5 ms·

It makes a valuable point that our popular culture that we think makes us "civilized" is really just a sham and we're no different from olden-days racists and h

by Hondor 10y ago

It makes a valuable point that our popular culture that we think makes us "civilized" is really just a sham and we're no different from olden-days racists and homophobes but with a few extra rules applied. We're very careful not to abuse people because of their race, religion or certain types of sexuality, but for all the non-taboo classes of people, the gloves are off and we're no different from slave owners who justified mistreating blacks because they were sub-human. We can't call people niggers but we can call them retards. We can't lock up homosexuals but we can lock up pedophiles and zoophiles. We can't deny jobs or voting rights to women but we can deny jobs and voting rights to foreigners. We really aren't any more moral than we were 100's of years ago, we just fool ourselves into thinking we are.

nononosisisi 10y ago
I don't think it will ever be ok to be a pedophile which unfortunately you seem to imply it should be ok. Even back then lots of people knew slavery was wrong but could not do much about.
- Hondor 10y ago
  It's hard to make an argument against pedophilia (as a sexuality) which doesn't also argue against homosexuality. Of course gay men raping other men is bad and is still a crime, just as adults raping children is bad. But that's not what contemporary culture says. It says it's wrong to be sexually attracted to children even without causing any harm. There were cultures in history where sex with children was accepted, such as the Romans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty#The_Romans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty#The_Romans but they recognized that it was harmful to the child so it was limited to slaves and other people who they didn't care about.
  - a1b3c6 10y ago
    >It says it's wrong to be sexually attracted to children even without causing any harm. The act of having sex with children at all causes them harm. Any sex with children is considered rape, because children can NEVER consent to any form of sexual activity. That's the actual "modern value" we hold, not the one you've misunderstood it to be. That's why >It's hard to make an argument against pedophilia (as a sexuality) which doesn't also argue against homosexuality. Is an invalid statement. Homosexuality doesn't have to include raping other men, but pedophilia always involves raping (harming) children. Pedophilia "Just as a sexuality" can be considered immoral because the only way to express that desire is by harming children. That doesn't mean people should be punished just for being pedophiles, but obviously they need some form of counseling and to stay away from children.
solipsism 10y ago
We can't lock up homosexuals but we can lock up pedophiles and zoophiles It's extremely offensive to compare homosexuality to the others. They aren't on the same spectrum, they're categorically different. Homosexuality involves to consenting adults, the others cannot by definition (according to legal and social norms). We can't deny jobs or voting rights to women but we can deny jobs and voting rights to foreigners. Consider that this method of constructing comparisons is ridiculously arbitrary and creates a slippery slope. "We fish with worms but not with Chinese. Therefore no morals!" Huh?
- Hondor 10y ago
  > the others cannot by definition (according to legal and social norms). Your argument could equally be used to justify criminalizing gay sex as long as it happens in a country where it's illegal and people generally don't like it. But really I'm not talking about sex but about sexuality. That's just what goes on inside people's minds. We aren't even tolerant of that. It's not a crime to be attracted to children but it's certainly ground to be abused by otherwise moral people. I'm not comparing fish with Chinese. I'm comparing one group of humans with another. You could choose Americans and Chinese. How is it that we can ban members of one group from working for money but not the other? Of course this sounds ridiculous seen through the lens of current culture, but that's my point. We're so immersed in our culture that we can't see its hypocrisies. We think it's wrong for employers to advertise "Irish need not apply" but today employers advertise "work permit required" and to get a work permit, you're not allowed to be Irish except for some special cases.
  - solipsism 10y ago
    Your argument could equally be used to justify criminalizing gay sex as long as it happens in a country where it's illegal and people generally don't like it. No it can't. It's the notion of consent that is subject to legal interpretation. In a symmetric relationship like homosexuality how would consent apply? We think it's wrong for employers to advertise "Irish need not apply" but today employers advertise "work permit required" and to get a work permit, you're not allowed to be Irish except for some special cases. You seem to be missing my point. I'm not saying our categorizations aren't constructed and somewhat arbitrary. They are. What I'm saying is that your comparisons are poorly chosen. It's wise to wonder why we eat cows but not dogs. But a relationship between two consenting adults is not comparable to one between an adult and an animal. If you want to wonder why some farmers prefer sex with goats to sex with sheep, knock yourself out.
eanzenberg 10y ago
So from your eyes, everyone is equal? Rofl.
auganov 10y ago
I'll agree that if there is such a thing as moral aptitude we perhaps indeed aren't much better than previous generations. But I don't see that precluding us having a much better body of moral rules. And as far as pedophilia goes we are definitely adopting more nuanced views of it as of lately.

by Hondor 10y ago

nononosisisi 10y ago

I don't think it will ever be ok to be a pedophile which unfortunately you seem to imply it should be ok. Even back then lots of people knew slavery was wrong but could not do much about.

Hondor 10y ago
It's hard to make an argument against pedophilia (as a sexuality) which doesn't also argue against homosexuality. Of course gay men raping other men is bad and is still a crime, just as adults raping children is bad. But that's not what contemporary culture says. It says it's wrong to be sexually attracted to children even without causing any harm. There were cultures in history where sex with children was accepted, such as the Romans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty#The_Romans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty#The_Romans but they recognized that it was harmful to the child so it was limited to slaves and other people who they didn't care about.
- a1b3c6 10y ago
  >It says it's wrong to be sexually attracted to children even without causing any harm. The act of having sex with children at all causes them harm. Any sex with children is considered rape, because children can NEVER consent to any form of sexual activity. That's the actual "modern value" we hold, not the one you've misunderstood it to be. That's why >It's hard to make an argument against pedophilia (as a sexuality) which doesn't also argue against homosexuality. Is an invalid statement. Homosexuality doesn't have to include raping other men, but pedophilia always involves raping (harming) children. Pedophilia "Just as a sexuality" can be considered immoral because the only way to express that desire is by harming children. That doesn't mean people should be punished just for being pedophiles, but obviously they need some form of counseling and to stay away from children.

solipsism 10y ago

We can't lock up homosexuals but we can lock up pedophiles and zoophiles It's extremely offensive to compare homosexuality to the others. They aren't on the same spectrum, they're categorically different. Homosexuality involves to consenting adults, the others cannot by definition (according to legal and social norms). We can't deny jobs or voting rights to women but we can deny jobs and voting rights to foreigners. Consider that this method of constructing comparisons is ridiculously arbitrary and creates a slippery slope. "We fish with worms but not with Chinese. Therefore no morals!" Huh?

Hondor 10y ago
> the others cannot by definition (according to legal and social norms). Your argument could equally be used to justify criminalizing gay sex as long as it happens in a country where it's illegal and people generally don't like it. But really I'm not talking about sex but about sexuality. That's just what goes on inside people's minds. We aren't even tolerant of that. It's not a crime to be attracted to children but it's certainly ground to be abused by otherwise moral people. I'm not comparing fish with Chinese. I'm comparing one group of humans with another. You could choose Americans and Chinese. How is it that we can ban members of one group from working for money but not the other? Of course this sounds ridiculous seen through the lens of current culture, but that's my point. We're so immersed in our culture that we can't see its hypocrisies. We think it's wrong for employers to advertise "Irish need not apply" but today employers advertise "work permit required" and to get a work permit, you're not allowed to be Irish except for some special cases.
- solipsism 10y ago
  Your argument could equally be used to justify criminalizing gay sex as long as it happens in a country where it's illegal and people generally don't like it. No it can't. It's the notion of consent that is subject to legal interpretation. In a symmetric relationship like homosexuality how would consent apply? We think it's wrong for employers to advertise "Irish need not apply" but today employers advertise "work permit required" and to get a work permit, you're not allowed to be Irish except for some special cases. You seem to be missing my point. I'm not saying our categorizations aren't constructed and somewhat arbitrary. They are. What I'm saying is that your comparisons are poorly chosen. It's wise to wonder why we eat cows but not dogs. But a relationship between two consenting adults is not comparable to one between an adult and an animal. If you want to wonder why some farmers prefer sex with goats to sex with sheep, knock yourself out.

eanzenberg 10y ago

So from your eyes, everyone is equal? Rofl.

auganov 10y ago

I'll agree that if there is such a thing as moral aptitude we perhaps indeed aren't much better than previous generations. But I don't see that precluding us having a much better body of moral rules. And as far as pedophilia goes we are definitely adopting more nuanced views of it as of lately.