| Nem said: A five year old. Seriously? Are you trying to be dramatic or what? To me, the reason why they had a second child is extremely relevent. But no one can tell me why that would happen. You just shove it aside without questioning what it means. I am interested in the whole story. I can't judge Mahr when what he is saying makes sense, but none of you very self-righteous people can come with an answer for. |
No. What I'm trying to do is illustrate that whether or not they were in love has nothing to do with the morality. Because the issue is not how much they love eachother, the issue is consent. I don't find planned sex any more or less moral than unplanned sex. I don't find sex to be any more or less moral inside or outside of a long term relationship. I have no idea why you think this would make it any more or less ok. I have tried to explain this several times and it's baffling that you keep bringing it up. So, I decided to show it by isoating the variable.
You object when it's a five year old, but not a 12 year old. When it's a five year old, you don't seem to care whether it's love or casual sex. You recognize in all cases that it is an immoral act. So then, whether they are in love or not is not the determining factor. The age of the child 100% overrides it.
Same thing with why they had second kids. If you have a child with a five year old, and two years later when they're seven you do it again, that doesn't change it's morality does it? Again age is enough to determine whether it is moral or not with no other data.
To speed things up, we'll just construct a logical syllogism. If the premises are true and the conclusion follows them, then the argument is valid and correct. For the sake of this argument, we are going to make the assumption that the adult we're speaking of is mentally competent enough to make decisions.
Premise 1: If a child is incapable of giving informed consent, an adult having sex with them is immoral, regardless of any other factor.
Premise 2: When a child is below a certain age, for example when they are 5, we can ALWAYS conclude that a child is unable to give informed consent.
Conclusion: When a child is below a certain age, we can conclude it is immoral for an adult to have sex with them based solely on age and regardless of any other factor.
That's my argument. You either can show me which premise is flawed or why the conclusion is not justified the premises. If you can't do either of those things, then the argument is valid. Logic ftw.
Once we agree to that point, we can set aside any bullshit about whether they were in love or how often they had sex. Because those things have nothing to do with whether or not the child is capable of giving consent which I've tried to explain 8 different ways. The only thing that we have to consider is whether or not the child reached is above that "certain age" where consent is possible. There is definitely a gray area. You think that twelve years old is in this gray area. I do not.
There is a crucial difference between us here though. That difference is that I actually know shit about child development and you are ignorant on the matter. So instead of acting like you're being persecuted why don't you try learning something about child development so you can have an informed and hopefully not horrid opinion on the matter. Once you do, maybe I'll take what you say seriously.
