Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 19, 2016 20:27:05 GMT -5
Incendiary language is appropriate to describe the selling of and having sex with 14 year old girls. And that's the point - we should be angry, we should be outraged, we should be incendiary. The public needs to demand change in how we talk about and view rape, selling children and having sex with underage children... and those that apologize for those practices. Maybe you should just nuke Asia minor.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Jun 19, 2016 20:40:23 GMT -5
Or maybe instead of reacting with a shrug or condescendingly dismissing the issue as prevalent, we can discuss it as the serious problem that it is.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jun 21, 2016 15:38:47 GMT -5
Incendiary language is appropriate to describe the selling of and having sex with 14 year old girls. And that's the point - we should be angry, we should be outraged, we should be incendiary. The public needs to demand change in how we talk about and view rape, selling children and having sex with underage children... and those that apologize for those practices. There are practical issues with attempting to apply your own set of moral values to other groups who may not share those values. And even though I agree with you on some of that (for example, I don't believe anyone should be bought/sold), what if my moral compass says that anyone under the age of 21 shouldn't be having sex? Does that make you a bad person to have sex with a 20 year old?
What you call children, my culture may consider an adult capable of making their own decisions (including sex). Maybe my culture is fine with "selling" brides, and finds the act of pre-marital sex a heinous movement that everyone should be outraged over. For some reason, the question of "who gets to be the moral compass for all of society?" seems to always be "me", whoever that is.
In short...YOUR morals do not equal THE morals. Even if I may feel the same, there are cultures all over the world who would find things you and I do to be heinous and outrageous...we tend to label those people as irrelevant or ridiculous...but when we are outraged over their actions, they're horrible people.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 14, 2024 3:24:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2016 15:45:42 GMT -5
The one who gets to be the moral compass is 'me'. As in whoever is speaking for themselves in that moment. They get to decide for themselves. And so societally we strive to preserve and cultivate an environment in which people are allowed their freedom to choose... WITHOUT crossing the line of someone else's rights.
Rape takes away a person's right to choose. A child has individual rights not to be sold as chattel and/or abused. They have their right to develop and act on their OWN morals... Which no one should be able to take from them without consent.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 21, 2016 15:59:36 GMT -5
The one who gets to be the moral compass is 'me'. As in whoever is speaking for themselves in that moment. They get to decide for themselves. And so societally we strive to preserve and cultivate an environment in which people are allowed their freedom to choose... WITHOUT crossing the line of someone else's rights. Rape takes away a person's right to choose. A child has individual rights not to be sold as chattel and/or abused. They have their right to develop and act on their OWN morals... Which no one should be able to take from them without consent. I think what hoops is saying is that people either agree with your assessment or they don't, and if not, your saying "this is wrong" and "these are their rights" isn't going to change any minds. You need to present a firm doctrinal or philosophical basis for your argument. Also, I can pretty much guarantee you that nobody who needs convincing will ever come within a light year of this thread, hence you might want to save yourself the effort.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jun 21, 2016 16:00:46 GMT -5
The one who gets to be the moral compass is 'me'. As in whoever is speaking for themselves in that moment. They get to decide for themselves. And so societally we strive to preserve and cultivate an environment in which people are allowed their freedom to choose... WITHOUT crossing the line of someone else's rights. Rape takes away a person's right to choose. A child has individual rights not to be sold as chattel and/or abused. They have their right to develop and act on their OWN morals... Which no one should be able to take from them without consent. When you say "society", what you really mean is "your view of what society should be", which is part of what causes the issue. YOU view a child as having individual rights (you also have some view of what constitutes "child", let's just say "people" as I think you'd believe people have individuals rights not to be sold or abused). Other societies around the world have differing views. I presume you also have you own views on what is abuse, and what is rape...all inherent to your beliefs...not some global "society" necessarily (and I would guess many of these beliefs are likely driven by law...which raises all sorts of other potential issues..such as..."if it's legal here, but not there, is it moral based on the laws or moral based on something else?)
You certainly get to be the moral compass for YOU. You do not get to be the moral compass for anyone else necessarily. People seem to not want that limit on themselves though, they want to be everyone's moral compass. They want to attribute what THEY want, to what "society believes". Frankly, you don't even believe your own statements about freedom. You DO want to cross the lines of someone else's rights...you just feel you have the justification to do so (and let's be honest, we all feel the same way, or we'd never put anyone in prison, so the question is not whether people are allowed this unlimited freedom to choose, it's which limitations do we think should be put in place on those freedoms and when)
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Jun 21, 2016 16:21:29 GMT -5
Apartheid ended in South Africa in part because the rest of the world voiced their opinion that discrimination was not acceptable. Various cultures have been pressured to end practices that other cultures find abhorrent - like slavery. The issue of selling children for sex/marriage is no different; it's slavery. I'm urging the rest of the world to speak up and denounce this practice just like they have done over the issue of slavery.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jun 21, 2016 16:22:50 GMT -5
Here's my example:
Is it ok to have sex with children? I think most people would say probably not. Is it ok to have sex with adults (assuming they consent). I think most people would probably say yes.
So when does a child become an adult? State A says 14. State B says 18.
A solid moral compass will not say that having sex with a 16 year old is morally fine in State B, but morally corrupt in State A. (You may still believe that you need to follow the laws, but we aren't talking law, we're talking morals).
I suspect that in-person a lot of the conversations would go similar to this.
Is 18 ok? yes Is 17 ok? yes Is 16 ok? I think so. Is 15 ok? No. Why? I don't know....it just seems young. OR the popular "Well when I was 15 I didn't understand the consequences well, so 15 is too young" Ok, so what about someone the day before they turn 16? Ok yeah, that's probably ok. Two days? yes.
It's typically easier for us to act on "feeling" (that sounds young, so no, that other age, yeah, that sounds ok). Feelings are moral codes. Laws aren't moral codes.
Make it tougher by not having an easily measurable moral code (for example, my personal belief is that when one is mentally capable of understanding the consequences of an action, they should be free to make the decisions surrounding that action...so you can consent to sex when you understand the consequences at a mature level. What age is that? I have no idea what age that is for individual folks. For some it may be 14, for some it may be 30. So I can define my moral code, but I can't necessarily quantify it as the laws do)
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jun 21, 2016 16:30:53 GMT -5
Apartheid ended in South Africa in part because the rest of the world voiced their opinion that discrimination was not acceptable. Various cultures have been pressured to end practices that other cultures find abhorrent - like slavery. The issue of selling children for sex/marriage is no different; it's slavery. I'm urging the rest of the world to speak up and denounce this practice just like they have done over the issue of slavery. That's fine, as long as you understand that other cultures denouncing your beliefs and calling on folks to take action to end that is fine as well. Everyone just tends to see themselves as "righteous" and others as "fill in the blank...evil, wrong, disgusting, etc". Very few people see themselves as "hahaha, I'm so evil", they all think they're right and others who oppose them are wrong.
People absolutely have the right to believe what they want to believe, few people seem to take the time to ponder that to those who disagree with them are in the same boat (for example, when the US invades another country, we're liberators. We'd clearly not take the same view on folks who invade our own country though). If you agree with me, you're good. If you disagree, you're bad. Problem is...everyone on the other side of the table thinks the same.
We remove all kinds of freedoms from people, we just see most of those as acceptable because they're "common" in our culture.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 21, 2016 16:42:45 GMT -5
Apartheid ended in South Africa in part because the rest of the world voiced their opinion that discrimination was not acceptable. Various cultures have been pressured to end practices that other cultures find abhorrent - like slavery. The issue of selling children for sex/marriage is no different; it's slavery. I'm urging the rest of the world to speak up and denounce this practice just like they have done over the issue of slavery. That's fine, as long as you understand that other cultures denouncing your beliefs and calling on folks to take action to end that is fine as well. Everyone just tends to see themselves as "righteous" and others as "fill in the blank...evil, wrong, disgusting, etc". Very few people see themselves as "hahaha, I'm so evil", they all think they're right and others who oppose them are wrong.
People absolutely have the right to believe what they want to believe, few people seem to take the time to ponder that to those who disagree with them are in the same boat (for example, when the US invades another country, we're liberators. We'd clearly not take the same view on folks who invade our own country though). If you agree with me, you're good. If you disagree, you're bad. Problem is...everyone on the other side of the table thinks the same.
We remove all kinds of freedoms from people, we just see most of those as acceptable because they're "common" in our culture.
It's not wrong to "speak up". It would help effectiveness if western society wasn't circling the drain, swimming with rape and sexual disease, and increasingly reviled abroad, but I think we might technically have some influence left.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jun 21, 2016 19:30:57 GMT -5
Not wrong to speak up. But if you find it appropriate to use incendiary language, you can't be upset when others use incendiary language to attack your views.
Incendiary language also rarely changes anyone's viewpoints. It works to rile up those who already agree with you, and typically alienates anyone who disagrees or is on the fence.
The specific topic of this thread brings home another point as well...when you use incendiary language...you'd better be REALLY sure you're right. I'm sure most remember the Duke Lacrosse scandal...how horrible it was that those college athletes raped those girls...people calling for their heads...oops, they didn't actually do it? Oh...ummm nevermind then.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 23, 2016 17:11:42 GMT -5
A learned a curious factoid today.
A friend of mine just got back from jury selection. The case going to trial was for a sexual assault. After the initial "can't do it"s had been sorted out, apparently the very next thing to happen was all the nurses in the jury pool were dismissed. I forgot to ask whether this was at the behest of the judge or the defense counsel, but an interesting development either way. The implication is that nurses are too empathetic to be objective.
My friend said that beyond this, there was no rhyme or reason to who the defense council and the crown prosecutor challenged.
|
|
tloonya
Junior Associate
What status?
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 16:22:13 GMT -5
Posts: 8,452
|
Post by tloonya on Jun 25, 2016 15:54:16 GMT -5
I told our son he better never do something to a girlfriend or else, he knew the or else. He never had problems.
I would tell some of these guys you do it to someone I know and you might be minus your junk, zero tolerance from me.
I was a strict disciplinarian to our son and our mentally challenged daughter, they never got in any trouble. And I love them to pieces. Some kids are fearfull. Some fearless. So you are lucky your son is having fear. If you had one who 'took after Uncle Joe' no matter what you say he would do it.
|
|
Artemis Windsong
Senior Associate
The love in me salutes the love in you. M. Williamson
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 19:32:12 GMT -5
Posts: 12,401
Today's Mood: Twinkling
Location: Wishing Star
Favorite Drink: Fresh, clean cold bottled water.
|
Post by Artemis Windsong on Jun 25, 2016 16:02:32 GMT -5
A learned a curious factoid today. A friend of mine just got back from jury selection. The case going to trial was for a sexual assault. After the initial "can't do it"s had been sorted out, apparently the very next thing to happen was all the nurses in the jury pool were dismissed. I forgot to ask whether this was at the behest of the judge or the defense counsel, but an interesting development either way. The implication is that nurses are too empathetic to be objective. My friend said that beyond this, there was no rhyme or reason to who the defense council and the crown prosecutor challenged. A lot of times nurses are present when rape kits are performed. The entire profession is reason to dismiss. How many people are not biased against sexual assault other than pervs.
|
|