This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Morality
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I'm not playing anymore- I keep getting in trouble.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
Except....a 1 year age difference isn't pedophilia, maybe by the "law" it counts, but it isn't pedophilia, and I've never seen or heard of anyone who believes it is. It's "legally" pedophilia, but it isn't actual pedophilia. So that doesn't count.Since sexting can get kids arrested as Sex Offenders, that logic is wrong.
Still waiting on an actual response to this Sold; since if it's not pedophilia, tell me how teens are being charged with spreading child pornography.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Neither have you, though. Still waiting on your definition of the age boundaries, since you don't agree with the law's.
Post by
Adamsm
So...no response then? Since any and all morality would be going in line with the laws, as the response of spreading images of naked underage teens should always be jail time, whether the perpetrator is 12 or 50.
Edit:
Laws in the States in regards to sexting.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
You started with 17-19, then settled on 17, then said it didn't count if it was only one year difference- I still haven't heard a concrete definition that you don't keep changing.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
Yes you put a response...but you said absolutely nothing; why is it morally alright for teens to post naked pictures of themselves, since you obviously disagree with the law.
I haven't met, seen, or heard of anyone who thinks a 17 year old dating an 18 year old is morally wrong, because it's a one year age difference. Do
you
think it's wrong? Do any of you?
If the 18 year old is only dating the 17 year old for sex, then yes, that's very wrong.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
You started with 17-19, hen settled on 17, then said it didn't count if it was only one year difference- I still haven't heard a concrete definition that you don't keep changing.
I haven't met, seen, or heard of anyone who thinks a 17 year old dating an 18 year old is morally wrong, because it's a one year age difference. Do
you
think it's wrong? Do any of you?
Enough people think it's wrong that it is the LAW in several states. Meaning people voted on it, and a bunch of them thought it was morally wrong, and passed a law against it. So how do you explain them?
Also, you STILL have not answered the question. You're the one arguing that it's objective, and not a matter of opinion. If it's objective, then you could give me an answer. What's funny, is that you argue it's right because of the opinions of the people you know...meaning you're using a subjective argument against me...
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
Yes you put a response...but you said absolutely nothing; why is it morally alright for teens to post naked pictures of themselves, since you obviously disagree with the law.
What does that question have to do with anything I said previously?
Because apparently you have no issue with that, when most 'moral' types would. And it has everything to do with the idea of an 17 year old dating a 16 year old.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
Well, the germans thought it was okay to mass murder jews at one point, were they not wrong?And....he has no real response, so he has to Godwin the thread.....well done Son Guy..../roll eyes
They're only legally an adult at 18.
So, then the laws about statuary are obviously not moral right? /shake head Whatever Sold.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
So, rather then give a real answer, you change the subject
again
, showing you don't really know what you are talking about....yeah.....
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
What's your opinion on the holocaust? I mean, the germans thought it was okay, so I guess it wasn't objectively wrong.
Without objective morals, things cannot be objectively immoral.
Post by
Adamsm
Actually, Sold not all of the Germans thought it was acceptable; there were dissenters, and soldiers who 'were just doing their job', so I'm guessing morally, it can still be subjective.
Also....think about what you just said: An adult, having sex with a teenager....how in the name of all that is holy, isn't that wrong? Please please please at least make some sense.
But since you like these subjective questions: Guess the Gilneans were in the moral wrong for wanting to genocide the Orcs after the Second War yup yup, same with Varian and wanting to kill all orcs yup yup /sarcasm off
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.