Gen. Flynn lied concerning his pre-innauguration communications with Russia.

[Bill the Cat]

Since when has a 20 year old been considered an "adolescent?

Who said that? Quit trying to deflect the point! Either a 13 year old is capable of consent or they aren't.

[Sparko]

Consent is a moral requirement because our society deems it morally unacceptable to force sexual attentions on anyone without there being mutual, informed consent.

Gay marriage used to be morally unacceptable. Now it isn't.

[Tassman]

Who said that? Quit trying to deflect the point! Either a 13 year old is capable of consent or they aren't.

[Tassman]

Gay marriage used to be morally unacceptable. Now it isn't.

Interracial marriage used to be morally unacceptable too. Now it isn't. Universal human rights is an evolving moral concept.

[Tassman]

Hi. I'll take this chance to put forth again a question I had on that topic. Last time I didn't get an answer.

Oh please! The argument is very simple. If a cake maker offers a standard product wedding cake then according to the Civil Rights Act he must sell it to all would-be purchasers, regardless of their race or sexual orientation or religion and whether or not he personally approves of them.

[Sparko]

Interracial marriage used to be morally unacceptable too. Now it isn't. Universal human rights is an evolving moral concept.

so why cant morals evolve to allow pedophilia then? You just shot your argument in the head.

[robrecht]

so why cant morals evolve to allow pedophilia then? You just shot your argument in the head.

Morals have already evolved from allowing it in the past, at least in some cultures, to no longer tolerating it for the most part.

[Bisto]

Oh please! The argument is very simple. If a cake maker offers a standard product wedding cake then according to the Civil Rights Act he must sell it to all would-be purchasers, regardless of their race or sexual orientation or religion and whether or not he personally approves of them.

I understand that idea. The question concerns a business whose standard product is "Christian cakes" (as he understands them, since it would be hilarious to try to legally define what makes a cake 'Christian' in a way that all or most Christians approve). In their eyes, you would be asking them to sell a different product from what they strategically designed.

Different example: can I ask a "Muslim cakes" baker to make me a Resurrection-themed cake for Easter, or one with Jesus sitting at the right hand of God? I'm pretty sure he wouldn't see these as "Muslim cakes", don't you think? Should he make them for me? Should he be forced to make them for me or face punishment?


By the way, I notice you did not include 'gender' in the discriminations list. Can you and I start a movement to get Victoria's Secret to give us a male line?

[Sparko]

Morals have already evolved from allowing it in the past, at least in some cultures, to no longer tolerating it for the most part.

and so it can change again.

[robrecht]

and so it can change again.

Sure, in the socio-cultural sense.

[Sparko]

Sure, in the socio-cultural sense.

right. those who think morals are subjective have no argument against any perversion.

[Bisto]

Oh please! The argument is very simple. If a cake maker offers a standard product wedding cake then according to the Civil Rights Act he must sell it to all would-be purchasers, regardless of their race or sexual orientation or religion and whether or not he personally approves of them.

For the purposes of this conversation, let me quote Porter. If you have a business or work at any organization at all, it can only be of help

Source: Michael Porter, What is Strategy?

(Executive summary excerpt)
(...) In contrast, the essence of strategy is choosing a unique and valuable position rooted in systems of activities that are much more difficult to match. Porter thus traces the economic basis of competitive advantage down to the level of the specific activities a company performs.

(Article excerpts)
(...) Finally, trade-offs arise from the limits for internal coordination and control. When opting decidedly to compete one way and not another, high executives make clear the priorities of the organization. On the contrary, companies that try to satisfy every need of every customer risk generating confusion within the organization as their employees try to make daily operative decisions without a defined framework.

Positioning trade-offs abound in competition and are essential for strategy. They create the need to choose and deliberately limit what a company offers. They prevent the practices of reaching too much or repositioning oneself, since the competitors who employ those methods undermine their strategies and diminish the value of their existing activities.

© Copyright Original Source

The full article is behind a pay wall, so if you haven't read Porter's ideas, you could start with this SlideShare presentation, which more or less outlines the contents of said article.

The whole talk about trade-offs, creating fit between a company's activities, and generating a sustainable competitive advantage, in this case means that a company COULD choose to focus on "Christian cakes" (or any other niche, mind you) if they see it has the potential to serve the needs of a specific subset of customers, for example (this would be even more pronounced if they style themselves as selling "Christian products, period"). They COULD choose to drive their activities to that end, and have continual training processses through which the bakers improve their cooking AND their theology to create better Christian cakes (better in both the "Christian" and the "cakes" aspects), IF they see this as potentially generating a strategic advantage -- in other words, as long as this gives them an edge over a regular bakery trying to make Christian cakes AND over the Christian cookie shop trying to make Christian cakes, because neither of them has this company's specific business processes. It's hard to envision in this particular example because cakes aren't your typical high-added-value product or service, but you get the idea.

In the same way, I obviously respect the strategic position of Victoria's Secret, and boy, has it worked. They perform better offering a product aimed at half the population than if they had a generic brand aimed at all of it (it is my understanding there was a time when they did sell male underwear), so, can they be forced to change it for 'leaving us out'?

[robrecht]

right. those who think morals are subjective have no argument against any perversion.

Personally, I wouldn't call the socio-cultural dimension of morality 'subjective', because that typically implies a more individualist nuance, whereas 'socio-cultural' denotes the societal and historical dimensions of morality which are much more 'objective'. The socio-cultural dimension of morality is, however, malleable and subject to social evolutionary trends, which I think is your point. Like Shuny, Tassman may think that morality is, generally speaking, evolving in a positive direction and is thus tied to some type of value basis.

[Tassman]

so why cant morals evolve to allow pedophilia then? You just shot your argument in the head.

Because under-age persons are not sufficiently mature to give informed consent and are thus exposed to possible exploitation. This is contrary to the best interests of the young person concerned and to the community at large in that it's damaging to the social fabric.

[Tassman]

right. those who think morals are subjective have no argument against any perversion.

Morals are instinctive rather than subjective. They are the genetic predisposition to behave in such a way as to ensure the survival of the family and community and cooperation...so that the human species survives.