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.
You give subjective views based on your perception of what defines right and wrong. Why are you more correct than another? That is the issue here. What it comes down to is that the majority defines what right and wrong is by their consensus. I am not saying they are right to do so, merely stating a fact of how societies deem right and wrong and how what we may consider "wrong" now, might be "right" later by majority consensus.
Just because the majority of society says something is right or wrong, that doesn't mean what they say is right or wrong. That was the point of the cat burning example. Someone can't base their morality on what society necssarily says is right, it could be very wrong. Someone can tell if their morality is correct if doesn't infringe on the freedom of someone else and the other person is respecting them.
Look, you probably can't help that you make stupid arguments or that you fall for stupid positions, but seriously would it hurt to put some effort in the things you post? Maybe you could possible take a bit of time and actually think about what you write or link? Is that too much to ask or am I yet again a bigot against stupid arguments and the display of invalid positions? If so, count me as a proud bigot then. /boggle
Maybe you should put less effort into the things you post. Pedant shouldn't be a bad word.
Look, its not a difficult concept. Just explain why you are right and I am wrong. Ive listened to your points and honestly, you haven't really had any. those that you have had, I commented directly on. You on the other hand have ignored everything I have said, refused to answer the questions and done nothing other than attack me personally.
While you attack me and make tons of assumptive claims you can not back, I attack your argument and show why it is invalid.
Keep the logical fallacies coming, it only shows your ignorance.
You sidestepped my reply to your post where you argued like a NAMBLA champ, and this is the second time I'm calling you out on it... so maybe you shouldn't be accusing others of conveniently ignoring....
odd, because in many claims of recent issues (some political attempts), the younger generation is being claimed to be more and more resilient, more able to make decisions. Heck, california wanted to lower the age of voting to start at 14 because they thought they were so well adapted and able to decide on issues.
Here is the thing, there have been cases of some "youths" that would disagree with you. They claim they knew what they were doing and they accepted and appreciated the love they received from these individuals. So you are claiming they are wrong? Did they lose their rights? Are you infringing on their ability to choose what they want? They believe it to be natural and normal. They see it as merely love between two people, a love apparently you think you have the authority to condemn, to dictate. In their eyes, you are hateful, judgmental, and discriminatory.
Wait, you presume to speak for a youth on the subject (who is by far more intelligent and cognizant of reality and the situation than an animal), yet you have no problems accepting someones use of an animal even when the animal can't even tell you if they honestly like it or not?
Thats interesting. Almost sounds like a complete double standard, is it?
so say you. Who are you to decide that a child is not fit? I can show you children that would make your understanding look like you walked off the short bus, and yet you feel the need to proclaim all children "too dumb to know what they really want" because you decide? You do realize there are children out there that would make you look like a drooling fool in anything you attempted to contest them with? I am glad you have it all figured out and can decide for everyone what is acceptable and what is not. Seems like more of a double standard being proposed to me.
and what age is developed enough? Do all children develop at the same rate? Some would argue that you presume to much about these children's mental condition, that you assume to decide for them. As i said, there are children out there that would make our own reasoning seem fallible, infant, and immature. Do we speak for them entirely?
Do you think all child violations occur from merely the adult persisting? There have been cases where the child has initiated a sexual advance, do you presume the animals to be true to intent? What makes them an acceptable advance and that of a human child who makes the advance different?
Seems like again, we are placing the line as we choose to. Speaking for others and defining standards of correctness. Is it not?
Oh, I'm sorry, are you only defending heterosexual relations with children?
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.
