Moral Judgments

Tal errs:

quote:

---

What if I want to kiss your 7 year old daughter?

​

There's nothing wrong with that right?

---

A romantic kiss? Hell no it's not all right. You're an adult, you idiot! You have no business sharing a romantic kiss with a 7-year-old child. It makes no difference whether it's a girl or a boy. How dare you compare that to two boys kissing each other! Are you a pervert?

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

holmes writes:

quote:

---

Certainly if you can just "see" something wrong with adults romantically kissing a child, he can "see" two boys kissing each other as wrong.

---

Yes, I very definitely see something wrong with a romantic kiss shared between an adult and a seven-year-old. Just to be clear, by "romantic" I mean the sort of kiss that's likely to lead to sex. A seven-year-old hasn't even reached puberty yet, how can he or she give informed consent?

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

holmes observes (for some reason):

quote:

---

The problem is that only defines a difference between the two scenarios, not why one is wrong and the other is right.

---

Hello! Is it really necessary to explain why it's wrong for an adult to make sexual advances toward a seven-year-old?

quote:

---

You don't just get to say it is different and so obviously wrong.

---

I didn't "just say it was different", I said it was wrong! You seem to be challenging the point but I don't understand why. What is it about child sexual abuse that you don't understand?

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

holmes writes me:

quote:

---

Before this gets dragged into the whole pedophilia thing...

---

Then why in hell are you dragging it there?

quote:

---

The point I am getting at is he stated that something is wrong. Obviously it is wrong to him. People are coming out to say that his moral position regarding A is wrong. When he connected A to moral subject B, which people do agree with, then it is said that obviously B is wrong but A is not and he is therefore wrong to connect the two.

---

Exactly! It's called challenging an assertion. He implies that the two situations are morally similar. I'm saying "no, they're not".He has made what amounts to two assertions: A (as you put it) boy romantically kissing boy is wrong, and B adult romantically kissing seven-year-old is wrong. I'm not challenging B, I'm challenging A, and in so doing saying that A and B are not morally equivalent.Where in this is it required that I explain why B is morally wrong?

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

Tal asks:

quote:

---

Where is it required that I explain why A is morally wrong?

---

In the forum guidelines. You see, we debate things here. If you make an assertion and someone challenges it, you are required to provide evidence to back the assertion. You made the assertion that boy romantically kissing boy is wrong. You were challenged on that assertion. You couldn't think of any real evidence, so you brought up another situation that you knew everyone would agree was wrong and tried to equate the two. You might as well have said that stoning children to death is wrong, it still wouldn't have anything to do with your original assertion.You haven't said the first thing about why boy romantically kissing boy is wrong. Are you planning to ever get round to it or do you think you're too good to follow the rules?

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

Tal asks (I guess he didn't know):

quote:

---

...why can't an old fogey have sex with a 4 year old (boy or girl?)
if that is what turns them on?

---

Because the four-year-old can't give consent. You really don't know much about children, do you?You still haven't said the first thing to support your original assertion. I gather that you can't.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

holmes writes me:

quote:

---

Go back to the OP and see what this thread is about.

---

I did. It's irrelevant to the forum guidelines which state that, when challenged, an assertion must be backed up by evidence. Tal asserted that boy romantically kissing boy is wrong. I (along with others) challenged the assertion. He still hasn't got round to backing up the assertion, nor has he retracted it. Instead, he introduced a new assertion which had nothing to do with his original assertion and tried to say that the two assertions are related. They're not.Is it your position that the forum rules don't apply to your friend Tal?

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

Tal continues to misunderstand, which doesn't surprise me:

quote:

---

So that means I can have 4 wives and 2 husbands so long as they all give their consent?

---

Introducing yet another assertion does not support your original assertion. You are the one who says that boy kissing boy romantically is wrong. You still haven't offered the first sentence to support that assertion. Saying it is your opinion isn't enough; that's obvious since you never would have said it in the first place if it wasn't your opinion. You're simply pointing out the obvious, which isn't surprising since you seem incapable of grasping concepts that go beyond the obvious.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

holmes errs:

quote:

---

You cannot do this.

---

Oh hell yes I can! Since when is it against the rules to challenge an assertion?

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

holmes writes:

quote:

---

As far as him asserting anything, he was asked directly for his opinion on the subject, he just gave a cute answer.

---

I didn't think it was very cute, interesting that you did. However, his "cute answer" was the assertion that boy romantically kissing boy is wrong. He still hasn't cited anything to back up that assertion.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

holmes writes me:

quote:

---

Tal's response regarding consent in this case could be a valid response to schraf or your own position.

---

Agreed, but that came after the original assertion; you know, the one that hasn't yet been backed up.

quote:

---

Actually it is within this thread.

---

I didn't know that the forum rules could be set aside, even by an OP. But I'll humor the silly idea. I've read the OP and I have a few problems with it - problems that ironically mirror Tal's in his first response. Even so, I can't find any phrase or sentence that says that the forum rule regarding assertions is being suspended for this thread.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

holmes writes:

quote:

---

I hope you are not implying I am homophobic.

---

No, I'm not. I realize that you're very intelligent and open-minded. You're one of my favorite posters at evc. I'm just saying that I didn't see anything cute about Tal's assertion; you know, the one that hasn't yet been backed up.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

PecosGeorge asks:

quote:

---

Why can a human being not hold whatever belief is desired?

---

Who said they can't? You can hold whatever beliefs you want. What you can't do is use those beliefs as evidence to back up assertions in a debate.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

Quetzal writes:

quote:

---

However, a point in holmes' favor here would be that to objectively determine that "harm" is caused by any behavior you have to divorce that behavior completely from the socio-cultural context.

---

You and holmes have both done a good job of expressing this point. However, my problem is with Tal refusing to provide evidence to back up his absurd assertion.But with respect to this sentiment from you and holmes: Tal and I are both residents of a civilized western nation, thus the "socio-cultural context" is substantially the same and therefore I see no need to divorce the subject behavior from it.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

holmes writes:

quote:

---

Homosexuality has been and still is linked statistically to greater psychological/physical/social problems. They are nearly the exact same kind and effect that children which have been abused exhibit.

---

The way you're presenting your case makes it seem as though you're acting as Tal's champion. As you say, I am gay and I fight for gay rights. But unlike the persona you wish to assign to me I didn't just start doing it yesterday. I've seen lots of studies like this and they're usually about as reliable as Answers in Genesis. Maybe yours is better. Let's see it.Oh and by the way, I'm particularly interested in seeing the part about physical harm.

quote:

---

If you successfully argue that we must view harm within what the society may cause based on its beliefs, then you are paving a road right back into homosexuality being a problem and good reason to be criminalized.

---

I am doing nothing of the sort, and how the hell did we get here from my challenge to Tal (which btw continues to go ignored). We don't even know if Tal is deep enough to contemplate your line of reasoning.Furthermore, I resent the implication that the only harm suffered by victims of child rape is societal. Get a grip for chrissake!

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!