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.
Fair enough, my issue was with you staying on track with your logic. It also implies that morals are subjective and that as long as your criteria is met, you have no objection to the actions of others. Ultimately, it means that while "personally" you may or may not agree with the action, you see nothing wrong with others doing it. So in essence, you tolerate, or rather accept necrophilia?
I would tolerate necrophilia if the dead person had preemtively given consent, the problem is, how do we know that the person engaging in necrophilia is honoring the will? Now let me ask you another question since you ask so many Can a society exist purely based on logic? and if so share it with me.
Last edited by mississauga75; 05-25-2009 at 01:54 PM..
Most infertility is related to health issues, diet, and exercise. Very few have to undergo any interference and i personally don't agree with invitro fertilization.
Regardless your comparison is flawed, there is no chance that two gay men can have a child together.
There is no chance my wife and I can have a child together. None at all. What's your point? Who cares? There are millions of children starving to death already!
Again, a person who is about to die can consent to their body being used by necrophiliac.
consent is given, and the parties involved are participating to their own decisions. So, are we to take it that you support necrophilia when it is done in accordance with the criteria you stated?
Also, consenting age is a subject of law. Courts have emancipated children at a variety of ages to which it would be illegal to consort with sexually. So under the stipulation of emancipation, that these children have been identified as being capable to make decisions on their own, then they do meet the qualifications of providing consent between adults.
So far, you seem to support necrophilia and pedophilia.
The age of consent in a particular geographic area would be the deciding factor in establishing majority status for the purpose of consent. State law would be the determinant. There is no pedophilia if a person has achieved the age of consent and does so, even if the age is 13 as is the legal age for marriage in several states. I remember Tennessee specifically.
Tell me more about the scenario you imagine where someone would consent to their body being used for necrophilic purposes. Tell me specifically why you could imagine such a scenario, since the deceased has passed the point of being able to consent. If it is on par with donating one's body to science to be used for research, then there should be no legal objection unless there are other supporting laws that make necrophilia specifically illegal for other than moral reasons.
Here in Columbia at USC there is an excellent forensic anthropologist who has bodies donated for his research. These bodies are allowed to deteriorate naturally outdoors and he makes notes on the decomposition over time. Morbid, inhumane, unholy, devoid of respect? Not at all. The people who donate themselves know beforehand exactly what will happen with their remains and consent to it, even though it turns the stomachs of many people to imagine it. Ted has been called in on many cases where bodies are found for a judgment call on how long a person has been dead. One of his students may very easily be working in your community.
Again, remember that the legality of an act has nothing to do with any moral code being imposed.
There is no chance my wife and I can have a child together. None at all. What's your point? Who cares? There are millions of children starving to death already!
My point is the one i made.
You obviously care. Would your child starve if you had one?
Tell me more about the scenario you imagine where someone would consent to their body being used for necrophilic purposes. Tell me specifically why you could imagine such a scenario, since the deceased has passed the point of being able to consent. If it is on par with donating one's body to science to be used for research, then there should be no legal objection unless there are other supporting laws that make necrophilia specifically illegal for other than moral reasons.
Two adults are involved in consentual relationship in which they engage in what most others would call perversion. Their bodies, their choice. The conversation turns to necrophilia and one or the other -- or both -- express a fascination. So they enter a pact that says when one dies the survivor gets to try it if they want. Nothing more complex than that.
Forgive me, the muti-quote thing isn't working for me - i'll have to read up on it.
Look of course a society has to engage in selective moralism to create legal precedent, otherwise it would be paralyzed. In the case of a pet, I have had one before and even though I didn't get consent to own the pet from the pet, I assumed that if i provide a loving home for it, that it would grow to love me. So, I get what you are saying - not everything we do in society can be broken down into logic and some things will remain in the realm of subjectivity. In this case, I would still not legalize bestiality - it is cruel to the pet regardless of lack of consent. I think the consent argument is more valid for humans. I mean we eat animals and plants all the time without consent - imagine what would happen if we didn't.
You make the assumption that the person who has sexual relations with an animal does not "love" it and will care for it with love and that the animal does not somehow consent based on the same subjective opinion you make that an animal actually loves you and accepts being held captive for ones personal enjoyment as a pet. In fact, many animals initiate the action of sexual attention which I am sure you have seen before or at least humored the action in a movie comedy of some sort.Ultimately the definition of love becomes subject to opinion and what constitutes abuse. The very matters we see in these boards every day concerning various moral topics in not only this subject but others.
You personally would not legalize it and that would be based on? Moral attention to the subject? The same moral attention that another might apply to necrophilia, pedophilia, or even homosexuality for what ever subjective reasoning they choose sound or not sound.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mississauga75
Yes society has to dictate moral rights and wrongs in order to function. Having said that, each case has to be addressed based on its own merit from a legal perspective, not just on a majority rules basis, but yes the majority has to be taken into account - if society at large is not ready for a change - it is destined to fail. For instance, I could state that Heterosexuality should be illegal for 30% of the heterosexual population and they must become homosexual in order to create a more sustainable population growth rate, but I wouldn't be able to do that because I know that a heterosexual person can't change themself and even if i had the power to do it, I would get a huge majority of individuals wanting to crush me. BUT, purely on the basis of logic, a dwindling population from a global perspective wouldn't be a bad thing - thus fewer heterosexuals, less competition for resources. The law does have heart in it as well Nomander, I think it has to!
Who decides what holds merit? By what base does one define right and wrong? A law has no meaning if it is merely the subject of majority ruling. There is no heart in law, merely subjective intent of the majority. As majority opinion changes, so does the law. There are no individual rights when majority opinion rules absolute, only the will of the majority.
Basing the success of a system simply on functional longevity has no relation to right or wrong. Some societies lasted for many years and functioned in manners you might think to be barbaric, horrific, and cruel to the minority in it. Many smaller societies still do.
In the end, subscribing to a majority system in terms of morality will never seek balance, merely a changing of oppressors as each ruling power seeks its own individual desires. Those who use this type of system as a tool do so because it affords them justification of their actions without the responsibility to their ideal. Since morality is changing, moving, and flowing with like opinion, there is never any requirement to be responsible for ones choices. That is, no group is held to any standard as they can make it up as they go and no action is too far out of line because all is acceptable in obtaining that goal. This is the true nature of the mob.
Bisexuality being an entirely separate orientation from either homosexuality or heterosexuality, it 'proves' nothing about either.
What a convenient scenario you have painted.
YOu speak as if these three are completely different specie, inhabiting different circumstances.
Gay, bisexual, hetero sexual....
All being completely different.
So what is a Gay man that has sex with a Woman? What Specie is He?
Sexual desire is not a specification for an individual entity. It is merely acting out a mentally triggered hormonal response. If one claims that they have no control over that response, than they are no greater than a common animal.
Prone to go wherever their desires lead them.
I believe self control and decency to be more valuable than object sensualism in order to satisfy a selfish urge for momentary gratification.
You make the assumption that the person who has sexual relations with an animal does not "love" it and will care for it with love and that the animal does not somehow consent based on the same subjective opinion you make that an animal actually loves you and accepts being held captive for ones personal enjoyment as a pet. In fact, many animals initiate the action of sexual attention which I am sure you have seen before or at least humored the action in a movie comedy of some sort.Ultimately the definition of love becomes subject to opinion and what constitutes abuse. The very matters we see in these boards every day concerning various moral topics in not only this subject but others.
You personally would not legalize it and that would be based on? Moral attention to the subject? The same moral attention that another might apply to necrophilia, pedophilia, or even homosexuality for what ever subjective reasoning they choose sound or not sound.
Who decides what holds merit? By what base does one define right and wrong? A law has no meaning if it is merely the subject of majority ruling. There is no heart in law, merely subjective intent of the majority. As majority opinion changes, so does the law. There are no individual rights when majority opinion rules absolute, only the will of the majority.
Basing the success of a system simply on functional longevity has no relation to right or wrong. Some societies lasted for many years and functioned in manners you might think to be barbaric, horrific, and cruel to the minority in it. Many smaller societies still do.
In the end, subscribing to a majority system in terms of morality will never seek balance, merely a changing of oppressors as each ruling power seeks its own individual desires. Those who use this type of system as a tool do so because it affords them justification of their actions without the responsibility to their ideal. Since morality is changing, moving, and flowing with like opinion, there is never any requirement to be responsible for ones choices. That is, no group is held to any standard as they can make it up as they go and no action is too far out of line because all is acceptable in obtaining that goal. This is the true nature of the mob.
I completely agree with you on a philosophical level and your logic is second to none - you are like a Vulcan but..You didnt' answer my question, you just always ask me questions - you take but never giver lol- what is the alternative friend you are a smart guy- no doubt you have a higher I.Q than me. Provide me with a proposal to counter the status quo. I am very open-minded also tackle this to bring us a little closer to the spirit of the thread. If a society makes homosexuality or bisexuality illegal -Why should heterosexuality not be illegal? I'm sure on some grounds, a logical case can be made to ban heterosexuality..
Last edited by mississauga75; 05-25-2009 at 04:13 PM..
The age of consent in a particular geographic area would be the deciding factor in establishing majority status for the purpose of consent. State law would be the determinant. There is no pedophilia if a person has achieved the age of consent and does so, even if the age is 13 as is the legal age for marriage in several states. I remember Tennessee specifically.
A subscription to moral ambiguity is your position then? That is, pedophilia does not concern you, merely the opinion of the majority as to what defines it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald
Tell me more about the scenario you imagine where someone would consent to their body being used for necrophilic purposes. Tell me specifically why you could imagine such a scenario, since the deceased has passed the point of being able to consent. If it is on par with donating one's body to science to be used for research, then there should be no legal objection unless there are other supporting laws that make necrophilia specifically illegal for other than moral reasons.
Here in Columbia at USC there is an excellent forensic anthropologist who has bodies donated for his research. These bodies are allowed to deteriorate naturally outdoors and he makes notes on the decomposition over time. Morbid, inhumane, unholy, devoid of respect? Not at all. The people who donate themselves know beforehand exactly what will happen with their remains and consent to it, even though it turns the stomachs of many people to imagine it. Ted has been called in on many cases where bodies are found for a judgment call on how long a person has been dead. One of his students may very easily be working in your community.
Again, remember that the legality of an act has nothing to do with any moral code being imposed.
None of that is relevant. You keep evading the issue. Consent for the very action has been given. It is plausible to consider this. It is irrelevant if you think it likely as your objection is rooted in occurrence, not the action itself. By your own initial argument, you accept this. Either change your premise, or accept that you are arguing with yourself.
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.
Can a society exist purely based on logic? and if so share it with me.
also tackle this to bring us a little closer to the spirit of the thread. If a society makes homosexuality or bisexuality illegal -Why should heterosexuality not be illegal? I'm sure on some grounds, a logical case can be made to ban heterosexuality..
