Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (15717)	6/6/2001 12:31:54 PM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

The Bible did not support Pedophilia in any way, and neither do I. You failed to demonstrate how capturing young women to be future brides equates to pedophilia. I say Pedophilia is objectively wrong. The inability to prevent it happening, says nothing about the legitimacy of the act itself. It is an unspeakable and abominable act. The fact that some religious leaders engage in it is irrelevant to the question at hand. Your denunciation of then only begs the question. Why is it wrong? "how many reasonable and compassionate people would consider it permissible?" Aren't you getting ahead of yourself? Why are reason and compassion requisite? Is it not reasonable that a pedophile who wishes to abuse a child would arrange to do so while managing to avoid the consequences of discovery? All such people lack the combination of empathy and reason. No actually most of them are cold, calculating, and totally rational. It's just that they are also evil, and their reason is used for that purpose. It's only irrational if you smuggle in an emotional response to the consequences of their reason. Reason is a tool that is used to determine the internal consistency of a thought or action. Just like a hammer can be used for good or evil, so to, reason may be employed for good or evil.(edit) It only describes, it can't prescribe. "Generally, they see other people as objects having the sole purpose of serving their needs and desires." Given the assumptions of purely mechanistic and naturalistic universe that has no purpose, it is very logical to assume that your "needs and desires" supercede the Needs and desires of all others. Especially if you don't get caught. Compassion? Where do you get that, is compassion objectively true? Don't just say everyone knows. Smuggling in the Christian ethic of Love, in the guise of (compassion) hardly helps your case since you are trying to establish meaning, and truth, apart from a theistic foundation. Similarly ascribing reason with the ability to move from the "what is" to the "What should be" is asking it to do something it has no power to do.