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: Greg or e who wrote (15769)	6/6/2001 2:56:43 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| 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. OH! You are a lark! Soldiers viciously slaughter children (except for the virgins), and you then pretend that they are going to have a genteel wedding for the survivors and throw rice!! You are too too much!! If I get time later, I will supply you with some scripture to indicate that rape was a very common practice for those old foreskin choppers. "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? You forgot to include my answer which was that reasonable and compassionate people do not harm others. Therefore, your worrying of the question is feckless. I had said: "All such people lack the combination of empathy and reason" You responded: "...actually most of them are cold, calculating, and totally rational... ." I don't know how or why you equate empathy and coldness. You're out walking on water again. 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. Firstly, nobody was talking about mechanism. I was speaking about REASON. Secondly, the universe is not the perpetrator so whether or not IT has a purpose is irrelevent. "Smuggling in the Christian ethic of Love, in the guise of (compassion) hardly helps your case..." History would certainly suggest that your choice of a group to epitomize "love" is ill conceived. As well, it is grotesquely self serving (and also meaningless to our discussion). Compassion? Where do you get that, is compassion objectively true? Do people who have not read or have not believed the Christian bible have no ability to be compassionate, caring, or loving? Why do you question the existence of compassion in the world? Anyway--yes, I can say objectively that compassion exists, and that very few people are incapable of realizing it. You are all over the place with your response. Let me remind you of the discussion: you are trying to demonstrate that subjective values imagined from supernatural sources are capable of competing on a truth basis with those objective values that have brought society through the Inquisition, the witch burnings, and thousands of irrational madmen. However, your argument has insurmountable difficulties right from the beginning: what faculty or process are you to use to critique or evaluate the legitimacy of your claims?? By coming from a purely subjective base as you do, you effectively take yourself outside of the circle of objective and reasoned discourse. By claiming that reason is insufficient to choose values, you also condemn it in its ability to judge values. Thus, to pretend your supernatural values can be justified by reason, WHILE at the same time pretending that reason is insufficient to authenticate reasonable values-well, this is a catch-22. I do not say that the subjective and contradictory truth claims of the myriad supernatural worldviews are entirely and equally without merit; only that they cannot, of course, lead to any objective grounds for moral behaviour. My link to you showing that 10% of protestent ministers had committed pedophilia, is supportive of this difference between the subjective (and therefore permissive) stance of supernatural whimsy--and the objective, measurable, and arguable propositions suggested by reason. Of course, in reality, even you utilize reason in that you reject much of the bible, follow some of it, etc. But your reliance on the supernatural allows you to re-interpret the supernatural message whenever it is convenient to your self interest. I suppose this is what those protestant ministers were doing--pure and simple. You see the subjective can not be considerate, simply because it refuses (by definition) to CONSIDER the reality, the viewpoint, the feelings of others. It is this objective consideration when coupled with compassion and empathy, which leads reasonable and compassionate people the world over, invariably to live by the principle of AHIMSA--do no harm.

To: Greg or e who wrote (15769)	6/7/2001 7:14:29 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 82486

I say Pedophilia is objectively wrong. Is not pedophilia a sexual attraction to children? If people are attracted to children in may be wrong in the sense that the attraction is considered unusal and may lead to actions that cause harm but would it not be the actions, the actual abuse of children that was morally wrong. Unless someone actually made a decision to be attacted to children the attraction itself could not be sinful, but acting on it could be (and I would agree with you that it is). I suppose the wrong even if you don't abuse children could be similar to the idea of "commiting adultury in your heart" by entertaining thoughts of cheating on your spouse, but is that something that you are so sure as that you would say it is objectively wrong? Tim