Total Posts:198|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Virtual Child Porn

s0m31john
Posts: 1,879
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2008 7:13:38 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
In before the moderator throws a fit.

Stop.

No one post any pictures and we should be fine.

http://www.animenewsnetwork.com...

I guess I'm posting this in society because it seems Japan has different societal standards than the US. No US publisher will even publish the Kodomo no Jikan manga, tame by Japan's standards. (http://myanimelist.net...)

What's your view on "Virtual Child Porn" or as it's known online, lolicon? I think you all know mine.
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2008 8:17:36 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
I hate Christian conservatives who try to turn their select views into society's laws. Indeed, I believe government should have very little place in judging any "moral standard" whatsoever.

But the key words were "very little".

I think a line has to be drawn somewhere. And I'm pretty sure child porn (it essentially is child porn) is a good place to start.

Mind you, John, I am not passing judgment on your character; I just think you are confused.

I understand my argument here is easy to rebut, but I am not looking for a debate. I merely wanted to post my opinion.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
s0m31john
Posts: 1,879
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2008 8:20:35 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Regardless of whether it's wrong morally, no one is harmed in it's production or viewing.

How am I confused, because I don't have the same sexual preferences as you?
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2008 8:21:29 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/13/2008 7:13:38 PM, s0m31john wrote:
In before the moderator throws a fit.

Stop.

No one post any pictures and we should be fine.

http://www.animenewsnetwork.com...

I guess I'm posting this in society because it seems Japan has different societal standards than the US. No US publisher will even publish the Kodomo no Jikan manga, tame by Japan's standards. (http://myanimelist.net...)

What's your view on "Virtual Child Porn" or as it's known online, lolicon? I think you all know mine.

Well jon if you are really asking for our opinions you'd better be sure you can handle them
for me its not so much virtual child porn that is the issue, its the fact that there is a derise for such things.... I know very well that you cannot control your desires
but it doens't mean you cant get help. you might want to go see someone about this 'problem' of yours. "problem" may not technically be the right word now, but eventually it will be.

for me its not so much virtual
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2008 8:43:37 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Like I said, I don't want a debate. That said...

At 10/13/2008 8:20:35 PM, s0m31john wrote:
Regardless of whether it's wrong morally, no one is harmed in it's production or viewing.

There are many studies that would say otherwise -- studies that say watching virtual child porn increases the chance for a viewer to commit child rape.

Also, you don't seem to realize that there is something tremendously errant in watching this psuedo-child porn. Abortion is debatable, for instance, but watching child porn is not. Society uniformly agrees that there is something profoundly wrong about watching what you watch.

How am I confused, because I don't have the same sexual preferences as you?

Attraction to children is wrong, even if you don't actively seek real children.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2008 10:10:31 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
My views on the virtual stuff are the same as my views on the real stuff- if everyone is willing, it's not my problem, let alone the government's.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2008 10:14:39 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
"studies that say watching virtual child porn increases the chance for a viewer to commit child rape."
Watching regular porn increases the chance to commit adult rape. Weightlifting increases one's chances to beat the crap out of someone. If simply "increasing the chance" of something illegal is grounds for declaring something else illegal, there's gonna be a whole lot of illegal stuff, and Soviet Russia will look freakin' tame!
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2008 10:17:40 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/14/2008 10:10:31 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
My views on the virtual stuff are the same as my views on the real stuff- if everyone is willing, it's not my problem, let alone the government's.

R_R how can you claim that a child is willing when it's mind hasn't been constructed sufficiently enough to decide such a thing?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2008 10:45:54 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
First, I don't agree that it's mind isn't far along, except perhaps in the case of a preschooler.

Second, if it doesn't have a human mind, it doesn't have human rights, because the source of rights is the human capacity for reason. And if this is the case, it follows that it is of no more concern what happens to such a creature than it is of concern what happens to a rat.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2008 10:53:04 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/14/2008 10:45:54 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
First, I don't agree that it's mind isn't far along, except perhaps in the case of a preschooler.

Second, if it doesn't have a human mind, it doesn't have human rights, because the source of rights is the human capacity for reason. And if this is the case, it follows that it is of no more concern what happens to such a creature than it is of concern what happens to a rat.

lol... you are totally hilarious.

having a human mind is not a black and white issue. There are many degrees of development that take place. Children at a certain age haven't yet learned what it even means not to consent. however eventually their minds will develop enough to be aware, but by that time it will be too late because they will have already been raped.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2008 11:04:21 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
"
having a human mind is not a black and white issue."
The line at which rights accrue, is. Either you are capable of rationality, or you are not. The degree is irrelevant. Once you are, you are to be considered a creature with rights whenever you assert them (until you do something which loses you them anyway)- before that, you are not.

"Children at a certain age haven't yet learned what it even means not to consent. "
Which age is this? As far as I know my 3 year old brother has quite the concept of not having consent, considering how he shouts "No! I don't want a nap!" so much at naptime, and sneaks out of bed when we aren't looking.

"however eventually their minds will develop enough to be aware, but by that time it will be too late because they will have already been raped."
You can't "rape" something that neither consents nor disconsents. To rape someone is to have sex with them against their will, not to have sex with something that doesn't have a will.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2008 11:35:08 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/14/2008 11:04:21 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
"
having a human mind is not a black and white issue."
The line at which rights accrue, is. Either you are capable of rationality, or you are not. The degree is irrelevant.

First of all i never said anything about rights.
Second, It is not black and white bc those who are not capable eventually will be.

"Children at a certain age haven't yet learned what it even means not to consent. "
Which age is this? As far as I know my 3 year old brother has quite the concept of not having consent

It varies, and it could be said that your brother doesn't have the concept he has instincts. Instincts regarding rape are a far more complicated issue than the instincts involved in wanted to play. Or not go to sleep.

"however eventually their minds will develop enough to be aware, but by that time it will be too late because they will have already been raped."
You can't "rape" something that neither consents nor disconsents. To rape someone is to have sex with them against their will, not to have sex with something that doesn't have a will.

Once again you are choosing to define my words in whatever way you see fit. You cannot do this. They are my words therefore the intended definition and meanings are also mine. Statutory rape is a form of rape therefore "rape" is defined in ways your definition doesn't account for.

I will not sit here proclaim any sort of objective evil that exists with these acts. I don't believe there is anything objectively evil about it. Yet there are claims to be made about suffering. And if you have sex with a child who isn't old enough to develop the concept of consent then later when that child matures it will experience a significant amount of suffering for the rest of its life. Suffering by its own definition is something that should be avoided, so statutory rape should be avoided.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2008 12:06:00 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
"
First of all i never said anything about rights."
The protection of rights is the only thing the government has business doing.

"
Second, It is not black and white bc those who are not capable eventually will be.
"
So will a fetus if you leave it alone, but you are Pro-abortion. A potential is not an actual.

"
It varies, and it could be said that your brother doesn't have the concept he has instincts."
Instincts don't result in someone telling you "No, I don't want this." They result in them biting or kicking you. Or running.

"
Once again you are choosing to define my words in whatever way you see fit."
No, I'm defining mine. If your definition of rape does not correlate to mine, it has not been proven to me that your definition of rape is necessarily a bad thing :D.

"Statutory rape is a form of rape "
Not by my definition, regardless of whether by yours.

"et there are claims to be made about suffering. And if you have sex with a child who isn't old enough to develop the concept of consent then later when that child matures it will experience a significant amount of suffering for the rest of its life."
Only if you tell it it's supposed to suffer. If, however, you don't imbed such irrationality in their head... well, just look at ancient Greece!

Besides which, loads of things involve suffering. The law does not exist to prevent suffering, or it would put everyone out of their misery right now with painless euthanasia.

"Suffering by its own definition is something that should be avoided"
If that's how you define suffering, than declaring statutory rape to be suffering in order to demonstrate it should be avoided is just circular.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2008 12:07:16 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Note, of course, that you never went out and defined rape....

Are you normally this evasive when arguing semantics?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2008 12:30:34 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
PoeJoe
"There are many studies that would say otherwise -- studies that say watching virtual child porn increases the chance for a viewer to commit child rape."

There are many studies that show driving a car increases the likelihood of killing a child via motor vehicle collision. Are you as inclined to outlaw vehicles?

"Also, you don't seem to realize that there is something tremendously errant in watching this psuedo-child porn. Abortion is debatable, for instance, but watching child porn is not. Society uniformly agrees that there is something profoundly wrong about watching what you watch."

Society has uniformly believed many things that we now accept or are growing in acceptance. Take homosexuality for instance. Also, pederast relationships were a common societal practice in ancient Greek culture, so it was okay then?

"Attraction to children is wrong, even if you don't actively seek real children."
How do you quantify this wrongness? What measure of morality are you using? What fixed standard for morality are you appealing to? At least the theist has a basis for his claims regarding morality.
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2008 1:17:54 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At least the theist has a basis for his claims regarding morality.

simply bc a theist believes in god doesn't mean he has any basis for his morality. The theist has no basis for god therefore any morality deduced from that belief also has no basis.

morality is a sense that applies to the functioning of social groups. Having sex with children does not promote the smooth functionality of the the social group we call society at large.

So will a fetus if you leave it alone, but you are Pro-abortion. A potential is not an actual.

I never said the potential alone was sufficient. Sperm have the potential to become humans agents, but they lack the to ability to suffer and abortion should only take place so long as it minimizes the quantitative value of suffering in the world. Whether the suffering belongs to the fetus or the mother. If a fetus can be aborted without any suffering then it isn't possible for anything to be wrong with the abortion.

Instincts don't result in someone telling you "No, I don't want this." They result in them biting or kicking you. Or running.

Oh plz tell me what year did you receive your doctorate in neuroscience?

Once again you are choosing to define my words in whatever way you see fit."
No, I'm defining mine. If your definition of rape does not correlate to mine, it has not been proven to me that your definition of rape is necessarily a bad thing :D.

Well i'm sorry but when i speak i'm not in the habit of making my words obey your definitions. Primarily because you are not the center of the universe.

Only if you tell it it's supposed to suffer. If, however, you don't imbed such irrationality in their head... well, just look at ancient Greece!

That is a testable hypothesis, not a proven fact. If it were tested and proven that it is just society's "embedings" that lead to suffering i would then have as much a problem with societies 'embedings' on this matter as i do with the act itself because both then are causes of the suffering. (however if it were proven and society stopped teaching ppl to suffer in this way then i would have no problem with stat. rape.)

If that's how you define suffering, than declaring statutory rape to be suffering in order to demonstrate it should be avoided is just circular.
uh ... fraid not. First of all i never claimed that stat. rape IS suffering. I said it causes suffering. bc the suffering should be avoided we must avoid stat rape. I think your getting a little rusty with your geometry. :D lol

The law does not exist to prevent suffering, or it would put everyone out of their misery right now with painless euthanasia.

I never said it does. Laws exist to aid the smooth functionality of social groups, aka societies. Banning this particular kind of suffering does just that. :D
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2008 1:18:45 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
I never said it does. Laws exist to aid the smooth functionality of social groups, aka societies. Banning this particular kind of suffering does just that. :D

sorry that should have read...

Banning this particular CAUSE of suffering does just that :D
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2008 1:35:26 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
"
morality is a sense that applies to the functioning of social groups."

That's guilt, not morality.

And these "Ethics of suffering" of yours seem to ignore the amount of frustration pedophiles feel :D.

"
Oh plz tell me what year did you receive your doctorate in neuroscience?
"
Fight or flight response is introductory psychology :D.

"
That is a testable hypothesis, not a proven fact. If it were tested and proven that it is just society's "embedings" that lead to suffering i would then have as much a problem with societies 'embedings' on this matter as i do with the act itself because both then are causes of the suffering. (however if it were proven and society stopped teaching ppl to suffer in this way then i would have no problem with stat. rape.)
"
So, test it!
D

"
uh ... fraid not. First of all i never claimed that stat. rape IS suffering. I said it causes suffering."
Still circular, to declare it causes suffering and therefore causes something to be avoided. :D

"

I never said it does. Laws exist to aid the smooth functionality of social groups, aka societies. Banning this particular kind of suffering does just that."
Not really, it leads to massive amounts of frustrated pedophiles, as well as a significant number of frustrated minors.

Besides which, if you want smooth functioning society, go with old-school feudalism. Functions smoothly for thousands of years. The problem comes when people realize there are more important things than smooth function, and seek to change the laws accordingly.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2008 2:04:01 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Besides which, if you want smooth functioning society, go with old-school feudalism. Functions smoothly for thousands of years. The problem comes when people realize there are more important things than smooth function, and seek to change the laws accordingly.

Now this is circular reasoning if i ever saw it.... You're saying that feudal societies are the most smoothly functioning societies, except for the fact that they don't function smoothly.... ok that makes sense. i expect better from you R_R

morality is a sense that applies to the functioning of social groups."
That's guilt, not morality.
its possible guilt may play a role but that is regardless and distinct from morality.


And these "Ethics of suffering" of yours seem to ignore the amount of frustration pedophiles feel :D.
1. Quantitative suffering is the measure. The child's suffering dramatically out
weighs the pedophiles
2. The pedophile can get psychological help
3. The pedophile is an enabler of suffering, the children are not. If anything enables the pedophiles suffering it is neuronal, and societal.

Oh plz tell me what year did you receive your doctorate in neuroscience?
"
Fight or flight response is introductory psychology :D.

But those being the ONLY two instincts is not. :P

That is a testable hypothesis, not a proven fact. If it were tested and proven that it is just society's "embedings" that lead to suffering i would then have as much a problem with societies 'embedings' on this matter as i do with the act itself because both then are causes of the suffering. (however if it were proven and society stopped teaching ppl to suffer in this way then i would have no problem with stat. rape.)
"
So, test it!
D
It's your hypothesis not mine, you test it. :D

uh ... fraid not. First of all i never claimed that stat. rape IS suffering. I said it causes suffering."
Still circular, to declare it causes suffering and therefore causes something to be avoided. :D

If suffering is identical to something to be avoided then that which causes suffering is also something to be avoided. Saying it is circular without providing reason is a crude attempt at trying to act smart. You need to clarify how that is circular.

A should not exist
A would not exist without B.
Therefore B should not exist.

A = most suffering (in this situation)
B = stat. rape

I never said it does. Laws exist to aid the smooth functionality of social groups, aka societies. Banning this particular kind of suffering does just that."
Not really, it leads to massive amounts of frustrated pedophiles, as well as a significant number of frustrated minors.

Lol. in this case massive amounts of frustrated pedophiles allows society to function more smoothly than even more massive amounts of dispossessed teenagers. It also allows for the least amount of suffering.
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2008 2:06:23 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
"simply bc a theist believes in god doesn't mean he has any basis for his morality. The theist has no basis for god therefore any morality deduced from that belief also has no basis."

Your presupposition would be that they have no basis for God(s). The primary difference being that a theist has a universal standard, do you?

"Morality is a sense that applies to the functioning of social groups. Having sex with children does not promote the smooth functionality of the the social group we call society at large."

So morals are determined by smooth functionality? The majority of Americans believe that Same-sex marriage should not be recognized (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Based on your metric of morality, are you inclined to agree? Since smooth functionality is achieved through popular opinion. And the question was about virtual child pornography, not pedophilia – I'm not sure why you want to conflate the two.

"Sperm have the potential to become humans agents"
Actually no it does not. Sperm is absolutely dependent on the other 23 chromosomes – without which it has no potential for humanity.
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2008 2:18:55 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
"simply bc a theist believes in god doesn't mean he has any basis for his morality. The theist has no basis for god therefore any morality deduced from that belief also has no basis."

Your presupposition would be that they have no basis for God(s). The primary difference being that a theist has a universal standard, do you?

The theist may think he has a universal standard, but thinking so doesn't make it so. You would have to explain what you mean exactly by "universal standard" There are true ethical statements that can be made.


"Morality is a sense that applies to the functioning of social groups. Having sex with children does not promote the smooth functionality of the the social group we call society at large."

So morals are determined by smooth functionality? The majority of Americans believe that Same-sex marriage should not be recognized (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Based on your metric of morality, are you inclined to agree? Since smooth functionality is achieved through popular opinion. And the question was about virtual child pornography, not pedophilia – I'm not sure why you want to conflate the two.

Morals and ethics are not identical. :P :D Morality is a feeling, a 'sense' within us. It evolved to aid the functioning of social systems. Ethics are principles that are not necessarily related in anyway to our sense of morality.

"Sperm have the potential to become humans agents"
Actually no it does not. Sperm is absolutely dependent on the other 23 chromosomes – without which it has no potential for humanity.

Thank you for pointing out the obvious. You fail to realize my emphasis on "potential." I never said they would, i said they have the potential. Meaning a variety of conditions must arise so the potential to actualize. The sperm obtaining the other 23 chromosomes is such a condition.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2008 2:21:46 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
"
Now this is circular reasoning if i ever saw it.... You're saying that feudal societies are the most smoothly functioning societies, except for the fact that they don't function smoothly...."
No, they do function smoothly. Very smoothly. They don't function well, and like any society the determined can STOP them from functioning, but by default their smoothness is high :D.

Some of them persist to this day you know.

"1. Quantitative suffering is the measure."
So in other words you are utilitarian in reverse... but again, universal euthanasia would lead to zero suffering, ever again! So why don't you advocate that?

"The child's suffering dramatically out
weighs the pedophiles"
For forcible rape, yes. Statutory, I doubt it.

"
2. The pedophile can get psychological help"
Is there a SINGLE INSTANCE of pedophilia being cured?

"
3. The pedophile is an enabler of suffering"
Quantity, not justice, you stated was your standard.

"the children are not"
Do tell that to women on the birth-bed :D.

"
But those being the ONLY two instincts is not. :P"

Those being the kind of things on the order of what an "instinct" can do is. Language, not so much... I've never seen anyone born speaking coherently :D.

"
It's your hypothesis not mine, you test it"
First, I'm not attracted to children, frankly... disgusting little things. Second, it's you who proposes an "ethic of suffering."

"You need to clarify how that is circular.

C is bad.
B is C.
B is bad.

Since you have not otherwise established why avoiding suffering is such a paramount concern, or given a definition for it really (if you define it as "that to be avoided" that just leads to the need for proof that statutory rape would constitute such.)

"

Lol. in this case massive amounts of frustrated pedophiles allows society to function more smoothly than even more massive amounts of dispossessed teenagers."
dispossessed teenagers?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2008 2:22:34 PM
Posted: 8 years ago

Your presupposition would be that they have no basis for God(s).

Not to belabor the point but i seem to have some R_R fever. That would not be my presupposition as presuppositions are implied and not explicitly stated. I blatantly said that they have no basis for God(s).
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2008 2:31:55 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
"There are true ethical statements that can be made."
Can I hear one?

"Morality is a feeling, a 'sense' within us. It evolved"
Given the lack of a morality gene can you please demonstrate the evolution of morality and explain the rate at which it evolves. Are there any predictive models that may help us in determining the future of morality? Given this internal "sense" of morality, you still have no way of determining that which is right and wrong – this is still an ever-changing, subjective, and non-set moral paradigm – given that morality is always evolving.

"I never said they would, i said they have the potential."
The sperm does not have potential. The Sperm and the Egg have potential. All ingredients need to be acknowledged in order to speak of the end result.
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2008 2:36:48 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
"Not to belabor the point but i seem to have some R_R fever. That would not be my presupposition as presuppositions are implied and not explicitly stated. I blatantly said that they have no basis for God(s)"

It's presupposed because when judging statements of theistic morality, you assume beforehand, without evidence, that they have no basis. A basis need not conform to your rigorous criteria of proof. Your wrong of course in your understanding of presupposition. It need not be implied, it need only be required in order for you to come to your conclusion.
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2008 3:01:08 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
you're really eating up my day so i'm going to have to address this quickly.

No, they do function smoothly. Very smoothly. They don't function well, and like any society the determined can STOP them from functioning, but by default their smoothness is high :D.
This once again relies upon our definitions. You and i seem to define smoothly differently.

"1. Quantitative suffering is the measure."
So in other words you are utilitarian in reverse... but again, universal euthanasia would lead to zero suffering, ever again! So why don't you advocate that?
1. Suffering isn't the only measure
2. Practicality, physical suffering is not the only kind of suffering and inducing simultaneous universal euthanasia is not currently possible. If this were to be instituted it would have to be both top secret and simultaneous bc if weren't people would undergo tremendous suffering from their fear of death, loss of loved ones etc.

"The child's suffering dramatically out
weighs the pedophiles"
For forcible rape, yes. Statutory, I doubt it.
once again i'm not talking about the single occurrence of rape i'm talking about all the suffering that occurs throughout the victim's life. The pedophile may get his kicks for a few minutes but he will then go back to being frustrated just as quickly as he overcame it. ( no pun intended) (no really, that's just nasty.)

2. The pedophile can get psychological help"
Is there a SINGLE INSTANCE of pedophilia being cured?
i never said there was, doesn't mean they cant get help :D

3. The pedophile is an enabler of suffering"
Quantity, not justice, you stated was your standard.
1. I never fully explained my views to you. :P
2. This doesn't have to do any abstract concept of justice it has to do with the fact that the pedophile is an active force whereas the children are not. We can only implement laws upon active forces.

"the children are not"
Do tell that to women on the birth-bed :D.
This is a perfect reason why abortion should be legal. It is the mother's choice to endure the suffering bc she *thinks as least* that the pleasure of having a child will make up for the suffering. If an individual rationally/cognitively wishes to suffer i have no qualms with that, but the individual must be capable of such wishes. Young children are not.

But those being the ONLY two instincts is not. :P"
Those being the kind of things on the order of what an "instinct" can do is.
Language, not so much... I've never seen anyone born speaking coherently :D.

Perhaps you ought to look a little beyond intro to psyche before you make too many hasty conclusions. :D

Since you have not otherwise established why avoiding suffering is such a paramount concern, or given a definition for it really (if you define it as "that to be avoided" that just leads to the need for proof that statutory rape would constitute such.)

it is intrinsic in the nature of suffering that it is something to avoid. It is what suffering is on its most basic level. Allow me to illustrate. When your body feels pain it is because something has happened that shouldn't have. (Pain and suffering are the same to me.) If you ask yourself what is Pain and suffering you will begin to understand my point. Pain is a feeling or sensation but even beyond that it is a message telling you that what ever has or is happening shouldn't be happening.

Lol. in this case massive amounts of frustrated pedophiles allows society to function more smoothly than even more massive amounts of dispossessed teenagers."
dispossessed teenagers?

psychologically.
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2008 3:09:51 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
"There are true ethical statements that can be made."
Can I hear one?
i've already presented many.

"Morality is a feeling, a 'sense' within us. It evolved"
Given the lack of a morality gene
There most likely is in fact a morality gene. Simply bc you or we or humanity is currently unaware of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. As a theist i would expect you to have realized that. hehe.

can you please demonstrate the evolution of morality and explain the rate at which it evolves. Are there any predictive models that may help us in determining the future of morality? Given this internal "sense" of morality, you still have no way of determining that which is right and wrong – this is still an ever-changing, subjective, and non-set moral paradigm – given that morality is always evolving.

I don't need to. Not being able to answer meaningless questions doesn't mean something is false.
Leading scientists such as Michael Shermer, Marc Hauser and Joshua Greene have done studies that provide ample reason to believe that morality is a sensation that evolved inside us. At a point in human evolution humans were no longer capable of surviving in the wild alone without the aid of other humans. We needed to form groups to survive and morality is a feeling inside of us that evolved so we could live together. Someone without morals; who would cheat and steal from his own tribe was removed from the tribe. Since such individuals couldn't live alone in the wild they didn't carry on their lack of morality.
given that morality is always evolving.
good observation ; )

"I never said they would, i said they have the potential."
The sperm does not have potential. The Sperm and the Egg have potential. All ingredients need to be acknowledged in order to speak of the end result.

different understanding of terms.