neeeel
-
Posts
826 -
Joined
-
Days Won
12
Everything posted by neeeel
-
The Fall of Man as insurance against the Divine Right of Kings
neeeel replied to Donnadogsoth's topic in Atheism and Religion
how convenient. Its funny how in one instance, things can go against gods plan, or self-corrupt, and you can explain that away, and then in another instance, gods all powerful uncorruptable nature is brought up to explain something else away Its almost as if you are grasping at straws, and making stuff up You can come up with a plausible sounding explanation , a "what if" or a "maybe". Doesnt make it true though eg, what if god intented the world to be fallen? -
depends what you mean by satisfactorily. Goddidit is not a satisfactory explanation
-
Are you serious? Goddidit is not an explanation for anything
-
It seems like a strange question. You must know what the answer of the majority of people here would be. You probably really know the answer yourself. So I am wondering what you are actually looking for?
-
H-1b, Non-Aggression Axiom, Men and Moral Philosophy
neeeel replied to jabowery's topic in General Messages
Why not? -
I agree. I don't see how it is possible for children of good parents to treat them like crap. Of course there are always going to be conflicts, and I suppose its theoretically possible to have some genetic flaw(for want of a better word) that causes someone to act impulsively or uncaring, but in general, if the kids are acting horribly it's because the parents have been horrible
-
Not answering a question is not the same as lying.
-
No one is triggered by the use of the word mandatory, and you dont have to apologise for using it. Kind of , I suppose, although theres something in your wording that bothers me. Its not a magic spell that you use to get compliance.. Those arent really consequences though, are they? They are punishments, or coercive ways of enforcing your will. Consequences are "if I jump off a building, I will fall due to gravity" or "if I go out in the rain, I will get wet". How are you going to enforce the "non violent consequences"? If they say they are going out anyway, what are you going to do?
-
After I replied to you, I realised that it would only be a double standard if we were holding males and females to the same standard. I would agree that we can hold males and females to different standards and not be hypocritical. I also realise that SJWs and liberals think that we should hold men and women to the same standard, while simultaneously holding them to different standards. Given that there has been discussion here about milo and his comments, do you think a 17yo can consent to sex? People ( not just here) are framing it as this woman being a rapist, because the male was under 18. If that is true, then if the 17yo actually raped the women ( and I know that sort of thing has happened), then we have to come to the bizarre conclusion that the 17yo rapist was a victim of rape, simply because the women was older than him. I didnt read the comments on the article, but I can imagine the sort of comments that men were leaving. Are these comments really "disgusting"?
-
I think the double standard is that if it was a man with a 17yo girl, he wouldnt get off
-
Perhaps its the word "mandatory". I dont think chores should be mandatory, as in "you must do them, or else" or "I will force you to do them". I would prefer that children learn to value doing chores, and understand that its useful to do them,and good to contribute to the running of the house. I dont think they will learn that if chores are made mandatory
-
I dont think mandatory chores are the way to go
-
Do you think a 13 year old would eat healthily if left to his own devices, or would he just eat sweets all day?
-
This is the crux of our discussion. But you qualified it with the word "basic". Is basic comprehension all thats needed for consent? That was what you seemed to be implying when you said they can comprehend "basic" nutrition. That is all I am saying. IF that is your point, then my point is that it seems clear to me that 13 year olds can comprehend "basic" sex and relationships, and therefore, by your reasoning, can consent.
-
1) I would probably have a base level of allowance, and give opportunities to earn more 2) no way should you buy them everything/anything that they want, even if you can afford it learning to budget their money, prioritise what to spend it on, and saving it up for bigger purchases, is important.
-
no, what you said was this was in response to my statement " they arent outside a power structure, therefore they cant consent to eat broccoli." So 1) you say consent isnt possible in a power structure 2) I say, in that case, you cant consent to eat broccoli in a power structure 3) you respond, They can consent, because they can understand basic nutrition 4) So you are implying here, that understanding the basics of something means that you can consent, even in a power structure. You understand the basics of nutrition, therefore you can consent to eat nutritious food. This also implies the opposite, that if you dont understand the basics of something, then you cant consent. You have already stated that 13 yos cant consent to sex, therefore, following your own reasoning, they cant understand the basics of sex it follows logically from your argument. It is in no way a strawman. If you want to change your argument, feel free.
-
Huh? What strawman? I am quoting what you said. You said they could consent to broccoli because they can understand the basics of nutrition, implying that they can't consent to sex because they can't understand the basics of sex
-
so they can understand the basics of nutrition but not the basics of sex? I doubt there is ever an equal relationship. Someone will always have some type of power. Whether its more resources, more intelligence, more strength, more whatever, there is always going to be some sort of imbalance. perhaps we are meaning different things when we are talking about "power" though
-
Determinism would also say that "seeing the future" was also determined. Its not clear what you are arguing here, but just wanted to point out that nothing in your post is an argument against determinism
-
The problem I have with this is that 1) it applies to all humans. There are few, if any, aspects of human life that dont involve some sort of power structure. And 2) it applies to any act or action. So, using your reasoning above, I could argue against a 13 year old being able to consent to anything. they arent outside a power structure, therefore they cant consent to eat broccoli. They cant consent to touch of any kind. etc. This seems blatantly false to me. ( disclaimer, because I know this is an important subject here. I in no way support or condone any sort of abuse. The consent argument has always seemed vague and weak to me, which is why I want to look into it more)
-
The problem I have with the consent argument is that its unfalsifiable(not sure if that's the correct term). Consider, if it was theoretically possible for a 13 year old to consent(not saying it is possible, just to be clear) . Would you, in that case, not have a problem with it? I am fairly sure that you would have a problem, which indicates that the consent line of reasoning is not what is really behind your position
-
you do have access to them. They are on youtube or the podcast site also, dross?
-
Im not sure where I did any shaming?
-
yes, or to guilt them or get them to question themselves, rather than the arguments.
-
This doesnt make sense, it cant be both consensual and rape. NAP and ostracism are different things. NAP doesnt "justify" ostracism. You simply get to choose who you associate with. Yes, the ostracising party could end up being ostracised themselves. I find this a confusing question too. Most people would think you are justified to step in and stop sex between someone of age 13 and 29. Rape has always been rape, right? so, 300 years ago, or whatever teenage brides were being raped? Ostracism has nothing to do with fairness. You can have any reason, or no reason, to ostracise someone.. You are free to choose who you associate with, for any reason, or no reason.
