Take Back Our Country

[Cow Poke]

I was just thinking - and realized my answer to "pedophilia" was actually about the age at which pedophilia is considered to have occurred, not about the act of pedophilia itself. Because of the forced//power aspect of pedophilia, I can think of no new information that would make "pedophilia" moral since, by definition, it is sex between an adult and a young person incapable of consenting/resisting. The term itself implies immorality - as do terms like murder and rape.

Pedophilia isn't an act, it's a condition (Pedophilia is defined as an ongoing sexual attraction to pre-pubertal children). The act is called molestation or, in many cases, statutory rape.

[carpedm9587]

Morals are relative remember? Your preference is as valid as the pedophile's who disagrees with you.

First, no moral position is valid to me other than my own. So they are not "equally" valid. If you are trying to assess them from an objective perspective, then all you are saying is that subjective morality is not objective - which we already know, so that's not saying anything.

Also, some terms carry moral implications in their definition. Killing is not implicitly immoral. "Murder" is defined as a wrongful (i.e., illegal/immoral) act of killing. Substituting, "murder is wrong" becomes "wrongful killing is wrong," which is true by tautology.

[carpedm9587]

Have you raised any teenangers? A 13 year old certainly can consent - or more often than not - resist.

I have raised teenagers. Two, actually. Some teenagers may be able to, which is one of the reasons so many cultures place the age of consent at puberty, and not a somewhat arbitrary number like 16 or 18. As I noted before, the age boundary for pedophilia is largely cultural. The concept is not. All cultures (as far as I know) have the concept of "below the age of consent." I know of no culture, for example, in which sex with an infant is considered moral.

[carpedm9587]

Pedophilia isn't an act, it's a condition (Pedophilia is defined as an ongoing sexual attraction to pre-pubertal children). The act is called molestation or, in many cases, statutory rape.

Good points. We are using the terms in a somewhat sloppy fashion. Pedophilia is not immoral - child molestation is considered immoral, largely for the same reasons rape is considered immoral.

[Sparko]

First, no moral position is valid to me other than my own. So they are not "equally" valid.

I was speaking valid to anyone else. Why should your idea of why pedophilia is wrong be more valid to anyone else than the pedophile's value that he is doing nothing wrong. Looking at it from the outside, if morals are relative, then your values are no more important than the pedophile's.

[rogue06]

I was speaking valid to anyone else. Why should your idea of why pedophilia is wrong be more valid to anyone else than the pedophile's value that he is doing nothing wrong. Looking at it from the outside, if morals are relative, then your values are no more important than the pedophile's.

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

He's obviously just trying to shove his morality down other people's throats

[carpedm9587]

I was speaking valid to anyone else.

As Seer and I are discussing in a separate thread, you cannot make comparisons between relative frameworks without a reference frame for comparison. Each of us tends to evaluate moral statements made by other people against our own moral framework, using it as the reference frame.

Why should your idea of why pedophilia is wrong be more valid to anyone else than the pedophile's value that he is doing nothing wrong.

It is subjectively more valid to me - by definition. There is no basis for an absolute comparison, so there is no way to declare differing moral frameworks as superior/inferior or even "equally valid." You cannot compare relative frameworks without a reference point.

Looking at it from the outside, if morals are relative, then your values are no more important than the pedophile's.

You are trying to adopt an "objective" perspective when no such perspective exists. Determine the reference frame for evaluation, and then you can make comparisons. So if you use your own moral framework, one of us will be "closer" to your moral code than the other. If you use the so-called "Christian" moral framework (of which there are many), then you can determine which of us is closer. If you use the "most common human" moral framework (e.g., what most people believe) you can then determine which one is closer.

None of those comparisons makes a thing moral or immoral. Individuals make that determination for themselves.

[Sparko]

As Seer and I are discussing in a separate thread, you cannot make comparisons between relative frameworks without a reference frame for comparison. Each of us tends to evaluate moral statements made by other people against our own moral framework, using it as the reference frame.

is that your opinion?

It is subjectively more valid to me - by definition. There is no basis for an absolute comparison, so there is no way to declare differing moral frameworks as superior/inferior or even "equally valid." You cannot compare relative frameworks without a reference point.

I am talking from an outside point of view of a third non-biased-to-either-of-you party. Why would your value of pedophilia be more valid than the pedophile's?

You are trying to adopt an "objective" perspective when no such perspective exists. Determine the reference frame for evaluation, and then you can make comparisons. So if you use your own moral framework, one of us will be "closer" to your moral code than the other. If you use the so-called "Christian" moral framework (of which there are many), then you can determine which of us is closer. If you use the "most common human" moral framework (e.g., what most people believe) you can then determine which one is closer.

You are just trying to argue that whoever is judging your views will be closer to one of you than the other. So what? Maybe he will be closer to the pedophile's view and think the pedophile's view is more valid.

The point is, you keep arguing as if your values are more important than seer's or mine are. If you are correct in your view of relative morality, your idea of right and wrong means nothing to anyone but you. It is not any "better" than my view of morality, or seer's view, or the hypothetical pedophile.

Yet you continually seem to act as if your view is "right" and we are wrong. Your opinion is nothing but your opinion. It is not any more valid to the world than anyone else's. So why do you act like it is?

This is why we were using favorite colors and ice-cream as examples. Your moral values are not any more important to anyone than your favorite color. I don't see you arguing that we are wrong for liking different colors than you. We are not trivializing anything here because if you say the morals deal with lives and so are more important than colors, that is nothing but another relative value that you have. A serial killer might think that color is much more important than lives.

If morality is relative, then your values about life, behavior or color are meaningless to anyone. So stop trying to push your meaningless values on us. You should not be debating morality in the first place.

[carpedm9587]

is that your opinion?

No - it is the very definition of what it means to be "relative."

I am talking from an outside point of view of a third non-biased-to-either-of-you party.

This very concept is meaningless in a relative worldview.

Why would your value of pedophilia be more valid than the pedophile's?

Which makes this question impossible to answer. It is not impossible to answer because we cannot "figure out the answer," it is impossible to answer because the question itself is meaningless. It is the equivalent of asking, "what color is three?"

You are just trying to argue that whoever is judging your views will be closer to one of you than the other.

By definition, that is true.

So what? Maybe he will be closer to the pedophile's view and think the pedophile's view is more valid.

Entirely possible.

The point is, you keep arguing as if your values are more important than seer's or mine are.

They are - to me.

If you are correct in your view of relative morality, your idea of right and wrong means nothing to anyone but you.

That is possible, but unlikely. As has been noted before, most of us share significant moral overlap with our fellow humans.

It is not any "better" than my view of morality, or seer's view, or the hypothetical pedophile.

It is not "objectively/absolutely" better because that concept is meaningless. It is relatively/subjectively better.

Yet you continually seem to act as if your view is "right" and we are wrong.

I am right - and you are wrong - to me. If I can successfully convince you that my view is a better view for you as well, then you will immediately adopt it. If I cannot, then ignore, isolate/separate, or contend.

Your opinion is nothing but your opinion.

Correct.

It is not any more valid to the world than anyone else's.

There is no absolute basis for this type of comparison - if one view cannot be declared "superior" there is also no basis for declaring them "equally valid."

So why do you act like it is?

I have acted as if I believe my moral framework is superior - which I believe it is or I would not have it.

This is why we were using favorite colors and ice-cream as examples. Your moral values are not any more important to anyone than your favorite color. I don't see you arguing that we are wrong for liking different colors than you. We are not trivializing anything here because if you say the morals deal with lives and so are more important than colors, that is nothing but another relative value that you have. A serial killer might think that color is much more important than lives.

People do not moralize about colors.

If morality is relative, then your values about life, behavior or color are meaningless to anyone.

May be meaningless to others. Because we have so many moral bases in common, and we tend to value the same thing, we will tend to have reasonably aligned moral viewpoints. Those can be leveraged for a discussion.

So stop trying to push your meaningless values on us. You should not be debating morality in the first place.

You are free to ignore anything I may say, Sparko. No one is forcing you to read or respond. I am not likely to continue discussing morality simply because you want me to.

[carpedm9587]

I was speaking valid to anyone else. Why should your idea of why pedophilia is wrong be more valid to anyone else than the pedophile's value that he is doing nothing wrong. Looking at it from the outside, if morals are relative, then your values are no more important than the pedophile's.

See my other post. It responds to this.

[seer]

People do not moralize about colors.

It doesn't matter, opinion is opinion. It is you opinion that moral questions have more weight than other questions. But when we get down to specifics that is not necessarily true, like my example of Joe six pack valuing the color of his new truck over the moral question of gay rights...

[carpedm9587]

It doesn't matter, opinion is opinion. It is you opinion that moral questions have more weight than other questions.

It is also how human beings moralize consistently moralize.

But when we get down to specifics that is not necessarily true, like my example of Joe six pack valuing the color of his new truck over the moral question of gay rights...

...an extreme example that a) doesn't occur in nature and b) doesn't change how moralizing occurs. If Joe values the color of his truck over gay rights, and convincing doesn't work, then he will be ignored (if his position is innocuous), isolated/separated (if his position is intrusive) or contended against (if his position does harm).

Your choice of trivial "preferences" doesn't alter how moralizing works, or show that relative/subjective morality doesn't work or doesn't exist. It simply attempts to diminish the position by consistently choosing trivial preferences by way of comparison, instead of tackling moral disagreements of substance. As has been noted multiple times, it's Debate Technique #2.

[seer]

It is also how human beings moralize consistently moralize.

True and we generally see moral questions as more important. But when we get to specifics that is where the problem lies.

...an extreme example that a) doesn't occur in nature and b) doesn't change how moralizing occurs. If Joe values the color of his truck over gay rights, and convincing doesn't work, then he will be ignored (if his position is innocuous), isolated/separated (if his position is intrusive) or contended against (if his position does harm).

Of course it happens in nature, like the Nazi valuing something trivial over the life of a Jewish child. Or any time a man rapes - preferring his personal pleasure over any moral questions of right or wrong.

Your choice of trivial "preferences" doesn't alter how moralizing works, or show that relative/subjective morality doesn't work or doesn't exist. It simply attempts to diminish the position by consistently choosing trivial preferences by way of comparison, instead of tackling moral disagreements of substance. As has been noted multiple times, it's Debate Technique #2.

No, the point is what people value is that people value and people can and do value trivial things over moral considerations or question. And the man who values the color of his truck over gay rights is no more right or wrong than you who take the opposite view. Of course you believe that you are morally superior for having the position that you do, but that is just one more of your many delusions that can not be rationally justified.

[carpedm9587]

True and we generally see moral questions as more important. But when we get to specifics that is where the problem lies.

The devil is always in the details...

Of course it happens in nature, like the Nazi valuing something trivial over the life of a Jewish child. Or any time a man rapes - preferring his personal pleasure over any moral questions of right or wrong.

None of which is "the color of my truck" or "pizza."

No, the point is what people value is that people value and people can and do value trivial things over moral considerations or question. And the man who values the color of his truck over gay rights is no more right or wrong than you who take the opposite view. Of course you believe that you are morally superior for having the position that you do, but that is just one more of your many delusions that can not be rationally justified.

People do indeed value differently - no question about it - so they also moralize differently. No question about that either.

And relative positions are not "delusions" any more than the differing reference frames with respect to speed, which produce different speed measurements, are "delusions." They are merely measurements from the perspective of that framework. "Delusions" is just another attempt at "Debate Technique #2" with a hint at "Debate Technique #1" (e.g., the implication being that only "absolute/objective" things are real, and relative/subjective things are "delusions.")

[seer]

None of which is "the color of my truck" or "pizza."

But my truck example is very plausible.

People do indeed value differently - no question about it - so they also moralize differently. No question about that either.

And relative positions are not "delusions" any more than the differing reference frames with respect to speed, which produce different speed measurements, are "delusions." They are merely measurements from the perspective of that framework. "Delusions" is just another attempt at "Debate Technique #2" with a hint at "Debate Technique #1" (e.g., the implication being that only "absolute/objective" things are real, and relative/subjective things are "delusions.")

No your claim to superiority is what is delusional and without rational justification. That you believe that gay rights is more important than the importance that Joe six pack puts on the color of his new truck. It isn't.