User Controls
Are pedos monsters or just sick?
-
2017-05-31 at 8:59 PM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind Ok. Anyway, as we were a discussing, if you manipulated someone into giving you something that they actually do value more than whatever you are giving them in exchange, is that not bad?
That's a good question because if i can convince you that it is a mutually beneficial exchange is the other person really harmed? They might technically be in some abstract sense, but if they are fine with it i don't think it would be particularly bad. Also, say you Obbe, later spoke to that same person and then convinced them that what they gave me was way more valuable than what they got in return would that not then make you just as bad?
Originally posted by Open Your Mind It appears that the initiation of force is not necessary for a behavior to be determined to be bad. People seem to consider manipulating the young or the old or the dumb a bad thing to do, and that's not just because society agrees.
Well no, but it is along the same lines of having manners in public. In general you don't act like a dick, even though you could, and should be allowed to. -
2017-05-31 at 9:11 PM UTC
/thread -
2017-05-31 at 9:34 PM UTC
Originally posted by Sophie That's a good question because if i can convince you that it is a mutually beneficial exchange is the other person really harmed? They might technically be in some abstract sense, but if they are fine with it i don't think it would be particularly bad. Also, say you Obbe, later spoke to that same person and then convinced them that what they gave me was way more valuable than what they got in return would that not then make you just as bad?
Wouldn't that logic work as an argument for taxation? LoL I think what it books down to is that "bad" is somewhat subjective, violence or force are not the only way things are bad. Manipulation is usually considered to be a bad thing.
I wouldn't need to convince the person of anything if they all on their own at a later time realized you had manipulated them out of something they value.Well no, but it is along the same lines of having manners in public. In general you don't act like a dick, even though you could, and should be allowed to.
Isn't that the exact same as violence/force? It's not about manners, it's about doing what you believe is right. I'm not usually a violent person not because society says I shouldn't be or because it would be rude to be violent, I'm usually not a violent person because I think, at least most of the time, that violence is bad. Same with manipulating people.
Do you honestly think lying and manipulating people is a good thing? -
2017-06-01 at 12:10 AM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind Wouldn't that logic work as an argument for taxation?
Go ahead and try to convince me how tax is not theft. Protip: You can't.
Originally posted by Open Your Mind Isn't that the exact same as violence/force? It's not about manners, it's about doing what you believe is right. I'm not usually a violent person not because society says I shouldn't be or because it would be rude to be violent, I'm usually not a violent person because I think, at least most of the time, that violence is bad. Same with manipulating people.
No i don't think it's the same as force. Also i don't go around being violent because i have no reason to, also i like to be liked so i am generally nice IRL. As an ethical principle i know violence is wrong. If it is unjustly inflicted upon someone i feel bad for that person.
Originally posted by Open Your Mind Do you honestly think lying and manipulating people is a good thing?
No, but it is infinitely better than coercing someone through force. Also you don't get to be the grand arbiter of what the difference between persuasion and manipulation is. If the person i am trying to persuade feels like i am manipulating them, then by all means they are free to tell me to cut it the fuck out. -
2017-06-01 at 12:14 AM UTC
-
2017-06-01 at 12:15 AM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-06-01 at 12:18 AM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-06-01 at 12:19 AM UTC
-
2017-06-01 at 12:30 AM UTCThe problem with consent in regards to sex is the same as consent with any sort of transaction. Both parties need to know the true values of exchanged goods or services, as well as terms of the exchange. If you were to swindle someone by making a deal that they did not fully comprehend, then you have done wrong, because you took advantage of the person's intellectual shortcomings (this argument could be used to argue against rights for individuals and such, but that's a topic for a different thread).
The same concept applies to a sexual exchange between a child and an adult. The child, regardless of theoretical knowledge of sex or their enthusiasm to try something new, is incapable of making a fully informed and neutral decision (neutral as in logical and not blindly fueled by hormones. If you let hormones lead you to fuck everything, you have the intellect of a retard and should be protected as such). Children are on an inferior level intellectually because they are still getting a grasp on choosing logic over bodily impulses, they have much to learn about the world, and they are physically and mentally incapable of defending themselves if any interaction or psychological/physiological transaction were to occur.
Same goes for dumb adults. Don't stick your dick into a retard either, you shit.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-06-01 at 12:33 AM UTCObbe's socratic questioning is going miserably.
-
2017-06-01 at 12:34 AM UTC
Originally posted by Memeing_Electron The problem with consent in regards to sex is the same as consent with any sort of transaction. Both parties need to know the true values of exchanged goods or services, as well as terms of the exchange. If you were to swindle someone by making a deal that they did not fully comprehend, then you have done wrong, because you took advantage of the person's intellectual shortcomings (this argument could be used to argue against rights for individuals and such, but that's a topic for a different thread).
The same concept applies to a sexual exchange between a child and an adult. The child, regardless of theoretical knowledge of sex or their enthusiasm to try something new, is incapable of making a fully informed and neutral decision (neutral as in logical and not blindly fueled by hormones. If you let hormones lead you to fuck everything, you have the intellect of a retard and should be protected as such). Children are on an inferior level intellectually because they are still getting a grasp on choosing logic over bodily impulses, they have much to learn about the world, and they are physically and mentally incapable of defending themselves if any interaction or psychological/physiological transaction were to occur.
Same goes for dumb adults. Don't stick your dick into a retard either, you shit.
Do you propose i administer an IQ test to every person i have an interest in. Young, old, romantically or for business? -
2017-06-01 at 12:34 AM UTCYou can't outreason a gold medalist mental gymnast
-
2017-06-01 at 12:38 AM UTC
Originally posted by Sophie Do you propose i administer an IQ test to every person i have an interest in. Young, old, romantically or for business?
.
With age you should be able to determine whether or not a person is an idiot mentally and emotionally.
Also, the "badness" of such an unfair transaction is a spectrum as opposed to an absolute "good or bad". Cheating someone out of 5k is one thing, it's a whole other thing to change someone's line of emotion and reasoning for life. It's damaging someone's mind while it's in its most crucial stage of development for social interactions -
2017-06-01 at 12:41 AM UTC
-
2017-06-01 at 12:41 AM UTC
Originally posted by Memeing_Electron .
With age you should be able to determine whether or not a person is an idiot mentally and emotionally.
Also, the "badness" of such an unfair transaction is a spectrum as opposed to an absolute "good or bad". Cheating someone out of 5k is one thing, it's a whole other thing to change someone's line of emotion and reasoning for life. It's damaging someone's mind while it's in its most crucial stage of development for social interactions
I will agree that it is a spectrum. So how do we determine how much is too much?The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-06-01 at 12:42 AM UTCAll of what I'm saying is just a basic breakdown of how to behave logically and fairly when interacting with other sentient beings. If you feel that you do not agree with these rules, then feel free to disagree, but remember that that also means that society's rules can't protect you and you're fair game if you happen to catch yourself on the receiving end of an unfair "transaction".
-
2017-06-01 at 12:45 AM UTC
Originally posted by Sophie I will agree that it is a spectrum. So how do we determine how much is too much?
I would assume that because all value is determined by sentience, and since most economic and social systems in place defend the individual, then the reasonable assumption would mean that you should generally avoid doing harm to any sentience/individual. Changing the thinking/feeling of an individual (making them go a different route than what is most safe and effective for them) would be the equivalent of crippling them socially/emotionally/mentally. The effects of this are not noticeable unless you're looking for it, but the effects do exist. -
2017-06-01 at 12:46 AM UTC
Originally posted by Memeing_Electron All of what I'm saying is just a basic breakdown of how to behave logically and fairly when interacting with other sentient beings.
I agree, and to do so one must consider these things on a person to person basis. Ergo, you can't make a blanket statement and say: "All 12yos are mentally incapable of consenting to sex".
Originally posted by Memeing_Electron If you feel that you do not agree with these rules, then feel free to disagree, but remember that that also means that society's rules can't protect you and you're fair game if you happen to catch yourself on the receiving end of an unfair "transaction".
I agree and this is fair.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-06-01 at 12:49 AM UTCWe have talked about all of this so many times already. I'm going to die if this shit reaches 10 pages.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-06-01 at 12:50 AM UTCReally the only 12 year old you can fuck would have to be incredibly smart, will have to have encountered and overcome many social and emotional obstacles, and be able to make logical, neutral decisions without being affected by instinct and bodily wants. How you choose to determine that is up to you, and interpretation may always be biased for or against, depending on personal preference. Best suggestion I can give is find an 18 year old with a daddy kink.
