Pedophiles Running Our Government

[Theocrat]

Homosexuality involves consenting adults. Pedophilia does not. I don't have a problem with people being bisexual cuz...ya know...consenting adults. Bestiality does not involve two consenting adult humans. I don't have a problem with polygamy as long as all involved are...ya know...consenting adults. Both parties can't consent to necrophilia. I don't know what the other two words mean, and I don't care enough to take the time to look.

Now you've made the problem more difficult because consent necessarily implies free will. In a universe of just random processes subject to non-sentient matter on a subatomic level, there can be no such thing as "free will" because matter just operates based on forces enacted against it. Just as rocks fall to the ground by gravitational processes, the human brain just does whatever it does based on random electrochemical processes. Therefore, there can be no true consent whereby a person is free to choose one behavior from another behavior simply because he is subject to whatever processes his brain forces him to act.

But if we take the idea of consent up to another level, and with the assumption that the universe is not under the influence of a personal God, then we must ask why consent, itself, ought to be the determining factor for correct any behavior. Children do not consent to their parent's discipline before they are spanked, for instance, yet we all realize that the consent of the child is irrelevant for such matters. Criminals don't consent to being taken away to prison before they are arrested, either, but we recognize that their consent is moot in matters of justice.

So, philosophically speaking, you have to show objectively why consent is true, so that it can be asserted as a proper ethical standard in sexual behavior, no matter if a person accepts consent or not. And you have to apply it as that standard for these biological bags of meat and bones with electricity flowing through them known as "human beings." Otherwise, you are just being arbitrary. And if you want to be arbitrary, then someone else can come along and impose his sexual standards by rejecting consent as the precondition for acceptable sexual behavior (as do the "pedophiles running our government" towards little boys and girls).

[UWDude]

Now you've made the problem more difficult because consent necessarily implies free will. In a universe of just random processes subject to non-sentient matter on a subatomic level, there can be no such thing as "free will" because matter just operates based on forces enacted against it. Just as rocks fall to the ground by gravitational processes, the human brain just does whatever it does based on random electrochemical processes. Therefore, there can be no true consent whereby a person is free to choose one behavior from another behavior simply because he is subject to whatever processes his brain forces him to act.

But if we take the idea of consent up to another level, and with the assumption that the universe is not under the influence of a personal God, then we must ask why consent, itself, ought to be the determining factor for correct any behavior. Children do not consent to their parent's discipline before they are spanked, for instance, yet we all realize that the consent of the child is irrelevant for such matters. Criminals don't consent to being taken away to prison before they are arrested, either, but we recognize that their consent is moot in matters of justice.

So, philosophically speaking, you have to show objectively why consent is true, so that it can be asserted as a proper ethical standard in sexual behavior, no matter if a person accepts consent or not. And you have to apply it as that standard for these biological bags of meat and bones with electricity flowing through them known as "human beings." Otherwise, you are just being arbitrary. And if you want to be arbitrary, then someone else can come along and impose his sexual standards by rejecting consent as the precondition for acceptable sexual behavior (as do the "pedophiles running our government" towards little boys and girls).

I sure am glad you are anti-Trump.

[Sola_Fide]

I keep wondering when the people of this country are going to wake up to the criminal perverted activities of our elected officials. We can be sure that the higher position the more they are being blackmailed. The more despicable they are the more great press they will get. Boiling Frogs Post is working to expose this and we need to help them get this to the forefront. I am not going to let this go are you?

As much as I am inclined to agree with presentations like this, I still believe it is a distraction. People shouldn't be contra state because perverts are running it, but because of a firm belief in property and liberty.

[Theocrat]

I sure am glad you are anti-Trump.

You're glad I'm anti-Trump because you are anti-liberty. You want more intervention from the federal government into our personal lives, into the marketplace, and into the affairs of foreign nations. That's exactly what Trump stands for, and that is just as evil as "pedophiles running our government."

[The One]

Now you've made the problem more difficult because consent necessarily implies free will. In a universe of just random processes subject to non-sentient matter on a subatomic level, there can be no such thing as "free will" because matter just operates based on forces enacted against it. Just as rocks fall to the ground by gravitational processes, the human brain just does whatever it does based on random electrochemical processes. Therefore, there can be no true consent whereby a person is free to choose one behavior from another behavior simply because he is subject to whatever processes his brain forces him to act.

But if we take the idea of consent up to another level, and with the assumption that the universe is not under the influence of a personal God, then we must ask why consent, itself, ought to be the determining factor for correct any behavior. Children do not consent to their parent's discipline before they are spanked, for instance, yet we all realize that the consent of the child is irrelevant for such matters. Criminals don't consent to being taken away to prison before they are arrested, either, but we recognize that their consent is moot in matters of justice.

So, philosophically speaking, you have to show objectively why consent is true, so that it can be asserted as a proper ethical standard in sexual behavior, no matter if a person accepts consent or not. And you have to apply it as that standard for these biological bags of meat and bones with electricity flowing through them known as "human beings." Otherwise, you are just being arbitrary. And if you want to be arbitrary, then someone else can come along and impose his sexual standards by rejecting consent as the precondition for acceptable sexual behavior (as do the "pedophiles running our government" towards little boys and girls).

This makes me think of the dude who said something like, "I don't know how to define pornography, but I know it when I see it."

Well, I don't know what "processes subject to non-sentient matter on a sub-atomic level" has to do with any of this, but I do know that raping little kids is not comparable to two chicks scissor-$#@!ing the $#@! out of each other for pleasure.

[Theocrat]

This makes me think of the dude who said something like, "I don't know how to define pornography, but I know it when I see it."

Well, I don't know what "processes subject to non-sentient matter on a sub-atomic level" has to do with any of this, but I do know that raping little kids is not comparable to two chicks scissor-$#@!ing the $#@! out of each other for pleasure.

It has a lot to do with it because you must be able to justify why consent is right, on a metaphysical level, given the assumption that there is no God. If you can't justify objectively why consent ought to be the precondition for proper sexual behavior, then you are asserting an idea without a just basis for it. In other words, you are being arbitrary. You're essentially arguing that two people must consent to a sexual act because you think consent is good. But then someone else can be equally arbitrary and say that consent is irrelevant when it comes to fulfilling their sexual lusts (as pedophiles, rapists, and others do). That's the consequence of your idea on sexual behavior, especially in a world without the sovereignty of a personal God.

[otherone]

If you can't justify objectively why consent ought to be the precondition for proper sexual behavior,

Is consent the precondition for any behavior?

[The One]

It has a lot to do with it because you must be able to justify why consent is right, on a metaphysical level, given the assumption that there is no God. If you can't justify objectively why consent ought to be the precondition for proper sexual behavior, then you are asserting an idea without a just basis for it. In other words, you are being arbitrary. You're essentially arguing that two people must consent to a sexual act because you think consent is good. But then someone else can be equally arbitrary and say that consent is irrelevant when it comes to fulfilling their sexual lusts (as pedophiles, rapists, and others do). That's the consequence of your idea on sexual behavior, especially in a world without the sovereignty of a personal God.

Okay, you win. Your prize? A new avatar...

[UWDude]

You're glad I'm anti-Trump because you are anti-liberty. You want more intervention from the federal government into our personal lives, into the marketplace, and into the affairs of foreign nations. That's exactly what Trump stands for, and that is just as evil as "pedophiles running our government."

No, because your views are far beyond the pale of common discourse. You can make the anti-trumpers look bad.

[Theocrat]

Is consent the precondition for any behavior?

That depends on your worldview, particularly as it relates to whether human beings have souls or not. From a Christian worldview, no, consent is not always the precondition for any behavior. In fact, if God did not give us new hearts by the Holy Spirit ("being born again") to trust and follow Him, then no one would consent to believing in Him. That's because we're all born in sin, and our natural selves don't want anything to do with God, due to that sin nature.

But once again, if one rejects the Christian worldview about the nature of human beings, then that person has to justify why pedophilia is objectively wrong, given the assertion that human beings are just biological machines subject to the laws of chemistry and physics. And to insert the need for consent in sexual behavior goes way beyond biology, chemistry, or physics. Otherwise, consent becomes an impossibility, or, at best, just something that is dependent upon impersonal and random material forces which no human being can control unto himself.

[ChristianAnarchist]

That depends on your worldview, particularly as it relates to whether human beings have souls or not. From a Christian worldview, no, consent is not always the precondition for any behavior. In fact, if God did not give us new hearts by the Holy Spirit ("being born again") to trust and follow Him, then no one would consent to believing in Him. That's because we're all born in sin, and our natural selves don't want anything to do with God, due to that sin nature.

But once again, if one rejects the Christian worldview about the nature of human beings, then that person has to justify why pedophilia is objectively wrong, given the assertion that human beings are just biological machines subject to the laws of chemistry and physics. And to insert the need for consent in sexual behavior goes way beyond biology, chemistry, or physics. Otherwise, consent becomes an impossibility, or, at best, just something that is dependent upon impersonal and random material forces which no human being can control unto himself.

I hate to have to be the one to bring this up but exactly where does the bible say anything about what age one can have sex at?? In fact there are many instances in the bible where very young people have had sex and or married... Just wonderin...

[Zippyjuan]

Lot had sex with his own daughters (they got him drunk first). Doesn't say how old they were though. It did note that they were virgins. He also offered them to citizens of Sodom so they would not attack (rape ) his house guests.