***You really like black/white haroki, and that's just not the real world. Similar, reasonable people, can and do hold different positions on things like morals.*** So you would say that there are REASONABLE people that find pedophilia morally ok? I doubt you could. This shows that your "shades of grey" world is not always the correct one. Sometimes, you DO need to make a stand and call it black or white. Pedophilia is one of those areas. Regarding other things, you are correct about shades of grey. If you continue to defend your position, and don't admit that you at the very least worded this wrong or weren't thinking, then you have some serious personal issues. A simple retraction of the above statement would go a long way. Then I would retract what I have said about you, cuz it was based on the several posts such as this that I have read.....
I don't know what planet you're from or what language they speak there. How'd you get that from what I wrote? Martin
Hi Turok, OK, I do think we are talking past each other here. Let's me also take a step back and define what I'm talking about. A: Homosexuality has a genetic basis. B: Pedophilia has a genetic basis. I am not here to argue the truth of A or B. I'm specifically trying to avoid staking a claim on A or B. I have my own opinions but they are irrelevant to this discussion. If I have allowed myself to get goaded into stating opinions on A or B, I regret it because it just dilutes my argument. Obviously if I wanted to stake out a position on A or B I would need evidence, but that's not my goal. Here's the idea I'm arguing about: C: If homosexuality has a genetic basis, pedophilia must have a genetic basis. -- or in in other words -- C: A implies B Haroki's point is based on the assumption that statement C is true. Statement C is not true; it simply does not follow. While A and B could very well both be true, that still would not mean that B is true <i>because</i> A is true. You need to show some sort of evidence linking them. And no, I do not bear any burden of proof here; it is simple logic. No scientist could possibly get away with assuming C; they would be laughed at. C is assumed false until proven true. I've shown this in all kinds of ways, with all kinds of examples, and Haroki knows that. This argument is won. The fact that Haroki is trying to turn this into a discussion of my pedophile-hatin' creds is just a pitiful attempt to deflect attention from the fact that he is wrong. As far as our discussion is concerned, I think this is mostly just misunderstanding. I may have misinterpreted your position to be staking a claim on C, so I argued with you. But it seems you are really arguing the truth of A and B, which is a very interesting discussion but not the one I'm trying to have. Martin
Haroki quotes from a post of mine: **You really like black/white haroki, and that's just not the real world. Similar, reasonable people, can and do hold different positions on things like morals.*** He then comments: >So you would say that there >are REASONABLE people that >find pedophilia morally ok? How about you do this Haroki ... why don't you post the paragraph JUST ABOVE the one you quoted. You will find that we (that's you and I) were directly discussing the morals of ALCOHOL ABUSE, NOT PEDOPHILIA. YOU asked the alcohol related question and I gave you my best alcohol related answer. Geeez. Pay attention to YOUR OWN questions before you accuse me of claiming that pedophilia could EVER be morally OK. Haroki again: >Sometimes, you DO need to make a stand and call it >black or white. Pedophilia is one of those areas. >Regarding other things, you are correct about >shades of grey. Like, oh say ... ALCOHOL! >If you continue to defend your position, and don't >admit that you at the very least worded this wrong >or weren't thinking, then you have some serious >personal issues. I was thinking quite clearly and it was worded perfectly in answer to YOUR ALCOHOL question. Had you ask me a question regarding the morality of pedophilia I would have happily answered that question --- BUT YOU DIDN'T >A simple retraction of the above statement would >go a long way. Then I would retract what I have >said about you, cuz it was based on the several >posts such as this that I have read..... I owe you no retraction since I answered your ALCOHOL question perfectly, honestly and fairly. You however do owe me a retraction of your horrible statement that I think pedophilia is moral -- a position that I HAVE NEVER TAKEN NOR INSINUATED. JB
Ok, I apologize. You seem to have your head in the right place. It's just that after arguing with a lot of irrational people on here, it comes hard to believe that someone who says that dogs are capable of higher reasoning is being serious or not. Guess I'm conditioned to believe someone that argues that point to be a troll. You're clearly not one of those either. Good evening....
You're correct A does not necessarily follow B. I would agree with Turok though and say, "that in some way", it is wired into some individuals. And those individuals are not capable of going against their "wiring" to a sufficient degree of certainty that they should ever be let out of prison, due to the horrififc nature of the crime. The left argues counter to my belief, and I think that's insane. End of my involvement here. Apologizes to you too for any earlier comments. Have a good evening
Haroki: >Ok, I apologize. You seem to have your >head in the right place. Thanks for the apology, and accepted. >It's just that after arguing with a lot of irrational >people on here, it comes hard to believe that someone >who says that dogs are capable of higher reasoning is >being serious or not. Guess I'm conditioned to believe >someone that argues that point to be a troll. For the record, I *never* argued that dogs are capable of "higher reasoning". I don't believe for a moment that dogs are capable of "higher reasoning". That was *your* term and *you* applied it to canine behavior that I don't find "higher" at all -- it's simply an easily trained behavior in both dogs and humans. Peace. JB