Survey on Morality: Part 1
- Thread starter Sach
- 42 comments
- 2,579 views
- 87,624
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
The waters get muddied further when you question exactly what forms "forcing" can take. Forcing can manifest as something so simple as verbal coercion - it can even bring about consent and, worse still, not even appear to be force. Someone with a strong enough mind and will can bend others to it and make it seem like their own idea (in an Inception way).
This is why I asked for a definition of "accountable adults". Someone in a position of power (parent, teacher, church leader, boss) can abuse that power by way of threats to get sex. Someone in a position of trust can abuse that trust by way of eloquence to get sex. If a wife doesn't feel like having sex one night and yet she does anyway at the husband's suggestion, is he abusing a position of trust or is it true consent?
- 17,337
- United Kingdom
- 87,624
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Yeah, not to mention gay, straight, bi, fat, skinny, yadda yadda yadda. You can probably apply as many "tastes" to paedophiles in addition to "kids" as you can with regular sexual appetites. This was even pointed out by Chris Morris in the infamous Brass Eye "Special" of 2002:
It's quite dangerous to try and classify something you don't properly understand - and that doesn't just go for illegal sex acts, but for niche sex and even regular, more societally acceptable sexual peculiarities.
(that Brass Eye episode is a great, if uncomfortable, watch, primarily parodying media reaction to paedophilia but also our own understanding of it. The full episode is on Youtube under "Brass Eye Special"; no links, for obvious reasons)
- 626
- Northern Ireland
- GTRP_mirial
Which is maybe partly why in Britain there has been SUCH a drop in morals....the left infiltrated the system long ago (after the war) and have bucked all that out the window in the name of freedom which is why Britain is such a degenerate state. And no one has testes big enough to sort the problem out either, and by the time we're rendered totally uncompetitive, it'll be too late.
Back to the subject. It's always going to be Civilisation (Capatalism?) Vs Law of the Jungle (Anarchy/Freedom?). For a Civilisation to run efficiently, people need to be conditioned from no age on how to behave - only in this way will each person have a sense of freedom. I think Singapore is a good example of this, but does anyone want to regularly do 60 hour weeks without complaining?
I live in Northern Ireland and thankfully the way to behave to some extent has been maintained by quite a strong Christian ethos. The work ethic, education and morals make over here a good investment for employers and corporations. Liberals would even argue that this is exploitation.
It's so nice to go on trains that haven't or never will be adulterated with graffiti and to go out knowing that there aren't lots of horrible men who are within a hair's breadth of killing you.
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 34,058
- Mile High City
I don't understand the idea of doing a survey on morality. Either it is or is not immoral, the number of people that agree is meaningless.
The problem, of course, is consent - which cannot possibly be given under a certain age. What that age is is somewhat pointless, the point is that we restrict the rights of children in many respects for the purposes of making decisions. When they can drink, when they can make medical decisions, when they can drive a car, when they can marry, when they can have sex, when they can emancipate themselves from their parents, when they can be tried for crimes with full punishment, when they can vote, when they can work, when they can stop being educated...
All of these things are the result of the fact that children are developing into an individual with a full set of rights with the goal of ensuring that those rights are intact at that age. I don't see this one issue as being particularly different from any of the others. Curtailment of the rights AND responsibilities of children is a necessary step to enable them to enjoy their rights as an adult.
The problem, of course, is consent - which cannot possibly be given under a certain age. What that age is is somewhat pointless, the point is that we restrict the rights of children in many respects for the purposes of making decisions. When they can drink, when they can make medical decisions, when they can drive a car, when they can marry, when they can have sex, when they can emancipate themselves from their parents, when they can be tried for crimes with full punishment, when they can vote, when they can work, when they can stop being educated...
All of these things are the result of the fact that children are developing into an individual with a full set of rights with the goal of ensuring that those rights are intact at that age. I don't see this one issue as being particularly different from any of the others. Curtailment of the rights AND responsibilities of children is a necessary step to enable them to enjoy their rights as an adult.
- 1,410
- Albuquerque, NM
- Frizbe
- Darth Frizbe
I said no because while I do believe it is wrong, I have to wonder if that is because I am groomed by society to believe it is wrong or is there such a thing as truly wrong?
I am of the opinion that I have been groomed by society to believe it is wrong. Point in case: various cults that make people break up their families so their 'leader' can be the only reproductive male. Also mass suicide.
I am of the opinion that I have been groomed by society to believe it is wrong. Point in case: various cults that make people break up their families so their 'leader' can be the only reproductive male. Also mass suicide.
- 2,529
- G-D Luxembourg
- GTP_Vince_Fiero
