Posted on 12/23/2001 6:26:24 AM PST by Mopp4
Regardless, Im not xtian, but it seems I know it alot better than the "hit you across your head with a bible" crowd. Now, perhaps you can answer a question for me that no one else has: how is this is sin in God's eyes if the boy was Jewish? There is no prohibition against fornication in the 'old' testament.... so, where is the boy's hellfire and damnation you seem to want him to wallow in (not to mention going against the above scripture out of your own bible as well)?
Straw men, straw men everywhere, so let's all have a fire. Look, this is a 15 year-old kid who wanted instant gratification. He took little thought for the consequences, since he figured he'd be dead soon. This is far different from a soldier who is hardly as certain to die as a terminal cancer patient. Moreover, the soldier would have a small pension were he to fall in battle.
I remember, as an adolescent, feeling like I didn't want to die before I experienced sex, once. Then, after I experienced it, I didn't want to die before I experienced it twice....Then thrice....and so on.
I got to thinkning more and more about the pure logic side of this. And I think, from a purely logical standpoint, that the chances of conception are so incredibly low that this would make an, dare I say, acceptable risk. We take a greater chance of getting killed in an automobile accident on the way to Disney then this kid took if 'all necessary precautions were taken'. So, I guess, from logic, what weight his getting his rocks off for the first and last time would have to be weighed against the very small chance of conception.
And I honestly dont know how that could be done or if it could be done from a strictly logic standpoint.
And that is all that matters to the moral-liberals who are really immature and infantile: "I WANT and therefore GIVE me!"
"I WANT and therefore you must OBEY me!"
Um, both the legality and the morality of the matter are at issue here, although I've been concentrationg on countering the sex-revolution morality. (And these two spheres are not entirely separate; anti-prostitution laws, and laws against corrupting minors, are only just if the actions they forbid are in fact evil)
Who are you to say if it is rationally wrong? Really? Neither of us can make that judgement without guidelines of an authoritative source, such as Scriptures, but you did not seem interested in that at the start of this debate. So how do you know "getting his rocks off" is wrong? Really? Tell me logically how it is wrong?
Very well. It is wrong because it uses human sexuality without reference to its twin purposes: the intimate expression of human love, and the generation of human life. Moreover, in the case of this boy, instead of being the master of his passions he is their slave.
By your references to Nietzsche and incommensurable, allegedly non-self-evident axioms, I am under the impression that you are attacking rational argument, while still trying to rationally argue with me. Do I misunderstand, or are you in a self-defeating endeavour?
Jeez,ya know,I never thought of that!
Most of these folks wouldn't have even bought him a blow up doll. Here son,read this tract and think about eternal damnation,oh have a nice day!
Ah the compassion of christians knows no bounds,just like their hubris.
Whose twin purposes? Who says those are the "purposes" of life? Who says being a slave of your passions is wrong?
Hehehehehe... I was just trying to get you to admit that there does have to be an authoritative source from which to build, or receive, morality from. I will admit, on review, I did it rather awkwardly. But I think you see my issue here.... without defining morality against a 'yardstick' of mores handed down and verbally taught originally from an 'authoritative' source, how can you say "purposes" with any meaning or that being a "slave of passion" is wrong?
My point is that you fall into the same trap Nietzsche fell into defining morality ...if you wish to scrub existing morality and build from a blank sheet. It simply doesn't work, as I think you are well aware of, smart_ox.
Some really quick clarifications: Logic is divided into three types, inductive, deductive, reductive, none of which are quite what I mean here. I prefer the term "rational." To clarify my definition of rational: man's faculty to know. Part of this rational capacity includes understanding, that faculty which grasps first principles. I hold that some ethical laws are knowable, hence rationally reachable; there are some things the evil of which we can't "not know," as even murderers hate being murdered, and rapists hate being raped.
To expand on my above-allusion to incommensurable first-principles, Alasdair MacIntyre has written some great stuff on resolving disputes between apparently incompatible rational and ethical systems.
Sorry for the jumbled nature of this particular reply, but I hope this information is useful. May I ask how advocating that a 15-year-old have his way with a prostitute is compatible with traditional American conservatism?
I had a long conversation with a cockroach once,patriotic Bastard he was,real flag waver!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.