[JTG]

Your argument was that positions taken on grounds of emotional investment somehow have negative value in making ethical determinations.

I'm saying that ethical determinations are based on emotion, so while presenting a purely emotional argument may not be as effective as making one backed by logic, i don't think it somehow supports the opposing side

[katrin]

Originally Posted by firebee To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Opposition to pedophilia just isn't a position that can be defended unless you explicitly suspend rational thinking and imply that anyone who doesn't is endorsing the rape of babies and young children. Essentially, there's nothing there but irrational emotionalism -- which, as a basis for ethical determinations, looks pretty weak and pathetic. How do y'all like it, when what you're stating implicitly is stated explicitly?

I presented psychological and sociological information about child development and reasoned opinions, not "irrational emotionalism". And I think other posters on my side have made valid arguments as well. There are topics that lend themselves to values-based Fi logic, and this is one of them.

Making this into a philosophical debate seems rather like showoffery.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Children are not abstractions, and for this discussion, psychological and sociological perspectives are relevant in that they support the moral and legal arguments against pedophilia.

Originally Posted by Savagelight To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

What if it's two adults but one is 18 and the other 80? Would not the 80 year old have useful stratagems to take advantage of the 18 year old? What if it's 21 and 16? Would there still be a power imbalance? You did not explain the age difference or intellect difference which determines the power imbalance. Power imbalance theory might make sense but it's never going to correlate 100% with the ages defined under the law.

I referred to an adult pedophile (so, someone 18 or over for the sake of simplicity) having a relationship with a prepubescent child. Read the information at the links I posted. Any normal adult has achieved greater cognitive development than a prepubescent child.

If you want to talk about ephebophilia or 18 year olds banging 80 year olds, you are welcome to start separate threads. This thread is about a book concerning pedophilia.

[blueback]

	Originally Posted by Seriously To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It's been alluded there there is no physical harm done to the child.

No it hasn't.

By way of a rebuttal, please quote someone who even mentioned that topic, let alone someone who "alluded" to it.

	Originally Posted by Seriously To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	A grown man's penis going anally into a boy or vaginally into a girl is going to cause pain. Pain they don't understand.

Oh. So pedophilia is okay as long as there's no penetration? Like if the adult is female? Also, what does "pain they don't understan" mean? How old does someone have to be to understand that tab A is too big for slot B? I'm estimating that children figure that one out before they can talk. Which is a nice segue into...

	Originally Posted by Seriously To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm curious where the limits might be set for you? I mean is it ok to rape babies? Or do you have to wait until they are 5 or 6 and you can "reason" with them. *rolls eyes*

Rape is never okay. Duh. Even if it's a baby. However, we haven't been discussing rape, we've been discussing pedophilia.

	Originally Posted by Seriously To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I want to know at what age the people who feel this way think a child can consent to having sex.

That's a very good question. I suppose it depends a lot on what you mean by 'consent.' There is the general definition and then there is the legal definition
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

In an intellectual sense I'd assert that someone CAN consent to sex as soon as they can consent to anything. A person doesn't have to be very old to understand the concepts of agreeing and disagreeing. In a legal sense I'd assert that it doesn't make much sense for someone to be unable to consent to sex after they've gone through puberty. This whole, finish puberty at 13 and not be legally able to have sex until 18 seems poorly constructed. But the law has to take a lot more into account. Maybe it makes sense from a societal perspective to force youngsters to finish some basic schooling before they get pregnant. It's not like they need a half dozen kids to work the farm anymore.

For me the issue of logically defending condemnation of pedophilia runs into stumbling blocks. For example, you could argue that it's unacceptable because children can't understand sex, but the vast majority of the things kids do they don't understand. You could argue that only a parent has the right to override a child's lack of consent and involve them in something they don't understand, but plenty of parents abuse their children. You could argue that it's the age difference that causes problems, but in pretty much all other activities an age difference is irrelevant or positive.

I think what you are interpreting as a defense of pedophilia is actually an attempt to hold an argument regarding pedophilia to the same standards of consistency other arguments are held to. If you assert something, and I spot an inconsistency, I'm going to point it out. If the only objection left over is simply that pedophilia makes everyone too uncomfortable to allow then good, we figured something out. But I think there's got to be a reason founded on something other than emotion.

	Originally Posted by Seriously To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't consider my argument to be irrational emotionalism.

But it's not exactly reasonable, either. Not yet, at least.

	Originally Posted by Thinker To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I haven't seen any strong rational logical arguments yet which indicate that having sex with a child is appropriate or right?

Yeah...I can't think of a good one, aside from the generic assertion that, well, I think this song says it best:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	Originally Posted by Thinker To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So (in your view) the fact that you can argue against the negative is enough?

An assertion either holds water or it doesn't.

	Originally Posted by Thinker To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I can't understand why you can see that freedom of speech is such an important principle, when you can't understand that respect for another human being is an important principle as well?

But those two principles aren't in opposition to each other. At least not in this context.

Originally Posted by Thinker To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This is my last comment in this thread. I have to say I am deeply disappointed in some of my fellow human beings. But then again perhaps they will have children some day and the child will be raped by another adult and they will have to support their child with a ripped anal sphincter and clean up the semen from their clothing....and I ask will they still rationalise it as "reasonable"....and that was emotion To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Don't throw a tantrum just because you can't express yourself in a big-boy way. Your high standards for adults apparently don't include the idea that adults should have better control over their emotions than children.

Originally Posted by JTG To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

These two quotes seem to contradict each other in my mind. If a child is not properly fed, and it results in different-than-normal physique, how is that much different from when a child who was not properly raised, resulting in a different-than-normal psyche? Call it "improperly optimized" if you want, but if a child grows into an adult who has difficulty functioning in important situations (relationships, etc), is that not broken? Somebody with no legs can still drive if given the right car, but is it not still considered a disability?

Sure, but even handicapped people don't want to be thought of as handicapped, but as handicapable. Or something like that.

I suppose part of our difference of interpretation might be that I don't think anything happens "for a reason." I think it's just a matter of chance, even when it's something another person choose to do. Should a poor village be wiped out by a mud slide? No. Should a child be manipulated into having sex against their will? No. When mud slides happen we suggest they build their village somewhere else. When pedophiles happen we suggest they be put in jail. In both cases we have to react after the fact because the effect that initiated the chain of cause and effect was random. No one CHOOSES to be a pedophile; it's just something you're born with. It's random, just like the mud slide. The results of that random event are unacceptable, but they're going to happen because we don't have any control over the initial random seed that starts the whole thing.

Originally Posted by JTG To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I have a hard time seeing a romantic relationship between an adult and child as a peer relationship, so i must imagine that a child in such a relationship would view the adult as a caregiver instead of a partner...When a breakup happens between adults, there's normally a period of separation ranging from brief to indefinite. It's just the nature of breakups. Imagine being 12 and finding out the father figure in your life wants to break up. You can tell a child "it's nothing you did wrong, but i can't be there for you in the same way anymore." However, if that doesn't work in a breakup between adults, why would it work on a child? Divorce is a monumental breech of childhood security and attachment, and that's just the parents splitting up. Imagine if a parent wanted to divorce the child instead.

But the argument that we should avoid relationships just because we're going to be hurt when they end has never held water. It amounts to a requirement that we organize relationships in some central location to ensure the overall distribution of relationships in the community is optimized. Even if that was a good idea, it's impossible because we can't predict the future.

	Originally Posted by JTG To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't think all instances of adult/child relationships would result in harm being done to the child, but the fact that it isn't inherently harmful in theory doesn't negate the fact that it often is harmful in practice

Agreed. But that does mean an honest summary of the argument must include the idea that making it illegal will criminalize some positive relationships. The argument could very well be that it's better than decriminalizing the far greater number of negative relationships, but it changes the argument from one of moral absolutes to much less satisfying relative frequencies. Statistics rarely makes a person feel good.

	Originally Posted by JTG To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm saying that ethical determinations are based on emotion, so while presenting a purely emotional argument may not be as effective as making one backed by logic, i don't think it somehow supports the opposing side

It might not support the opposite conclusion, but it does undermine your conclusion.

Emotions are things that just sort of happen. They aren't good or bad, they just are...like gravity, so they are amoral. A moral argument needs to follow in a logical way from a standard. So, you can say "I feel bad when this happens, therefore it shouldn't happen" but that argument implies its own rebuttal. It includes no counter to the idea that if someone else feels GOOD when the same thing happens, that they aren't within their moral rights in saying it should happen. It reduces the argument to mere preference. It becomes nothing more than arguing over whether vanilla is better than chocolate.

A better argument would be one that addresses the inevitable rebuttal. An argument that can be easily rebutted might as well not exist. You don't get credit for having an argument to support your conclusion when the argument can't stand up to criticism.

[Seriously]

	You are a child, a grown man had sex with you, you may or may not feel just fine (sometimes victims really do feel OK)

	My point about the theory of social roles is essential, because it puts in a new perspective the reality that pedophilic sexual abuse causes trauma. If we can be more reasonable, then I think our aspiration should be that physiologically-safe pedophilic sexual abuse causes no trauma among children at all.

	Perhaps the only environment and circumstance where an act of pedophilia does not cause harm is when it is kept secret, the child is fully willing, the child is not strongly influenced by the social norms surrounding pedophilia, and it is physiologically safe.

	but there is no other scientific theory that explains why children are harmed by sex with adults.

	doesn't even include the possibility that the child participates willingly

You are right no allusions at all.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	Oh. So pedophilia is okay as long as there's no penetration? Like if the adult is female? Also, what does "pain they don't understan" mean? How old does someone have to be to understand that tab A is too big for slot B? I'm estimating that children figure that one out before they can talk. Which is a nice segue into...

Nope I was just using that as an example.

Pain they don't understand....well I doubt a child is going to understand the pain they feel upon insertion of a penis into their asshole. I understand it because I'm aware of what is going to happen and what it entails. They aren't. But maybe you know better.

	Rape is never okay. Duh. Even if it's a baby. However, we haven't been discussing rape, we've been discussing pedophilia.

Pedophile = adult who is sexually attracted to children
Children = person between birth and full grown (that would include babies, yes?)

So unless those babies are giving consent it's rape.

I, personally, don't feel the need to argue this further. Fortunately there are laws in place to at least try and keep adults from sexually abusing children. And for me, that's all that really matters.

[Dru]

even if those babies are giving consent it's rape.

[nacht]

	Originally Posted by Seriously To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Pedophile = adult who is sexually attracted to children Children = person between birth and full grown (that would include babies, yes?)

In technical discussion it helps to use technical definitions. What you are doing here is using a technical term's colloquial meaning and and trying to arbitrarily expand its criteria based on that colloquial meaning. This is not dissimilar from say "we have sex offender laws to protect children, prostitution is against the law and related to sex, therefore prostitutes are sex offenders despite that their crime has nothing to do with children."

Now let's be clear: Pedophilia is a form of paraphilia that specifically deals with sexual fantasies involving not just children but prepubescent (or barely pubescent) children. Diagnosis does not require sexual abuse of actual children. Children of the age of 14, 16, or 24 are not included.

[Seriously]

So what would you call someone who molests babies?

[Brion]

One can feel free to write about crimes and even HOW to commit them... If they couldnt think of the best selling authors like Cornwall and others that would be out of business. Recently I saw a tv documentary on hwo to make Meth... I didnt think it was a "good" idea to television such things but a book, or anything else does not make one DO illegal activities.

[Savagelight]

Originally Posted by firebee To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Opposition to pedophilia just isn't a position that can be defended unless you explicitly suspend rational thinking and imply that anyone who doesn't is endorsing the rape of babies and young children. Essentially, there's nothing there but irrational emotionalism -- which, as a basis for ethical determinations, looks pretty weak and pathetic. How do y'all like it, when what you're stating implicitly is stated explicitly?

It doesn't take a lot of emotionalism. If you were a child again would you want some old guy to rape you? What about if you are in prison? Is it that hard to figure out that most children don't like being raped? Most adults don't like being raped.

There is nothing good or respectable about pedophilia. And it's not love, it's sex.

---------- Post added 11-17-2010 at 03:19 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by JTG To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	How is that? Essentially, there's nothing there but irrational emotionalism -- which, as a basis for ethical determinations, looks pretty weak and pathetic. Rape is "wrong" for emotional reasons, and in addition, a lot of ethical determinations are made on emotional grounds. What are morals and ethics but the marriage of social order and emotion?

Emotion has nothing to do with why rape is wrong. Why is torture wrong? Or do we have to believe everyone who is against being or doing torture is emotional about it? I don't necessarily feel any emotion towards the vast majority of the people I communicate with, but I don't want a society where they can be tortured because that increases the probability that I'll be tortured.

The reason torture is wrong is because it creates risk for all parties. If we were playing a game of cards and we play for money, if you lose the game you pay up in money. Then if some guy wants to up the stakes and put a gun on the table if we lose the game we have to play russian roulette? And then if another guy wants to up the stakes further if we lose the game we have to be raped and torture possibly to death?

It would be completely logical for all players to turn against the players who seek to up the risks without upping the rewards.

[JTG]

Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Emotions are things that just sort of happen. They aren't good or bad, they just are...like gravity, so they are amoral. A moral argument needs to follow in a logical way from a standard. So, you can say "I feel bad when this happens, therefore it shouldn't happen" but that argument implies its own rebuttal. It includes no counter to the idea that if someone else feels GOOD when the same thing happens, that they aren't within their moral rights in saying it should happen. It reduces the argument to mere preference. It becomes nothing more than arguing over whether vanilla is better than chocolate.

I don't really know what to say to arguments like these other than to say that i think "morality" is emotional consensus within a given culture. Since all human actions have their drawbacks and benefits from a logistical standpoint, morality ceases to exist if emotion is not allowed to be included. It could be argued that there is no such thing as morality.

Even if pedophilia had some intrinsic quality that automatically caused harm to the minor involved, does that matter if nobody but that minor cares? There was a big moral debate over stem cell use for research, because the thought of using babies to cure diseases made people feel bad. If the embryos (zygotes, whatever, i'm not sure) were test-tubed with the explicit purpose of curing disease and deformity, then a lot of good could come from the research. However, there was still moral outrage over it, because it's an emotionally charged matter.

Although it's not entirely correct to say that emotions "just happen." While i'm sure that's true for some people in some circumstances, usually there are outside actions and influences inciting emotional reaction. Morality and ethics are efforts made by society to normalize and standardize what's acceptable based on collective emotional reactions

[Savagelight]

Originally Posted by nacht To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

In technical discussion it helps to use technical definitions. What you are doing here is using a technical term's colloquial meaning and and trying to arbitrarily expand its criteria based on that colloquial meaning. This is not dissimilar from say "we have sex offender laws to protect children, prostitution is against the law and related to sex, therefore prostitutes are sex offenders despite that their crime has nothing to do with children." Now let's be clear: Pedophilia is a form of paraphilia that specifically deals with sexual fantasies involving not just children but prepubescent (or barely pubescent) children. Diagnosis does not require sexual abuse of actual children. Children of the age of 14, 16, or 24 are not included.

The irrationality or emotionalism comes from parents who view their 14,16, as children. This is fine but it's not pedophilia if an adult has an attraction to them. It's not remotely the same thing but when you see shows such as To Catch a Predator, the men arrested on these shows aren't always pedophiles but they carry the same label. In some cases you have a 23 year old male with a 16 year old girl, in some cases the male might be 21, either way he is not a pedophile and not the same breed as the adult who seeks to have sex with or is attracted to prepubescent children. The irrationality is that the court of public opinion does not make this distinction. The laws also do not make distinctions with regards to sex offenders. It's set up so that if you commit any sex offense no matter how minor it puts you on the registry where you get treated like a pedophile.

[nacht]

	Originally Posted by Seriously To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So what would you call someone who molests babies?

A child molester.

[ApostateAbe]

	Originally Posted by Seriously To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So what would you call someone who molests babies?

A pediatric proctologist?

[Savagelight]

Originally Posted by JTG To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I don't really know what to say to arguments like these other than to say that i think "morality" is emotional consensus within a given culture. Since all human actions have their drawbacks and benefits from a logistical standpoint, morality ceases to exist if emotion is not allowed to be included. It could be argued that there is no such thing as morality. Even if pedophilia had some intrinsic quality that automatically caused harm to the minor involved, does that matter if nobody but that minor cares? There was a big moral debate over stem cell use for research, because the thought of using babies to cure diseases made people feel bad. If the embryos (zygotes, whatever, i'm not sure) were test-tubed with the explicit purpose of curing disease and deformity, then a lot of good could come from the research. However, there was still moral outrage over it, because it's an emotionally charged matter. Although it's not entirely correct to say that emotions "just happen." While i'm sure that's true for some people in some circumstances, usually there are outside actions and influences inciting emotional reaction. Morality and ethics are efforts made by society to normalize and standardize what's acceptable based on collective emotional reactions

Only deontological ethics are based on emotions. Consequentialist ethics are based on situations, achieving objectives etc. Utilitarian ethics are also based on situations and consequences but with the goal as the pursuit of happiness for the greatest number.

[Seriously]

	Originally Posted by nacht To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	A child molester.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	Child molestation is a crime involving a range of indecent or sexual activities between an adult and a child, usually under the age of 14. In psychiatric terms, these acts are sometimes known as pedophilia.

So a pedophile then?

[Eridal]

Nepiophilia
`Nepiophilia` aka `infantophilia` is the sexual attraction towards babies and toddlers (aged 0-4/5 years). Empirical research suggests that nepiophilia is at least as rare among pedophiles as pedophilia is among ephebophiles so that pedophilia and nepiophilia appear to be clearly distinguishable from each other. However pedophiles primarily oriented towards children of the other sex appear to be more prevalently driven secondarily towards babies ...

[Seriously]

I can agree that it's not the "norm" but it is within the scope. The entire reason for even bringing it up was to try and assess at what age do some of the posters on here think it's ok for adults to have sex with children. At what age can a child give consent? At what age will it not be tramuatic? At what age with the child realize that the penis going into their body will not fit correctly and hurt? You know... what age can they put two and two together and feel good about it?

I think it's extremely easy to sit behind a computer and logically assess that something shouldn't be detrimental to another person. It's a lot harder when you are that person. Or that person's parent or friend.

Anyway....I keep saying I won't come back to this but I do. Masochistic I suppose. Or maybe it just bothers me to see people try to justify what I consider to be unjustifiable.

*shrugs*

[SelfMadeBum]

I don't know what's going on in here.

In any case, I don't see how it's censorship for Amazon to refuse to sell the book; last I checked, a proprietor isn't under any obligation to offer any product for sale.

Sure, it can be written and published but no one is required to sell it. As a business person, I wouldn't touch the book with a 60 foot pole.

---------- Post added 11-18-2010 at 11:30 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	But I think there's got to be a reason founded on something other than emotion.

Why?

In any case, protecting the young from psychological and physical abuse is not a valid enough reason?

[JTG]

	Originally Posted by Savagelight To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Only deontological ethics are based on emotions. Consequentialist ethics are based on situations, achieving objectives etc. Utilitarian ethics are also based on situations and consequences but with the goal as the pursuit of happiness for the greatest number.

From a Consequential standpoint, i don't see how pedophilia could be condoned as pertains to achieving objectives, aside from the sarcastic approach of saying it's the pedophile's objective to have sex with kids. If it causes psychological trauma and affects the child's personality into adulthood, it's not very beneficial to society in terms of being productive.

From a Utilitarian standpoint, i'm not sure if any opinion could be reached, one way or the other. It seems exchanging one person's happiness for somebody else's would end up with a balanced equation. Unless it could be shown that pedophile1 damages child2 who then grows up to impede the happiness of people 3, 4, and 5. Or if perhaps pedophile1 damages children 2, 3, and 4, who then grow up... etc

[blueback]

	Originally Posted by Seriously To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You are right no allusions at all. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think you mean that you "inferred" based on those quotes. An "allusion" is when the author deliberately refers to a body of knowledge that both the author and reader share so as to remind the reader of something.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


The key difference being that you imagined/guessed/postulated a stance on a subject that no one actually addressed. You interpreted the lack of a specific treatment as an implication, rather than an oversight. The effort was on your end, thus making it an inference, rather than on the poster's end, which would make it some kind of implication or allusion.

	Originally Posted by Seriously To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Pain they don't understand....well I doubt a child is going to understand the pain they feel upon insertion of a penis into their asshole.

Again, I don't get why this seems to be an important point to you. ALL living things understand pain.

	Originally Posted by Seriously To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I understand it because I'm aware of what is going to happen and what it entails. They aren't.

Okay, so, in this sense, it would be possible for an adult to "not understand" their pain in exactly the same way as long as they didn't expect it and didn't know what it meant. Like, if someone's appendix was going bad, they'd just know that all of a sudden they were in pain and they couldn't tell what was wrong. Is that right?

If so, I don't see how it applies in this context because the kid knows exactly what's happening, at least in a literal sense. Do you mean that for someone to "understand" their pain they have to be able to place it into a complete biological and cultural framework? Like, just being aware of the fact that a hole isn't big enough isn't "understanding," only being aware of the full range of human relationships, and their relative frequency, and the biological details of sexual maturation, can result in "understanding."

	Originally Posted by Seriously To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Pedophile = adult who is sexually attracted to children Children = person between birth and full grown (that would include babies, yes?)

What's "full grown?" The mind doesn't reach maturity until the mid-twenties.

	Originally Posted by Seriously To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I, personally, don't feel the need to argue this further. Fortunately there are laws in place to at least try and keep adults from sexually abusing children. And for me, that's all that really matters.

LOL, that's the same argument people used to "justify" segregation. The mere presence of a law isn't evidence of morality.

	Originally Posted by Savagelight To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	There is nothing good or respectable about pedophilia. And it's not love, it's sex.

Is there nothing "good or respectable" about it BECAUSE it's just sex? Or is the sex thing incidental to the prepubescent thing?

	Originally Posted by Savagelight To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Emotion has nothing to do with why rape is wrong.

Wait, what? Since when?

	Originally Posted by Savagelight To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Why is torture wrong? Or do we have to believe everyone who is against being or doing torture is emotional about it?

You'll strengthen your own arguments if you stop relying on fallacies. In the context of a debate, "everyone" isn't an acceptable generalization unless you're directly quoting your opponent. If you "summarized" your opponents argument by expanding the population it applies to until it becomes absurd, you committed a fallacy.

Originally Posted by Savagelight To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The reason torture is wrong is because it creates risk for all parties. If we were playing a game of cards and we play for money, if you lose the game you pay up in money. Then if some guy wants to up the stakes and put a gun on the table if we lose the game we have to play russian roulette? And then if another guy wants to up the stakes further if we lose the game we have to be raped and torture possibly to death?

Is that an important argument? It doesn't make sense.

	Originally Posted by Savagelight To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It would be completely logical for all players to turn against the players who seek to up the risks without upping the rewards.

Wouldn't "turning against" the people who upped the stakes be upping the stakes even further?

	Originally Posted by JTG To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't really know what to say to arguments like these other than to say that i think "morality" is emotional consensus within a given culture.

Nope. Morality is invented in the mind of an individual when they establish a standard for what is right and then interpret the world based on that standard. Anything that violates the standard is wrong, and anything that doesn't violate it is right. It is a system of ideas regarding what is appropriate, and it never exists outside of a mind.

The confusion is that our brain and body have their own unconscious and automatic decision making systems. Your spinal cord thinks that it is "right" to kick your leg when something hits your knee. Your brain thinks it's "right" to juice the adrenaline gland when you see a spider. Neither of those are morality, because they're not conscious decisions.

They can, however, become one of the standards that morality is based on. If someone gets really uncomfortable every time they see two men kissing, and decides it is wrong for two men to kiss, that doesn't make morality emotional...it just means that we have to deal with both emotions and morality.

	Originally Posted by Seriously To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I can agree that it's not the "norm" but it is within the scope. The entire reason for even bringing it up was to try and assess at what age do some of the posters on here think it's ok for adults to have sex with children.

You're front-loading all your questions. The word "children" pretty strongly implies human beings who haven't gotten to pubety yet. So, the question isn't "at what age can someone consent to sex" it's "at what age can someone who can't consent to sex have sex." It's like asking "when did you stop beating your wife."

	Originally Posted by Seriously To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	...what age can they put two and two together and feel good about it?

Do you mean what age CAN they feel good? Like, what is the earliest that anyone could ever possibly feel good? Or, do you mean at what age would the average feel good? Or, at what age would the majority feel good?

	Originally Posted by Seriously To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think it's extremely easy to sit behind a computer and logically assess that something shouldn't be detrimental to another person.

Sure, I guess. But that's irrelevant. No one's claiming that pedophilia doesn't hurt children. The references to the possibility have been used to draw attention to the illogical generalizations being used in this debate that wouldn't get a free pass in any other debate. You can't just state "all instances of a sexually charged relationship between an adult and a prepubescent are harmful" because 1) you can't possibly demonstrate that and 2) it's an unnecessary point.

It's entirely possible for you to successfully argue for condemnation of pedophilia in general without ever getting anyone to agree that it must necessarily be harmful in absolutely every single instance.

	Originally Posted by Seriously To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It's a lot harder when you are that person. Or that person's parent or friend.

Yeah...this is an emotional argument. Your point is not that there is a flaw in logic but rather that we wouldn't dare say any of this in front of someone who had been affected by pedophilia. You're trying to silence your critics by manipulating guilt and empathy.

	Originally Posted by Seriously To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Anyway....I keep saying I won't come back to this but I do. Masochistic I suppose. Or maybe it just bothers me to see people try to justify what I consider to be unjustifiable.

I wonder how many times you'll have to come back before you figure out the difference between "justification" and "analysis."

	Originally Posted by SelfMadeBum To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't know what's going on in here.

Then by all means present your opinion. There's nothing better than another $0.02.

	Originally Posted by SelfMadeBum To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In any case, protecting the young from psychological and physical abuse is not a valid enough reason?

That's a perfectly acceptable reason. Now explain what psychological and physical abuse is. Everything is easy when you stick to vague assertions. The devil is in the details.

[Seriously]

I think you mean that you "inferred" based on those quotes. An "allusion" is when the author deliberately refers to a body of knowledge that both the author and reader share so as to remind the reader of something. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. The key difference being that you imagined/guessed/postulated a stance on a subject that no one actually addressed. You interpreted the lack of a specific treatment as an implication, rather than an oversight. The effort was on your end, thus making it an inference, rather than on the poster's end, which would make it some kind of implication or allusion.

al·lude/əˈlo͞od/Verb
1. Suggest or call attention to indirectly; hint at.

Was what I meant. Regardless I get the feeling you caught my meaning.

	Again, I don't get why this seems to be an important point to you. ALL living things understand pain.

hhhmmm I feel like we are talking around each other here. They are understanding they are feeling pain. Yes. In that respect they understand it. But not why they are feeling it. Why this pain is being visited on them. Does that make more sense?

I guess it's important to me because it's senseless pain to another person.

	What's "full grown?" The mind doesn't reach maturity until the mid-twenties.

It was the definition I took off the internet so I really couldn't say. My point was that babies are children.

	LOL, that's the same argument people used to "justify" segregation. The mere presence of a law isn't evidence of morality.

LOL are you really going to compare a law against sex with children to segregation?

	You're front-loading all your questions. The word "children" pretty strongly implies human beings who haven't gotten to pubety yet. So, the question isn't "at what age can someone consent to sex" it's "at what age can someone who can't consent to sex have sex." It's like asking "when did you stop beating your wife."

No it's not. But if you don't feel comfortable answering the question, that's cool.

	No one's claiming that pedophilia doesn't hurt children.

Then what exactly are you claiming?

	It's entirely possible for you to successfully argue for condemnation of pedophilia in general without ever getting anyone to agree that it must necessarily be harmful in absolutely every single instance.

I would agree that I can't prove it's harmful in every single instance because I don't know all the facts. Would that suffice?

	You're trying to silence your critics by manipulating guilt and empathy.

What you mean like you use sarcasm and intellectual browbeating to silence your critics? Looks like neither of these strategies are working, eh?

	I wonder how many times you'll have to come back before you figure out the difference between "justification" and "analysis."

*shrugs* Perception.

[SelfMadeBum]

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Then by all means present your opinion. There's nothing better than another $0.02. That's a perfectly acceptable reason. Now explain what psychological and physical abuse is. Everything is easy when you stick to vague assertions. The devil is in the details.

Definition of PSYCHOLOGICAL

1 a : Relating to, characteristic of, directed toward, influencing, arising in, or acting through the mind especially in its affective or cognitive functions.

Definition of PHYSICAL

1. a : Of or relating to the body as distinguished from the mind or spirit.

Definition of ABUSE

a·buse (-byz)
tr.v. a·bused, a·bus·ing, a·bus·es
1. To use wrongly or improperly; misuse: abuse alcohol; abuse a privilege.
2. To hurt or injure by maltreatment; ill-use.
3. To force sexual activity on; rape or molest

Definition of PSYCHOLOGICAL ABUSE

Psychological abuse is the willful infliction of mental or emotional anguish by threat, humiliation, or other verbal or nonverbal conduct. It is often associated with situations of power imbalance, such perhaps as the situations of abusive relationships and child abuse...

Definition of PHYSICAL ABUSE

Physical abuse is involves contact intended to cause pain, injury, or other physical suffering or harm.

Anything else?

[Lightman]

	Originally Posted by Savagelight To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Only deontological ethics are based on emotions. Consequentialist ethics are based on situations, achieving objectives etc. Utilitarian ethics are also based on situations and consequences but with the goal as the pursuit of happiness for the greatest number.

Deontological ethics are not based on emotion; they are based on the concept of rigid duty. Utilitarianism, which fails utterly as a prescriptivist ethic, is based on emotion; the worship of the concept of objectively measurable happiness.

[sergeantsalt]

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Rape is never okay. Duh. Even if it's a baby.

Damn, I was sure it would be okay if it was a baby.

---------- Post added 11-22-2010 at 02:32 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	However, we haven't been discussing rape, we've been discussing pedophilia.

You make references to logic, but you seem to think that being logical is having an unemotional opinion without anything to support it.

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In an intellectual sense I'd assert that someone CAN consent to sex as soon as they can consent to anything.

What exactly are you trying to express when you say "in an intellectual sense"?

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	A person doesn't have to be very old to understand the concepts of agreeing and disagreeing.

You offer your ideas without any sort of explanation as to why anyone should agree with you. What is consent? Is it verbal or non-verbal? Does an erection constitute consent? Does a person have to achieve a certain level of maturity before they can give consent, whether it be intellectual, emotional, or both? If so, then at what point would this maturity be reached, and could such a point be determined without some level of subjective interference? Or is it simply that people need a certain amount of life experience before they can be allowed to make decisions regarding their welfare? Does consent have to be chosen or can it be implied?

Is the societal concern with the sexual expression of children even addressing what you're attempting to argue? If the question was whether or not children have the capacity to respond yes or no when presented with a choice, then your statement would have been of great philosophical significance had we all been raised by wolves.

With regard to the ethical nature of sexual relationships between adults and children, consent does not refer to a child's capacity to choose, but rather, to what extent we can ethically enforce our will upon them for the purpose of their protection.

No one seems to mind that we do not allow children to express their desires to play in traffic, light fires, or stay home alone. Why then, are some people so concerned with fighting for a child's right to consent to sex?

The intuitive answer is that when someone struggles for total liberation, they do so because of their faith in the liberated to choose what is best. Movements that seek partial liberation necessarily imply that there is a lack of faith in the liberated's ability to make competent decisions. If the liberator does not have faith in the liberated's ability to make competent decisions, then awarding them the right to make specific decisions can only be motivated by self interest.

The mythical adult/child relationship made of butterflies and rainbows is laughable considering the popular view of love as a bond that holds people together through both the good and the bad until separated by death.

I would be a huge mistake to think of pedophilia in terms of preference, such as blonds or brunettes. A heterosexual male chooses a companion from within a pool of women that remain women for their entire lives with few exceptions. Being attracted specifically to women, he can have a loving relationship with one woman for the duration of his life. A pedophile, who is specifically attracted to children, cannot remain in a relationship with a child indefinitely. It would be similar to a man being in a relationship with a woman that is turning into a man.

[blueback]

I lost interest in this, but you found it for me.

	Originally Posted by sergeantsalt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Damn, I was sure it would be okay if it was a baby.

You've got to be careful about jumping to conclusions
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	Originally Posted by sergeantsalt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You make references to logic, but you seem to think that being logical is having an unemotional opinion without anything to support it.

Ummm...okay. I'm not really sure how to follow your train of thought through this sentence.

I do make references to logic, check. I'm sure that I seem to think things to other people, so check. But your definition of "logical" totally loses me. It's like you had a whole conversation with yourself right in the middle of that sentence. I agree that logic should be as free of emotion as possible, like I explained earlier.

The last part is the most interesting. I assume you mean that I haven't done a good enough job explaining my logic, but in a more general sense it could be that you have a problem with logic itself. There is no such thing as a system of logic that can prove itself. Every system requires at least one axiom that has to be assumed to be true. So, in a sense, ALL logic can be called "unsupported." That's how I look at the subject, at least.

	Originally Posted by sergeantsalt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What exactly are you trying to express when you say "in an intellectual sense"?

In terms of concepts. Like I explained in the very next sentence. The definition of "consent" is basically "to agree"
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
so, intellectually, someone consents when they agree. Of course, consent is also an important legal term, so I discussed that meaning too. There are many more requirements for consent to exist in a legal sense than in an intellectual sense. Thus, the distinction.

	Originally Posted by sergeantsalt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The human mind's capacity for reason has been the subject of many debates over thousands of years and remains an unresolved issue among philosophers today, but if being an intellectual means trying to sound intelligent, you are definitely an intellectual.

I know I'm an intellectual. I also don't consider it an insult. In fact, I consider being intellectual such a good thing that I immediately begin to think less of anyone who suggests anti-intellectualism is a good thing.

You know what elevated humanity from the status of beast? Intellect. You know what allows humanity to achieve everything good and noble? Intellect. You know what is the single hope for a bright and prosperous human future? Intellect. So what, exactly, is your problem with trying to be intellectual?

	Originally Posted by sergeantsalt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What is consent?

You mean aside from the definitions I provided?

	Originally Posted by sergeantsalt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Is it verbal or non-verbal?

I suppose if it has to be communicated it doesn't really matter how. But it could matter, particularly in a legal context.

	Originally Posted by sergeantsalt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Does an erection constitute consent?

Seems doubtful, since a biological response is pretty uncontrollable.

	Originally Posted by sergeantsalt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Does a person have to achieve a certain level of maturity before they can give consent, whether it be intellectual, emotional, or both?

Legally, yes. Maturity, in that context, meaning a combination of mental development and chronological age.

	Originally Posted by sergeantsalt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If so, then at what point would this maturity be reached, and could such a point be determined without some level of subjective interference?

There will always be a subjective element. The word consent doesn't have a purely objective definition.

	Originally Posted by sergeantsalt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Or is it simply that people need a certain amount of life experience before they can be allowed to make decisions regarding their welfare?

Yes. Apparently. At least, that's one thing every human culture ever has agreed on.

	Originally Posted by sergeantsalt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Does consent have to be chosen or can it be implied?

That seems to depend on how onerous the burden of communication would be. There are plenty of legal situations in which you consent simply by pressing forward with your activity. For example, if you enter certain government facilities you consent to all your belongings being searched. It's automatic. Or if you install a program like Adobe you consent to certain contractual obligations, again automatically. So in those situations consent would seem to be implied. Or, maybe a better example of implied consent is the fact that ignorance of the law is no defense. If you didn't know you could be arrested for carrying a chicken in a bucket then you are at fault, because your consent to be punished was implied by simply existing in a place where the law was enforced.

	Originally Posted by sergeantsalt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Is the societal concern with the sexual expression of children even addressing what you're attempting to argue? If the question was whether or not children have the capacity to respond yes or no when presented with a choice, then your statement would have been of great philosophical significance had we all been raised by wolves.

Again, this doesn't make any sense. Feel free to explain this in a way that does.

	Originally Posted by sergeantsalt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	With regard to the ethical nature of sexual relationships between adults and children, consent does not refer to a child's capacity to choose, but rather, to what extent we can ethically enforce our will upon them for the purpose of their protection.

What does that even mean? Like, a sexual relationship can be forced on a child for its own protection? Did you proof-read anything you posted?

	Originally Posted by sergeantsalt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No one seems to mind that we do not allow children to express their desires to play in traffic, light fires, or stay home alone. Why then, are some people so concerned with fighting for a child's right to consent to sex?

I think you're the first person to bring up the idea that children have a right to have sex. Is that something you want to discuss? Or were you simply under the impression that someone else had already discussed it?

	Originally Posted by sergeantsalt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The mythical adult/child relationship made of butterflies and rainbows is laughable considering the popular view of love as a bond that holds people together through both the good and the bad until separated by death.

Your post is kind of like two electromagnetic waves of slightly different frequency. It seems to regularly go in and out of phase so that some times it makes sense and some times the "making sense" totally disappears. This is an example of the latter.

Did you just assert that adults and children can't love each other? I suppose it's possible that's true, but it would require a dramatic shift in perspective given, oh, ALL of human history.

	Originally Posted by sergeantsalt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I would be a huge mistake to think of pedophilia in terms of preference, such as blonds or brunettes.

Yeah, that's probably misguided. I think of it in terms of prefernece, such as homo and hetero sexual. It's something you're born with. No one chooses to be attracted to a certain sex, just like no one chooses to be attracted to a particular age group. It just happens. That doesn't make it acceptable, no one chooses to be a serial killer either, but regular homicide is still unacceptable.

Originally Posted by sergeantsalt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A heterosexual male chooses a companion from within a pool of women that remain women for their entire lives with few exceptions. Being attracted specifically to women, he can have a loving relationship with one woman for the duration of his life. A pedophile, who is specifically attracted to children, cannot remain in a relationship with a child indefinitely. It would be similar to a man being in a relationship with a woman that is turning into a man.

First, this is just another example of the "don't bother with any relationship that could ever possibly end" argument, which is stupid. Second, there are plenty of people in loving relationships with transgenders.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.