to the contrary don't count?

Why should they? If they count then raping babies becomes no more or less 'wrong' than my preference in flavour of ice cream. How can you have a 'wrong' ice cream preference?

You can only establish an 'is' by such.

Rape/kill/torture, all pretty much the same if there is no brute way.

Sure, what's the point?
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 10:38:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 10:29:43 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/18/2014 10:26:26 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/18/2014 10:17:31 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/18/2014 10:10:43 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/18/2014 9:44:09 AM, Envisage wrote:
Full topic: "There is nothing wrong with raping babies for fun"

Given that my position is the default position, it is for you guys, secular or otherwise, to prove me wrong.

Good luck!

Your position isn't the default position though.

It's the default position to assume things are 'wrong' a priori? That's an unsound stance to take.


Depends on what you're talking about.

My position makes no assumptions, it does not require the notion of ought, which is why it is more rational a priori.


False. Moral norms are just a subset of rational/epistemic norms which we all all make use of. Assumign that norms exist - including moral norms - is more rational a priori.

And you're wrong.

Why?

Because raping babies is wrong.

Ipsie dixit. That statement assumes indeed there is a way things ought to be, and that raping babies is excluded from it.


And your statement assumes there isn't a way things shouldn't be.

The onus is on you to show how it isn't.

False.


True.

You're going against endoxa.

So?

So the onus is on you. Endoxa is the default position.

Plus, independent of that, you made the statement trying to prove a point. It's on you to back it up.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 10:41:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 10:33:27 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/18/2014 10:30:23 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/18/2014 10:26:05 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/18/2014 10:23:17 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/18/2014 10:19:49 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/18/2014 10:08:47 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/18/2014 9:44:09 AM, Envisage wrote:
Full topic: "There is nothing wrong with raping babies for fun"

Given that my position is the default position, it is for you guys, secular or otherwise, to prove me wrong.

Good luck!

So, then there is nothing wrong with rape, by the same morality, correct?

What is morality? What does that have to do with rape being 'wrong'. By wrong I am only referring that it is a departure from the way things ought to be.

The same morality in which you state rape of babies is okay, it must stand to reason that rape in general is okay. You know, for fun.

Morality is a rather meaningless concept, as I argued just below:

The reason why there is nothing wrong with raping babies is because there is no brute way things ought to be.

That is to say that there is no individual free will or autonomy.

How? This doesn't follow.

Because those that are strongest would just simply enslave those that aren't.

So? What's wrong with that?

The strongest will make the rules, even if they are subject to change by the next strongest individual.

Rules =/= establishing an ought.

Thats okay, I meant rules as tongue in cheek, as with such a circumstance, there wouldn't be 'rules'. Just a series of justifications, if that.

You are basically conceding the argument with that.

No, just further elaborating what I think your position is. I think you verified it below.

Raping YOU would be okay, because there is no brute way things ought to be.

Yup. I have yet to see an objective argument that establishes otherwise.

Personal feelings to the contrary don't count?

Why should they? If they count then raping babies becomes no more or less 'wrong' than my preference in flavour of ice cream. How can you have a 'wrong' ice cream preference?

Because its a fair guess that you wouldn't be alone in that boat of not wanting to be raped, killed, tortured, etc, and a demonstrable deficit of such could be found should you be killed because there is no brute way things ought to be.

You can only establish an 'is' by such.

Rape/kill/torture, all pretty much the same if there is no brute way.

Sure, what's the point?

Because there is demonstrable benefit to establishing rules, ground works, guidelines, appreciation of individual desires and will. A system of works is achieved by which the population is perpetuated, and the individual misery that one might feel while being raped is alleviated, since its agreed that such actions are contrary to an overall benefit.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 10:46:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Let's establish some ground rules first.

(1) is it morally wrong I disobey your conscience?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 10:47:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 10:46:13 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Let's establish some ground rules first.

(1) is it morally wrong *to* disobey your conscience?

Sorry typing this from my phone. Is it wrong *to*
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 11:07:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 10:41:37 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/18/2014 10:33:27 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/18/2014 10:30:23 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/18/2014 10:26:05 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/18/2014 10:23:17 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/18/2014 10:19:49 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/18/2014 10:08:47 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/18/2014 9:44:09 AM, Envisage wrote:
Full topic: "There is nothing wrong with raping babies for fun"

Given that my position is the default position, it is for you guys, secular or otherwise, to prove me wrong.

Good luck!

So, then there is nothing wrong with rape, by the same morality, correct?

What is morality? What does that have to do with rape being 'wrong'. By wrong I am only referring that it is a departure from the way things ought to be.

The same morality in which you state rape of babies is okay, it must stand to reason that rape in general is okay. You know, for fun.

Morality is a rather meaningless concept, as I argued just below:

The reason why there is nothing wrong with raping babies is because there is no brute way things ought to be.

That is to say that there is no individual free will or autonomy.

How? This doesn't follow.

Because those that are strongest would just simply enslave those that aren't.

So? What's wrong with that?

The strongest will make the rules, even if they are subject to change by the next strongest individual.

Rules =/= establishing an ought.

Thats okay, I meant rules as tongue in cheek, as with such a circumstance, there wouldn't be 'rules'. Just a series of justifications, if that.

You are basically conceding the argument with that.

No, just further elaborating what I think your position is. I think you verified it below.

Raping YOU would be okay, because there is no brute way things ought to be.

Yup. I have yet to see an objective argument that establishes otherwise.

Personal feelings to the contrary don't count?

Why should they? If they count then raping babies becomes no more or less 'wrong' than my preference in flavour of ice cream. How can you have a 'wrong' ice cream preference?

Because its a fair guess that you wouldn't be alone in that boat of not wanting to be raped, killed, tortured, etc, and a demonstrable deficit of such could be found should you be killed because there is no brute way things ought to be.

I hardly see how having multiple people sharing a desire makes something any more or less 'wrong': if the whole world preferred chocolate ice cream, it doesn't establish that strawberry ice cream is a 'wrong' preference.

I don't understand the second portion of your argument.

You can only establish an 'is' by such.

Rape/kill/torture, all pretty much the same if there is no brute way.

Sure, what's the point?

Because there is demonstrable benefit to establishing rules, ground works, guidelines, appreciation of individual desires and will.

What do you mean by benefit. Again 'benefit' predicates a movement towards a way things ought to be. You cannot 'improve' etc if there is no such thing as 'better'.

A system of works is achieved by which the population is perpetuated, and the individual misery that one might feel while being raped is alleviated, since its agreed that such actions are contrary to an overall benefit.

You are just appealing to the subjective opinion of many. It only establishes exactly that, a subjective opinion of many. It In no way establishes a 'right' or 'wrong' that's any more fundamental than ice cream preference.

So by the same reasoning you are using to establish these as 'wrong', we could use to establish ice cream preference/favourite football team to be 'wrong'
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 11:08:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 10:47:02 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/18/2014 10:46:13 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Let's establish some ground rules first.

(1) is it morally wrong *to* disobey your conscience?

Sorry typing this from my phone. Is it wrong *to*

I don't see why it would.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 11:16:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 10:38:21 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/18/2014 10:29:43 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/18/2014 10:26:26 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/18/2014 10:17:31 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/18/2014 10:10:43 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/18/2014 9:44:09 AM, Envisage wrote:
Full topic: "There is nothing wrong with raping babies for fun"

Given that my position is the default position, it is for you guys, secular or otherwise, to prove me wrong.

Good luck!

Your position isn't the default position though.

It's the default position to assume things are 'wrong' a priori? That's an unsound stance to take.


Depends on what you're talking about.

My position makes no assumptions, it does not require the notion of ought, which is why it is more rational a priori.


False. Moral norms are just a subset of rational/epistemic norms which we all all make use of. Assumign that norms exist - including moral norms - is more rational a priori.

You just claimed me to be false and used the word 'assuming' in literally the same sentence, lol. And no, I am talking about default position of epistemic belief. You just conceded that you need to make said assumptions in order to have a different position to the one I presented, on which to you now carry the onus of justifying,

And you're wrong.

Why?

Because raping babies is wrong.

Ipsie dixit. That statement assumes indeed there is a way things ought to be, and that raping babies is excluded from it.


And your statement assumes there isn't a way things shouldn't be.

Yes. Which is the more rational position a priori, because assuming things exist or 'are' a priori means you are in a position to believe a heap tonne of contradictory propositions. Assuming things do not exist doesn't entail anything on the other hand.

If we had reasons to believe they are then things obviously would change.

The onus is on you to show how it isn't.

False.


True.

You're going against endoxa.

So?

So the onus is on you. Endoxa is the default position.

Um, no. Rational positions aren't determined by popular opinion.

Plus, independent of that, you made the statement trying to prove a point. It's on you to back it up.

It's a position. And it's the most rational a priori. I have upheld my reasons for thinking as much.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 11:30:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 9:44:09 AM, Envisage wrote:
Full topic: "There is nothing wrong with raping babies for fun"

Given that my position is the default position, it is for you guys, secular or otherwise, to prove me wrong.

Good luck!

Prima facie, raping babies is typically sensed to be inherently immoral.

If we are going to trust our sensory faculties, or our memory faculties, then we should als otrust our moral judgments. Essentially, they're the same.

And obviously, we trust our sensory/memory faculties, so by this reasoning, we should trust our moral judgments.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Fatihah
Posts: 7,742
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 11:31:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 9:44:09 AM, Envisage wrote:
Full topic: "There is nothing wrong with raping babies for fun"

Given that my position is the default position, it is for you guys, secular or otherwise, to prove me wrong.

Good luck!

Response: So how many babies have you raped?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 12:10:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Very well then. I have another question:

Do you dispute the notion that people have a sense of what is right and wrong or do you only dispute that what we sense is wrong can't be established to actually be wrong.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 12:21:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 11:31:38 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 11/18/2014 9:44:09 AM, Envisage wrote:
Full topic: "There is nothing wrong with raping babies for fun"

Given that my position is the default position, it is for you guys, secular or otherwise, to prove me wrong.

Good luck!

Response: So how many babies have you raped?

Several, why?
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 12:24:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 12:10:35 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Very well then. I have another question:

Do you dispute the notion that people have a sense of what is right and wrong or do you only dispute that what we sense is wrong can't be established to actually be wrong.

Both.

We cannot have a notion of sensing right and wrong actions than we can have a notion of sensing best ice cream flavors.
Zylorarchy
Posts: 209
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 12:27:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 9:44:09 AM, Envisage wrote:
Full topic: "There is nothing wrong with raping babies for fun"

Given that my position is the default position, it is for you guys, secular or otherwise, to prove me wrong.

Good luck!

We do not have to bring morality into this. Sexual intercourse with a baby is wrong merely because a baby's body could be very seriously damaged by the act. An act that causes very serious harm and no benefit cannot possibly be right. If raping babies was the norm and everyone engaged in this act, the death toll would be catastrophic and thus it would be incorrect (aka wrong) for humanity to do this.
"I am not intolerant of religion, I am intolerant of intolerance"
"True freedom is not simply left or right. It is the ability to know when a law is needed, but more importantly, know when one is not"
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 12:29:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 12:24:30 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/18/2014 12:10:35 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Very well then. I have another question:

Do you dispute the notion that people have a sense of what is right and wrong or do you only dispute that what we sense is wrong can't be established to actually be wrong.

Both.

We cannot have a notion of sensing right and wrong actions than we can have a notion of sensing best ice cream flavors.

If what you are saying is true, why does morality even exist conceptually?