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 (16324)	6/10/2001 1:39:41 AM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"If you are going to use mysticism as your argument, I can't go there--and you are well aware that I do not consider it an argument. Moving along..." "value judgements based on feeling" Can't go there??? You are there. The Pedophile "feels" like abusing a child, according to you that "feeling" informs his reason and therefore it must be alright. <there is simply no way in a Godless universe to move from "WHAT IS" to "WHAT SHOULD BE"> "This is a fallacious line of thought which presumes transcendence as axiomatic." No it's not. The statement asserts a "Godless" universe, and then states that you cant get from "is" to "ought", to which you replied; "The "is" and the "ought" are like the alternating rocks crossing the creek." How poetic. I'm sure the child molester tells himself that every day. So while you laughing at the notion that some Pedophiles are also ministers. All you really have to offer those kid's is that you feel their pain and you would never personally hurt them. "Yes, it is objectively wrong--for me." but not for your abuser, you're on your own. So when I asked the question, "Given the assumptions of moral relativism, is pedophilia objectively wrong???? Why didn't you just say no, it would have been much easier.