Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2018 16:59:31 GMT -5
Depends on your definition. Remember that Sweden considers consenting sexual relations between adults 'rape' if it's unprotected sex.
|
|
|
|
Post by motleycruesader on Sept 3, 2018 17:04:12 GMT -5
Depends on your definition. Remember that Sweden considers consenting sexual relations between adults 'rape' if it's unprotected sex.
I mean sex that is not between consenting adults. Forced, someone is unconscious or incapable of making a rational decision at the time, a child, etc. Reasonable standards apply. Not 'regret', but rape.
Also, please tell me you're kidding about Sweden...
|
|
|
|
Post by Hordini on Sept 3, 2018 17:10:36 GMT -5
Depends on your definition. Remember that Sweden considers consenting sexual relations between adults 'rape' if it's unprotected sex.
What? They do? How do people legally have children? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2018 17:15:31 GMT -5
Also, please tell me you're kidding about Sweden...
Sorry. it was actually how they were trying to extradite Julian Assange on a rape charge. |
|
|
|
Post by mrmystic on Sept 3, 2018 17:15:58 GMT -5
What have I got to do with it? We're talking about ethics on a cultural level. Muhammed was happy to kiddy fiddle by our standards, as were the Spartans, medieval European aristocracy, and plenty of others. They didn't consider it barbarism.
Every generation considers itself more enlightened and morally superior to what came before. In five hundred years, they'll be looking at you like you look at the above examples.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2018 17:31:57 GMT -5
What have I got to do with it? We're talking about ethics on a cultural level. Muhammed was happy to kiddy fiddle by our standards, as were the Spartans, medieval European aristocracy, and plenty of others. They didn't consider it barbarism. Every generation considers itself more enlightened and morally superior to what came before. In five hundred years, they'll be looking at you like you look at the above examples.
I'd make a joke about the future of circumcision but half a dozen sci fi writers have beat me to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by motleycruesader on Sept 3, 2018 17:36:02 GMT -5
What have I got to do with it? We're talking about ethics on a cultural level. Muhammed was happy to kiddy fiddle by our standards, as were the Spartans, medieval European aristocracy, and plenty of others. They didn't consider it barbarism. Every generation considers itself more enlightened and morally superior to what came before. In five hundred years, they'll be looking at you like you look at the above examples. Comparing a culture in 2018 to cultures that progressed centuries ago- sometimes in the damned Bronze Age- is hardly making an argument that excuses them. When I was a little kid about a year old I used to pull down my pants and piss anywhere I felt like it. If I see a grown man doing that now, he doesn't get a pass because "I did that when I was too young to know any better". |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2018 17:42:12 GMT -5
What have I got to do with it? We're talking about ethics on a cultural level. Muhammed was happy to kiddy fiddle by our standards, as were the Spartans, medieval European aristocracy, and plenty of others. They didn't consider it barbarism. Every generation considers itself more enlightened and morally superior to what came before. In five hundred years, they'll be looking at you like you look at the above examples. Comparing a culture in 2018 to cultures that progressed centuries ago- sometimes in the damned Bronze Age- is hardly making an argument that excuses them. When I was a little kid about a year old I used to pull down my pants and piss anywhere I felt like it. If I see a grown man doing that now, he doesn't get a pass because "I did that when I was too young to know any better". And yet you'll see exactly that in open air urinals in Paris. |
|
|
|
Post by mrmystic on Sept 3, 2018 17:51:03 GMT -5
What have I got to do with it? We're talking about ethics on a cultural level. Muhammed was happy to kiddy fiddle by our standards, as were the Spartans, medieval European aristocracy, and plenty of others. They didn't consider it barbarism. Every generation considers itself more enlightened and morally superior to what came before. In five hundred years, they'll be looking at you like you look at the above examples. Comparing a culture in 2018 to cultures that progressed centuries ago- sometimes in the damned Bronze Age- is hardly making an argument that excuses them. When I was a little kid about a year old I used to pull down my pants and piss anywhere I felt like it. If I see a grown man doing that now, he doesn't get a pass because "I did that when I was too young to know any better".
That's the point. You feel that because you live 2000 years later and conflate 'time passing' with 'progression'; your ethical stance on things is somehow superior and more objectively correct. And it isn't. If they're back to kiddy fiddling in 500 years (as they may very well be), you'll be the barbarian to them for NOT doing it.
Heck, doesn't even have to be 500 years. If the West disappeared in nuclear fire tomorrow, it could be a hundred years from now that the most 'advanced' nation looks on it as a matter of course.
There is no objective set of morals. And if there are no objective ethics, there is no objective ethical 'progression' line that you can stick pins in to judge one culture as 'more' or 'less' advanced than another. No culture is objectively superior to another. And the desire of the West to spread its partial newfound enthusiasm for human rights (partial, because many still don't believe in it even in our own cultures) is just the usual historical schtick it's always been.
That is to say, any culture which has developed in a similar fashion to ours is 'advanced', and those that haven't are 'barbaric'. Those that deviate too far from ours are to be destroyed until they more closely resemble ours. Unless they can hurt us back, in which case our desire to take the truth to the heathens is tempered by fear of actual consequences in to an appropriate proportion to how badly they can hurt us.
|
|
|
|
Post by motleycruesader on Sept 3, 2018 17:54:16 GMT -5
That's the point. You feel that because you live 2000 years later and conflate 'time passing' with 'progression'; your ethical stance on things is somehow superior and more objectively correct. And it isn't. If they're back to kiddy fiddling in 500 years (as they may very well be), you'll be the barbarian to them for NOT doing it.
Heck, doesn't even have to be 500 years. If the West disappeared in nuclear fire tomorrow, it could be a hundred years from now that the most 'advanced' nation looks on it as a matter of course.
There is no objective set of morals. And if there are no objective ethics, there is no objective ethical 'progression' line that you can stick pins in to judge one culture as 'more' or 'less' advanced than another. No culture is objectively superior to another. And the desire of the West to spread its partial newfound enthusiasm for human rights (partial, because many still don't believe in it even in our own cultures) is just the usual historical schtick it's always been.
That is to say, any culture which has developed in a similar fashion to ours is 'advanced', and those that haven't are 'barbaric'. Those that deviate too far from ours are to be destroyed until they more closely resemble ours. Unless they can hurt us back, in which case our desire to take the truth to the heathens is tempered by fear of actual consequences and other needs.
No, I'm saying cultures that rape kids and bash womens' heads in with rocks are objectively inferior to our own, especially since their entire system of belief to justify this behavior is scientifically proven to be hogwash. Yes, they are inferior and we are superior. Morality is not subjective. There is a baseline to the standards of human behavior. |
|
|
|
Post by motleycruesader on Sept 3, 2018 17:54:57 GMT -5
Comparing a culture in 2018 to cultures that progressed centuries ago- sometimes in the damned Bronze Age- is hardly making an argument that excuses them. When I was a little kid about a year old I used to pull down my pants and piss anywhere I felt like it. If I see a grown man doing that now, he doesn't get a pass because "I did that when I was too young to know any better". And yet you'll see exactly that in open air urinals in Paris. I figured most of Paris was an open-air urinal. |
|
|
|
Post by mrmystic on Sept 3, 2018 18:11:26 GMT -5
That's the point. You feel that because you live 2000 years later and conflate 'time passing' with 'progression'; your ethical stance on things is somehow superior and more objectively correct. And it isn't. If they're back to kiddy fiddling in 500 years (as they may very well be), you'll be the barbarian to them for NOT doing it.
Heck, doesn't even have to be 500 years. If the West disappeared in nuclear fire tomorrow, it could be a hundred years from now that the most 'advanced' nation looks on it as a matter of course.
There is no objective set of morals. And if there are no objective ethics, there is no objective ethical 'progression' line that you can stick pins in to judge one culture as 'more' or 'less' advanced than another. No culture is objectively superior to another. And the desire of the West to spread its partial newfound enthusiasm for human rights (partial, because many still don't believe in it even in our own cultures) is just the usual historical schtick it's always been.
That is to say, any culture which has developed in a similar fashion to ours is 'advanced', and those that haven't are 'barbaric'. Those that deviate too far from ours are to be destroyed until they more closely resemble ours. Unless they can hurt us back, in which case our desire to take the truth to the heathens is tempered by fear of actual consequences and other needs.
No, I'm saying cultures that rape kids and bash womens' heads in with rocks are objectively inferior to our own, especially since their entire system of belief to justify this behavior is scientifically proven to be hogwash. Yes, they are inferior and we are superior. Morality is not subjective. There is a baseline to the standards of human behavior. Morality is objective? Prove it. Bag me up an ounce of morality. Empirically or rationally demonstrate its existence separate from humanity. If it's an immutable law of the Universe (unlike those systems of belief you're denigrating), you should be able to do so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2018 18:20:56 GMT -5
Yes, they are inferior and we are superior. Morality is not subjective. There is a baseline to the standards of human behavior. Really? Do you really want to go there with me, the great recorder of mankinds many sins? Because the biggest violator of those standards is still western civilization. In fact, the sheer number of times the US has violated those standards since 1900 is...well... damning. |
|
|
|
Post by notironcaptain on Sept 3, 2018 18:24:43 GMT -5
Yes, they are inferior and we are superior. Morality is not subjective. There is a baseline to the standards of human behavior. Really? Do you really want to go there with me, the great recorder of mankinds many sins? Because the biggest violator of those standards is still western civilization. In fact, the sheer number of times the US has violated those standards since 1900 is...well... damning. And I have kept track of all of them... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2018 18:29:40 GMT -5
And I have kept track of all of them... I have little doubt of *That* |
|
