Just realized I should clarify what I meant in response to Uccisore by a shallow dismissal conservatives, especially religious ones…
To say they see all sex as at best a necessary evil, so of course they are against any form that does not lead to in marriage procreation. IOW dismiss all their positions on sex as really a hatred of sex. But I don’t think this is the case, I think there are more factors, and to dismiss all their positions that way would be as disingenous as saying the real agenda by the left when they argue against pedophilia is so they can attack the Catholic church.
How can you start and end your post like that, with nothing but insults in between, and not feel like a fucking hypocrite? And look at what’s in between…
False.
False.
Why are you equating “leftism” and relativism? What you’re doing here seems like, “the most repugnant thing about relativism and baseball is that it ultimately does justify things like pedophilia.”. Yeaaa, relativism might…
Ironically, you are the one who responded that pedophilia is immoral because it is inherently disgusting. —THAT’s relativism. Pedophilia may be inherently disgusting because it is immoral, but it’s not immoral because it’s disgusting to you, or anyone else. It’s immoral for reasons apart from whatever your tastes/opinions happen to be. It’s also not immoral for anything to do with some theological conception of what sex is for. —THAT’s also relativism, or a form of subjectivism, for the simple reason that your only reason for morality is “God said so”, which just isn’t good enough in a philosophical conversation.
Ah, yes, I see what you mean. Yeah, I think a conservatives view of pedophilia is going to be rooted in their view of sex in general, for sure. But certainly, any given conservative can delve a little too far into the stereotype of what the conservative view of sex is.
To be clear, I don’t think it’s an agenda, I think it’s a reflex. The common leftist isn’t applying their views of sex to pedophilia in a consistent way, because the most high-profile instance of pedophilia is coming from an institution they hate. If the world’s most high-profile pedophiles were a group liberals felt an instinct to defend, this debate would be a very different thing. Case in point- the liberal perspective on marriage has classically been that it’s the most oppressive, backwards, misogynistic institution in the history of mankind, and the liberal quest re: marriage has been a quest for it’s abolition or at the least making it completely irrelevant in society. But hold the fucking phone, the gays want to do it, so now it’s a fundamental human right, and an absolutely indispensable way for two(?) people to express their love for each other. The feminist leftists of the 70’s and 80’s that you brought up are guilty of precisely this hypocrisy.
Dawkins as cited in this thread is another example. Pedophilia isn’t that big of a deal when it happens to him (!), but it’s the Worst Thing Ever that the Catholic Church is caught up in it.
To be even more clear, I think everybody, including conservatives, tend to respond to moral issues with reflex, not reason- otherwise known as prejudice. Prejudice just is moral sentimentality. The fact that people tend to do this is the foundation of a good argument for conservatism, though.
Lol, so THAT’s what you think relativism is- any position you judge isn’t ‘good enough’ in some undefined way. I was wondering why you thought the term applied to absolutely every moral position you don’t like. No wonder you seem mad all the time. Hell, at the very least, you get originality points for bitching about fundamentalist religious people being moral relativists.
I have to admit, I never knew before that this elitist, eugenicist cunt who is sponsored by white supremacist Bill Gates was sexually abused as a child.
However, it does help explain a few things. In those sorts of networks sexual abuse is a kind of initiation process. You get your ring penetrated and then you get to enter the inner circle…
I’m skipping most of the thread, so forgive me if what I’m about to say has already been addressed.
In the article, it seems Dawkins is expressing more his own experience in a pedophiliac encounter and saying of it “it wasn’t so bad”. He’s also reporting the same about some of his peers at the time. Nothing wrong with that.
But then the article goes on to say:
This is the closest he comes to saying pedophilia is not that bad, but I have to say–if you take out all the bias an emotional stirrings such a statement raises, what Dawkins is saying is just logical. Yes, “mild touching up” is just not as bad as full on rape or murder. Of course!
However, I do think Dawkins fails to make a distinction between the experience of the victim and the psychology of the perpetrator. Dawkins may not have been traumatized by the master who put his hand down his shorts, but what the hell is the master doing putting his hands down his shorts? You think just because Dawkins wasn’t traumatized by the incident, the school master isn’t capable of doing serious psychological harm to another kid?
And about the moral relativism thing: how is this an indication that moral relativism is running amok? What evidence is there that these opinions can be traced to the acceptance of moral relativism? Look at the statement made by stinklebrink:
He cites science, not relativism (although the science is questionable). What makes you think he’s a relativist? You think if we somehow banished moral relativism or convinced the world that it is irreparably flawed, you couldn’t get statements like stinklebrink’s being made in an absolutist sense? The argument would simply shift from “X is morally okay because it’s morally okay for me,” to “X is morally okay absolutely, and if you don’t think so, you’re just wrong.”
Does anyone actually think Dawkins is condoning mild pedophilia in any scandalous sense? Dawkins is innocent. He’s a good man. To think otherwise is blasphemy. I don’t even have to read what he said to know a priori it was taken out of context.
I do have a problem with making 16 the de facto age of consent. If 16 is ok, then no reason why 15 and 3/4 is off limits. Or 15 and a half. The point is, where do you draw the line (of cum)? We have to have clear definitions of acceptable “consent” and neuro-chemical markers to show the data of consent taking place. Until then we have to pull an arbitrary number (69?) out of the air:
Overheard during the meeting of the Committee For Proper Consent:
“Pubic hair is important, but not like a little, we all agree it has to be FULL BUSH. Now…as Quimly expressed, and I agree, only if she is 18 with full bush. There are some 14 year olds with full bush. They don’t count. And if an 18 year old doesn’t have full bush, she still counts. That’s why we’re here today, because none of this makes any sense. Plus, the young people tend to shave it all off, and we ruled out the idea of mandatory not-shaving…so the president’s decided to send the whole issue up to ILP for review…”
What he is, is an evolutionary biologist that sees fit to open his mouth about a bunch of other subjects on which he knows nothing. I think you’re right- I think he doesn’t condone pedophilia. I think he manages to condemn pedophilia at the same time as he says it’s not harmful at the same time as he says it is harmful at the same time as he says it was no big deal when it happened to him at the same time as he says it’s the worst thing ever that the Catholic Church is caught up in it. I think he manages to say all of those things, and that they all work in his head because that’s how confused he is about ethical matters.
I think you overestimate how clearly people think things through, even high-profile people.
My question is: why do we see pedophilia popping up at such alarming rates? It happens way too often in places like the Church, boy scouts, orphanages, boarding schools. And it always happens to young boys, never girls (or at least the cases involving boys as victims are reported more). It’s almost like some grand conspiracy, like there’s this international underground organization of pedophiles who are in cahoots with all sorts of institutional establishments to somehow allow them to get away with all sorts of perverse sexual acts against little boys. Like WTF?