Is having sex at the age of 12 right page 5

238 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:You obviously still don’t understand how subjective morality works.

Obviously, they are morals not defined by an objective measure. Obviously. Now can you put this argument to rest? I’m sick of hearing it.

Originally posted by Darkruler2005:Yes, you do, and many agree with that. You seem to be under the illusion that once you acknowledge people have different viewpoints every thing you find horrible actually shouldn’t be horrible for you.

I actually never said that. Not once. In fact, nothing even close.

Originally posted by Darkruler2005:This is opinion, to most of us. In fact, the reason why we wouldn’t be able to discuss this is because you follow the objective morality system (and automatically condemn certain issues without arguing why) and we argue our own viewpoints (most of us still condemn the issue, but bring up actual points about it).
I’m not sure why Omega agreed with you on the latter. He’s right that you’re a stuck record. You keep on intruding into the discussion talking about subjective morality, but it doesn’t really help the discussion forward. Perhaps you could bring this to the other thread?

It doesn’t matter if it IS opinion to most of the people here. That doesn’t mean it is defined by opinion.

If you went back in time to 1940s Nazi Germany, and had a conversation with Himmler about the Holocaust, and tried to explain what he was doing was wrong, and he told you that it is wrong “for you” because that’s “your opinion”, and the removal of you from the Earth would remove your opinion, and he leveled a gun to your head, and gave you one chance to explain why killing you is wrong for him to do, what would you say? The problem with subjective morality is that anything is permissible. The reason I find it heinous is because humanity has not proven itself to be an adequate source for morality, and the belief that this is the highest form of morality… Darkruler’s opinion… is scary. I mean, what is the point of this discussion, or ANY discussion? Our opinions?

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Originally posted by MyTie:
I might ask them how they feel about the little girl in Aurora, Colorado who was 12 years old on her way to school when some dipstick abducted her, raped her, and then mutilated her body before leaving her in an empty field. Would that be ok in their delusional idea of sex with minors?

You subjective moralists have to admit, it wouldn’t be “bad”. I think it’s wrong, heinous, and horribly wrong, but then again, I believe in silly things like “God”.


LOL,,,MyTie.
YOU are working overtime and very hard to make your point hold water.
Guess what?
Your point is so full of very obvious holes that it can’t even hold my attention.
Guess what?
Strrreeeetttccchhhiinnngggg your point to the limits of credulity doesn’t make those holes any smaller….quite the opposite.
Final LOL


Oh yeah? Well, you’re wrong! You’re wrong and saying wrong stuff isn’t going to make you right!

Come on, man. Come up with an argument, not just insisting that people you don’t agree with are wrong.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:
Oh yeah? Well, you’re wrong! You’re wrong and saying wrong stuff isn’t going to make you right!

Come on, man. Come up with an argument, not just insisting that people you don’t agree with are wrong.

Wow, there must be an echo in this place?
I just heard several ppl saying the very same thing to MyTie a few posts back.
Veeeerrrry Interesting.

MyTie….presenting any further “arguements” to YOU is nothing short of merely gilding the lily.
I was merely hoping ya’d take the hint and stop trying to dig yerself outta a holy hole.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

The Bible doesn’t condemn the word “Fuck”.

And are you arguing that I can’t repeat myself? If my argument is applicable in a different topic, then I’ll bring it there as well. Explain to me how defining “right and wrong” is not applicable in a debate titled “Is having sex at the age of 12 right”. “Right” is in the title.

 
Flag Post

Ya missed the point, per usual.
My offering ya the concept of redundancy wasn’t about YOURS.
It was in response to what ya said about MY not offering any explanation of why I think YOUR arguments are full of holes. Ya know, like whey YOU said: “Oh yeah? Well, you’re wrong! You’re wrong and saying wrong stuff isn’t going to make you right!” …and then didn’t offer anything to show why. lol

This means that for me to show why your positon if full of holes is gilding the lily that others have already presented….redundantly. So, why should I continue said redundancy?

AND, I’m most happy to know Christians now approve of the word: fuck.
I’ll be sure to use it often around them…
of course, telling them that YOU say it is okay.

BUT, in order to keep this post from just being an overly mean critique of your position, I’m gonna ask the other posters why we are focusing on only female 12 y.o.‘s? Why aren’t we discussing sexual activity for boys at young ages?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:

Obviously, they are morals not defined by an objective measure.

Can’t*

I actually never said that. Not once. In fact, nothing even close.

Well to be fair, you don’t have to directly say something for it to be apparent.

Well that, and he said “seem to be…” which means that he thinks you are based on what you said and your reactions. What he wasn’t doing, however, was claiming it to be fact.

It doesn’t matter if it IS opinion to most of the people here. That doesn’t mean it is defined by opinion.

Okay, I don’t quite get what you mean by that.

If you went back in time to 1940s Nazi Germany, and had a conversation with Himmler about the Holocaust, and tried to explain what he was doing was wrong, and he told you that it is wrong “for you” because that’s “your opinion”, and the removal of you from the Earth would remove your opinion, and he leveled a gun to your head, and gave you one chance to explain why killing you is wrong for him to do, what would you say?

It would fuck up the time-stream something fierce, and I’d know his fate, while he didn’t.

The problem with subjective morality is that anything is permissible.

The same way ansering a question about what you think about X person in a story in any way you want is, yes.

The reason I find it heinous is because humanity has not proven itself to be an adequate source for morality, and the belief that this is the highest form of morality…

Its constructs, though, totally reliable.

Darkruler’s opinion… is scary.

And that’s a fine opinion on his opinion.

I mean, what is the point of this discussion, or ANY discussion? Our opinions?

Having an existential crisis, are we?

Oh yeah? Well, you’re wrong! You’re wrong and saying wrong stuff isn’t going to make you right!


Come on, man. Come up with an argument, not just insisting that people you don’t agree with are wrong.

I’m gonig to go out on a thick limb and say you’re not being serious here.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:Well to be fair, you don’t have to directly say something for it to be apparent.

That’s not “fair” at all. I posted my argument. Then, you accused me of saying something that was only vaguely related to what I posted. When I point out that I never said that at all, you say that I don’t need to say something in order to say it. Does that work for you too? Can I accuse you of posting stuff that doesn’t even resemble what you are saying, and then expect you to defend yourself against it?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:

That’s not “fair” at all. I posted my argument. Then, you accused me of saying something that was only vaguely related to what I posted.

I’m pretty sure that it was Dark who said that… Wait, what was he saying you were (or did say, you’re not very clear on that), again?

When I point out that I never said that at all, you say that I don’t need to say something in order to say it.

No I didn’t say that, just that from what you do say people can infer things about your character.

Does that work for you too? Can I accuse you of posting stuff that doesn’t even resemble what you are saying, and then expect you to defend yourself against it?

That’s not over-reacting at all…

(And I’m pretty sure you’re really misconstruing what he and I, mostly he, are saying.)

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

I find it amusing that liberals have such a hatred for conservatives that they will dismiss a topic just to attack the person themselves.

Good for you? I don’t really see where you came to that conclusion, but whatever.

Isn’t there a SD rule about that?

Yes, which is why pretty much everyone isn’t doing that, including you, since you’re talking about an entire ideology. (However bad an argumen that makes)

This last page has very little to do with the original topic,

Few things I would like to mention:

  • This entire thread has very little to do with the original topic, as there wasn’t one.
  • It’s not even half a page yet
it has been mostly slander at anyone who shows any conservative tenancies.

Well if MyTie is the average conservative, then I’m far more left than I thought… Wait, I have conservative tendencies (well techincally I just have slightly more right-leaning ideals on a few issues). Fuck.

Also, both sides have been slanderous to each other.

Come on liberals, I understanding you are upset because your messiah is losing his bid for a second term, but give it a rest.

Oh dear possibly existent God, will you give it a rest? We already know that you need black and white in order to survive (in this case literally), but could you at least have an incling of sublty?

 
Flag Post

Ok, as Mitt said, Obama is winning from behind. :)

 
Flag Post

Its constructs, though, totally reliable.

I lol’d.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Ok, as Mitt said, Obama is winning from behind. :)

Are YOU unable to see the realistic possibility of this?
Any positive movement can obviously lead to a winning position….relatively speaking.
Could it be that because good ol’ Mitt said it that ya swallow it hook, line, & sinker?
I think many of us here consider this to be the form of your “source gathering” capacity.
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Originally posted by jhco50:

Ok, as Mitt said, Obama is winning from behind. :)

Are YOU unable to see the realistic possibility of this?
Any positive movement can obviously lead to a winning position….relatively speaking.
Could it be that because good ol’ Mitt said it that ya swallow it hook, line, & sinker?
I think many of us here consider this to be the form of your “source gathering” capacity.

Really Karma? A little tongue in cheek and you run an insult with it? LOL! Only """"""""YOU""""" could do this sooooooooooo WELL!!!!!)))))))))((((((?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Originally posted by jhco50:

Ok, as Mitt said, Obama is winning from behind. :)

Are YOU unable to see the realistic possibility of this?
Any positive movement can obviously lead to a winning position….relatively speaking.
Could it be that because good ol’ Mitt said it that ya swallow it hook, line, & sinker?
I think many of us here consider this to be the form of your “source gathering” capacity.

Really Karma? A little tongue in cheek and you run an insult with it? LOL! Only """"""""YOU""""" could do this sooooooooooo WELL!!!!!)))))))))((((((?

And so could you.

Or is that missing points, I can’t remember.

 
Flag Post

I don’t know, only you can know that for sure. Seems you and I are the only late night people on here anymore.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by jhco50:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Originally posted by jhco50:

Ok, as Mitt said, Obama is winning from behind. :)

Are YOU unable to see the realistic possibility of this?
Any positive movement can obviously lead to a winning position….relatively speaking.
Could it be that because good ol’ Mitt said it that ya swallow it hook, line, & sinker?
I think many of us here consider this to be the form of your “source gathering” capacity.

Really Karma? A little tongue in cheek and you run an insult with it? LOL! Only """"""""YOU""""" could do this sooooooooooo WELL!!!!!)))))))))((((((?


And so could you.


Or is that missing points, I can’t remember.

The “official scoring” has it that his ideology comes from sooooo far out of left….OOooops, RIGHT field that it’s really difficult to tell when that “incredible crap” he calls “righteous thinking” is serious or not. He probably should give us a “head’s up” when he’s trying to be funny.

Ya know, the vile hate he has for all-things-Obama.
His precious House has been “controlled” by the GOP for almost 2 years now,,,,
why hasn’t Nirvana yet arrived?
LOL

 
Flag Post

Nirvana will come when we have both houses and the presidency. It will be a utopia where our country can heal and start back down the right road. Seriously, I watched Frontline tonight and they were giving backgrounds on both and it was quite interesting to see how they have both changed in four years.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Nirvana will come when we have both houses and the presidency. It will be a utopia where our country can heal and start back down the right road.

If by the ‘right road’ you mean returning to how it was in the year the constitution was signed – technology, standard of living, et al.

Personally, my utopia looks a little different. No death by dyssentry, for example.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by jhco50:

Nirvana will come when we have both houses and the presidency. It will be a utopia where our country can heal and start back down the right road.

If by the ‘right road’ you mean returning to how it was in the year the constitution was signed – technology, standard of living, et al.

Personally, my utopia looks a little different. No death by dyssentry, for example.

Personally, my utopia is where there is no death by pollution or guns or sweatshops.

 
Flag Post

Even in those days they had polution. Insane amounts of horse poo became a serious problem. If you are so keen to return to those days, you take the bad with the good (what good?)

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

Even in those days they had polution. Insane amounts of horse poo became a serious problem. If you are so keen to return to those days, you take the bad with the good (what good?)

If you are to go back with modern knowledge, you are of course going to feel bad. My point is that the past and the present is more or less the same: the weak and the poor is still being , the nature is still being raped, and people are still being lied to, and thus they live a meaningless life. Living 80 years and living 30 years is the same when you are just a powerless cog.

 
Flag Post
Personally, my utopia is where there is no death by pollution or guns or sweatshops.

Bombs are okay though?
That’s really nice.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Pulsaris:

Personally, my utopia looks a little different. No death by dysentery, for example.

Personally, my utopia is where there is no death by pollution or guns or sweatshops.

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Even in those days they had pollution. Insane amounts of horse poo became a serious problem. If you are so keen to return to those days, you take the bad with the good (what good?)

vika, while your input on the (negative?) issues of the “days of yore” is correct on the one hand (horse poo wasn’t just in the pastures…ppl poo was dumped in the streets for the gutters to carry away before sanitary sewer systems),,,Pulsaris does present an arguable point that, by modern standards, a lot of the “everydayness” most certainly would be negative in nature at the time the Constitution was signed.

However, I’m gonna say that his response was more (specifically?) directed at the reference to Nirvana//utopia in general,,,, rather than the time period involved in your quote.

BUT, I’m gonna go waaaaay out on a twig here and say: in 100 years, our “great life” today will likely be just as rife w/ negatives as that of 100 years ago. This is something I see YOU extolling very often….due to your field of work,,combined w/ your exceptional intellect. And, please don’t misinterpret my noting your position….I’m NOT saying your offerings aren’t appreciated, just that I don’t think they put up much of an argument against Plusaris’s point that relatively speaking, ANY time period would be a utopia were a huge amount of “negatives” be either reduced or eliminated altogether.

Obviously, Mankind is doing a lot in working towards that end. However, I’d say a lot of ppl would agree that while “marvels abound”….there is still a lot more that could easily be accomplished were we to be more “civilized” about it.

Originally posted by Zachary_Greene:
Personally, my utopia is where there is no death by pollution or guns or sweatshops.

Bombs are okay though?
That’s really nice.

Oh, c’mon now, Zachary. YOU know he is speaking metaphorically. Do ya want him to list ALL of the ailments preventing a utopia?