Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If Adam Carrola had a clue as to the reality of the history of child rearing he would know the "mommy"+"daddy" equation is a recent model.
For EONS in natural human history, Mommy/daddy relationships did not exist. That is right kids...did not even ******* exist.
Why am I even arguing with Adam Carrola...
What is "natural human history"???
Wait....so are you a fundamentalist or not a fundamentalist? Are we bound to historical norms or not? What is the significance of a nuclear family being a "recent model"?
What amazes me is that so many people have such a tenuous grasp on the notion of CONSENT.
Have you ever touched an animal ?
If yes, did you think that the animal consented to be touched ? Was it important for you make sure that the animal consented to your touch ? How could you tell ? How do you know that an animal either consents or at least doesn't mind ?
Funny.
As far as I know, most hunter gatherer groups are organized into families.
Mothers and fathers take care of their kids (not necessarily in the same way). Some may not have formal notions of marriage but most human populations have the notion of people being coupled together. It's true that in a lot of people the family is more than nuclear, as it includes relatives.
Still, everyone on earth has words for the concepts of fathers, mothers, sons and daughters.
It's bizarre that people are using the 'unable to give consent' argument for sex/marriage between inanimate objects, animals and children. How about it's objectively and morally wrong?
There is an objective morality, but they don't want to confront that so they use the consent argument.
It's bizarre that people are using the 'unable to give consent' argument for sex/marriage between inanimate objects, animals and children. How about it's objectively and morally wrong?
There is an objective morality, but they don't want to confront that so they use the consent argument.
There is no objective morality. When it comes to legal contracts LEGAL CONSENT is the only argument.
It's bizarre that people are using the 'unable to give consent' argument for sex/marriage between inanimate objects, animals and children. How about it's objectively and morally wrong?
Sure, I'd have to agree that marriage between people and animals, children or inanimate objects is objectively and morally wrong. No argument here.
Isn't slavery illegal whether the parties consent or not ? It's a type of employment contract that's deemed illegal no matter the circumstances.
Slavery doesn't involve consent.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
