Why is Pedophillia wrong?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » Why is Pedophillia wrong? » Why is Pedophillia wrong?

Why is Pedophillia wrong?
Disclaimer: I am NOT a pedophile.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Why is Pedophillia wrong?

Zhuangzi
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 08, 2006
Location: Inside the MotherShip
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 284

Posted 05/17/08 - 06:31 AM:	#176
HalcyonGlaze wrote: No. I am astounded & dazzled at the depth of your philosophical reasoning & in depth analysis of the complex argument & counter arguments concerning moral dilemmas & philosophical quandaries. Whatever next in your intellectual quest of insightful genius - "yes" perhaps, or "maybe"? Who knows what wisdom you will enlighten us all with next.
Precisely the least, the softest, lightest, a lizard's rustling, a breath, a flash, a moment - a little makes the way of the best happiness. -Friedrich Nietzsche "There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened." - Douglas Adams

georgeT
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 16, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 7

Posted 05/17/08 - 08:37 AM:	#177
"No" you say... well why not? if she consents why not? HalcyonGlaze you previously stated that as long as the kid "consents to what the adult is doing, automatically the Adult is in a state of Justice", so my actions with my granddaughter are completely justified according to you so why the sudden "No" I thought i'd have your support, she consents so what's the problem?

HalcyonGlaze
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 51

Posted 05/17/08 - 10:50 AM:	#178
"No" you say... well why not? if she consents why not? HalcyonGlaze you previously stated that as long as the kid "consents to what the adult is doing, automatically the Adult is in a state of Justice", so my actions with my granddaughter are completely justified according to you so why the sudden "No" I thought i'd have your support, she consents so what's the problem? Eh, I wasn't in a good mood so I didn't elaborate. I probably should have just not said anything. Anyway, the huge problem with your post is that the lack of a god does not all of a sudden cause morality to be your oppinion. Heck, the existence of a god also does not neccesitate the existance of absolute morals either. As to that example with a hypothetical granddaughter, if she consented then sure, it's fine.

klorius
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 12, 2004
Location: Singapore
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 95

Posted 05/17/08 - 11:02 AM:	#179
HalcyonGlaze wrote: Consent is simply a marker that what you're doing is Just. Consent is there to show you that what you're doing is Morally Good. If you have the consent, you could theoretically do anything. And this is Morally Good. But what is Morally Good is based on Rights. And Rights are based on Self-Ownership, which are based on Sentience in order to recognize it and our nature as Humans in that, we are factually Self-Owners. One little snag is that if you don't have Rights, because you don't have Self-Ownership, you can't consent to anything. But at that point nobody needs your consent to do anything with you. By affirming that the child is a Self-Owner, I show he is able to consent. If he is able to consent...that's the end of it. If he consents to what the adult is doing, automatically the Adult is in a state of Justice. What he does is Morally Good, for he has consent. In any Ethical Problem, consent is basically the first thing I look to. I think it should be the first thing everybody looks to. Did the person or did the person not concent? If he did, whatever the other person did is Just. (I'm of course assuming that the consent was Valid, as I've explained invalid consent in my previous post) Let me see if I'm understanding you correctly here. Your basic position, which you term Libertarian, basically sees the individual as having broad negative rights (free from restraints) except insofar as they infringe on the equivalent rights of other individuals. You claim that to infringe upon those rights is, essentially, Unjust/Morally Bad, and that any action that is not such is, by your understanding, automatically Just/Morally Good. Now, the problem is how you apply that overall concept to interaction (beyond mere communication); more specifically, it's not immediately clear how this could be applied to actions where one does something to (or even with) another. On the face of it, to do something to another individual would be to infringe upon his/her natural rights, being that it already limits his/her freedom of action. This, of course, brings us to the original problem under discussion, that of consent. In this case, then, consent is the criteria by which an exception is allowed for doing things to other individuals. Clearly, a large part of human interaction involves these types of actions, so the theory will have to be able to account for this very clearly. The disagreement, to reiterate, is over whether whether there is something that distinguishes the legitimacy of consent, and if so, what it is. The 'standard' position is, minimally, that consent should be informed: that consent is not legitimate (or perhaps not even consent at all) if it is not informed. Your position is that it doesn't matter whether it is informed, as long as the consent is there. *The obvious question here is what actually does* constitute consent by your understanding.** Is it merely a statement of agreement, or is that even necessary? Is it the mental state of agreement, or, again, is that necessary at all? Is the relevant state of consent that which pertains at the time of the action, or does it matter if there is a change in attitude after the action is performed (e.g. regret at consequences)? All these are fairly relevant, and you perhaps should spell that out (being that your theory really requires this concept to make much sense at all of a quite significant set of actions). In particular, though, one other consideration is especially problematic: does it matter if the individual acts to affect whether or not the other individual (to which he/she is doing something) actually consents to the action? (Possibilities here include persuasion, bribery, deception, amongst others.) To put it another way: does it matter if that other individual would (most likely) otherwise not have consented to the action? If so, does it also matter which of those actions are involved, and why? Of course, even assuming that is resolved, there will still be the issue of whether there is something to distinguish illegitimate and legitimate consent. Note that, by this overall picture, your idea of the Just is dependent on what you mean by consent: by this understanding, of those actions that involve doing things to other individuals, only those that involve (legitimate) consent are Just.
To be surprised, to wonder, is to begin to understand. - Jose Ortega y Gasset Knowing others is intelligence; knowing yourself is true wisdom. Mastering others is strength; mastering yourself is true power. - Lao Zi

HalcyonGlaze
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 51

Posted 05/17/08 - 11:37 AM:	#180
*The obvious question here is what actually does* constitute consent by your understanding.** Is it merely a statement of agreement, or is that even necessary? Is it the mental state of agreement, or, again, is that necessary at all? Is the relevant state of consent that which pertains at the time of the action, or does it matter if there is a change in attitude after the action is performed (e.g. regret at consequences)? All these are fairly relevant, and you perhaps should spell that out (being that your theory really requires this concept to make much sense at all of a quite significant set of actions). Consent is very complicated. The most obvious form of it is a statement "I consent", or some other agreement, but that's not needed for all things. For instance, if I walk out of my house on to public property, I am consenting to being viewed by others, since I can not very well stop the photons from bouncing off my person into the eyes of others, nor can I tell those people to avert their eyes because those or my photons or something. I can't do any of thise because they're not my photons, I'm not on my property, it's not my sun, it's not my air, etc, etc, and I can't dictate terms on things that aren't mine. Due to these things, my presense outside on property that is not mine neccesitates my consent. Once you consent that's pretty much it, unless there was prior agreement that you could withdraw it mid-action. If I consent to let you smoke in my vicinity, I can not say "Stop" after you're half-way done. In particular, though, one other consideration is especially problematic: does it matter if the individual acts to affect whether or not the other individual (to which he/she is doing something) actually consents to the action? (Possibilities here include persuasion, bribery, deception, amongst others.) To put it another way: does it matter if that other individual would (most likely) otherwise not have consented to the action? If so, does it also matter which of those actions are involved, and why? So long as the action is just, I can use any form of influence I want. I can offer you ice cream, money, food, a house, power, whatever, to influence your decision. At that point it becomes more like an exchange than any sort of favour, but exchanges aren't exactly uncommon or immoral. Of course, even assuming that is resolved, there will still be the issue of whether there is something to distinguish illegitimate and legitimate consent. As I explained, illegitimate consent would be consent given under unjust durress. If I had a gun to your head and told you if you don't say yes, I'll shoot you, that's might not be legitimate consent since it is not a just action to threaten a person with force.

Zhuangzi
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 08, 2006
Location: Inside the MotherShip
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 284

Posted 05/17/08 - 11:43 AM:	#181
So let me get this straight - if I abduct a woman or a girl - any age, it doesn't matter, 5 or 50; & keep them in my cellar for a few years, while torturing & abusing them. Not allowing them any contact with the outside World. After a few years & having utterly broken them down, then I could make them sign a declaration of my ownership of them, with them consenting that I can do anything with them. Consequences don't matter - & so the acts leading up to the signing of the agreement don't matter either. This would mean that I have a slave who I can do anything to & they have consented to this. Not only would I not be Wrong, but I would also be morally Right & Just. Sound reasoning if ever I saw it. I’m off to find a victim.
Precisely the least, the softest, lightest, a lizard's rustling, a breath, a flash, a moment - a little makes the way of the best happiness. -Friedrich Nietzsche "There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened." - Douglas Adams

Bronze
Sexiest Nihilist Alive

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Location: Watertown, NY
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 101

Posted 05/17/08 - 03:45 PM:	#182
Zhuangzi wrote: So let me get this straight - if I abduct a woman or a girl - any age, it doesn't matter, 5 or 50; & keep them in my cellar for a few years, while torturing & abusing them. Not allowing them any contact with the outside World. After a few years & having utterly broken them down, then I could make them sign a declaration of my ownership of them, with them consenting that I can do anything with them. Consequences don't matter - & so the acts leading up to the signing of the agreement don't matter either. This would mean that I have a slave who I can do anything to & they have consented to this. Not only would I not be Wrong, but I would also be morally Right & Just. Sound reasoning if ever I saw it. I’m off to find a victim. Consent...'victim'? If you actually find someone who sinserely wants to be locked in a basement for however many given years, they aren't really a victim are they? It's the direct consequence of thier own decision.
Why is the word 'dictionary' in the dictionary? If you need to know how to spell it, the word is right on the cover, if you need to know what the definition of 'dictionary' is, you wouldn't exactly know to look in a dictionary would you?

Bronze
Sexiest Nihilist Alive

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Location: Watertown, NY
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 101

Posted 05/17/08 - 04:14 PM:	#183
georgeT wrote: I think if you want to ask the question of what makes Pedophillia wrong there are two are basically only two angles to come at it from, 1 there is a god, in which case it is wrong because god says it is wrong. Because humans didn't create the idea of evil god did and as such he has the final word on what is good and evil. The issue of a child's innocence, there ability to consent to sex ect. are irrelevant if you believe in god and he says its wrong, its wrong end of story because that's what it means to believe in god, his way or the high way I'd like to ask which God you are reffering to, not all of them say that it is wrong to have sex with children. What If I happen to believe in a God who says it's ok to have sex with children? What do you say to me then? 2 there is no god, in which case there is no right and wrong only peoples opinions. Because if there is no higher power to define wright from wrong the who is left, us? and that's what your asking why do humans define pedophillia as wrong, and the answer is simple, because the majority of us say so. We can't prove it on our own, because no matter what proof or ideas we present the view is simply an opinion, and so can never be right or wrong. We can base our judgments on laws but laws change and are different everywhere, laws are a matter of opinion just like everything else it ALL opinions. So from a non religious perspective there is no one defining reason why child sex abuse is wrong, its up to you God deciding what is right and wrong is merely HIS opinion. There is no objective, fundamental morallity, not even God. However for those people who thinks its OK especially if the child is "13-14", id ask you to watch a 70 year old man have sex with a 13 year old girl and then tell us that "pedophiles aren't always evil". I'm not a bafoon who judges based merely on appearence. This is so reminescent of 'watch two men have sex and tell me homosexuallity isn't evil'. Or even better turn that girl into your daughter and the 70 year old man into lets say your friend or even better an uncle because hey why is it wrong to have sex with your niece as long as she's OK with it right? If my 14 year old daughter is having sex I don't think it's importaint who she is having sex with. It's besides the point. It wouldn't make a difference to me if it was a peer of hers or her uncle. Let's say your question is 'imagine your 14 year old daughter is having sex'. I would discourage it (assuming it's legal in this hypothetical question) because she is exposing herself to possible STD's and pregnancy. But at the same time, I would understand what's it's like to be a teenager and if I trusted her judgement and understanding of sex it might not bother so much. or why not your own daughter or your granddaughter Because we aren't talking about incest, stop changing the subject. Having sex with a relative who is an adult is OK though? Exactly, it's besides the point. and how do we define "yes" what if they simply don't say no, that still counts right? This is a question relative to consent of all people in general, not just consent of a child, therefor it's besides the point.
Why is the word 'dictionary' in the dictionary? If you need to know how to spell it, the word is right on the cover, if you need to know what the definition of 'dictionary' is, you wouldn't exactly know to look in a dictionary would you?

spencer135
Alienized

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 13, 2008
Location: New Hampshire
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 15

Posted 05/17/08 - 04:16 PM:	#184
georgeT wrote: However for those people who thinks its OK especially if the child is "13-14", id ask you to watch a 70 year old man have sex with a 13 year old girl and then tell us that "pedophiles aren't always evil". Or even better turn that girl into your daughter and the 70 year old man into lets say your friend or even better an uncle because hey why is it wrong to have sex with your niece as long as she's OK with it right? or why not your own daughter or your granddaughter, hell why not an orgie with both of them. And what's so specially about 13, thats just someone else's opinion, Because I think if 13's ok then why not 12 or 11 or 10 as long as they say yes, right?. and how do we define "yes" what if they simply don't say no, that still counts right? well don't you think so? Because if there's no right and wrong than its what you think. In which case I think its perfectly OK for me, a 48 year old man to have sex with my 5 year old granddaughter, she's a smart little cookie and she knows what she wants, and in my opinion it's fine, just like you spencer135 think its OK with a 13 year old. after all who's to say were wrong because after all evil is nothing but a man made entity. Correct? Exactly my point, although I think you're confused on a few subjects. If my daughter truly loves a 70 year old man, than who am I to stop her? The only reason not to is because she is simply too immature to understand, that is why I say 13. Most people underestimate 13 year olds ability to think, it can be quite great, and overly sufficient to know not to have sex with a 70 year old man. When I say that you need consent from the child, I mean it in a very legal sense, there would be documents and signed contracts from both the parents and the child. The entire town would most likely know of this happening. As you could see this would be a very rare case, the subjects would have to be in love. HalcyonGlaze wrote: I'm afraid I don't. When somebody feels an act is unjust, and he claims it "evil" well, it COULD be evil. What's to say that it's not and he's just making things up? Maybe he's right. What makes him not right? What makes Evil man-made? Would there be evil without humans? I say no, because evil is dependent on intelligence. A organism without intelligence cannot commit an evil act against another ignorant organism, because the act itself would never happen. Therefore there is no evil without humans, making evil man-made.
"A hero is born among a hundred, a wise man is found among a thousand, but an accomplished one might not be found even among a hundred thousand men." Plato

Zhuangzi
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 08, 2006
Location: Inside the MotherShip
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 284

Posted 05/17/08 - 04:46 PM:	#185
Bronze wrote: Consent...'victim'? If you actually find someone who sinserely wants to be locked in a basement for however many given years, they aren't really a victim are they? It's the direct consequence of thier own decision. It doesn't matter if they are a victim or not, it makes no difference; the events leading up to my obtaining their consent are inconsequential. Why would me regarding them as being a victim make any difference anyway; it's all good. Explain why you even need consent? what is your hang up with consent?
Precisely the least, the softest, lightest, a lizard's rustling, a breath, a flash, a moment - a little makes the way of the best happiness. -Friedrich Nietzsche "There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened." - Douglas Adams

klorius
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 12, 2004
Location: Singapore
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 95

Posted 05/17/08 - 05:01 PM:	#186
HalcyonGlaze wrote: Consent is very complicated. The most obvious form of it is a statement "I consent", or some other agreement, but that's not needed for all things. For instance, if I walk out of my house on to public property, I am consenting to being viewed by others, since I can not very well stop the photons from bouncing off my person into the eyes of others, nor can I tell those people to avert their eyes because those or my photons or something. I can't do any of thise because they're not my photons, I'm not on my property, it's not my sun, it's not my air, etc, etc, and I can't dictate terms on things that aren't mine. Due to these things, my presense outside on property that is not mine neccesitates my consent. Once you consent that's pretty much it, unless there was prior agreement that you could withdraw it mid-action. If I consent to let you smoke in my vicinity, I can not say "Stop" after you're half-way done. That's far too vague, though, which is why I was asking for a clearer and more definite idea of what consent is. By your example, it doesn't seem like either the statement of (expressing that "I agree") or mental state pertaining to (thinking that "I agree") is necessary. Would those be sufficient? All you've done is give me one example which is, by your understanding, consensual. This doesn't really help me in understanding what would constitute consent in other situations. Would an expression of consent arising from coercion, for example, be considered consent at all? HalcyonGlaze wrote: So long as the action is just, I can use any form of influence I want. I can offer you ice cream, money, food, a house, power, whatever, to influence your decision. At that point it becomes more like an exchange than any sort of favour, but exchanges aren't exactly uncommon or immoral. As I explained, illegitimate consent would be consent given under unjust durress. If I had a gun to your head and told you if you don't say yes, I'll shoot you, that's might not be legitimate consent since it is not a just action to threaten a person with force. Which is why I was saying that your definitions were getting circular. So far as I can understand your overall moral theory, doing something to other people is Unjust, unless you have their consent. This, of course, leads us to ask what would constitute consent, or legitimate consent. In defining legitimate consent, though, you now say that it is Unjust duress that makes consent illegitimate. In short, you're now telling me that consent defines the Just, and the Just defines the consent. Aside from the obvious problem of justifying anything circularly, this is especially problematic because you do want to say that certain ways of getting people's consent are not legitimate, i.e. where coercion is involved. Your reason for saying so is that that would be Unjust; however, given the way you define terms, it's not clear just why it would be Unjust, other than repeating that there is no (legitimate) consent involved.
To be surprised, to wonder, is to begin to understand. - Jose Ortega y Gasset Knowing others is intelligence; knowing yourself is true wisdom. Mastering others is strength; mastering yourself is true power. - Lao Zi

georgeT
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 16, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 7

Posted 05/17/08 - 08:26 PM:	#187
HalcyonGlaze said -the huge problem with your post is that the lack of a god does not all of a sudden cause morality to be your opinion.- Of course it does, this whole topic is a discussion of what each of us believes to be moral on the topic of pedophillia. Were discussing our opinions, each of us has a different idea on the morality of pedophillia. The law states the age in most places to be 16 or 18 but you opinion is that there is no age limit, that consent is all that's needed so your idea of morality is different, but that's all it is, your idea, just like 16 and 18 was someone else's idea. So how do we decide who's right? you or the law or someone else? and that's my point, we can't. We can vote and see who gets the majority but that doesn't make the opinion right it just makes it the most favourable. Bronze said -I'd like to ask which God you are reffering to, not all of them say that it is wrong to have sex with children. What If I happen to believe in a God who says it's ok to have sex with children? What do you say to me then?- I was probable reffering to the christian god by habit, but my point isn't which god, it's that you believe in god and that god is actually real in which case they define morality. However that's the tricky part because you'd have to know which god is the real deal, but if you want to know, personally I wouldn't believe in a god that said it was ok to have sex with children. bronze said -I'm not a bafoon who judges based merely on appearence. This is so reminescent of 'watch two men have sex and tell me homosexuallity isn't evil'.- I think it's completly fare enough to ask you to watch a pedophile in action. It's all very well to sit in a forum and say your ok with pedophillia but if you want to make that claim then you've got to be prepared to see the consequences of you opinion in real life. I'd ask you to go speak to a victim of pedophillia. I'd ask you HalcyonGalze to speak to a person who's priest was a pedophile and tell them that if there unhappy with what happened when they were 8 well tough it was all there fault for consenting and that the priest was 100% justified. Or tell the woman whose father was a pedophile that there was nothing wrong with her fathers actions because she didn't say no. Bronze said -we aren't talking about incest, stop changing the subject- I'm not changing the subject the overwhelming majority of pedophile victims are relatives, you can't just pick the ideal situation of a kind older man who feel in love with a highly mature 13 year old, you have to deal with all relevant aspects. Once you justify pedophillia next it will be incest because that's what most pedophiles practice, especially if the only defining feature between wrong and right is consent. Bronze said - If my 14 year old daughter is having sex I don't think it's importaint who she is having sex with. It's besides the point. It wouldn't make a difference to me if it was a peer of hers or her uncle. - Well than it's clear you don't have a daughter and my question was not " 'imagine your 14 year old daughter is having sex'" because were talking about a 14 year old having sex with a 70 year old, thats pedophillia, thats the topic. And no offense but I have no idea what could possibly make you think you wouldn't mind so much if your brother was sleeping with your daughter, or son for that matter. Could you imagine what your son would think of you when he was 28 if when he was 13 you walked in on your brother having sex with him and you did nothing about it? he'd probably end up hating you more than his pedophile uncle. HalcyonGlaze wrote - So long as the action is just, I can use any form of influence I want. I can offer you ice cream, money, food, a house, power, whatever, to influence your decision. At that point it becomes more like an exchange than any sort of favour, but exchanges aren't exactly uncommon or immoral. As I explained, illegitimate consent would be consent given under unjust durress. If I had a gun to your head and told you if you don't say yes, I'll shoot you, that's might not be legitimate consent since it is not a just action to threaten a person with force. - So basically you think its OK for an old man to lure a little girl into a car with sweeties take her home and then bribe her to play a nice fun game of 'doctors and nurses' because if she's a good little girl he'll give her a dolly, as long as he doesn't use physically force? I'm curious though HalcyonGlaze why are you so determined to put all your efforts in to justfying pedophiles and blaming little kids for consenting? why have the pedophiles got your support and not the children? Because all you seem to want to do is make life easier for pedophiles and harder for children. Don't you think a young girl would need your help more than an old man.

georgeT
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 16, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 7

Posted 05/17/08 - 09:41 PM:	#188
Zland I think you would be in a different catagory to what we are discussing. I also want to make it VERY clear that I mean no offense in anything that I say because I honestly don't think your sick or anything like that for wanting older men. Even if these actions are bad decisions It wouldn't make you sick. What I would say is that I wouldn't agree with this 52 year old having sex with you, I don't agree with HIS actions. I'm not trying to be rude but I think he would be way too old for you and that you should enjoy being young with young people. I don't mean enjoy sex with young people but simply their company. I also wonder have you ever asked yourself why you go for older men? maybe maturity, but then there are many mature young men and many immature old men. So why the desire for older men? What are you looking for? Or have you ever asked why an old man would want a young girl, not that there's anything wrong with you but when your 52 would you go after an 18 year old boy, and if you would, do you think it would be for the right reasons?

Zhuangzi
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 08, 2006
Location: Inside the MotherShip
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 284

Posted 05/18/08 - 04:58 AM:	#189
Zland - I presume that you are a woman? In the UK sex is legal at 16. I am friends with a 17 year old girl. I am 35. We are just friends. She was having sex at 13 & at 15 was sleeping with allot of older men. She was going out with a 38 year old at age 16 & then moved on to a 35 year old. She sees nothing wrong in this. In the UK underage sex appears common & young women especially seem to often go for older men. When I was at school, a number of my female peers at even as young as 12 were seeing people in their early 20's. I do see this as a separate issue to a much older man seducing & coercing a pre pubescent child into sex. Although if the person is under 16 it is an illegal act & a highly questionable act at that. Some younger than 16 do seem sexually active & aware of what they are doing. Many 12 + people appear to be having sex. Although many as well are not. Given the opportunity I would have had sex before 16 – I lost my virginity to a woman in her mid 30’s when I was 16, in a night club. It is just as common for younger men to want sex with older women. Personally I think that 16 is an appropriate age, within the society’s we live to be able to consent to sex. Maybe there are very rare exceptions to child – adult sex, with pubescent children; it is highly questionable & debatable however. In almost all cases I believe it to be very wrong. As has been discussed the issues appear to revolve around informed consent. Most pre 16 year olds are not capable of weighing or comprehending the full gravity of sexual relations. There are a couple of people posting in this thread who despite talking about consent & using it as a gauge for acceptable behavior; I do not think that consent actually matters to them at all. They are so wishy washy & unsure of what consent actually entails that it would seem that it is more their motivation in that whether they can manipulate someone into sex & not have personal consequences with the law or being found out; they are happy to see sexual indulgence with a child of any age as appropriate.
Precisely the least, the softest, lightest, a lizard's rustling, a breath, a flash, a moment - a little makes the way of the best happiness. -Friedrich Nietzsche "There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened." - Douglas Adams

spencer135
Alienized

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 13, 2008
Location: New Hampshire
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 15

Posted 05/18/08 - 11:45 AM:	#190
zland- This is a very interesting story, but you are asking me to do a psychological analysis, which I simply cannot do, however I can tell you this. You are a perfect example of my view of pedophilia. You honestly were attracted to older men,which is not a bad thing, you probably where just mature for your age, and wanted someone who you could relate to. You have to think of this in an alienized point of view. You think it's disgusting to other people because of the culture you grew up in. When you release that culture you reveal the true meaning. Now you see why the age limit should be lowered (with the legal documents), I'm not a pedophile, however I do believe in freedom, and although cases like zland are rare, doesn't mean they should be banned. It's not disgusting or sick, it's just covered that way by society. I don't know your gender, and it doesn't matter to the analysis, however it would be interesting to know...no pressure, just a suggestion.
"A hero is born among a hundred, a wise man is found among a thousand, but an accomplished one might not be found even among a hundred thousand men." Plato

HalcyonGlaze
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 51

Posted 05/18/08 - 03:19 PM:	#191
Would there be evil without humans? I say no, because evil is dependent on intelligence. A organism without intelligence cannot commit an evil act against another ignorant organism, because the act itself would never happen. Therefore there is no evil without humans, making evil man-made. I would say that's an incorrect conclusion. The fact that there is no evil without humans does not totally point to evil being man-made. Ethics is conserned with human interaction, so obviously if there are no humans to interact, there'd be no evil. But evil still exists outside of our own thoughts, it just needs humans. That's far too vague, though, which is why I was asking for a clearer and more definite idea of what consent is. By your example, it doesn't seem like either the statement of (expressing that "I agree") or mental state pertaining to (thinking that "I agree") is necessary. Would those be sufficient? Sufficient in themselves? Well, a statement is, but not just thinking that you agree. Thinking is thinking, it's not a physical action. I can't see your thoughts and see that you think you consent. All you've done is give me one example which is, by your understanding, consensual. This doesn't really help me in understanding what would constitute consent in other situations. Would an expression of consent arising from coercion, for example, be considered consent at all? If it's Unjust coercion, no. Which is why I was saying that your definitions were getting circular. So far as I can understand your overall moral theory, doing something to other people is Unjust, unless you have their consent. This, of course, leads us to ask what would constitute consent, or legitimate consent. In defining legitimate consent, though, you now say that it is Unjust duress that makes consent illegitimate. In short, you're now telling me that consent defines the Just, and the Just defines the consent. Aside from the obvious problem of justifying anything circularly, this is especially problematic because you do want to say that certain ways of getting people's consent are not legitimate, i.e. where coercion is involved. Your reason for saying so is that that would be Unjust; however, given the way you define terms, it's not clear just why it would be Unjust, other than repeating that there is no (legitimate) consent involved. Sure there is. You never consented to having a gun to your head with the threat of death, for instance. By the first utterance of "don't shoot me" and the continued threat of shooting, it becomes an unjust act. Not all coercion is unjust, as for instance in the above example it could all be some sort of elaborate agreement, where one party wants to be threatened with a gun, etc etc. Then it's just. As to consent, admittedly I'm in new territory. Nobody's ever asked me about consent before, so I find this all very interesting since I've never really looked at it myself. This is why I'm giving vague answers, because it seems I myself don't know it precisely. But answering you in the best of my ability, and hearing your questions will help me grasp it with greater clarity. Or realise I'm wrong about something and need to do some rethinking. Either way it's a great thing. Of course it does, this whole topic is a discussion of what each of us believes to be moral on the topic of pedophillia. Were discussing our opinions, each of us has a different idea on the morality of pedophillia. The law states the age in most places to be 16 or 18 but you opinion is that there is no age limit, that consent is all that's needed so your idea of morality is different, but that's all it is, your idea, just like 16 and 18 was someone else's idea. So how do we decide who's right? you or the law or someone else? and that's my point, we can't. We can vote and see who gets the majority but that doesn't make the opinion right it just makes it the most favourable. Wrong. Some of us are Right ,and some of us are Wrong, our moral oppinions are not all equaly valid just because they are our oppinions. There is no need to choose, only to find what is Objectively Right. I think it's completly fare enough to ask you to watch a pedophile in action. It's all very well to sit in a forum and say your ok with pedophillia but if you want to make that claim then you've got to be prepared to see the consequences of you opinion in real life. I'd ask you to go speak to a victim of pedophillia. I'd ask you HalcyonGalze to speak to a person who's priest was a pedophile and tell them that if there unhappy with what happened when they were 8 well tough it was all there fault for consenting and that the priest was 100% justified. Or tell the woman whose father was a pedophile that there was nothing wrong with her fathers actions because she didn't say no. Seems illogical. I see no reason to have to "see the consequences of my opinion in real life". If my oppinion is correct, then whatever concequences happen are okay. Further, all your examples seem to be tinged with Rape, of which, nobody is talking about. I'm not changing the subject the overwhelming majority of pedophile victims are relatives... That would be because the overwhelming majority of child molesters aren't paedophiles. Well than it's clear you don't have a daughter and my question was not " 'imagine your 14 year old daughter is having sex'" because were talking about a 14 year old having sex with a 70 year old, thats pedophillia, thats the topic. Uh, not it's not. Because paedophilia does not require you to have sex at all, and because 14 is not pre-pubescent. So basically you think its OK for an old man to lure a little girl into a car with sweeties take her home and then bribe her to play a nice fun game of 'doctors and nurses' because if she's a good little girl he'll give her a dolly, as long as he doesn't use physically force? Funny that this never really happens. But if it did, maybe. Details are important. I would say most likely yes, since your example didn't have any "I'll cut your arm off" or anything like that. Also, funny how this is pretty similar to what adults do to each other all the time. I'm curious though HalcyonGlaze why are you so determined to put all your efforts in to justfying pedophiles and blaming little kids for consenting? why have the pedophiles got your support and not the children? Because all you seem to want to do is make life easier for pedophiles and harder for children. Don't you think a young girl would need your help more than an old man. I don't put any effort into justifying paedophiles. It's inherently a Just thing, so why do I need to do anything to make it Just? Further, get your bais out of your ass. Nobody is talking about child molestation. Child molester does not = paedophile.

Zhuangzi
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 08, 2006
Location: Inside the MotherShip
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 284

Posted 05/18/08 - 04:06 PM:	#192
HalcyonGlaze wrote: There is no need to choose, only to find what is Objectively Right. I reached a pretty solid conclusion that the "truth" [as can be gauged subjectively] & what is "right" is very largely subjective - with decades of thought on the subject. How is something "Objectively Right"? Further, all your examples seem to be tinged with Rape, of which, nobody is talking about. LOL. It seems that the only person Not talking about rape is you! That would be because the overwhelming majority of child molesters aren't paedophiles. Pedophilia = Child molester = Rapist.
Precisely the least, the softest, lightest, a lizard's rustling, a breath, a flash, a moment - a little makes the way of the best happiness. -Friedrich Nietzsche "There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened." - Douglas Adams

Bronze
Sexiest Nihilist Alive

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Location: Watertown, NY
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 101

Posted 05/19/08 - 02:52 AM:	#193
Zhuangzi wrote: Bronze wrote: Consent...'victim'? If you actually find someone who sinserely wants to be locked in a basement for however many given years, they aren't really a victim are they? It's the direct consequence of thier own decision. It doesn't matter if they are a victim or not, it makes no difference; the events leading up to my obtaining their consent are inconsequential. Why would me regarding them as being a victim make any difference anyway; it's all good. Explain why you even need consent? what is your hang up with consent? MY hang up with concent? You don't believe in consent? Rape is ok with you? Slavery? Why do we need consent? We don't need it. We, as a society, have chosen to have it.
Why is the word 'dictionary' in the dictionary? If you need to know how to spell it, the word is right on the cover, if you need to know what the definition of 'dictionary' is, you wouldn't exactly know to look in a dictionary would you?

Zhuangzi
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 08, 2006
Location: Inside the MotherShip
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 284

Posted 05/19/08 - 03:28 AM:	#194
Bronze wrote: Why do we need consent? We don't need it. We, as a society, have chosen to have it. I was using your reasoning - I see consent is not an issue with you - except in society's reactions to your behivour.
Precisely the least, the softest, lightest, a lizard's rustling, a breath, a flash, a moment - a little makes the way of the best happiness. -Friedrich Nietzsche "There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened." - Douglas Adams

unenlightened
mask of 'Unkind'

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 1264

Posted 05/19/08 - 08:54 AM:	#195
This question is a varient of what used to be called 'the devil's question', 'quidne?' or 'why not?' It is unanswerable in the sense that there is no 'obligation' to accept the reasons given, whatsoever they may be. One can simply repeat the question with the reason given as a new argument. Why is x wrong? Because God says so. Why is it wrong to disobey God? Because he will punish you. Why is it wrong to do things that God will punish you for? Etc. A separate difficulty, which is related to this, is the sorites. Suppose that we could all agree that sex between two (consenting) adults is fine, but sex betweenan adult and a newborn baby is wrong. Somewhere, there will have to be a line drawn, which is bound to be arbitary, where one day, a baby incapable of consent becomes an adult. There is no such clear division, and yet if one wants to say that something is wrong, then a division must be made. For these two reasons, this discussion will never terminate except by the parties agreeing to agree about things, or else by them consigning each other to the devil.
The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

Zhuangzi
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 08, 2006
Location: Inside the MotherShip
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 284

Posted 05/19/08 - 09:18 AM:	#196
unenlightened wrote: A separate difficulty, which is related to this, is the sorites. Suppose that we could all agree that sex between two (consenting) adults is fine, but sex betweenan adult and a newborn baby is wrong. Somewhere, there will have to be a line drawn, which is bound to be arbitary, where one day, a baby incapable of consent becomes an adult. There is no such clear division, and yet if one wants to say that something is wrong, then a division must be made. For these two reasons, this discussion will never terminate except by the parties agreeing to agree about things, or else by them consigning each other to the devil. I doubt that a couple of posters here would even consider sex with babies as wrong; as long as they could interpret some of its body languages & gurgles as consent - which they probably would do. Not that I think consent really matters to them anyway, in any normal meaning of the word. I'd be happy to consign them to the devil. Edited by Zhuangzi on 05/19/08 - 09:46 AM
Precisely the least, the softest, lightest, a lizard's rustling, a breath, a flash, a moment - a little makes the way of the best happiness. -Friedrich Nietzsche "There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened." - Douglas Adams

Zhuangzi
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 08, 2006
Location: Inside the MotherShip
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 284

Posted 05/19/08 - 10:13 AM:	#197
Zland wrote: Were i am at ( the US) its the same for most states...i think one or two are lower than that. I think 14 in Hawaii.Your friend seems to be plagued with some sort of issue, possible unstable home, depression, a desire to wanted etc. But she could be like me, just into older men. Some of my peers in school did the same thing but most didn't go around fucking older people ( men or women)it was usually a few that where sluts and just did it for fun..I'm not entirely sure. As i was wondering, how did you manage make friends with a 17 year old? it was difficult for me make friends with an older man in person until i became 18. Yes you are correct in your assessment of my friend - she is all of those things. She is very emotional, attention seeking, immature & mentally unstable with drug & alcohol problems. For a long time she went through a phase of going out getting hammered on drink/drugs & sleeping one night stands with black men. For a long time she wouldn’t sleep with whites. I think this was all part of the attention seeking & rebelliousness again. Not that there is anything wrong with black men. She has been raped on a number of occasions as well, after getting into dodgy situations. But she is also a very interesting, friendly & amusing person & I like her allot. I must also admit to having some attraction to her, which she plays on. I have been genuine & supportive of her, & helped her allot, but she doesn't listen. I met her through my brother who was sleeping with her at one time & is also very taken with her. In truth I should have nothing to do with her & she will most likely end up causing allot of trouble; because that is what she does. My sister friend's case sounds like your friend case. She was 15 a the time..she has 19 year old bf.The guy is not even in school. she is depressed, Gothic in demeanor ( not that there is anything wrong with Gothic lifestyle) and she cuts her self. I talked to my sister about her and found out that she was abused sexually by an older man could be her father or uncle..not sure which..he continued to do so even though she has bf. She drinks and smokes, and talks about wanting a child. I feel very sorry for her. Perhaps similar things happened to your friend. But as for the greater UK area i don't think that could be the sole reason as to why these girls are doing this? I find in life its usually a catalyst to every thing and its problems are usually multi-variable. Yes, she also goes on about having babies. why do you see it as the same issue? do you think there similarities? I said I don't see them as the same. It feels relieved that i am not alone and it looks like we are two peas in a pod...I think the reason you lost your virginity to the older lady could be added to reasons why a teen of any age 13-18 and even 12 ) would do it. but my question is why would she do that to you? i suspect she thought your innocences was cute... Maybe. But I was not coerced into something I didn’t know. I initiated the act. I got from it as much as them. I had a number of girlfriends previously; with whom I had fondled with, & I had been looking at porn & masterbating since around the age of 11/12. I agree with you there, Zhuangzi but i must play devil advocate here( please don't take it beyond that)... you statements about pre-16 year olds not capable of weighting or comprehending the full gravity of a sexual relationship is valid but this argument is just as the notion there being no gold in china...to truly know that, you must turn over every stone and look everywhere for it. If you find a grain size marble of gold it means that yours statements are invalid...its much more logical to say its not likely that there is no gold in china compared to the later...but anyway... you have a point, It could be argued that not even people in their 20's know the FULL gravity of sexual relationship. Did you realize what you were getting into when you met that lady, Zhuangzi? for me i would say that i had some idea...i had others to look to( people whom were in sexual relationships), my not so liberal parents, friends, my education and research into the matter. I don't think full understanding is required because to gain such knowledge would have to already been in that kind of relationship... But after a certain age we are more equipped to deal with the implications of sexual relations. We have freedom of choice. Should 11 year olds have the same freedom? Maybe in some cases. But it is like saying is murder justified in some cases?, in certain cases of course it is. It doesn't make all murder good, Just & something to be encouraged. Sorry not to reply in more depth, but time is at a premium. Edited by Zhuangzi on 05/19/08 - 10:22 AM
Precisely the least, the softest, lightest, a lizard's rustling, a breath, a flash, a moment - a little makes the way of the best happiness. -Friedrich Nietzsche "There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened." - Douglas Adams

spencer135
Alienized

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 13, 2008
Location: New Hampshire
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 15

Posted 05/19/08 - 11:17 AM:	#198
HalcyonGlaze wrote: I would say that's an incorrect conclusion. The fact that there is no evil without humans does not totally point to evil being man-made. Ethics is conserned with human interaction, so obviously if there are no humans to interact, there'd be no evil. But evil still exists outside of our own thoughts, it just needs humans. Like I said, evil is dependent on intelligent - it needs humans. How can it live outside humans if evil is just an emotion? Please explain.
"A hero is born among a hundred, a wise man is found among a thousand, but an accomplished one might not be found even among a hundred thousand men." Plato

spencer135
Alienized

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 13, 2008
Location: New Hampshire
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 15

Posted 05/19/08 - 11:49 AM:	#199
zland wrote: I'm curious to know more about your view of pedophilia. You can read my previous posts for more about it. zland wrote: yes i understand your point. I love history and culture, so i have done my research on the various peoples, their history and culture..so i know of the samba tribe, ancient japan, Greece and ottomans empire ( just to name a few)social behaviors. Such acts described in this forum have been done in those civilizations. I apologize, I should have clarified. I meant the culture you grew up with, the social culture today doesn't ask questions, it just assumes from previous experiences. Your interests are not disgusting, for all we know it's more natural to like older people, you and everyone else's culture just influenced them to think it's wrong. zland wrote: I understand what you are saying but, i unfortunately i don't agree. I might have lost my virginity earlier if society viewed( less important) it different and if the law was different( more important). No its not because the law has to protect as many people as it can that also means minimizing loop hole. If they were to drop the age of consent,you would see increase in sexual abuse of children ( usually the ones that were coerced or didn't want it) and the society wouldn't stand for such injustices..i would presume due to the law it would mean less case of it on the books but most likely more and increases of cases under the radar. This is very interesting that you believe this, I view it much different. I feel that the amount of child sexuality/rape would decrease, because the kids like you who would enjoy it, would be able to, while the kids who don't want it are left alone. Similar to how people think legalizing marijuana would decrease the usage. Remember, I'm not talking about lowering the age limit much, in Hawaii it's already 14, I would say that's a good age, and of course anyone under 18 would need legal documents. zland wrote: Now lets say the law made an exception like having a legal document signed. an abuser could force the youth to sign the papers through force or persuasion. and it would almost no way to prove that he really had no coercion in signing. It would leave a loop hole for criminals to get through...which would make the law null and void. such ideas of exception would cause cracks in the law making it nearly useless That's an easy fix, the document would be signed by the child and the parents, some parents wouldn't sign, I would if I knew my child truly wanted it. I'm sure most of the cases wouldn't have a large age difference anyway, considering not many people are like you. zland wrote: I'm a woman...some may still call me a girl( i know some older person whom still see me as a child) Just checking, I don't like to make assumptions.
"A hero is born among a hundred, a wise man is found among a thousand, but an accomplished one might not be found even among a hundred thousand men." Plato

HalcyonGlaze
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 51

Posted 05/20/08 - 12:46 PM:	#200
Like I said, evil is dependent on intelligent - it needs humans. How can it live outside humans if evil is just an emotion? Please explain. That doesn't make any sense. I don't remember you saying evil was an emotion. I also don't recall you saying that evil is dependent on intelligence. Whatever. The point is, despite Evil needing humans, that does not mean Evil is automatically subjective, since Evil as far as I'm talking about it is just how humans should not act towards each other. Obviously if there are no humans to interact, Evil won't exist because no humans exist to act Evily. Yet again, this says nothing on exactly what Evil is, other than it's something Humans can do.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.