I am a mass murderer, and since I exist as a mass murderer, a person willing to die must exist somewhere on this large planet.

Flawed logic anyone?

There are many many suicidal people out there who are too pussy to do it themselves. Try again. You know better than this, you're on the internet.

Basically, if you had a daughter that grew up to be a real anthroposiphile, would you want her to start a relationship with a real pedophile? And if not, yet she desires that relationship herself, shouldn't you ask your own self, over a long amount of time(less than a month, yet not more than 2 weeks.), why she shouldn't get what she desires? I say this because maybe there is a reason I can't come up but parents can.

At least that's what I think, here's where you may try to prove my point of view as wrong:


I would not want my hypothetical underage daughter to date a pedophile because of the following reasons:

1. Her brain is not fully developed.
2. With her undeveloped social skills and brain, she is bound to make incorrect decisions.
3. Dating/sex with someone would be a drastic decision particularly between the ages of 4-12.
4. As a parent you have to look out for the best interests of your offspring (parens patriae) because they lack the capacity to do so themselves. (Legally called a capacity test, same for the insane and retarded).

Answer your question?

There are many many suicidal people out there who are too pussy to do it themselves. Try again. You know better than this, you're on the internet.

Merely having desires doesn't make it ethical for you to act on them.
Welcome to the internets.

I would not want my hypothetical underage daughter to date a pedophile because of the following reasons:

1. Her brain is not fully developed.
2. With her undeveloped social skills and brain, she is bound to make incorrect decisions.
3. Dating/sex with someone would be a drastic decision particularly between the ages of 4-12.
4. As a parent you have to look out for the best interests of your offspring (parens patriae) because they lack the capacity to do so themselves. (Legally called a capacity test, same for the insane and retarded).

Answer your question?

Ah ha and there is where you are wrong. That is, if I understand this whole pedophilia business so apologies in advance as I take a crack at it.
SKUV is probably better at this.

1) That is not the question nor are those the circumstances read it again.
2) Incorrect decisions to YOU and to the untrained eye but this situation involves a TRUE anthroposiphile (I'm still not sure if that's the right word).. MEANING this is what her instincts, and her subconscious is urging her to do.
3) It's not exactly rocket science.....for us, and it never was as kids, I like you, you like me, lets hold hands under a tree. There's dating.
"This man that I like is doing weird things to me that make me feel funny...but I really don't want him to stop...I'm not sure why" There's sex....Then again I've never had sex with a 4-12 year old but I'm sure the human body likes moving towards things that feel good.

4) Now you are finally getting to the question being asked.

The parents would have to know with out a shadow of a doubt that the farfetched situation we are talking about here is actually taking place. Then they would have to make the decision because they are the legal guardians(assuming the law is involved here) with them being the parents and all. They would need to make a decision to allow this to happen.

Reasons for and against this question are what's being asked here.

THIS IS NOT A QUESTION OF BEING MORALLY WRONG BUT A QUESTION OF WHY OR WHY NOT A PARENT SHOULD OR SHOULDNT ALLOW THIS.

Continuing with that law assumption, does that make her an adult after 'marriage'? Does the new 'husband' become a guardian....

Merely having desires doesn't make it ethical for you to act on them.
Welcome to the internets.

Says who? A man wants to die and another wants to kill. They seem to have a healthy relationship. You have NO RIGHT to stop them from what makes either one happy unless it affects others that don't want to get involved.

THEN we have an ethics problem.

I would not want my hypothetical underage daughter to date a pedophile because of the following reasons:

1. Her brain is not fully developed.


Answer your question?

May I help this hypothetical daughter of yours? lol
Would I be able to try on her lenses for a good reason?


Scratch that, do you need SKUV, and if so, why can't you try on those lenses?

I like you, you like me, lets hold hands under a tree.
"School school I like school..................... now why?"

Ah ha and there is where you are wrong. That is, if I understand this whole pedophilia business so apologies in advance as I take a crack at it.
SKUV is probably better at this.

1) That is not the question nor are those the circumstances read it again.
2) Incorrect decisions to YOU and to the untrained eye but this situation involves a TRUE anthroposiphile (I'm still not sure if that's the right word).. MEANING this is what her instincts, and her subconscious is urging her to do.
3) It's not exactly rocket science.....for us, and it never was as kids, I like you, you like me, lets hold hands under a tree. There's dating.
"This man that I like is doing weird things to me that make me feel funny...but I really don't want him to stop...I'm not sure why" There's sex....Then again I've never had sex with a 4-12 year old but I'm sure the human body likes moving towards things that feel good.

4) Now you are finally getting to the question being asked.

The parents would have to know with out a shadow of a doubt that the farfetched situation we are talking about here is actually taking place. Then they would have to make the decision because they are the legal guardians(assuming the law is involved here) with them being the parents and all. They would need to make a decision to allow this to happen.

Reasons for and against this question are what's being asked here.

THIS IS NOT A QUESTION OF BEING MORALLY WRONG BUT A QUESTION OF WHY OR WHY NOT A PARENT SHOULD OR SHOULDNT ALLOW THIS.

Continuing with that law assumption, does that make her an adult after 'marriage'? Does the new 'husband' become a guardian....


You are wrong.

My 1, 2, 3. are all tied into the answer you thought was "answering the question."

My 1, 2, 3 ARE answers of why a parent SHOULD NOT ALLOW THIS. You cannot determine the if someone 4-13 is ready for a relationship like this.

The point is this and I will t....y....p....e....i...t.....s..l...o..w..

The reason parents should not allow someone to date their "lolita" kid, and why they should not allow their "lolita" to date, is because 4-13 YEAR OLDS CANNOT ACT IN THEIR OWN SELF INTERESTS IN THIS REGARD.

You can't determine if they are ready to make this hypothetical decision, can you crawl inside their mind and see if they are "truly ready," no. This is why we have artificial statutory rape laws, as bad as they are.

You are wrong.

My 1, 2, 3. are all tied into the answer you thought was "answering the question."

My 1, 2, 3 ARE answers of why a parent SHOULD NOT ALLOW THIS. You cannot determine the if someone 4-13 is ready for a relationship like this.

The point is this and I will t....y....p....e....i...t.....s..l...o..w..

The reason parents should not allow someone to date their "lolita" kid, and why they should not allow their "lolita" to date, is because 4-13 YEAR OLDS CANNOT ACT IN THEIR OWN SELF INTERESTS IN THIS REGARD.

You can't determine if they are ready to make this hypothetical decision, can you crawl inside their mind and see if they are "truly ready," no. This is why we have artificial statutory rape laws, as bad as they are.

I understand that's what you are trying to do.

I'm telling you most of your argument is irrelevant to the situation at hand.

Says who? A man wants to die and another wants to kill. They seem to have a healthy relationship. You have NO RIGHT to stop them from what makes either one happy unless it affects others that don't want to get involved.

THEN we have an ethics problem.

How can the person that wants to kill be assured that the man "really" wants to die. Is the man going through a phase?

Is it temporary?

Can this situation be abused?

I understand that's what you are trying to do.

I'm telling you most of your argument is irrelevant to the situation at hand.

It can't be irrelevant if you think 4 is relevant, and 1,2,3 all support 4.

May I help this hypothetical daughter of yours? lol
Would I be able to try on her lenses for a good reason?


Scratch that, do you need SKUV, and if so, why can't you try on his lenses?

I like you, you like me, lets hold hands under a tree.
"School school I like school..................... now why?"

Are you high?

It can't be irrelevant if you think 4 is relevant, and 1,2,3 all support 4.

Please, 4 is only half relevant and that is only if you consider the current laws are in place during the situation.

You aren't looking at it objectively. You're looking from a bias that it's morally wrong and ignoring what the setting of the question is. I understand there are a lot of what if's involved but the bare meat of the question is right there.

Now, in the "killing" Instance.

Your initial case of a man that wants to mass murder could only be going through a phase. How does anyone know that he really wants to do it..
It goes both ways.

The question being asked was black and white. A man TRULY wants to kill and a man TRULY wants to die. If no "innocent"(as in people not involved in this "transaction" or "relationship") are involved you have no right to say they can't have it if you are being objective about it. If you hold a bias, and you apparently do, you start talking as you do now.

Are you high?

he does seem to not care anymore right?

I'm just here to see where this rabbit hole takes me.

No hard feelings.

No, I may have been about to "get" "high", but instead I handed a man a tool he may or may not think he needs.


How and or why you thought I was high may be your own opinion of "SKUV"

You aren't looking at it objectively. You're looking from a bias that it's morally wrong and ignoring what the setting of the question is. I understand there are a lot of what if's involved but the bare meat of the question is right there.

I am about as unbiased as someone can be.

Go reread my post. Where am I making a morality case?

The setting of the question as I understand it is thus:
Would you want your anthroposiphile to date a real pedophile?

My answer is this:
No because I cannot determine if she is an anthroposiphile, that is fully developed mentally...and neither can you....Because of the following reasons:

1. Her brain is not fully developed.
2. With her undeveloped social skills and brain, she is bound to make incorrect decisions.
3. Dating/sex with someone would be a drastic decision particularly between the ages of 4-12.
4. As a parent you have to look out for the best interests of your offspring (parens patriae) because they lack the capacity to do so themselves. (Legally called a capacity test, same for the insane and retarded).

1. Her brain is not fully developed.
2. With her undeveloped social skills and brain, she is bound to make incorrect decisions.
3. Dating/sex with someone would be a drastic decision particularly between the ages of 4-12.
4. As a parent you have to look out for the best interests of your offspring (parens patriae) because they lack the capacity to do so themselves. (Legally called a capacity test, same for the insane and retarded).


Taken from OP

Real pedo: Knows his sexual interests. Knows why he has these sexual interests. Wishes to continue these interests with a partner, his "opposite" which could only be called that because she has two groups of X, maybe smaller X since she is physically smaller, whatever the fuck that means.

Real anthroposiphile: Know's her sexual interests. Knows why she has these sexual interests, and at her age (Which may be considered too young for some reason by most of society, though if she has developed sexuality at her age, then why is it wrong to pursue it if she knows how she developed it? Basically if she could, with her own evidence, tell society to fuck off because she knows her own brain better then them). Wishes to continue these sexual interests with a partner, her "opposite" which could only be called that because he has a group of X, and Y, whatever the fuck that means


I'm going by OP's definitions here. Meaning almost everything you just said DOES NOT APPLY because it is irrelevant and opinionated.

I doubt overdraft is a pedophile.

Anyways, WTF does this shit mean:



May I help this hypothetical daughter of yours? lol
Would I be able to try on her lenses for a good reason?


Scratch that, do you need SKUV, and if so, why can't you try on his lenses?

I like you, you like me, lets hold hands under a tree.
"School school I like school..................... now why?"

Taken from OP




I'm going by OP's definitions here. Meaning almost everything you just said DOES NOT APPLY because they are irrelevant and opinionated.

Wanna step away from the hypothetical universe that doesn't exist...Ie. the OPs conditions?

Like a [insert single digit number] year old that: "Know's her sexual interests. Knows why she has these sexual interests, and at her age"

The answer remains:
No because I cannot determine if she is an anthroposiphile, that is fully developed mentally...and neither can you.

If you lived on planet X, where it was capable to know the mental development of some child, and it was determined that they WERE able to discern for themselves these kind if life changing decisions, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. But alas, we don't live in a "black and white" world were 4 year olds are as developmentally advanced.

Wanna step away from the hypothetical universe that doesn't exist...

Like a [insert single digit number] year old that: "Know's her sexual interests. Knows why she has these sexual interests, and at her age"

The answer remains:
No because I cannot determine if she is an anthroposiphile, that is fully developed mentally...and neither can you.

If you lived on planet X, where it was capable to know the mental development of some child, and it was determined that they WERE able to discern for themselves these kind if life changing decisions, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. But alas, we don't live in a "black and white" world were 4 year olds are as developmentally advanced.

I'm not a moron I know there is a lot more to this than just black and white, but you can't go making things up like this in a hypothetical, you can only run with what you have.

The hypothetical was the whole point. This was a hypothetical situation where all of these things were known for sure. I understand there are a lot more variables involved if this were a real situation. I'm working with what OP gave me to see what the parents might do and under what circumstances.

I doubt overdraft is a pedophile.

Anyways, WTF does this shit mean:

This shit,


May I help this hypothetical daughter of yours? lol
Would I be able to try on her lenses for a good reason?


Scratch that, do you need SKUV, and if so, why can't you try on his lenses?

I like you, you like me, lets hold hands under a tree.
"School school I like school..................... now why?"


means: ............................=why do I no longer like learning........

Unkie Sam wraped mwe....... :(

SKUV... aren't you the guy with the swastika burned into your arm?

Basically to define a real pedo and real anthroposiphile:

Real pedo: Knows his sexual interests. Knows why he has these sexual interests. Wishes to continue these interests with a partner, his "opposite" which could only be called that because she has two groups of X, maybe smaller X since she is physically smaller, whatever the fuck that means.

Real anthroposiphile: Know's her sexual interests. Knows why she has these sexual interests, and at her age (Which may be considered too young for some reason by most of society, though if she has developed sexuality at her age, then why is it wrong to pursue it if she knows how she developed it? Basically if she could, with her own evidence, tell society to fuck off because she knows her own brain better then them). Wishes to continue these sexual interests with a partner, her "opposite" which could only be called that because he has a group of X, and Y, whatever the fuck that means.


J
.|.




ok this is my opinion its all over the place but whatever im scatterfucked as all hell......

-a pedophile knows and understands his/her interests that pretain to their life experience. due to any number of things/situations/just plain feelings, this person is interested in a younger person....ok.

-a young child understands his/her interests...like you said, but this pretains to a much more limited life experience and reason. this young child feels something for the pedophile, but it is not on the same level as the pedophile.

these two do not match up and cant ever be seen as equals in an equation such as this. they are not opposites that come together. they are a misguided uneven match. the pedophile always has to take advantage of the younger one because his interests are of more importance and substance than the young child's'. the pedophile automatically puts the younger person in a vulnerable state, whether he knows it or not. he will always be the dominant one, because he knows his perversions are wrong and he followed through anyway. the child doesnt have the same sense of society, because the child has not been an active part of society yet. how can someone choose to go against such a huge morality/law in society if he/she has not experienced it yet. and that is what scares society. the child will always be on a lower level than the adult. not just in age.... thats all been beaten to death a thousand times. age isnt the deciding factor. a 4 year just does not have any substantial reasoning behind their feelings for an adult, making the pedophile more satisfied in the end.


murderers...

ok. someone wants to murder someone due to whatever he has experienced thus far in his life for whatever reasons. his reasoning does not match up with someone who wants to and is willing to die. the one who wants to commit suicide is crippling themselves and making them the vulnerable one. even if it is their choice, their choice is coming from life experience that the murderer cannot justify. these two also do not match up. it cannot be a simple equation. it may seem ok to make everyone happy, but the murderer is still the dominant factor. he will always be the one that is enabling the person who wishes to die. its unbalanced and therefore making the suicidal person the 4 year old child in that perspective. obviously, there are different situations, as a doctor committing assisted suicide to patients who are suffering. this is different because the "murderer" is not killing to his advantage; not to settle his urges. im talking about someone who wants to kill, purely to kill. (just so it matches up nicely with a pedophile with the urges and it being wrong in society... yea.) pedophile will always come out on top. murderer always on top. they reap the satisfaction. this equal opposite thing that i believe seemed to have been stated in other words previously...doesnt seem to add up to me.


just my two cents. thats just what ive gathered from this theory. maybe i misread it. but thats the one thing i dont agree on.

I'm not a moron I know there is a lot more to this than just black and white, but you can't go making things up like this in a hypothetical, you can only run with what you have.

The hypothetical was the whole point. This was a hypothetical situation where all of these things were known for sure. I understand there are a lot more variables involved if this were a real situation. I'm working with what OP gave me to see what the parents might do and under what circumstances.


And this is where I say you miss MY point.

Parents would do exactly what I just told you, EVEN if they had super-developed-mentally-genius 4 year old lolita, BECAUSE....now hold on to your seat....THEY CAN'T BE SURE THEY HAVE super-developed-mentally-genius 4 year old lolita. Parents almost always err on the side of caution.

And this is where I say you miss MY point.

Parents would do exactly what I just told you, EVEN if they had super-developed-mentally-genius 4 year old lolita, BECAUSE....now hold on to your seat....THEY CAN'T BE SURE THEY HAVE super-developed-mentally-genius 4 year old lolita. Parents almost always err on the side of caution.





this.

and either way, both the parents and the pedophile are doing what they think is right. not asking 4 yr old lolita. so it doesnt matter how smart the little genius might be.

The lure was shiny.

The troll (http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?p=10061875#post10061875)was success.

And this is where I say you miss MY point.

Parents would do exactly what I just told you, EVEN if they had super-developed-mentally-genius 4 year old lolita, BECAUSE....now hold on to your seat....THEY CAN'T BE SURE THEY HAVE super-developed-mentally-genius 4 year old lolita. Parents almost always err on the side of caution.

I KNOW that is what you are trying to say. I've already gone over that in my own head way before you stepped in.

But let me go down the rabbit hole with you for this one.

Say they are in denial as you say, what is to stop the girl from going and running away and what is to stop the dude from taking her? It's not like she is going to run away and squeal to the cops that she has been kidnapped. They could easily change their appearances and identities to create the illusion of a normal life. The parents can't be sure of this either. Meaning a situation is going to happen where the girl's life probably get screwed up ANYWAY(by society's terms).

Edit: before anyone suggest jail time, pedo's are a dime a dozen, if it's not the initial one, another will come along.

The only difference the parents have from the pedo now is who directly and who indirectly screwed up the girl. Making her stay would mean more security around her, she'd become unruly and would cause a lot more trouble because of it. Not being able to make her own decisions, maybe constant moving, maybe not being able to even hold down a steady relationship later on because of the moving. This makes the parents directly responsible. You tell a kid not to do something...behold, what do they do?

So the kneejerk reaction for parents is to not let it happen, but we aren't talking kneejerk...we are talking about letting the parents think it over for about 3 weeks, as OP said. They need time to map things out and get over the fact that their daughter is a lolita and let those facts sink in.


Letting her go would mean they at least knew where she was going and since it was their daughter, the parents could make the dude play by their rules....of course he would 'cheat' a little bit but what couple wouldn't? If the parents' role is to keep control of their kid, they should keep control of her relationship in a mature manner as if their daughter WERE in fact older. A lot of parents think if it's just a phase, it will play out. Since this isn't exactly holding hands on the playground, of course they would be after her daughter's best interest but they would not and should not become Nazi's because their daughter gets a crush. As parents, set the ground rules and treat her like her age until they see something that would actually harm her.

I'm not saying that they should just have a kneejerk reaction to give in to her every whim.

I'm saying if they knew she was lolita and denied it they would be doing more harm than good by going out of the way to repress things. They should be responsible like all parents should be about who their kid dates and since the situation was a little different just have different guidelines to go by.

What may this mean?


You thought SKUV had this burned into his own arm?

What may this mean?


You thought SKUV had this burned into his own arm?

Ok fuck this, I quit this thread.

How about this to throw you all off, ne?

I'm over the legal age now, so I can't very well go back in time to when I was around 8 or so. For the record, I'm female.

I distinctly remember having an active libido at that point in time, if not perhaps even a year or two before that. As a matter of fact, my libido was more active when I was younger than it is now. So obviously, as a kid/preteen/younger teen, with no one to turn to, (as I was not about to go out and hop on someones lap) I kept to myself and to my mind and own methods of dealing with said libido.

Of course, being the imaginative small child I was who got HBO and stayed up late, I already was well informed about what sex was. Though I can certainly say for myself that even though I was basically a horny kid, I still never managed to sleep with more than two people. (My choice. I've had countless offers like any other girl of average looks.)

Why? Because it would have to be with someone that mattered. My non-sex life is ridiculous at this point. I have no idea what gets me hot these days and I hardly try. I'm lucky if I can stay horny for 5 minutes straight without just saying 'fuck it' and rolling over for sleep.

Point blank. Horny kids exist. Just think back to the old days of yahoo where small girls and boys intentionally lied to get adult yahoo accounts. Then they would enter the adult chat rooms or make a user room with the name of "14 year old girl for older man!"

I've never done it, but I've certainly seen the rooms. Yet they blame predators half the time. No doubt they exist and such. But why the hell is 12 year old Kristin looking for men slinging cock on a web cam? She's not that stupid. Her little coochie wants some, apparently. So thanks to little Kristin, not wanting to get in trouble or embarrassed, she tells Mommy the weird man sent her an invite and she doesn't even know what she's looking at. I call that pure BS. Till this day, Yahoo has no more user rooms thanks to some shitty lawsuit.

So parents... Get your small kids a vibrator before they fuck up something else. Or better yet, understand children are devious little shits that look for porn at young ages. Your Messenger of choice only gave them an outlet to look for it, without having to directly visit porn sites that would show in the history box.

If you're that concerned about your kids, perhaps your small whorish 12 year old, smack talking bitch of a daughter, does not need to use the internet. Got it?

I don't care if you're a pedophile keeping to yourself. (Child molesters are shit heads.) And I don't care if your a small horny child humping your pillow.

Just don't fuck up so bad you take things away from everyone else in the process.

Let's say this relationship got sidetracked from it's real purpose, could the relationship get back on track?

Course, that's why it's a track

The law doesn't say that though does it.

1) Need proof you're a gorilla....I mean girl

2) oh fuck it i don't have the energy for this thread anymore.

How many fathers would KNOW their daughter was a anthroposiphile

Probably the way my friend knows her oldest son is gay. By his raging man-crush on me. And anything else that walks by with a dick.

and why wouldn't the father be the first on her list?

Views on wincest vary wildly from person to person. Assuming it's a 50/50...

g0m0
g1m0
g0m1
g1m1

...there's only a 25% chance she and her father are nailing each other.

Inb4joepedo.

You bastards!!

We seriously had a pedophilia thread like, what, a week ago?

You can thank Danny and Wires for that. They actually obsess about pedophilic fantasies, whereas I just answer posts as they come along.

;)

I know if joepedo entered here he would probably just become a cheerleader I could ignore.

Naw, nigga, I'd correct your greek.

The anthropic only means "man" in the sense of "mankind;" for "man" in the sense of "cock-meat bruising one's kneecaps on a regular basis," one would be looking for "androphilia," which usually means "flaming faggot," because women don't matter.

Seriously. That's the reason, too. Victorian era, Kraft-Ebbing, and suddenly, every man-lover is a male homosexual. Crazy, huh? Well... I guess when it's legal to rape your wife, orientation doesn't matter as much on that side of the fence, which pretty much explains everything one needs to know about Nitro's 'appeal to fascism' philosophy.

"Gerontophilic" means "preferring older partners"... although there's been a small bit of debate about "umm... how much older, really?" Usually tossed between older people, and WAY older people.

I have to say, the erisian thing is win. You're either stark flaming schizotypal beyond belief, or you've grasped the underlying nature of the conflict.

Laws are based on morals and the greater good.

Which is, like, totally why you tried to kill all those jews back in the day before escaping to Argentina on the run from Mossad, right?

Have you seen the look on those poor kids faces anyway?

No, which is why you should post pics.

Of course, it has to be "in flagrente," or we'll just think you're making shit up. 'n while we're at it, you should really study the concept of n-value in statistical sampling, and make sure the photographic evidence you post has a confidence interval signifigant for six billion people.

Go on. Pics or it didn't happen, sonny.

there have been cases of arranged marriage at 4 years old, but they are to partners of a similar age

Well, I laughed my ass off.

The first two marriages to come to mind as having any fame are Ayisha and Elizabeth II... of course, they were 6 and 7, not four, but really... is it that big a difference?

Go ahead. Tell me their partners were the same age again.

no father would give his 4 year old daughter to some man willingly.

I'll be damned. You lied again. I laughed again. I'm just a sucker for this shit.

back the the father thing

Well, nigga, look up. If you want a source number that's more precise than just throwing out 50/50 chances, we're going to have to figure out how to do a survey.

I'm guessing bias elimination would be hard. But hey. 's awwight.

What's a good family, and or what's a bad family, and do we need this set of lenses to help a bad family become good

That's... actually a very good question. I'd imagine the root problem is figuring out some criteria for "good" or "bad."

Unfortunately, a lot of people in here are a little obviously nonqualified to start.

If there is a "master" of this good family, is that "master" really good or bad itsself

I'd consider the existance of a "master" to be itself an a priori evil.

1. People are inherently individual and unique.

2. By virtue of #1, the needs and boundaries - hence, the "good" - of each person will be unique.

3. Self-determination will always seek its own best good.

4. A third party is not as directly equipped to experience the subjective motivation and experience as the first-person.

By #3, self-determination will always maximize "good" for each person; by #4, the best and most well-intentioned dictatorship will fail at maximization.

Flawed logic anyone?

Actually, it's solid evolutionary psychiatry. Conditions must exist for a being optomized to exist in those conditions to have evolved.

I would not want my hypothetical underage daughter to...

And as long as human chattel is both legal and moral, that's perfectly alright. Hell, buddy - you're even halfway there.

It still doesn't speak shit for the rest of the world, so please don't try to pretend it does.

1. Her brain is not fully developed.

Proof or GTFO.

Funny thing is... I could prove this, but by doing so, would require drawing conclusions you wouldn't like - which actually gives me a moderate bit of faith that you can't.

2. With her undeveloped

False until proven true, since you made the positive assertion.

Which... means you're full of shit.

3. Dating/sex with someone would be a drastic decision

Proof or GTFO.

particularly

"Argument from special circumstances" is actually quite a listed fallacy.

4. As a parent

Proof a "parent" exists as a ding an sich, or GTFO.

you have to

1. Proof of actual irrevocable compulsion, or GTFO.

Sure, it's mostly grammatic, but hey - you set yourself up for it by throwing your grammar into logic. From there...

2. Proof that this alleged impulse-control disorder of yours somehow makes all impulse-control disorders, regardless of content, a global moral imperative.

the best interests of your offspring

Which... has nothing to do with what you're trying to assert, sir. Non sequiteur.

because

Proof or GTFO.

This... is the funnest one.

Legally called a capacity test

I lol'd. You can check the bolded for why.

Merely having desires doesn't make it ethical for you to act on them.

False.

My 1, 2, 3 ARE answers of why a parent SHOULD NOT ALLOW THIS.

Actually, your 1-4 strongly argue for... involuntary pimping.

Sort of one of many reasons I reject the excuses of unjust tyranny, no?

I am about as unbiased as someone can be.

I lol'd.

...that's why you've, like, never heard of the application of darwinian implication to any of the sciences when it says shit you don't like, and, like, feel free to make horrible logical errors and arguments from unfounded assertion when it says shit you do like, right?

I'm sure that emotional reasoning has nothing[/i[ to do with cognitive bias.

Wanna step away from the hypothetical universe that doesn't exist...Ie. the OPs conditions?

Oooh. Appeal to ridicule. Spooky. Never seen that one before, man.

Now, prove that it doesn't exist. Incidentally, you just set yourself up for the burden of polling about 6 or 7 billion people, and dragging them to this forum with proof of identity so we know you're not making it up. Have fun. Sounds like epic lulz.

Wikishit or anything else should have info on "burden of proof" and its relation to the positive assertion, for your reading pleasure.

Like a [insert single digit number] year old that: "Know's her sexual interests."

lol... you set [i]that up as your insurmountable, totally fixed goalposts?

Win.

Knows why she has these sexual interests

You can bitch about that when you meet your own standard, buddy. I'm guessing you don't.

these kind if life changing decisions

Speaking of "planet X," which planet are you on?

Parents would do exactly what I just told you

One or two probably would. Most support their daughter's romantic affiliations for the reason you just mentioned - the best interests of their child.

And probably, somewhere out there, there's even a third or fourth case. You really should quit trying to pretend everyone and everything is exactly the same, dude. It will tend to bite you on the ass.

this pretains to a much more limited life experience

That actually varies a lot. More interestingly, it's helped along by the fact that the so-called adults in this culture are starved of life experience. They ask their boss for an allowance. They ask the store to make everything for them, because they can't take care of themselves. 'n for the most part, they haven't seen anything outside infantilization.

It's not a great way to live, and a horrible way to build a society, but it does wonders for laughing at the people around you. More to the point, however, is that your argument reduces to "you haven't experienced anything, so you don't get to experience anything" - which is sort of a chuckle. More sadly, in the real world, this actually works out to "you haven't experienced anything, according to me, so therefore you will have no one to turn to in the experience of life, because I won't let you turn to me without judgement."

That's sad.

~sigh~ Stuff....

Bordering on argumentum verbosium.

split it up srsly. I'll try to work through it.

The law doesn't say that though does it.

I'll say it again. You're a fucking moron. It's just an example, it doesn't matter what it is. The law isn't that way, but it could easily be something equally as "wrong" to you, right? And by your previous statement you would follow that law even though you believed it to be wrong. You're a fucking idiot.

1. People are inherently individual and unique.

Prove this or GTFO

2. By virtue of #1, the needs and boundaries - hence, the "good" - of each person will be unique.

Prove or GTFO.

3. Self-determination will always seek its own best good.

1. Prove self-determination exists or GTFO
2. then prove that always seeks its own best good. or GTFO

4. A third party is not as directly equipped to experience the subjective motivation and experience as the first-person.

I agree. *clap*


By #3, self-determination will always maximize "good" for each person; by #4, the best and most well-intentioned dictatorship will fail at maximization.


Does "self-determination" exist when we are constrained by the society, genetics, and environment we are born into?



Actually, it's solid evolutionary psychiatry. Conditions must exist for a being optomized [sic] to exist in those conditions to have evolved.


Merely, I exist as a pedophile, and since I exist as a pedophile, an Anthroposiphile must exist somewhere on this large planet.

Converse accident.



And as long as human chattel is both legal and moral, that's perfectly alright. Hell, buddy - you're even halfway there.

In your infinite wisdom, I am sure you know that I was playing the role of the parent in this situation. But alas...

It still doesn't speak shit for the rest of the world, so please don't try to pretend it does.

I wasn't trying to speak for the rest of the world, sir. Are YOU trying to pretend YOU speak for the rest of the world?


1. Her brain is not fully developed.


Proof or GTFO.

Funny thing is... I could prove this, but by doing so, would require drawing conclusions you wouldn't like - which actually gives me a moderate bit of faith that you can't.


Prove that all 4-13 year olds are fully developed mentally and physically, I am all ears. Orrrrrr.....GTFO


2. With her undeveloped social skills and brain, she is bound to make incorrect decisions.


Don't selectively quote. Kinda weak.:(


False until proven true, since you made the positive assertion.

Which... means you're full of shit.

All of my assertions are based on the knowledge that you cannot know the motivations, abilities of someone. Kinda like how you said:

4. A third party is not as directly equipped to experience the subjective motivation and experience as the first-person.



3. Dating/sex with someone would be a drastic decision



Proof or GTFO.


Do we really need to discuss why sex/dating is an important decision?

You really didn't read what I was responding to did you?


"Argument from special circumstances" is actually quite a listed fallacy.

You are correct.


Proof a "parent" exists as a ding an sich, or GTFO.

I have a baby therefore I am a parent. Srsly if there is one absolute almost anyone could agree with it would be that "parents" and "offspring" exist. What next, we discuss whether the question mark actually exists?
?



4. As a parent you have to look out for the best interests of your offspring (parens patriae) because they lack the capacity to do so themselves. (Legally called a capacity test, same for the insane and retarded).


1. Proof of actual irrevocable compulsion, or GTFO.

Sure, it's mostly grammatic, but hey - you set yourself up for it by throwing your grammar into logic. From there...

2. Proof that this alleged impulse-control disorder of yours somehow makes all impulse-control disorders, regardless of content, a global moral imperative.

Which... has nothing to do with what you're trying to assert, sir. Non sequiteur.

Proof or GTFO.

This... is the funnest one.

I lol'd. You can check the bolded for why.

I agree my phrasing, grammar was really awful. I am glad you can capitalize on my rather hasty response. I guess if I had to rephrase the last part I would. I'm glad you think "capacity test" is lulzworthy, it is like democracy, it is the best tool we have currently for legally determining between insane/sane and the like. I am aware of the faults, thanks.

Which... has nothing to do with what you're trying to assert, sir. Non sequiteur.

Why don't you tell my what I am trying to assert, so I don't have to type anymore?


Merely having desires doesn't make it ethical for you to act on them.


False.

Care to elaborate? Seems a lot of your answers are "False GFTO" "Proof GTFO" etc...


Actually, your 1-4 strongly argue for... involuntary pimping.

Sort of one of many reasons I reject the excuses of unjust tyranny, no?


PROOF GTFO



I lol'd.

...that's why you've, like, never heard of the application of darwinian implication to any of the sciences when it says shit you don't like, and, like, feel free to make horrible logical errors and arguments from unfounded assertion when it says shit you do like, right?

I'm sure that emotional reasoning has nothing[/i[ to do with cognitive bias.


Assumption much? Pedophilia is ethically/morally acceptable in science where?

YOU have no emotional reasoning in this regard?



Oooh. Appeal to ridicule. Spooky. Never seen that one before, man.

Now, prove that it doesn't exist. Incidentally, you just set yourself up for the burden of polling about 6 or 7 billion people, and dragging them to this forum with proof of identity so we know you're not making it up. Have fun. Sounds like epic lulz.

Wikishit or anything else should have info on "burden of proof" and its relation to the positive assertion, for your reading pleasure.

lol... you set [i]that up as your insurmountable, totally fixed goalposts?


And you are not appealing to ridicule with your "GTFO"etc?
I could poll the universe, or I could poll a hypothetical non-existent world. When the OP is argumentum ad logicam do you really not expect me to respond in like?



l
Win.


PROOF. OR GTFO. (I'm getting tired of typing GTFO so you can assume from here on out I am attaching it to all my answers.




One or two probably would. Most support their daughter's romantic affiliations for the reason you just mentioned - the best interests of their child.

And probably, somewhere out there, there's even a third or fourth case. You really should quit trying to pretend everyone and everything is exactly the same, dude. It will tend to bite you on the ass.


I'm not because for the last time, THIS is the post I was responding to:

Basically, if you had a daughter that grew up to be a real anthroposiphile, would you want her to start a relationship with a real pedophile? And if not, yet she desires that relationship herself, shouldn't you ask your own self, over a long amount of time(less than a month, yet not more than 2 weeks.), why she shouldn't get what she desires? I say this because maybe there is a reason I can't come up but parents can.

At least that's what I think, here's where you may try to prove my point of view as wrong:

I don't pretend everything is exactly the same, just because I wouldn

Yeah I wasn't sure but now I'm pretty certain. This is the exact same fucking thread. It will get nowhere. I suggest everyone abandon ship right now. Or continue your pathetic arguments which mostly consist of asking each other to prove things. If I was a mod I would use my telepathic mod powers to make you all brain dead (more brain dead) for a week or two.

But whatever, keep arguing.

It cut off the rest of my post.

The question was about personal ethical code. So I gave it. When I transferred to "global" terms I went to far, but I really wasn't trying to assert my view on to anyone, assert global truths...etc. He wanted MY ethical rationale of why I would or wouldn't let my daughter do X,Y,Z. It was a personal question, so I gave a personal answer, and I really didn't mean to use "global" terms.


Anyways, I am more interested in how you rationalize it than my own personal view.

If you could refrain from the GTFO's and whatnot I would appreciate it.

It doesn't seem to advance the conversation.

My interest in this thread is rejuvenated.

WTF

no1 touched my post.

Overdraft start a new thread or something...This one is overburdened with garbage.

maybe with a less attractive title, that wouldn't attract as much attention to trolls, etc.

Honestly on second thought fuck it, that took way too much time.

Prove this or GTFO

Simple enough... that'd be the definition surrounding "identity," which has plagued the sciences for years.

Either something is a differentiable instance, or it is not. If it is not, it is the same item, and there are no "two items" to compare. If it is, it is unique.

Simple. See?

1. Prove self-determination exists or GTFO

Okay. I just lifted a cup off a desk.

Whether or not the impetus is predictably mechanistic is fairly insignifigant of a philosophical question. The neural impulse was still self-generated within the mechanism, and ergo the action was determined by the impetus of the self.

See?

2. then prove that always seeks its own best good. or GTFO

Easy enough; its wishes are its own definition of "good," by the definition of "wish," "will," or "opinion."

See? Simple. Tautology, to be precise.

Does "self-determination" exist when we are constrained by the society, genetics, and environment we are born into?

Yes. Study people who have escaped it. Or for that matter, the outline above.

In your infinite wisdom, I am sure you know that I was playing the role of the parent in this situation. But alas...

I wasn't trying to speak for the rest of the world, sir.

Excellent. That frees you from a lot.

Of course, you cannot speak for "the" parent in this situation and still claim that, just "you as a parent"... but hey, 's all good.

Are YOU trying to pretend YOU speak for the rest of the world?

I'm more than happy to speak that the world is diverse.

Prove that all 4-13 year olds are fully developed mentally and physically, I am all ears. Orrrrrr.....GTFO

If you'd notice, my positive claim was inverse. Not only can you not just say "proof or gtfo" without actually, umm, reading... but the burden of proof was on you, as the person making a positive assertion.

Nonetheless, for your amusement... they are sort of defined as the end state of "themself." See the notes on "identity," above. Everything is itself by tautology, ya know, and thus the end case of their self by virtue of being the very definition of their self.

Simple enough. But read moar and don't go shirking burdens.

Don't selectively quote. Kinda weak.:(

So why are you afraid of your premises being examined as individual entities?

All of my assertions are based on the knowledge that you cannot know the motivations, abilities of someone. Kinda like how you said:

Excellent.

You have just secured the argument in which you butt out.

Congratulations on that.

Do we really need to discuss why sex/dating is an important decision?

Seeing as I have no idea and don't believe a word of it myself - probably, yes.

Srsly if there is one absolute almost anyone could agree with it would be that "parents" and "offspring" exist.

Ya sure?

I have a baby therefore I am a parent.

I could snatch one off the street. Am I a parent?

What next, we discuss whether the question mark actually exists?

Your appeal to ridicule is a false analogy.

I'm glad you think "capacity test" is lulzworthy, it is like democracy, it is the best tool we have currently for legally determining between insane/sane and the like.

Actually, I think that circumventing the test is lulzworthy. At least, when one tries to argue from it.

You can see how that might be viewed such, I hope.

Why don't you tell my what I am trying to assert, so I don't have to type anymore?

Apparently, hegemonious heterosupremacy through the proxy control of other people's alleged chattel.

Not the noblest. But hey. I could be wrong.

Care to elaborate?

Certainly. Merely having desires does make it perfectly ethical to act on them. It does not neccisarily make it ethical to force others to take passive actions, like death, on account of them. "Your right to swing your fist ends at precisely my nose," and the like, as it is not ethical to make me bleed or contuse unless I wish - but swing your fist all you like.

See? Simply having desires makes it ethical to act on them.

Seems a lot of your answers are "False GFTO"

Funny. I didn't say "gtfo."

"Proof GTFO" etc...

Yes, I am aware of the burden of proof, and usually try to hold demagogues to it.

Sorry you don't like the established burdens.

PROOF GTFO

That I reject it? The one place where "argument by assertion" is valid is stating what one does or does not accept, actually.

Assumption much?

Nope. It follows quite readily from your evidenced inawareness of postdarwinian deduction, the anthropomorphic principles, etc.

Pedophilia is ethically/morally acceptable in science where?

While that has nothing to do with anything said - umm... everywhere, dude.

Science doesn't do questions of "moral unacceptability." Ergo, everything is morally acceptable in science.

You should know this, if you're going to go around getting in debates. Let alone inserting that question like you've tourettes.


YOU have no emotional reasoning in this regard?

Nope.

Investment, perhaps. I keep my reasoning honed to a sharp edge, though. Partly because it's one of the neccesary survival tools.

And you are not appealing to ridicule with your "GTFO"etc?

No, I'm appealing to the burden of proof.

It's something that should be done far more often in regards to "conventional wisdom," IMO.

I could poll the universe, or I could poll a hypothetical non-existent world. When the OP is argumentum ad logicam do you really not expect me to respond in like?

So... you constructed a different world for the purpouse of making the op wrong, eh?

Well, cute 'n all... but that would make it a man of straw that has nothing to do with the question, wouldn't it?

PROOF. OR GTFO. (I'm getting tired of typing GTFO so you can assume from here on out I am attaching it to all my answers.

That I find a thing win can certainly be arbitrarily declared, holmes.

I don't pretend everything is exactly the same, just because I wouldn

That's good. It will save you, if anything can.

WTF

no1 touched my post.

re-read my last post.

I can't stand responding line by line.


Thanks for supplying a definition of identity, which is neither "individual" or "unique," the two words you used previously. Individuality does not necessarily guarantee uniqueness, anyways have fun polling 6 billion people to figure out if this is true.

You switched from two different kinds of self-determination. The first one was definitely not the mechanical version you describe now, the first was attached to an "inherent good," now you are describing something purely mechanical.


Your example is NOT tautology, "good" is logically contingent on the variable.

People have escaped the epigenetic influences on their life? I really would like to see you try to prove it.

About the playing the parent. If you go back and reread the posts. I was answering the questions that were asked. Some posters kept claiming I was not answering the question, even though they were asking a personal question...and getting a personal answer. Then I started getting increasingly frustrated that they kept ignoring that I was answering the question, yet still asserting that I wasn't, so I starting rushing my posts.

Of course there are parameters of the definition of the word "parent." If you want to play the deconstruction of language game, go nuts...

Proof was not on me genius. I was saying YOU CAN'T prove that a 4-13 year old is fully developed, therefore as a parent you have to err on the side of caution. Even if a hypothetical 4 year old WAS fully developed, I have no way of knowing, therefore I wouldn't allow a relationship.
Once again, this was a personal answer.

I am glad you know that the world is diverse, there are multiple ways of seeing. Good job, now you know I was trying to illustrate my own "diverse" idea.

Everything is morally acceptable in science?
Really, ever actually read any sociology of science, philosophy of science, or history of science? Science is carried out by scientists, who are people, who have ethics (supposedly). :p

Anyways to what you were saying, "Everything is morally acceptable in science," I would disagree, everything is morally irrelevant in science. You should have known that.

There was only one argument originally...."Whether or not I had sufficiently answered the question," which was personal. If you want to start a new thread about pedophilia elsewhere, I will surely contribute.

I can't follow the argument when things are spliced to infinity.

Ps. What the fuck are you talking about "Nope. It follows quite readily from your evidenced inawareness of postdarwinian deduction, the anthropomorphic principles, etc."
Like what are you specifically talking about and how does it relate to this argument? How post-darwinian principles are deduced and applied to society, ethics, what? And what the hell does anthropomorphic principles of X have anything to do with this argument? Do you think I am saying that children are not human?

Thanks for supplying a definition of identity, which is neither "individual" or "unique,"

Perhaps you should re-read the definition of "identity" until you figure it out.

You switched from two different kinds of self-determination.

No I didn't.

The first one was definitely not the mechanical version you describe now

Yes it was.

the first was attached to an "inherent good," now you are describing something purely mechanical.

~sigh~

If you extinguish a lit cigarette on a screaming child bound to a chair, a chain reaction occurs. If memory serves, it is predominantly mediated by a voltage-dependent cascade of ionized sodium atoms, facilitated by some very curious lipophilic catecholamines.

Are you saying that the completely mechanical nature of the response to pain somehow makes torture "a-ok," or will you retract the argument?

Everything is governed by the laws of physics, boy. No exceptions.

Really, ever actually read any sociology of science, philosophy of science, or history of science?

~facepalm~

yes.

Your example is NOT tautology, "good" is logically contingent on the variable.

Good was the variable. Its definition was given. Just so you know, every variable is tautologically equivalent to its own definition. Have a very nice day.

People have escaped the epigenetic influences on their life? I really would like to see you try to prove it.

I don't have to, but here...

google dot com slash q equals twin plus study

Have fun.

Of course there are parameters of the definition of the word "parent." If you want to play the deconstruction of language game, go nuts...

Actually, while I love deconstructing language, I was actually more into the deconstruction of very fucking narrow societal roleplay games. Games which, mind you, really have no inherent physical basis.

Proof was not on me genius. I was saying YOU CAN'T prove that a 4-13 year old is fully developed...

~sigh~

1. Her brain is not fully developed.

Lie much?

Burden of proof is still on you.

Everything is morally acceptable in science?

Yup.

Really, ever actually read any sociology of science, philosophy of science, or history of science?

Yup.

The closest you'll get - social psychology - still doesn't say whether something is good or evil. The closest it comes is to examine how a process unfolds - what dependent variables contribute to the creation of what results.

Same as the rest of science. I suggest you might want to read scientific philosophy, methodology, history, and the like, perhaps. Science doesn't ask "should," it asks "how."

Science is carried out by scientists, who are people, who have ethics (supposedly). :p

Varies, but pretty freakin' irrelevent. I'm sure there has been some scientist that held the quaint belief that not thinking of the number four was neccesary to lead a moral life. Still doesn't mean that "science says that..."

Anyways to what you were saying, "Everything is morally acceptable in science," I would disagree, everything is morally irrelevant in science. You should have known that.

Hey, you got it.

It just so happens that "acceptable," as opposed to "desireable," is a very, very broad criteria. 'n it also just so happens that "not unacceptable" - the fate of the irrelevant, happens to be... "acceptable."

Have a nice day.

Like what are you specifically talking about and how does it relate to this argument? How post-darwinian principles are deduced and applied to society, ethics, what?

How "I exist, ergo some unspecified conditions which led to me exist" are applied to heated debate, it would seem, in that instance.

And what the hell does anthropomorphic principles of X have anything to do with this argument? Do you think I am saying that children are not human?

Probably. It just has nothing to do with the thread. Or the weak and strong anthropomorphic principle. Which has been entered into both the history and the philosophy of science, by the way.

In summation, the anthropomorphic principles take post-darwinian inquiry to trans-darwinian scale, and successfully counter some of the rather unscientific mysticism which occasionally crops up; it states that the answer to "why is the universe we percieve one ordered so precariously as to produce exactly us" happens to be "because we, the product of the universe, are the ones percieving it."

It's pretty solid. In a universe in which only tetradimensional gas coulds could be sentient and conscious life, it would be tetradimensional gas clouds asking the question "how the hell is the universe engineered so perfectly as to...," paying no attention to the fact that one out of the infinitely many possible universes is the one which produces us, who also occasionally have the arrogance to think we're the only shit that could possibly exist and start getting all theomystical on the fact that we're not in a universe that didn't produce us. Well, duh. We're not in a universe that didn't produce us.

How it pertains to this argument is that told me I was merely assuming that you were unfamiliar with the anthropomorphic principle, which I have had to just explain to you on account of your infamiliarity.

The root of this is that you criticized argument from scientific axiom when it would have been pathetically easy to figure out, took a few leaps you didn't establish when it did end in the "right" conclusion - which is more-or-less alright, so far - and then said you were infinitely unbiased.

Which is where it makes sense that it would relate to "I exist, therefore a world which would produce me must be within the current physics." Which, incidentally, could get into a whole other tangent, but... yes. It traces back. 'n now you know a bit more about a charming axiom of the sciences.

Perhaps you should re-read the definition of "identity" until you figure it out.



No I didn't.



Yes it was.



~sigh~

If you extinguish a lit cigarette on a screaming child bound to a chair, a chain reaction occurs. If memory serves, it is predominantly mediated by a voltage-dependent cascade of ionized sodium atoms, facilitated by some very curious lipophilic catecholamines.

Are you saying that the completely mechanical nature of the response to pain somehow makes torture "a-ok," or will you retract the argument?

Everything is governed by the laws of physics, boy. No exceptions.



~facepalm~

yes.



Good was the variable. Its definition was given. Just so you know, every variable is tautologically equivalent to its own definition. Have a very nice day.



I don't have to, but here...

google dot com slash q equals twin plus study

Have fun.



Actually, while I love deconstructing language, I was actually more into the deconstruction of very fucking narrow societal roleplay games. Games which, mind you, really have no inherent physical basis.



~sigh~



Lie much?

Burden of proof is still on you.



Yup.



Yup.

The closest you'll get - social psychology - still doesn't say whether something is good or evil. The closest it comes is to examine how a process unfolds - what dependent variables contribute to the creation of what results.

Same as the rest of science. I suggest you might want to read scientific philosophy, methodology, history, and the like, perhaps. Science doesn't ask "should," it asks "how."



Varies, but pretty freakin' irrelevent. I'm sure there has been some scientist that held the quaint belief that not thinking of the number four was neccesary to lead a moral life. Still doesn't mean that "science says that..."



Hey, you got it.

It just so happens that "acceptable," as opposed to "desireable," is a very, very broad criteria. 'n it also just so happens that "not unacceptable" - the fate of the irrelevant, happens to be... "acceptable."

Have a nice day.



How "I exist, ergo some unspecified conditions which led to me exist" are applied to heated debate, it would seem, in that instance.



Probably. It just has nothing to do with the thread. Or the weak and strong anthropomorphic principle. Which has been entered into both the history and the philosophy of science, by the way.

In summation, the anthropomorphic principles take post-darwinian inquiry to trans-darwinian scale, and successfully counter some of the rather unscientific mysticism which occasionally crops up; it states that the answer to "why is the universe we percieve one ordered so precariously as to produce exactly us" happens to be "because we, the product of the universe, are the ones percieving it."

It's pretty solid. In a universe in which only tetradimensional gas coulds could be sentient and conscious life, it would be tetradimensional gas clouds asking the question "how the hell is the universe engineered so perfectly as to...," paying no attention to the fact that one out of the infinitely many possible universes is the one which produces us, who also occasionally have the arrogance to think we're the only shit that could possibly exist and start getting all theomystical on the fact that we're not in a universe that didn't produce us. Well, duh. We're not in a universe that didn't produce us.

How it pertains to this argument is that told me I was merely assuming that you were unfamiliar with the anthropomorphic principle, which I have had to just explain to you on account of your infamiliarity.

The root of this is that you criticized argument from scientific axiom when it would have been pathetically easy to figure out, took a few leaps you didn't establish when it did end in the "right" conclusion - which is more-or-less alright, so far - and then said you were infinitely unbiased.

Which is where it makes sense that it would relate to "I exist, therefore a world which would produce me must be within the current physics." Which, incidentally, could get into a whole other tangent, but... yes. It traces back. 'n now you know a bit more about a charming axiom of the sciences.

I am quitting the name calling bullshit, it really doesn't get anywhere, it detracts from the issues at hand. If you want to continue it, by all means go ahead.

The uniqueness of the mind is a self-created assumption. I tried dig it out of you, but to no avail.

I am fully aware that the world is bound by the laws of physics. Thank you for reminding me.

"Self-determinism always seeks its own best good." That is the statement in question.

The problem with your "tautological expression" is that "good" is NOT...and I repeat....NOT...a concrete prepositional variable, and therefore logically contingent. You TRIED to create a truth statement claiming it was a "tautological expression" when you really did not.


I don't agree with your idea that self-determination exists. I think it is healthy to imagine yourself as having the idea of self-determination, but alas I am a nonreligious determinist.


I find it weird that I am challenging your definition of "good" and you are challenging my horrible attempt to define "parent." Anyways...I think you are making great assumptions about my worldview. Anyways since you intensely judgmental, YOU supply ME a definition.

Perhaps I should have been more explicit with my use of "epigenetic." (epi=above, on, in addition to, genetic). This would include society/environment/ and Bronowski's "experience."

The problem is that even if you had a scenario with say a 13 year old that was physically and mentally ready for a relationship, the parent would also have know that the 13 year old was ready for a relationship, which was not part of the original hypothetical question. From what I can tell, your solution is that anyone should be able to determine if they want to make this decision at any age. Is this correct?

"The closest you'll get - social psychology - still doesn't say whether something is good or evil."
Like self-determinism is good?


Are you saying science is separate from morals? Because acceptability implies a connection which I don't think exists...


You assumed I didn't know what the anthropomorphic principal is...I didn't know how it applied to this thread. The only reason to supply a definition of the anthropomorphic principal was because you thought I didn't know it...What kind of rationalization is that? I wasn't sure how you were applying it in this case, you are full of gross assumptions.



The root of this discussion is that you were not paying much attention to the questions I was answering.

The post I was responding to had a few assumptions. There was some hypothetical 4-13 year old that is physically and mentally ready to be in a relationship. The problem was that the post did not say anything about the parent knowing if the child was ready or not. So I assumed the parent did not have that ability, and I thought I made that point abundantly clear. If the conditions were set as 4-13 year old child, physically and mentally developed and the parents could somehow know that this was the case, then I wouldn't have a problem with it.




Do you think it is morally acceptable for a male 30+ years old to have a relationship with a 4 year old female? 13 year old female?
Is there a relationship between age and maturity?

The uniqueness of the mind is a self-created assumption. I tried dig it out of you, but to no avail.

Nope. Re-re-read the definition of identity. If two things are completely nonunique, there is one thing, rather than two.

I am fully aware that the world is bound by the laws of physics. Thank you for reminding me.

I may have to do it again.

The problem with your "tautological expression" is that "good" is NOT...and I repeat....NOT...a concrete prepositional variable

You're right; it is an open variable.

and therefore logically contingent.

...on being defined.

You TRIED to create a truth statement claiming it was a "tautological expression"

...with its own definition.

when you really did not.

I suggest you look up the meaning of "tautology." Every variable is tautological to the definition assigned.

I don't agree with your idea that self-determination exists. I think it is healthy to imagine yourself as having the idea of self-determination, but alas I am a nonreligious determinist.

...and you'll notice the meaning supplied was rather mechanistic and on the hardware level? You're not going to have as much success as you hope dragging me into a debate between six versus the half dozen. It's a purely mechanistic piece of machinery which tends to seek homeostasis... and as the machinery determines its own definition of "good" and "bad" outcomes, well... its self-determined actions seek its own good, regardless of the fact you so charmingly point out that the hardware is still governed by the laws of physics in a predictable fashion.

Yay.


Anyways since you intensely judgmental, YOU supply ME a definition.

Seeing as I'm the one who suspects that the social construct doesn't even have an underlying basis in physics, that'd be a pretty fucking stupid idea, wouldn't it?

Perhaps I should have been more explicit with my use of "epigenetic." (epi=above, on, in addition to, genetic). This would include society/environment/ and Bronowski's "experience."

That's... remarkably odd, considering that it's used to quite specifically describe methylation/demethylation of alkaloidal base pairs to upregulate or downregulate peptide transcription.

the parent would also have {to}

Proof or GTFO. Remember, you're trying to foist this on the dude with the sneaking suspicion that there is no binding physics which require such a useless, outdated, and downright undesireable social construct.

From what I can tell, your solution is that anyone should be able to determine if they want to make this decision at any age. Is this correct?

Speaking of physics - they do, regardless of what perverse social construct you try to force down the physicalities of inherent self-direction.

Hell, that's why "punishment" is included in the concept of "crime" - because creating a fantasy construct does not change the underlying universe.

Like self-determinism is good?



Formal logic, on the other hand, allows free variables to be defined.

Try not to be so remedial, k?

Are you saying science is separate from morals? Because acceptability implies a connection which I don't think exists...

Like I just told you, "acceptability" is a rather broad-pass criterion. "Acceptance" is passive - the opposite of "not accepting." Since they are seperate from each other, science doesn't disaccept anything. Ergo, everything observed is "acceptable" - in fact, observation data is accepted without judgement and dutifully recorded without comment. It's one of those charming foundations of the scientific method.

You assumed I didn't know what the anthropomorphic principal is...

Umm...

Do you think I am saying that children are not human?

"Assumption" my ass.

The only reason to supply a definition of the anthropomorphic principal was because you thought I didn't know it...What kind of rationalization is that? ...you are full of gross assumptions.

As quoted above, you provided a grossly wrong definition for the concept. That's not an "assumption," bucko.

Incidentally, the anthropomorphic principles would apply perfectly well to non-human organisms just fine... in case you were wondering. Re-read, maybe you'll get it.

Do you think it is morally acceptable for a male 30+ years old to have a relationship with a 4 year old female?

Wow... completely off-topic, but... sure!

~shrug~ I'm good enough at dragging people hell-bent on drama and poisoning the well back to formality anyways, so wtf is a red herring?

13 year old female?

Sure.

Is there a relationship between age and maturity?

Nope. Not with the definition it's currently given, anyways.

Want proof? Go find an immature old person. I have personal faith you or anyone will be able to succeed in this task. Ergo, they're obviously not synonyms.

Nope. Re-re-read the definition of identity. If two things are completely nonunique, there is one thing, rather than two.



I may have to do it again.



You're right; it is an open variable.



...on being defined.



...with its own definition.



I suggest you look up the meaning of "tautology." Every variable is tautological to the definition assigned.



...and you'll notice the meaning supplied was rather mechanistic and on the hardware level? You're not going to have as much success as you hope dragging me into a debate between six versus the half dozen. It's a purely mechanistic piece of machinery which tends to seek homeostasis... and as the machinery determines its own definition of "good" and "bad" outcomes, well... its self-determined actions seek its own good, regardless of the fact you so charmingly point out that the hardware is still governed by the laws of physics in a predictable fashion.

Yay.




Seeing as I'm the one who suspects that the social construct doesn't even have an underlying basis in physics, that'd be a pretty fucking stupid idea, wouldn't it?



That's... remarkably odd, considering that it's used to quite specifically describe methylation/demethylation of alkaloidal base pairs to upregulate or downregulate peptide transcription.



Proof or GTFO. Remember, you're trying to foist this on the dude with the sneaking suspicion that there is no binding physics which require such a useless, outdated, and downright undesireable social construct.



Speaking of physics - they do, regardless of what perverse social construct you try to force down the physicalities of inherent self-direction.

Hell, that's why "punishment" is included in the concept of "crime" - because creating a fantasy construct does not change the underlying universe.





Formal logic, on the other hand, allows free variables to be defined.

Try not to be so remedial, k?



Like I just told you, "acceptability" is a rather broad-pass criterion. "Acceptance" is passive - the opposite of "not accepting." Since they are seperate from each other, science doesn't disaccept anything. Ergo, everything observed is "acceptable" - in fact, observation data is accepted without judgement and dutifully recorded without comment. It's one of those charming foundations of the scientific method.



Umm...



"Assumption" my ass.



As quoted above, you provided a grossly wrong definition for the concept. That's not an "assumption," bucko.

Incidentally, the anthropomorphic principles would apply perfectly well to non-human organisms just fine... in case you were wondering. Re-read, maybe you'll get it.



Wow... completely off-topic, but... sure!

~shrug~ I'm good enough at dragging people hell-bent on drama and poisoning the well back to formality anyways, so wtf is a red herring?



Sure.



Nope. Not with the definition it's currently given, anyways.

Want proof? Go find an immature old person. I have personal faith you or anyone will be able to succeed in this task. Ergo, they're obviously not synonyms.

I don't have the time to answer this tonight...I think the logic stuff belongs in a different thread.

Nope. Re-re-read the definition of identity. If two things are completely nonunique, there is one thing, rather than two.



Logical fallacy: Proving a negative statement does not prove a positive statement.

Proving the sky is not red does not prove it is blue.

If two things are completely non-unique, it does not prove that they have the same uniqueness, only that two things are not unique. Therefore, it does not prove that they are unique to each other.

Nice try, Joe.

I skipped most of this troll thread, but the other point I want to make is that this whole notion of androsiphile is ridiculous. Even if one were to concede that some girls were androiphiles, that doesn't mean that all or even most are andorsiphiles. The original argument relies on the fact that androsiphiles are somehow sexually mature. This argument was based on the idea that they picked up mature sexual ideas at some point or from 'some box' I think the OP said.

From this we see that:
There is no proof that androsiphiles are objectively sexually mature and not just playing a role.
There is no proof andosiphiles can handle sexual relationships.
There is no proof that any child can handle sexual relationships.
Furthermore, even if one were to concede that it is ok for androsiphiles, it would certainly not follow logically that it would be ok for non-androsiphiles.
Also, you cannot determine which children are androsiphiles and which aren't because they might be outwardly playing a role that is not internally consistent with his or her psyche.

We conclude, therefore, that:
Since it possible that children be mistakenly labeled as androsiphiles and pedophilia is harmful to non-androsiphiles as well as harmful to androsiphiles being that there is no proof children can handle sexual relationships, along with the fact that it is impossible to determine which children are androsiphiles in the first place, we therefore conclude that pedophilia is wrong in all cases.

Ah ha and there is where you are wrong. That is, if I understand this whole pedophilia business so apologies in advance as I take a crack at it.
SKUV is probably better at this.

1) That is not the question nor are those the circumstances read it again.
2) Incorrect decisions to YOU and to the untrained eye but this situation involves a TRUE anthroposiphile (I'm still not sure if that's the right word).. MEANING this is what her instincts, and her subconscious is urging her to do.
3) It's not exactly rocket science.....for us, and it never was as kids, I like you, you like me, lets hold hands under a tree. There's dating.
"This man that I like is doing weird things to me that make me feel funny...but I really don't want him to stop...I'm not sure why" There's sex....Then again I've never had sex with a 4-12 year old but I'm sure the human body likes moving towards things that feel good.

4) Now you are finally getting to the question being asked.

The parents would have to know with out a shadow of a doubt that the farfetched situation we are talking about here is actually taking place. Then they would have to make the decision because they are the legal guardians(assuming the law is involved here) with them being the parents and all. They would need to make a decision to allow this to happen.

Reasons for and against this question are what's being asked here.

THIS IS NOT A QUESTION OF BEING MORALLY WRONG BUT A QUESTION OF WHY OR WHY NOT A PARENT SHOULD OR SHOULDNT ALLOW THIS.

Continuing with that law assumption, does that make her an adult after 'marriage'? Does the new 'husband' become a guardian....

Children are not mentally capable of understanding or properly dealing with a sexual relationship. Puberty and reproduction have their purpose and if you're having sex with someone who is not physically capable of intercourse or reproduction you're just being a sick pedo. That kills any argument you have about this being natural.

Children do masturbate and if there is need for sexual gratification that is their natural method to satisfy that need not sex. YOUR purpose is to reproduce as a mature male and you cannot satisfy that need by having sex with children therefor it is wrong.

As far as the law and parent so in regards to this, its outlawed because it harms the child. Not only does it harm the child, it angers the parents. Why is murder not legal? Because it hurts the victim (obviously) and the family is hurt as well and it creates a cycle of violence.

Whoever pointed out the flawed logic of "I am X therefor there must be X" is correct but they used a bad analogy.

Nope. Re-re-read the definition of identity. If two things are completely nonunique, there is one thing, rather than two.



I may have to do it again.



You're right; it is an open variable.



...on being defined.



...with its own definition.



I suggest you look up the meaning of "tautology." Every variable is tautological to the definition assigned.



...and you'll notice the meaning supplied was rather mechanistic and on the hardware level? You're not going to have as much success as you hope dragging me into a debate between six versus the half dozen. It's a purely mechanistic piece of machinery which tends to seek homeostasis... and as the machinery determines its own definition of "good" and "bad" outcomes, well... its self-determined actions seek its own good, regardless of the fact you so charmingly point out that the hardware is still governed by the laws of physics in a predictable fashion.

Yay.




Seeing as I'm the one who suspects that the social construct doesn't even have an underlying basis in physics, that'd be a pretty fucking stupid idea, wouldn't it?



That's... remarkably odd, considering that it's used to quite specifically describe methylation/demethylation of alkaloidal base pairs to upregulate or downregulate peptide transcription.



Proof or GTFO. Remember, you're trying to foist this on the dude with the sneaking suspicion that there is no binding physics which require such a useless, outdated, and downright undesireable social construct.



Speaking of physics - they do, regardless of what perverse social construct you try to force down the physicalities of inherent self-direction.

Hell, that's why "punishment" is included in the concept of "crime" - because creating a fantasy construct does not change the underlying universe.





Formal logic, on the other hand, allows free variables to be defined.

Try not to be so remedial, k?



Like I just told you, "acceptability" is a rather broad-pass criterion. "Acceptance" is passive - the opposite of "not accepting." Since they are seperate from each other, science doesn't disaccept anything. Ergo, everything observed is "acceptable" - in fact, observation data is accepted without judgement and dutifully recorded without comment. It's one of those charming foundations of the scientific method.



Umm...



"Assumption" my ass.



As quoted above, you provided a grossly wrong definition for the concept. That's not an "assumption," bucko.

Incidentally, the anthropomorphic principles would apply perfectly well to non-human organisms just fine... in case you were wondering. Re-read, maybe you'll get it.



Wow... completely off-topic, but... sure!

~shrug~ I'm good enough at dragging people hell-bent on drama and poisoning the well back to formality anyways, so wtf is a red herring?



Sure.



Nope. Not with the definition it's currently given, anyways.

Want proof? Go find an immature old person. I have personal faith you or anyone will be able to succeed in this task. Ergo, they're obviously not synonyms.


Go back to your elementary logic class, reread your post when you proclaim a tautological expression, then get back to me. ;)

Social constructs are not necessarily defined by the laws of physics, but not everything can be defined by the laws of physics. You know that of course :)

I am glad you wiki'd epigenetic....now you might want to find books that might use it in different ways...I'm sure you could just break down the Latin base of the word to figure it out, 'cause you are such a smart guy and all.

useless, outdated, and downright undesireable social construct.
Opinion. But I agree to some extent.


Self-direction is a myth.


Morality has nothing to do with the scientific method. Morality is IRRELEVANT in science.
Science doesn't do questions of "moral unacceptability." Ergo, everything is morally acceptable in science.
The correct statement is everything is morally irrelevant in science. I really should not have to clarify...keep chirping if you want a worm though.

I didn't provide a definition of the concept, "bucko." I don't know why you have your undies in a bunch about it though. Re-read the post and you will find none, maybe you will get it.

How can you create a morality system that makes it acceptable for a 30 year old to have sex with a 4 year old?
I'm sure we are all ears. Why stop at 4 year olds? Why not push it all the way to 1 year?


For someone that seems to follow utilitarian ethics, I can't wait to see what you produce!

I know if joepedo entered here he would probably just become a cheerleader I could ignore.

How 'bout that?

Logical fallacy

"Axiom," actually. The foundational premise.

It was chemists, in fact, who first asked the question "what is a matter," in a time lost in history several thousand years ago. It seems such a simple question, until one grapples with it.

The answer - after long, hard soul-searching, and standing up for thousands of years, is that a matter is defined by its properties. Period, end of, says the axiom. Nothing more, nothing less, and it's that kind of loose, semi-unsatisfying antimystical crap that one gets stuck with when one asks the hard questions about the nature of reality. Like relativistic motion.

Let's say, hypothetically, that you are nonunique. That there is another person who looks, smells, and tastes exactly like you. More than this, not only do they take every action you take, at the same time, but they occupy the same physical space as you while doing this.

Modern science would reply to this that there is only one of you, rather than an infinite series of you occupying the same space performing the same actions at the same time. At least, it says this until it starts asking questions about the nature of time, and then the "same actions" gets muffed because those questions came about as heisenberg collapse hits a wide array of variables - the properties which make one "you" - or one timeline - different from the others.

If you choose to disagree with science, you can always try to catch all the other yous that are typing the same things on your keyboard at the exact same timing.

Go back to your elementary logic class, reread your post when you proclaim a tautological expression, then get back to me. ;)

"Every variable is tautological with its own definition." Duh.

Social constructs are not necessarily defined by the laws of physics

Great.

So we agree it's not real, and doesn't exist. Next?

I am glad you wiki'd epigenetic....

I lol'd.

now you might want to find books that might use it in different ways...

No thank you. I'm a bit busy with fields that have an interest in gene induction or downregulation at the moment.

Besides, your so-called "other ways" would have to rely on... the underlying physical mechanism of action... to even exist. I thought you were supposed to be the materialist determinist, since you keep straw-manning me as not being one.

Opinion.

liek...

you're trying to foist this on the dude with the sneaking suspicion...

...noway!

The correct statement is everything is morally irrelevant in science.

Bingo.

Not considered = not rejected = accepted.

Acceptance is the passive case. If you had've used a word like "embraced" or "advocated," you might be getting different results. Instead, you didn't.


I didn't provide a definition of the concept

ORLY?

Do you think I am saying that children are not human?

^^ 'cause that's the wrong definition of the anthropomorphic principle. In the text, as it were.

How can you create a morality system that makes it acceptable for a 30 year old to have sex with a 4 year old?

Lex talionis, for starters.

Why stop at 4 year olds? Why not push it all the way to 1 year?

Seeing as I'm pretty much immune to the poisoning of the well, or any other threats... sure. I'm down.

For someone that seems to follow utilitarian ethics, I can't wait to see what you produce!

At this point, I have no other choice but to believe you are as unstudied in theories of ethics as you are of the sciences.

How 'bout that?

Pfft. That's cheating. He's been ignoring his entire thread since before I showed up, not just me.

So there. :p

Okay. I just lifted a cup off a desk.

Whether or not the impetus is predictably mechanistic is fairly insignifigant of a philosophical question. The neural impulse was still self-generated within the mechanism, and ergo the action was determined by the impetus of the self.
See?
...
Yes. Study people who have escaped it. Or for that matter, the outline above.


Hi Joe.

Could you maybe. Erm. Elaborate above and possibly list an example or two of someone who escaped it...all I can think of are videos of 8 year old Mick Jagger strutting his stuff on stage exactly the same way he did the rest of his life and other such examples. I mean, if what you say is true and not simply for the sake of argument.

Thx.

What. The. Fuck.

"Axiom," actually. The foundational premise.

It was chemists, in fact, who first asked the question "what is a matter," in a time lost in history several thousand years ago. It seems such a simple question, until one grapples with it.

The answer - after long, hard soul-searching, and standing up for thousands of years, is that a matter is defined by its properties. Period, end of, says the axiom. Nothing more, nothing less, and it's that kind of loose, semi-unsatisfying antimystical crap that one gets stuck with when one asks the hard questions about the nature of reality. Like relativistic motion.

Let's say, hypothetically, that you are nonunique. That there is another person who looks, smells, and tastes exactly like you. More than this, not only do they take every action you take, at the same time, but they occupy the same physical space as you while doing this.

Modern science would reply to this that there is only one of you, rather than an infinite series of you occupying the same space performing the same actions at the same time. At least, it says this until it starts asking questions about the nature of time, and then the "same actions" gets muffed because those questions came about as heisenberg collapse hits a wide array of variables - the properties which make one "you" - or one timeline - different from the others.

If you choose to disagree with science, you can always try to catch all the other yous that are typing the same things on your keyboard at the exact same timing.



"Every variable is tautological with its own definition." Duh.



Great.

So we agree it's not real, and doesn't exist. Next?



I lol'd.



No thank you. I'm a bit busy with fields that have an interest in gene induction or downregulation at the moment.

Besides, your so-called "other ways" would have to rely on... the underlying physical mechanism of action... to even exist. I thought you were supposed to be the materialist determinist, since you keep straw-manning me as not being one.



liek...



...noway!



Bingo.

Not considered = not rejected = accepted.

Acceptance is the passive case. If you had've used a word like "embraced" or "advocated," you might be getting different results. Instead, you didn't.




ORLY?



^^ 'cause that's the wrong definition of the anthropomorphic principle. In the text, as it were.



Lex talionis, for starters.



Seeing as I'm pretty much immune to the poisoning of the well, or any other threats... sure. I'm down.



At this point, I have no other choice but to believe you are as unstudied in theories of ethics as you are of the sciences.



Pfft. That's cheating. He's been ignoring his entire thread since before I showed up, not just me.

So there. :p

3. Self-determination will always seek its own best good.
This statement is logically contingent on what is "best good."

Social constructs are not real...hilarious, just because social constructs are not physics, doesn't mean they don't exist. Are you serious? No way...

It is too bad you can't find the time to pick up a book, but I understand, you are probably too busy validating your own existence at the moment.


Is this really a good example of your logic skillz?
Not considered = not rejected = accepted.

Obviously you know that:

Irrelevant = not rejected
Irrelevant = not accepted
Irrelevant ≠ rejected
Irrelevant ≠ accepted

Do I really need to explain moar?

You just through the anthropomorphic principle into the conversation without providing any relevance to the ongoing conversation, so you had to leave it to me to try to guess how it relates, then you provide an obfuscated definition. Thanks but no thanks.

Kind of like throwing lex talonis into the conversation, without any providing how it is relevant. Once again you are setting a trap, however...
So a 3 year olds innately have a concept of lex talonis?
And the ability to return in kind against a hypothetical offense?

This statement is logically contingent on what is "best good."

Which was noted as defined by the party seeking it. CAN YOU NOT MOTHERFUCKING READ? This was covered, repetitively, from SEVERAL pages ago.

Social constructs are not real...hilarious, just because social constructs are not physics, doesn't mean they don't exist. Are you serious? No way...

Find me the physical object, motherfucker.

It is too bad you can't find the time to pick up a book

Too bad you didn't do it more.

you are probably too busy validating your own existence at the moment.

Nah. I hacked out the flaws in cogniti, ergo sum in childhood.

Is this really a good example of your logic skillz?

Yes.

Obviously you know that:

No, I DO not know a falsehood, asshole.

Irrelevant = not rejected

Yes.

Irrelevant = not accepted

False. "Acceptance" is a passive proposition. For instance, I accept that you are so remarkably fucking illiterate that I have to repeat myself a lot. It does not mean I embrace, celebrate, or advocate this.

Irrelevant ≠ rejected

Okay, got that one right.

Irrelevant ≠ accepted

False; it has taken no action to reject this.

You just through the anthropomorphic principle into the conversation without providing any relevance to the ongoing conversation

Why don't you read the first motherfucking post, or the words from yours I quoted in it, or the point several posts back where I explained this to you again, and fucking again, and fucking again, and fucking again...

Of course, whether or not you can read the thread is not really an excuse to try to change the fucking definition from what it is, is it? It's "throw," by the way.

so you had to leave it to me to try to guess how it relates

http://www.totse.com/community/showpost.php?p=10769242&postcount=74

lolwut?

then you provide an obfuscated definition.

Obfusicated my ass. I spent several paragraphs of the simplest possible language speaking as slowly as possible, and explained

Kind of like throwing lex talonis into the conversation, without any providing how it is relevant.

Are.

You.

A.

Fucking

Retard?

Person a : "name an ethical philosophy."

Person b : {name of ethical philosophy}

/facepalm.

So a 3 year olds innately have a concept of lex talonis?

Completely fucking irrelevant.

And the ability to return in kind against a hypothetical offense?

Also completely fucking irrelevant.

You seem somewhat... tense, Joe.

I refuse to address the tautology debacle anymore, if you don't get it you never will.


Social constructions are expressed in many ways. Do you really need an example? Use yer brain.

Irrelevant things (like morals) are NOT CONSIDERED IN SCIENCE.

Once again.
Irrelevancy of morals in science = not rejected
Irrelevancy of morals in science = not accepted
Irrelevancy of morals in science ≠ rejected
Irrelevancy of morals in science ≠ accepted



Not considered = not rejected = accepted.

For something to be accepted it HAS TO BE CONSIDERED.

Irrelevant things in science are not rejected or accepted. If they were then they would be have to be considered. If they were considered then they would be RELEVANT....

Are you fucking retarded? Look up the definitions if you have to, FFS.


The question wasn't name an ethical philosophy you blind idiot. I asked you how you could create an ethical framework and you supply me with one name:Lex talionis, for starters.

That is not a fucking answer you bloviating douchebag. The question was how could you create an ethical framework, not a question about the base of your ethical structure "for starters."

I refuse to address the tautology debacle anymore, if you don't get it you never will.

You mean if I don't get that the output of "function x" is "the output of function x?"

OMG!!!

Social constructions are expressed in many ways.

1. Show me the physical object.

2. GTFO

We might as well believe in the invisible pink trancendental unicorn-spirits walking around behind you, for all I care. You can show me the physical object, or GTFO with your claims that it exists.

For something to be accepted it HAS TO BE CONSIDERED.

False; a whole shitload of things I haven't considered are probably acceptable.

In fact, what kind of closed-minded bastard would call something unacceptable just because they didn't want to consider it?

I asked you how you could create an ethical framework and you supply me with one name:

...of an ethical framework which would fit the criteria.

That is not a fucking answer you bloviating douchebag.

Bullshit. An ethical philosophy which sanctions a matter positively is an example of an ethical philosophy which sanctions a matter positively.

Luckily, you've strained my credibility. I could give you - or anyone - the possibility that you're potentially really fucking dumb. You've taken it into... non-credible conditions. Which leaves "intellectual dishonesty" as the only plausible explanation. Because no one could really be that god-damned fucking dumb.

There's a curious side effect to this. See, any time one of these pops up, I happen to get the knowledge that you believe your own advocated beliefs will not stand on their own merits.

It was often attributed to Göebbels, the misleading belief to persons of a certain moral fiber that perhaps the big lie, repeated often enough, would outshadow the truth...

...but the prevention of corruption and decay in order is simple; use its flaws against them. Coincidentally, most of the things one might care about in this world happen to be an exploitable flaw in order. Whether it is that the doers of evil are lying out their ass, or whether it is that the town guard seem to be pissing off the populace, each one leaves openings.

All the antiGöebellian "big truth" would have to do, in speaking heresy to the big lie, to win... is not back down from speaking the truth.

Of course, you've strained a few other people's credibility by virtue that people happened to read shit. It doesn't matter if they enter in or not, the lurker is always there. 'n anyone who happens to read will see your pretense.

More importantly, they will see the noncredibility to pretense in your attempts to remain "on point" in a point which your abdication would leave transparently false. It's a pleasant part of the open record, and your acts would do to turn a reader's mind towards supporting social change than anything I could do. You're the one who didn't have faith in your position. You're the one who thought you had to sell it out to move ahead.

As tzu noted, to serve a certain side of social revolution is to provision off the enemy. You are our food, and your disorder is how you show you are weak.

This works just as well with governments as it does with failed members in a hostile political party or order. Censorship is an admission of weakness and a chance to exploit the endogenous government-stated tendancies of "the people." Political murders? Nothing to make it so much easier to creep in and train an endogenous motivated revolutionary militia or several. Same with screwing with the food supply.

To provision on your enemy to advancement is the nature of the guerilla. The field of operations is actually close to irrelevant. Ally below, attack up, never back down at a cry of "heretic," and exploit the inherent weakness of the adversarial position, and all that is neccesary for the side which is always victorious - the direct and violent challenge to a conventional wisdom which seeks the enforcement modality of the terror regieme - becomes accomplished. Works every time, and great for fucking up governments. Guaranteed results are motherfucking fun... especially with the layout in this game.

You've practiced sticking to point regardless of reality. You've figured out that driving conversation away from the issues is, in fact, your best hope. You had the sense to back away from attempting to poison the well when you found I wasn't slightly tempted to take the weakening bait.

Pretty good. But you're not the best 'party brownshirt' out there, dude. Even on your side.

They're all food. It's simple doctrine, simple results. 'n you're not the best on a field that yields lots of practice.

Try the other side. Pick any front. Much better playing field, much better results. All the time...

Funny fuckin' game, nigga. Always hella fuckin' fun.

:) Plur, newbie.

First, if you're going to make up a word based on the Greek word "anthropos", do it right. The correct word would be "anthropophile", meaning man-loving. Incidentally, this word is most often used to describe parasites that seek out human hosts, because "anthropos" refers to ALL humans, NOT just men. The word you should be looking for is "androphile" meaning man-loving in the male adult sense. But of course this isn't the right word either since it can describe anyone who likes men, be they women, gay men, or girls. Just call them lolitas or something that actually makes sense. Sorry, but after reading all those pages of butchered greek I had to say something.

Now, there are at least three major flaws with these ideas. The first is that ostensibly these girls aren't old enough to make their own decisions. Now, this is a major obstacle, but other people have hit on this more than I care to, and I won't get into this.

The second flaw is that girls grow up. Yes they do, and quickly as well. What use is a relationship if it inevitably stops working on one end? People aren't disposable, to be used up and thrown out.

The third flaw is that there are way more pedophiles than there are girls that would want to do them. Pedophiles are numerous, and span a broad age range, whereas the children they want to do only exist within a narrow age limit.

Nature fucked up and created gays, transsexuals and pedophiles. At least if you're gay you have an outlet, and if you're transsexual, there's always hormones. But right now, pedophiles are screwed, and thus society is screwed for having to find a way to deal with them.

Nonetheless, the hypothetical scientist accepted the data as s/he saw it, and wrote it down without moral rejection.

There is kind of a big difference between scientific acceptability, and moral acceptability. These two things are incommensurable. The hypothetical scientist wrote down the data without any moral rejection or moral acceptance of the data. Data in this case is accepted, but not morally considered, IT IS SCIENTIFICALLY ACCEPTED.
everything observed is "acceptable" - in fact, observation data is accepted without judgement and dutifully recorded without comment. It's one of those charming foundations of the scientific method.
Scientific acceptability is NOT moral acceptability, something which you seem to conflate.

Not considered = not rejected = accepted.

We agree that morals are irrelevant in science.
We agree that morals are not considered in science.
But then you state that:
Everything is morally acceptable in science
This of course is false, morals are not considered. So once again:
Things not considered in science = not rejected
Things not considered in science = not accepted
Things not considered in science ≠ rejected
Things not considered in science ≠ accepted

You have to consider something to accept or reject it, since morality is not considered in science (which we both agree) then this "Everything is morally acceptable in science" makes no sense.


That's the difference between "active" and "passive" terminology, incidentally, and I myself accept a lot of shit I don't like simply because I haven't found myself in a situation convenient to cessate it yet. I don't embrace or approve of it, but I accept it, because doing otherwise would be closing my eyes and hoping the world went away.


Cessate...very weird use of the word.