Moore Falllout - Throw Bill Under the Bus!

[Sparko]

No it is not the definition of "objective" from the legal perspective. A cite from Tassman does not determine what is objective from the perspective of Law. If you read further in the reference the law is supported the relationship to the standards, rules and "objective" evidence that foundation of Law dependent and it is their objectivity and NOT Law itself.

Morals, ethics and Laws are neither objective nor subjective base don definition and use.

You have failed and avoiding to respond how 'objective' applies in any way to the subjective of the thread.

Still waiting . . .

Shuny, you are so out of touch with the conversation and my argument that your reply doesn't even make sense. You are arguing something I never said. Wake up or go away.

[Tassman]

OK then you can't say that it is child abuse despite what the law says. The law is the codified view of this societies morals.

I can and do say it is child abuse despite what the law says today. The law has yet to catch up to community standards in this regard.

If this were in 15th century europe there would not be any such laws at all, yet you still think it would have been immoral.

In the context of the 15th century I probably would not have thought it immoral, just as I would not have recognised that women have rights and are not the chattels of men. Moral values change over time...mostly for the better in my view.

[Cow Poke]

I can and do say it is child abuse despite what the law says today. The law has yet to catch up to community standards in this regard.

And this, while vigorously defending ILGA for accepting NAMBLA as a member. I think you have to fail basic logic and reason to be a liberal.

[Sparko]

I can and do say it is child abuse despite what the law says today. The law has yet to catch up to community standards in this regard.



In the context of the 15th century I probably would not have thought it immoral, just as I would not have recognised that women have rights and are not the chattels of men. Moral values change over time...mostly for the better in my view.

DO you think it was immoral for 15th Century 30 year old men to have sex and marry 12 year old girls? Despite society at the time thinking it was OK?

Then you are appealing to an objective moral standard.

The fact that you have a goal in mind to compare moral values to and decide if they are "getting better" also shows you believe in an objective standard that you are measuring morals against. Otherwise you can't say morals are better or worse. Better or worse than what? If morals are subjective they can only be different. Not better or worse.