| | Vera:
John:
still no proof, no facts, no studies, no statistics ...
It's such a prevalent issue in today's society that's been talked about a lot I thought it was pretty much considered common knowledge it is incredibly harmful to children. Here's a wikipedia entry with 183 citations you can look up yourself for the facts it presents on the psychological harm child sexual abuse inflicts on a child.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse
Now sine you are the one with the fringe idea that some form of pedophiliac behavior is moral, prove *your* case. As one of my heroes Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And you are making an extraordinary claim, the burden of proof is on you.
and what's a 'just law'? one you deem 'justified' by your moral standards? i might disagree - so is it just?
A "just" law is one that serves to protect the rights of the individual, how that is determined is by the facts of reality, not your own subjective whim. Just because you disagree doesn't mean you are right.
But to clarify what I meant in the last post, not everything that is immoral should be illegal. What should be illegal is the violation of someone's rights, that is if someone initiates the use of force against another. And child molestation meets that criteria, since a child does not have the maturity to consent to sex, having sex with a child is using force against that child, because the child does not have the maturity to understand what consent is, it therefore should be and thankfully it is illegal.
Bill wrote:
Do you think that what happened to you as a child at the hands of your father, grandfather and brothers was immoral and should have been illegal? And if so, by what standard -- by what moral principle? .
Bill asks the appropriate question. And I believe it is clear that Vera has no moral principles on the issues of sex, or at least nothing coherent. What she deems immoral or moral is entirely dependent upon her own subjective whims. It happened to her, and it was immoral, and that to her is enough of a justification, because she said so, not because it actually reflects any kind of objective criteria for what is or isn't immoral. She said force was used, yet how could there possibly be a situation where a child could consent to something they lack the maturity to understand? Here her appeal to force is inconsistent and incoherent because she doesn't have a coherent idea of what a child can or cannot consent to. She thinks it is possible for a child to consent to sex, yet simultaneously she makes the appeal a child needs to be taught the consequences of sexual actions, a complete contradiction. If a child has the maturity to consent to sex, there would be no need to teach that child anything about sex. Just because a child might say "yes", doesn't mean the child "understands" what that means. You can manipulate a child into doing ANYTHING you want them to do. There have been notorious examples of this with sexual predators that lure a child into having sex with them. The police also have been known to bully a child into giving a false confession, or to give false testimony. When Vera was asked for a moral situation of pedophiliac behavior, she refuses to give one, she continues to assert some undefined, unnamed context where child molestation can somehow be moral. All we get for an example is some disjointed post alluding to some kind of lewd sexual conduct like public masturbation or sexual touching with a child as moral, which is extremely disturbing to hear.
|
|
