Mar 11, 2012
Vertex commented on Savage Love.
Good point, EricaP. I agree that it's harmful for the adult.
Mar 11, 2012
Vertex commented on Savage Love.
@302 (ankylosaur)
Ok, so you think it would be all right for an adult to pleasure himself (or herself) to orgasm with a 3 month old infant as long as there is no harm. I think most people here have enough moral awareness to see the problem there. Hopefully they'll connect the dots that there must also be a problem with your reasoning.
So to answer your question: no, it does not necessarily follow that just because there is no harm it MUST be merely socio-culturally construed. You are only arguing from ONE position on ethics. Another view is that ethics are objectively real and humans have an ethical awareness to recognize them. If that is the case then society is not necessarily just "making up a story" about sex with infants being wrong. Instead they could be recognizing an ethical truth at a deep, intuitive level that transcends reason.
But back to your minimalist ethic. You are presuming more knowledge than you have. You can't see the future; you don't really KNOW what harm could be caused. Furthermore, if you think the only wrong acts are those which are harmful, how do you prove that causing harm is wrong? If you are using nothing but nature and reason I don't know that you can prove ANYTHING is wrong.
More...
Ok, so you think it would be all right for an adult to pleasure himself (or herself) to orgasm with a 3 month old infant as long as there is no harm. I think most people here have enough moral awareness to see the problem there. Hopefully they'll connect the dots that there must also be a problem with your reasoning.
So to answer your question: no, it does not necessarily follow that just because there is no harm it MUST be merely socio-culturally construed. You are only arguing from ONE position on ethics. Another view is that ethics are objectively real and humans have an ethical awareness to recognize them. If that is the case then society is not necessarily just "making up a story" about sex with infants being wrong. Instead they could be recognizing an ethical truth at a deep, intuitive level that transcends reason.
But back to your minimalist ethic. You are presuming more knowledge than you have. You can't see the future; you don't really KNOW what harm could be caused. Furthermore, if you think the only wrong acts are those which are harmful, how do you prove that causing harm is wrong? If you are using nothing but nature and reason I don't know that you can prove ANYTHING is wrong.
Mar 10, 2012
Vertex commented on Savage Love.
@274 ankylosaur
Warning for graphic content:
Why don't you come right out an answer my question directly and instead of dancing around the perimeter? Do you think it is wrong for an adult male to pleasure himself to orgasm with a 3 month old infant in a way that does not hurt the infant (such as orally)?
Warning for graphic content:
Why don't you come right out an answer my question directly and instead of dancing around the perimeter? Do you think it is wrong for an adult male to pleasure himself to orgasm with a 3 month old infant in a way that does not hurt the infant (such as orally)?
Mar 10, 2012
Vertex commented on Savage Love.
Ankylosaur, how about an adult male pleasuring himself to climax on a 3 month old infant? Without penetration no physical harm is done. And no emotional harm is done since the infant will not remember it. Please tell me you haven't "educated" your mind backwards so far as to not recognize that would be a morally repugnant act REGARDLESS of the lack of "harm". In the words of George Orwell, "Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them."
Mar 5, 2012
Vertex commented on Pharmacists and Jesus Freaks.
#49 So you would have had no respect for someone in the past who violated the law and stood up to slavery based on their religious views?
Mar 4, 2012
Vertex commented on Pharmacists and Jesus Freaks.
#36 They obviously don't agree with your moral view that is wrong for them to refuse to stock Plan B. So why do YOU want to force YOUR personal morality on them?
And are you going to tell me government could never make a law you wouldn't comply with? Of course they could. We all draw the line somewhere.
And for someone who has an established business it is not always so simple to just "go into another line of work."
And are you going to tell me government could never make a law you wouldn't comply with? Of course they could. We all draw the line somewhere.
And for someone who has an established business it is not always so simple to just "go into another line of work."
Mar 2, 2012
Vertex commented on Pharmacists and Jesus Freaks.
@34 But putting these pharmacies on public display is also going to attract people that support their decision - like me. And you can call it "arrogant" all you want but virtually EVERYONE has ethical lines they are not comfortable crossing even if the law were to tell them otherwise...right? So is it only "arrogant" when you don't agree with them?
Feb 25, 2012
Vertex commented on Loaded Words.
#6 No one is arguing their marriage will fall apart if gays get married. Straw-man. If you're going to challenge their position than challenge their REAL position, not your flimsy caricature of it.
Feb 25, 2012
Vertex commented on Mass Uprising.
#65 Nailed it! Seems the self proclaimed "open minded" are sometimes blind to their own narrowness.
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
No, it does not follow that therefore it MUST be culturally construed. Your conclusion is dependent on the unproven premise that the only truly wrong actions are those which harm someone else. That is not a foregone conclusion.
And your dislike of harm might work for YOU to determine what is wrong for YOURSELF, but it doesn't tell me why it is wrong for someone else if that is what they want to do.