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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (29252)	2/16/2005 3:03:03 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

"Heck, they killed Socrates for asking unpopular questions." Good idea for a thread ... go do it chris. I for one would be happy to post on such a thread. You are violating your thread sponsor's hospitality by pushing it further on this thread.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (29252)	2/16/2005 3:09:42 PM
From: mph	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Not everything is, or should be, subject to moral relativism. This is not even a tough case, imo. Any justifications offered would be unavailing. As a defense to criminal charges, of course, there could be defenses relating to mental problems, but that's not what we're talking about. You said: I haven't at any point claimed to justify the relationship. What I am doing is exploring why we find this relationship so abhorrent, what the contours of the situation are, whether such relationships must always be condemned and if so why, and similar questions. Even trying to analyze the situation in the manner you attempted is a form of justification. Why do we find it abhorrent? Is that really a tough one? Seems like the reasons have been laid out in spades. What the contours of the situation are? The facts in this case are well known. Do you actually see anything about the "contours" that even suggests that a civilized society should or would find the behavior anything other than "abhorrent"? Casting about for extreme examples of where isolated sex with a 12 year old might be justifiable begs the question. Gee, what if they were trapped in the mountains in the snow and had to get together to generate body warmth to save their lives? Is it okay then? Uh huh.<g> Should such relationships always be condemned, and why? That's not really hard. Of course. If they're "in love", they can wait until the 12 year catches up maturity wise to do anything about it. If we even open the door to the notion that there are possibly acceptable scenarios for this type of behavior in our culture, we are lost. This is distinct from offering defenses to criminal charges, which are generally limited only by the imagination of defense counsel.<g> But that would not necessarily reflect a societal response. The fact that one has to concoct far-fetched scenarios where such behavior might be less than abhorrent shows that the naked situation itself is without redeeming value and should therefore be scorned. As for the ignore button, I'm not a big advocate of its use. It is far more enlightening to see all POV's, no matter how outre.... :-)