Moral Judgments

*Looks at the can of wriggling worms...hides* Whoo hoo 3 year olds look out!

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

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!

Where is it required that I explain why A is morally wrong?Why is A ok and B wrong?

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

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!

A. Let me clarify, it is wrong IMO.B. Old men being with young girls is also wrong IMO.My view on this debate is who can say A or B or both are wrong or right?What standards are we using here?Why do grown men have sex with each other?Simple answer: It turns them on.That is the simple rational behind all of this. If that is the case then why can't an old fogey have sex with a 4 year old (boy or girl?)
if that is what turns them on?

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

But that is a moral position that you hold and cannot be used to judge another person's moral position. Indeed, even "best results" relies on subjective measurements. Actually, until you brought it up I did not actually mention where I thought they got their taboo from. It is wholly irrelevant to the discussion. Notice I did not say at all that they were wrong for thinking that B was wrong. I never created an argument for discussion of that... though that is what everyone else is forcing this into.All I was saying is that one cannot measure another's morality based on one's own moral precepts. The idea that their (and your) criteria is better than Tal's is itself a logical problem. To say pragmatic approaches to dealing with uncertain situations should be the moral determinate for any action is a subjective moral rule and neither better nor worse than Tal's.Indeed there is not even a reason Tal could adopt your rule and still come out disliking homosexuality. Utilitarian pragmatism can still ex out sexual minorities. It all depends on how "best" and "unhealthy" are measured/defined. You are empirically wrong, and you yourself have admitted that it is an unknown situation. Perhaps you meant the possibility of harm, but then "possibility" and "harm" are also subjective criteria in this matter. Again Tal can easily feel icky because of the "harm" two boys kissing causes. Can't he? Yes, I was saying something that you pretty well already said, but it was not in trying to draw out the morality of B. I had doubts whether I should have written the second half of my reply and I guess I shouldn't have. I was simply trying to get to the subjectivity of harm itself and how beliefs in it can actually cause more harm, and so set up a cycle in which a moral system begins to fulfill its own prophecies.This is important in that Tal certainly would have had plenty of evidence (the same kind of evidence) against homosexuality. Actually we just recently saw in another thread that there still is... much more so than child sexual activity (in males anyway). Yet many would argue it is the moral assumptions (like his) which cause the problem. That is also a question.Thus I am simply getting at the subjectivity of bringing in harm as a justification for why one's own system might be better than someone else's.Please crash, I know you mean well but I never intended, nor desire to address the morality of B. All I wanted to do was point out the logical problem of using one subjective moral system to judge another. Let's drop B here.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

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!

Go back to the OP and see what this thread is about. Then go and look at my response to you. I am addressing the topic of this thread.My question is why are you discussing what specific moral rules Tal has without first getting to the bottom of the question in this thread which is if relativism (subjectivism) is correct, can one criticize another moral position. Not in this thread it is not, that is why I never asked. However it would be necessary on a debate regarding sexual morality, and in specific a debate on sex and age. Don't you agree?It certainly is not "obvious" beyond understanding that is a current cultural norm. But if that were also the case, and this seems to be the point you are missing, the cultural norm is also against homosexuality. You can argue it any way you like but Tal's position on homosexuality is a larger percentage of our present culture and was much greater not just a few decades ago (so much that it was a clinical diagnosis).If he has to argue his point, then you have to argue yours... just not in this thread.This thread is whether you can argue another person's moral rules are wrong if relativism is true. The "obvious" argument simply doesn't cut it. Oh I see YOU said it was WRONG. Oh that changes everything (rolls eyes). Tal could say the same thing and have a majority agreeing with him. Does that make his position right or beyond criticism? Does it make it objectively correct?My question is what about the nature of this debate and debating in general do you not understand? When pedophilia is mentioned, is it required for discussion to stop and everyone throw rocks at it?I was sticking to topic, how about you do the same.By the way, I assume from the above you do believe that there is an absolute morality then?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Sure I have, I said it was my opinion.Ah, so the limiting reagent is to give consent. So that means I can have 4 wives and 2 husbands so long as they all give their consent?And I guess that raises the age of children to about...oh lets say 12. Now I can have sex with 12 year old boy or girls?

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

I want you to point out exactly where I brought up pedophilia in this discussion. I entered debate after it was brought up by someone else. In addition I did not try and defend it at all. I have at this point remained morally NEUTRAL on that subject.I have even tried to point out we can be talking about any OTHER sexual activity. Specificity is not necessary. Yes, exactly. This was my criticism of your position. You cannot do this. That is the topic, I am staying on topic. Please stay on topic. Nowhere in this thread and you will not see me asking for you to do so anywhere. You have projected this upon my position because you are so filled with the current witchhunt mentality regarding sexual issues that when pedophilia is mentioned in a neutral moral manner, rather than scathing attack, you feel that it is being defended and that you are being challenged to prove that is wrong which to you is obvious and absurd.It is the same kind of crap you can find discussing homosexuality in a neutral way among a bunch of hysterical anti-gays.All I said is you are doing the same thing he is doing. He has a set of moral rules, and you have a set of moral rules. To just up and say that his is incorrect because yours is obviously correct is INCORRECT.His system labels them as morally identical. Okeydoke. Accept that, argue inconsistency based on his stated moral rules, or argue for absolutism. That's about all the choices you have.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Pssst... this is an easy catch phrase used to lend legitimacy to a position. You can do an even better job of nailing him on the inconsistency of that rule than what you started with here (though cultural diversity in consent is a nice start).Maybe you can ask if he is aware of all the psychological problems highly correlated with homosexuality. Do all people need to be fully informed about this, meaning understanding this, before being allowed to have gay sex? Do they all need to be fully informed about what will happen to them in the afterlife for engaging in such immoral practices, before being able to properly give consent?In other words you can use consent for your own position on A, pretty much as well as he can on B... whoops!By the way, I would not suggest biting my hand again (with the crack on 3yos). I have not stated what my moral or legal position is on that subject at all. I was defending your moral position at the time from improper attacks. Bite my hand again, and I'll start digging in on you.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

How about if I just nibble gently?

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

***blushes**** Heyyyyy, I thought you were against that kind of thing.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Would it surprise you in the least to know I have a couple of gay friends?

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us