Moo Poll

spirale2
Posts: 22
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Moo Poll

From what y'all have said in other threads (like http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/17281), it looks like y'all believe pretty strongly that the good of a child's more important than the jollies a pedophile would get from having sex with him. Y'all also know that this is a fairly new dogma. So, what, according to y'all, is the most accurate concept of the new dogma? Is it

A. Just the current hit song that most of us social animals in the herd are mooing out? (Which means that if the former hit makes a comeback, no problem.)

Or is it

B. "Right", which means the herd shouldn’t go back and moo out the old song.

 


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Quick question... In your

Quick question...

In your view, is "fairly new dogma" decades, centuries, or 1 or more millennia?


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
spirale2 wrote:B. "Right",

spirale2 wrote:

B. "Right", which means the herd shouldn’t go back and moo out the old song.

Based on what?

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
spirale2 wrote:Y'all also

spirale2 wrote:
Y'all also know that this is a fairly new dogma.
We do?  It is?


 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


SSBBJunky
Superfan
Posts: 209
Joined: 2009-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Is it my fault I didn't

Is it my fault I didn't understand {BALDERDASH} of what he said?

{EDIT: HD: This is KeWK.  None of the seven deadly words according to the gospel of Carlin.  Thank you.}

''Black Holes result from God dividing the universe by zero.''


mr804
Special AgentSuperfan
mr804's picture
Posts: 158
Joined: 2007-11-04
User is offlineOffline
 wat 

 wat

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I gather you're asking the

I gather you're asking the following:

Has it always been wrong for pedophiles to have sex with children, or is this just a passing trend in an ever-changing current of subjective morality?

If that's the question, then it's a poorly formed question that can't really be answered as asked.  There are several issues here.  First, when we ask if it's always been wrong for pedophiles to have sex with children, we could be asking two things:

1) Has it always been damaging to children to be prematurely forced into sexual relations with adults?

Yes.  It always has been damaging to children.  Our brains have not evolved significantly in recorded human history, so it's safe to assume that children would always be confused and traumatized by such actions.  Since it has always been damaging, and since children, almost by definition, have never had control over the situation, the act of pedophilia has always been inherently unfair.  Since human moral instincts are based largely on fairness, (more specifically, the golden rule) we can say that pedophilia has always been wrong, and those societies that practiced it were doing wrong.

2) Has it always been believed that pedophilia was wrong?

Clearly no.  Within the context of this question, we can say that intent is crucial to morality.  That is, if people genuinely believe they are doing good, or at the least that they are doing no harm, it is hard to hold them personally accountable for acts that are demonstrably wrong.  One can only hope that someone with more knowledge of the real consequences can convince people of the error of their beliefs.

So, the most accurate answer to the first part of your question is this:

Pedophilia has always been harmful to children, and when it has been practiced, it has been morally wrong in the objective sense that it is inherently unfair and harmful to children.  Nevertheless, it has not always been realized that it is inherently unfair and harmful, and so has not always been perceived as wrong.

On to the second part of your question.  I suppose you're asking if it will ever be perceived as morally ok again.  I have no idea.  I can't predict what will happen to human civilization in the next hundred or thousand years.  I suppose it's possible that we could lose most of our collected knowledge in some kind of cataclysm, and enter another kind of Dark Age.  It wouldn't be inconceivable for certain cultures to adopt pedophilia again and justify it in some way or another.  Hell, there are parts of Southeast Asia where you can buy a twelve year old hooker for fifty bucks or so for a night, and the government basically looks the other way.  

I gather that the intent of  your query is to establish that without some kind of guiding moral rulebook, humanity will inevitably cycle through morality as it does fashion, and that any old thing will fly if only it is sold in pretty enough packaging.  To a certain extent, that is what happens.  You may not like it, but I'm sorry kiddo.  Your desire for a perfect world won't create one.  Humans are easily swayed with regard to morality, and drastic changes in our environment cause changes in our perception of morality.  If you'd have asked me in the late 1970s if the United States could ever be the culprit in a large-scale systematic torture ring, I'd have said no.  Turns out, when one of our big buildings gets blasted, a good number of us change our tune about whether or not it's ok to torture people.  

Luckily, all of morality is not this fluid, and for the most part, most people are good to most other people most of the time.  That's the evolutionarily stable strategy for human behavior, and there's not a thing we humans can do to alter the math.  Every culture has its moral failings, for that is also part of the ESS.  All cultures desire to be more moral, but there is no such thing as "completely" or "perfectly" moral, so there will always be problems.  For some cultures, it's pedophilia.  For others, it's torture of enemies.  For others, it's equality for women.  That's just the way the cookie crumbles.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Hambydammit wrote:

I gather you're asking the following:

Has it always been wrong for pedophiles to have sex with children, or is this just a passing trend in an ever-changing current of subjective morality?

If that's the question, then it's a poorly formed question that can't really be answered as asked.  There are several issues here.  First, when we ask if it's always been wrong for pedophiles to have sex with children, we could be asking two things:

1) Has it always been damaging to children to be prematurely forced into sexual relations with adults?

Yes.  It always has been damaging to children.  Our brains have not evolved significantly in recorded human history, so it's safe to assume that children would always be confused and traumatized by such actions.  Since it has always been damaging, and since children, almost by definition, have never had control over the situation, the act of pedophilia has always been inherently unfair.  Since human moral instincts are based largely on fairness, (more specifically, the golden rule) we can say that pedophilia has always been wrong, and those societies that practiced it were doing wrong.

I would say this is not a sure answer. It is "damaging" in the sense that our culture currently views it as damaging. Clearly, it wasn't that damaging historically for teachers to have relations with their students like the Greeks have, and also there is no specification of age or maturity here. Even today, what classifies as an adult changes from one area to the next. In some places it is an age of 14, in other places it is 16, and in other places it is 18. In some places, there is no age restriction. If an 18 year old were to be involved with a 17 year old in a place that is acceptable and they travel...suddenly that would become pedophilia? I think you have to determine what pedophilia is exactly, first. Obviously different cultures have different interpretations of this even today. For example, in the arab world marrying 12 year olds to 40 year olds is still acceptable and practiced. It is not considered pedophilia.

Hambydammit wrote:

2) Has it always been believed that pedophilia was wrong?

Clearly no.  Within the context of this question, we can say that intent is crucial to morality.  That is, if people genuinely believe they are doing good, or at the least that they are doing no harm, it is hard to hold them personally accountable for acts that are demonstrably wrong.  One can only hope that someone with more knowledge of the real consequences can convince people of the error of their beliefs.

So, the most accurate answer to the first part of your question is this:

Pedophilia has always been harmful to children, and when it has been practiced, it has been morally wrong in the objective sense that it is inherently unfair and harmful to children.  Nevertheless, it has not always been realized that it is inherently unfair and harmful, and so has not always been perceived as wrong.

On to the second part of your question.  I suppose you're asking if it will ever be perceived as morally ok again.  I have no idea.  I can't predict what will happen to human civilization in the next hundred or thousand years.  I suppose it's possible that we could lose most of our collected knowledge in some kind of cataclysm, and enter another kind of Dark Age.  It wouldn't be inconceivable for certain cultures to adopt pedophilia again and justify it in some way or another.  Hell, there are parts of Southeast Asia where you can buy a twelve year old hooker for fifty bucks or so for a night, and the government basically looks the other way.  

I don't think that it requires a loss of knowledge of any kind, just a difference of perspective. I had sex when I was 13, and most people first experiment right about that age. I don't feel damaged in any way, and if I slept with someone older I wouldn't have considered it an issue. I was curious, like every kid is growing up. The only damaging thing I could think of is forcefully halting a youth from experimenting alltogether, restricting natural curiosity and urges. (abstinence lol?) I really think people make a bigger deal out of this in the states than they should. We have some of the strictest rules here, and a higher age of consent than most modern nations. Considering I have friends that at 18 were put on the sex offender list for what I mentioned earlier (a one-year relationship difference), and they can't get it removed for life ..yeah. I'm not very impressed, when I see it doing more harm than good.

 

Some people are very mature early in life, and some people never really mature. Some people are extremely gullible even in their 20s and 30s. People are all different, so any kind of sweeping rule over this is going to hurt someone it wasn't originally intended to.

 

If a culture tells someone that they should be traumatized when someone removes their veil and exposes their face in public, they will likely be traumatized if it happens.

 

 

 

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Basically, codifying this is next to impossible in my opinion. The basis of the laws are pulling on heartstrings, claiming "lack of maturity" but that argument is flawed in that maturity isn't something age dictates. If it was, I wouldn't feel an urge to stab people in the eye who are in their 30s that try to force religious pamphlets on me and completely ignore me as a person, simply as a target to be saved. They obviously are too underdeveloped mentally to have consideration to other people's private lives, or to consider that they and what they believe are not to the center of the universe.

 

 

There isn't really an easy way to measure maturity.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

One easy example in the society here where it is accepted are women's romance. Twilight for example, the male character is pushing 100 and no one questions that he never leaves high school but continues to date 16-17 year old girls.

 

 

I mean...really? And look at how popular it is.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


spirale2
Posts: 22
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Specially for Thomathy, butterbattle, and treat2

Looks like y'all either didn't read what your own Kelly said, or y'all didn't think much of it. Anyway, here's what she said, and y'all can ask her what she meant. By the way, 'ol Tomcat himself was in bigtime on the thread where she she said all this. Funny how he didn't recognize it. Course he didn't have nuthin to say about it back then, either.

No wonder other atheists think you guys are embarrassments.

 

Here's the thread

Normal
0
21

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Tabla normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/kill_em_with_kindness/10614

and here's what Kelly said:

Normal
0
21

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Tabla normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}

Kelly:

You may be shocked to know that sex between older men and much younger men, often students, has only relatively recently fallen out of fashion. That is why it is a "norm"--it is relevant to cultures and therefore also time periods.

 

Quote from the guy that started the thread:

Whether [Kelly] is right or not [about pedophilia being something we oughta be preventing] is immaterial to the points on which I will ask [RRS members] to clarify their positions. What is important is that [Kelly], and [RRS members] in general, maintain that they are right.

Kelly’s response: Because I am. Prove me wrong.

 

 

 


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:I

spirale2 wrote:

Looks like y'all either didn't read what your own Kelly said, or y'all didn't think much of it. Anyway, here's what she said, and y'all can ask her what she meant. By the way, 'ol Tomcat himself was in bigtime on the thread where she she said all this. Funny how he didn't recognize it. Course he didn't have nuthin to say about it back then, either.

No wonder other atheists think you guys are embarrassments.

 

Here's the thread

Normal
0
21

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Tabla normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/kill_em_with_kindness/10614

and here's what Kelly said:

Normal
0
21

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Tabla normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}

Kelly:

You may be shocked to know that sex between older men and much younger men, often students, has only relatively recently fallen out of fashion. That is why it is a "norm"--it is relevant to cultures and therefore also time periods.

 

Quote from the guy that started the thread:

Whether [Kelly] is right or not [about pedophilia being something we oughta be preventing] is immaterial to the points on which I will ask [RRS members] to clarify their positions. What is important is that [Kelly], and [RRS members] in general, maintain that they are right.

Kelly’s response: Because I am. Prove me wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm afraid I don't understand your point. You vaguely say atheists here are embarassments, but do not elaborate. Then you talk about what someone else said?

 

What IS your point? 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.