Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Miles]

.

Came across this little gem a bit ago and thought I'd share.




Thoughts?

.

[Difflugia]

So what makes "your old lady" more special than anyone else.

Mostly her good-humored tolerance of a whole room in our house just for my collection of Bibles and religious stuff. Or was that meant to be a rhetorical question?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 340:

A late edit to remove potentially offensive langue and clean up formatting...

Yes, it is a fact that animals act the way they do because of the electrochemical reactions in their bodies. What makes humans different than animals is that FACT that we do not have to act on every electrochemical impulse that our bodies have.

It's right there in the description - reaction. Then you change it to 'impulse'.

Of course that doesn't mean we can't further react, but we react all the same. I'll concede the 'impulse' deal, as it more closely resembles potential or real psychology.

If what you are saying is true that we are simply subject to the electrochemical actions in our bodies then you would not just be chasing around "your old lady" but every other person that triggered the electrochemical reactions. So what makes "your old lady" more special than anyone else.

She can beat me up.

And she can cook.

That may be her being kind to you. But again what makes her more special than any other "pretty thing" out there?

She lets me catch up when she sees I'm getting winded.

Why don't you discard her? Because of the chance for another dopamine hit? So "your pretty" is only around for your pleasure.

Pretty much.

My house, I pay the bills, and do me all the bug squishing, among other chores.

If she wasn't doing her part, I'd run her off and fetch me in anothern. That don't mean I won't be sad to watch her go.

So yeah, let's outlaw pedophilia.

On what grounds? If love is a dopamine hit.

I put that part in the part of my previous reply you seem to have magically missed when you quote mined me here about it.

Cause empathy is a thing.

Not according to your philosophy. The only thing that is a "thing" in your philosophy of love is the acquisition of pleasure.

Your problem here is having an incomplete set of data regarding my thinking, then trying to declare for me that's my "only" thinking.

Look dude. Ya done snipped out a part of my response where I explained why we should make the pedophilia illegal, and had the nerve to ask me how come I said to outlaw the pedophilia. Now ya wanna put notions on me I don't espouse. (Here's the deletion)

Empathy is a form of love.

Where how some folks can empathize with hucksters who think quote mining and the claiming to speak for others is some kind of state of the art debate.

According to your philosophy on love lusting and loving are the same thing all both have to do with is the acquisition of pleasure.

See that part up there about the incomplete set of data regarding my thinking.

If ya want to build a strawman, run out back and do it. I'm not wasting my time on anyone who thinks trickery is honorable debate.

And on what grounds are you limiting the "love" of those that are underage.

I won't respond to further such inquiries, lest I be confused with encouraging your strange, ongoing fascination with pedophilia.

Have a good day.

[Clownboat]

So love is simply the pleasure that someone else can give you?

Love is chemical reactions occurring in the brain (dopamine and norepinephrine).

So according to your definition, the "love" that pedophiles feel towards children is the same love as you feel. If love is nothing more than a chemical reaction.

I have never studdied what goes on in a pedophiles brain. I do not know if it is the same chemical reactions or not. One thing is certain though, I do not hold dear having relationships with children. Therefore, I can seek to restrict such a thing from someone else without commiting evil. You really seem to struggle with this (restricting, not pedophilia I trust just to be clear).

I would not call being intimate with someone simply because they give a person a dopamine hit as "kind". I would call that selfish lust. Once the dopamine hit is no longer there, then the person can be discarded because the dopamine (or love) is no longer there.

This speaks volumes about you as a person. I would still feel that it would be wrong to restrict you from such a thing though. People are free to be jerks after all.

Could you imagine the world we would live in if we restricted peoples rights because, 'what if they are a jerk'?

So you would not restrict the love that a pedophile has for a child.

No. How would that even be done? We don't allow pedophiles (adults in general) to harm children, but trying to restrict something going on in someones brain seems insane and impossible.

I do not hold dear being in a romantic relationship with children. Therefore I can restrict such a thing from another human without being evil. I sure hope you are in agreement with me here.

Many people have denied themselves love for the betterment of those around them. Many men and women have denied themselves the feeling of love for the betterment of their children.

What does that have to do with actively seeking to restrict something we hold dear for ourselves from another human?

Why? if all you are looking for is a dopamine hit.

Please quote where I said all I'm looking for is a dopamine hit. There is so much more that I value and to restrict such things from another qualifying human would be to commit an evil IMO.

Readers take note.
I asked 5 questions. None were provided with answers.
He also failed to address how a straight man cannot walk into a gay bar, look at a male dancer and choose to be aroused.
I had said: "One can't choose to be gay from my experience."
His response: "This is just entirely false." (And fails to address why).

It seems that the person in question would rather change the subject to pedophilia than to respond to debate questions.

Can I assume that my work here is done and that it should be an evil to restrict something we hold dear for ourselves from another qualifying human?

[JoeyKnothead]

So what makes "your old lady" more special than anyone else.

Mostly her good-humored tolerance of a whole room in our house just for my collection of Bibles and religious stuff. Or was that meant to be a rhetorical question?

My old lady hated having to dust off my collection of farm equipment die cast replicas, to the point of buying her one of them things that ya put em in so ya don't hafta dust em off. It cost it more'n the entire collection, and has to be it dusted off.

I love women. I mean, I really do. But how bout that.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #342]

Mostly her good-humored tolerance of a whole room in our house just for my collection of Bibles and religious stuff. Or was that meant to be a rhetorical question?

She does that good-humoredly? That is impressive.

[Purple Knight]

I have never studied what goes on in a pedophiles brain. I do not know if it is the same chemical reactions or not. One thing is certain though, I do not hold dear having relationships with children. Therefore, I can seek to restrict such a thing from someone else without committing evil.

Can I assume that my work here is done and that it should be an evil to restrict something we hold dear for ourselves from another qualifying human?

I'm going to say no because I've thought on this and decided that the distinction you make in blue is an arbitrary one. You could replace children with black people and get enforced racism without (by your thinking) evil, or you could redefine "children" as people under 50 and strip a large segment of the population of the right to love. You're giving the negative (not evil unless you restrict) and positive (evil to restrict) here and frankly you sound a bit libertarian.

I don't mean to be harsh here because I quite enjoy your posts. I agree with much of what you say. I just can't agree with this because you could simply subdivide in any way you wish ("I don't hold dear having relationships with freckled people," for example) and make as many subdivisions as you wish in order to do precisely what you say is evil and restrict something you hold dear from everyone else.

I'm sorry, but Earthy has a point. He has a point because paedophilia is a tricky issue where almost everyone takes a religious stance. And by a religious stance, I here mean that the person taking that stance wants to get in between two other people when it's none of his business and tell them what they're doing is wrong. Unfortunately, if we're not to take religious stances, we can't restrict the paedophile, or at least, we have to walk away when the child says he wants it.

It cost it more'n the entire collection, and has to be it dusted off.

It's a vastly reduced effort to dust off a square case with a limited amount of sides (only one of which is the top side that dust will reside on) than to dust a large amount of tiny figurines with nooks and crevices in which dust can reside.

[JoeyKnothead]

It cost it more'n the entire collection, and has to be it dusted off.

It's a vastly reduced effort to dust off a square case with a limited amount of sides (only one of which is the top side that dust will reside on) than to dust a large amount of tiny figurines with nooks and crevices in which dust can reside.

I'm so tired of being corrected, I'm fit to spit.

[Purple Knight]

I'm so tired of being corrected, I'm fit to spit.

Don't leave though. I enjoy your posts.

[Clownboat]

Can I assume that my work here is done and that it should be an evil to restrict something we hold dear for ourselves from another qualifying human?

I'm going to say no because I've thought on this and decided that the distinction you make in blue is an arbitrary one. You could replace children with black people and get enforced racism without (by your thinking) evil, or you could redefine "children" as people under 50 and strip a large segment of the population of the right to love.

No one is making these distinctions and you are at war with the English language to define children as those under 50.
Feel free to show that you actually hold one of these distinctions as dear and we can follow it to its logical conclusion. I have a feeling it would only reveal things about yourself and would not be an argument that others would hold dear.

For example, holding dear being in a relationship with white people and actively restricting some subset of humanity from being with white people would likely show racist tendencies and being with freckeled people would be to show preferences, not something we hold dear like being with the one we love like I have been arguing.

I hold dear being in a relationship with 'someone that I love'. Your attempt at turning this into race has no bearing on what I have said. Holding dear being with freckeled people is obviously just someones opinion about looks they prefer.

Your examples have nothing to do with actually restricting something we hold dear though.
They may reveal racism or a deemed inapropriate behavior towards children though. That would be valuable knowledge for those around said person, but only the racists or the pedophile would find such arguments as convincing. I don't hold racism nor pedophilia as something to be held dear. Again, feel free to attempt to argue otherwise.

I just can't agree with this because you could simply subdivide in any way you wish ("I don't hold dear having relationships with freckled people," for example) and make as many subdivisions as you wish in order to do precisely what you say is evil and restrict something you hold dear from everyone else.

Let's test this.
Pick your argument about black people or freckled people and attempt to argue your case. Remember, it must seek to restrict others from being able to do this thing you hold dear. Let's see if it makes sense or reveals racism or something else that society would find as deplorable and thus can be ignored.

Unfortunately, if we're not to take religious stances, we can't restrict the paedophile, or at least, we have to walk away when the child says he wants it.

Society has determined that children are not of the age to consent to such things. Your point is irrelevant for being irrelevant. You would first need to show that society is wrong, but you may end up just showing that you are a pedophile. (Not that I actually think any of these things about you personally).

I would reject a racists thinking just like I would reject a pedophiles thinking when it comes to their preferences.
Just think about the argument a person would be making: "I hold dear being with children, yet would restrict gay men (or whatever) from being with children". I think we know all we need to know about said person and we would reject such reasoning as society has determined it to be hidious, thus the reasoning fails for me.

[Purple Knight]

No one is making these distinctions and you are at war with the English language to define children as those under 50.

My point is that someone could define a child as anyone under 50, or the dictionary could, and that what age you put to people being responsible and ready for sex now is completely arbitrary.

For example, holding dear being in a relationship with white people and actively restricting some subset of humanity from being with white people would likely show racist tendencies and being with freckeled people would be to show preferences, not something we hold dear like being with the one we love like I have been arguing.

I hold dear being in a relationship with 'someone that I love'. Your attempt at turning this into race has no bearing on what I have said. Holding dear being with freckeled people is obviously just someones opinion about looks they prefer.

I'm not turning anything into anything. I gave examples that illustrated that you can make any distinction you want in order to condemn others while keeping technically to your rule and in practice restricting something you hold dear from others.

but only the racists or the pedophile would find such arguments as convincing.

Correct. And in the racist world, only the miscegenator would find your argument convincing. The distinction you made is more about who's in the minority, and about society, than it is about right and wrong.

Society has determined that children are not of the age to consent to such things. Your point is irrelevant for being irrelevant. You would first need to show that society is wrong, but you may end up just showing that you are a pedophile. (Not that I actually think any of these things about you personally).

Society may be wrong or it may be right. I don't have that knowledge, but I don't need it. My only point is that the distinction you made is arbitrary. You can always make an arbitrary distinction and say, eww, that's yucky, I hold dear cooking and eating, but I do not hold dear eating avocados; they're just gross, so let's make a law banning avocados. (There's one I can actually stand for since you ask; avocados are absolutely disgusting. They're so gritty and mushy - and usually brown - that I every time I scoop the poop out of the catbox, I imagine I'm scooping up avocados.)

I think we know all we need to know about said person and we would reject such reasoning as society has determined it to be hideous, thus the reasoning fails for me.

Yes, we would, but that person is still doing exactly what you are doing and simply making a distinction where he happens to please in order to have what he holds dear and restrict it from others due to the distinction. If you must default to society and convention for your rule to work there's really no need for your rule; just consult society and convention every time. That's the rule.

Just FYI I'm not a pedo but I was on the other side of it. I was in college when I was 13 and I wanted to have sex with the women there, which would have been rape. Meanwhile the less intellectually endowed peers I left behind go at it like rabbits because of a glaring crack in the law which doesn't punish minors for raping each other, even though neither one consented and you certainly could punish them. I didn't think this was a particularly fair arrangement, because it wasn't.