It's not MY fault for dressing provocatively. It's YOUR fault for looking at me!

[chipwitch]

Well, that would seem to go against your original point about posting pics of your children. If skin does not cause someone to rape (I dont believe it does) then what is the harm of posting a kid?

I see how you might perceive a contradiction, but it isn't...
Men (and women) will do what they will for a variety of reasons. "Because I saw her skin," is no excuse for rape. IT IS NOT. I hear that BS argument all the time and it's sick on several levels.

By the same token, what a grown woman does and what I do to protect my child are two different things. As a parent, one is responsible for protecting innocence. What is to be gained by posting pictures of your naked child on the internet? Except, the risk some psycho sees, wants and acts. When it comes to kids, the fewer strangers know who they are, where they live and where they go to school, the better.

Just because I believe men should be held accountable for their sexual desires, doesn't ensure that they will be.

 

[MajinCry]

Again, if you could have a world without molestation, then I would like to see how it formed. If it is a product of people not being bastards, then great. The problem happens when we try and force morality onto people. The Middle East is not a cluster because people want to be the opposite of moral, but its inherently because they have a fucked up idea of morality.

I'm going to agree with Christopher Hitchens, and concur that the cause of (most) evil in the world is due to religion, or at the very least, the Abrahamic religions; I'd be a bit surprised if Jainists had a significant population of molesters and rapists.

In the Middle East it's Sharia law that is obeyed, a religious set of laws, and it's according to the Islamic texts that they live. It's not a coincidence that non-Muslim women are raped by hordes, an act known as Taharrush.

It's not a coincidence that women are persecuted and punished for being raped, should they not be wearing a burka; the woman tempted the man, thusly, it's the woman's fault...According to Islam.

Go back a thousand years or so, and you'll find the dark ages, when Christianity was strong just as Islam is today. Go further back, and you'll find Jeudaism in the same state.

With the Abrahamic religions, personal responsibility is thrown out the window; God's will, and Jesus' forgiveness. Evil is to sin, and sin is not following God's commandment(s).

And never mind all the commands to rape, slaughter, wage war and take sex slaves.

I too want a world without things like rape, but the worry I have is how you get there. The person I responded to seemed to get there by reducing human interaction which would have the side effect of reducing the good interactions too. That is what I said was scary and sad.

So, how do you get to a world without those bad things, and not do away with the good too?

If I knew for sure, I'd write a book.

But a good start would be:

To shift the world away from religion, and towards secularism; once the barbaric religions are considered as such, those who use it as a shield will not be able to escape justice, whether it be by religious institutions (e.g, Catholic Church and child rapist priests) or religion being the excuse (e.g, the Middle East's treatment of rape victims in accordance to Islam).

Reform laws that work against victims of immoral acts, so that they instead work in favour of the victims.

Severely punish those that do evil, such as rape and sex slavery, so that those same individuals will no longer be able to continue reveling in those acts. No matter if they are rich nor poor, no matter if they are powerful nor weak. Life imprisonment without parole would be a decent step towards bringing justice unto those same people.

Abandon the political acts of rewriting history, so that the youth will learn of the evil that has been done by their/other/allied/whatever countries/cultures/religions, serving as a guidance of not how to act so that history may not repeat itself.


It'd be hella slow, and there'd be lots of kicking and screaming, but it'd be a start in the right direction. Far better than that "Boys gon' be boys, gawd dangit!" approach that some people/institutions adopt (e.g, the US military in regards to war crimes in Japan & Vietnam).

 

[chipwitch]

Chris Hitchens was a great man. I miss him.

MajinCry, I agree getting rid of religion is necessary. The problem is, even you talk about morality as a driving force in this post religion world. How do you achieve that? I know I have my own concept of morality and I believe morality is unique to every individual. The one thing religion provides is a unified code of morality with a group. Atheists are moral, without religion.

Do you think morality has a place in justice? Can we not just have rules, agreed upon by a majority and enforce those laws with having to link them to someones morality? This is where I see the greatest challenge in moving away from religion as a society. People can't seem to think it's possible for civilization to exist without a universal morality (which frankly, can't exist).

 

[MajinCry]

Chris Hitchens was a great man. I miss him.

MajinCry, I agree getting rid of religion is necessary. The problem is, even you talk about morality as a driving force in this post religion world. How do you achieve that? I know I have my own concept of morality and I believe morality is unique to every individual. The one thing religion provides is a unified code of morality with a group. Atheists are moral, without religion.

Do you think morality has a place in justice? Can we not just have rules, agreed upon by a majority and enforce those laws with having to link them to someones morality? This is where I see the greatest challenge in moving away from religion as a society. People can't seem to think it's possible for civilization to exist without a universal morality (which frankly, can't exist).

Ah right, I haven't explained me stance on morality.

Typically, the religious claim that morality is absolute; the texts decide what is moral what isn't. And there are others that claim morality is subjective; these people tend to be moral relativists, that believe morality is dictated by personal belief and perhaps culture.

What I think, however, is that morality is objective. It's not absolute, and is somewhat subjective (which is why there are trials, due course and such), but it is objective.

A couple moral questions demonstrate such.

1. When is it ever the morally white course of action to rape an infant?

Answer: Almost never. The almost being the somewhat subjective part.

2. When is it ever the morally white course of action to maraud, so as to take sex slaves?

Answer: Again, almost never.


But with religion? What if the act does not full under the texts? Is it a non-issue?

Or what if the texts command it, such is the case with the latter question in the Abrahamic religions? Does that make the morally black act into a morally white one?

No, it does not. Religion is a thin veil for the believers to accept evil as righteous and good.


A good example for objective morality, would be Jimmy Saville; a man that used his wealth and popularity to repeatedly rape tens, if not hundreds of children. Was he morally justified in doing that, or not?

Answer: Absolutely not.


The reason for me wanting moral-based laws, is that it prevents evil making it's way into law, like it has in, for example, Mauritania; freeing women from sex slavery will land you in jail.

Or, at least, did a while back. The law may have changed over the past couple years, but the example stands.

If we have laws that seek to bring justice for the victims, rather than persecute those that protect (e.g, fighting off a rapist could land you in court as the defendant) the victim(s) and/or the victims themselves, then we can better protect the victims, as justice will be better served to do just that.


When the culture changes to pursue morality, then the culture will, naturally, be more moral. And having laws that reflect that pursuit can only be a good thing.

 

[waggy]

I have this amazing ability to glance at hot, provocatively dressed women and not lose my mind and continue on with what Im doing.

I dont see how it matters what someone is wearing.

exactly. It's not the clothing or lack of that makes a person rape. I have seen naked women and not raped them.

it's the fact some men just don't have a morals set right.


Though saying that I understand why a school does not want girls going to as far as some go. anyway i have found women who dress ok and act right are far more sexy then sluts.

 

[realibrad]

I see how you might perceive a contradiction, but it isn't...
Men (and women) will do what they will for a variety of reasons. "Because I saw her skin," is no excuse for rape. IT IS NOT. I hear that BS argument all the time and it's sick on several levels.

By the same token, what a grown woman does and what I do to protect my child are two different things. As a parent, one is responsible for protecting innocence. What is to be gained by posting pictures of your naked child on the internet? Except, the risk some psycho sees, wants and acts. When it comes to kids, the fewer strangers know who they are, where they live and where they go to school, the better.

Just because I believe men should be held accountable for their sexual desires, doesn't ensure that they will be.

The reason you would share those pictures is because people enjoy sharing their life with other people. You show pics of kids all the time and its ok and enjoyable because its human nature. You are giving up that joy out of fear of something that has a .00013% chance of happening. If you had a kid, you would not walk them everywhere, you would drive them. The danger of a crash is far greater but you do it because of the benefit. You are literally putting the kids life in far greater danger by huge factors. Hell, the odds of a kid getting into cleaning supplies is a drastically larger threat, but I bet you would be okay having them so long as you were "safe" about it.

My point is that you are giving up sharing joy out of the fear of something that is very very very small.

 

[realibrad]

I'm going to agree with Christopher Hitchens, and concur that the cause of (most) evil in the world is due to religion, or at the very least, the Abrahamic religions; I'd be a bit surprised if Jainists had a significant population of molesters and rapists.

In the Middle East it's Sharia law that is obeyed, a religious set of laws, and it's according to the Islamic texts that they live. It's not a coincidence that non-Muslim women are raped by hordes, an act known as Taharrush.

It's not a coincidence that women are persecuted and punished for being raped, should they not be wearing a burka; the woman tempted the man, thusly, it's the woman's fault...According to Islam.

Go back a thousand years or so, and you'll find the dark ages, when Christianity was strong just as Islam is today. Go further back, and you'll find Jeudaism in the same state.

With the Abrahamic religions, personal responsibility is thrown out the window; God's will, and Jesus' forgiveness. Evil is to sin, and sin is not following God's commandment(s).

And never mind all the commands to rape, slaughter, wage war and take sex slaves.



If I knew for sure, I'd write a book.

But a good start would be:

To shift the world away from religion, and towards secularism; once the barbaric religions are considered as such, those who use it as a shield will not be able to escape justice, whether it be by religious institutions (e.g, Catholic Church and child rapist priests) or religion being the excuse (e.g, the Middle East's treatment of rape victims in accordance to Islam).

Reform laws that work against victims of immoral acts, so that they instead work in favour of the victims.

Severely punish those that do evil, such as rape and sex slavery, so that those same individuals will no longer be able to continue reveling in those acts. No matter if they are rich nor poor, no matter if they are powerful nor weak. Life imprisonment without parole would be a decent step towards bringing justice unto those same people.

Abandon the political acts of rewriting history, so that the youth will learn of the evil that has been done by their/other/allied/whatever countries/cultures/religions, serving as a guidance of not how to act so that history may not repeat itself.


It'd be hella slow, and there'd be lots of kicking and screaming, but it'd be a start in the right direction. Far better than that "Boys gon' be boys, gawd dangit!" approach that some people/institutions adopt (e.g, the US military in regards to war crimes in Japan & Vietnam).

I am 100% in agreement in terms of religion. I would say though that most rape in the US has nothing to do with religion. Most rape happens because people want sex and they are willing to do something about it at the expense of others. While Christianity should be far more firm on rape, most Christians are on board with saying rape is always wrong. If they knew their scripture, it might change their minds, but we both know they dont.

So yes, lets get away from religion, but in terms of rape it will have little effect.

The point you made about men raping women for showing too much skin is still wrong though. It never was a popular thing in any culture that I know of. They raped a lot sure, but not because women showed too much skin, or they could not control themselves. It was simply because they did not care about the other person. If you were caught raping another mans wife, most places during most times would kill you for it. If she was not married though, well you probably already know you can buy her in Christianity.

 

[buckshot24]

Meat machines discussing how one meat machine doing something to another meat machine is wrong. When wrong doesn't actually exist.

 

[realibrad]

Meat machines discussing how one meat machine doing something to another meat machine is wrong. When wrong doesn't actually exist.

You keep fucking that chicken buck.

I bet the vast majority of what you consider to be moral could easily be explained as a utility maximizing long term gain.

In fact, name something that you think is moral that is not for the benefit of society in the long run. Go for it.

 

[MajinCry]

You keep fucking that chicken buck.

I bet the vast majority of what you consider to be moral could easily be explained as a utility maximizing long term gain.

In fact, name something that you think is moral that is not for the benefit of society in the long run. Go for it.

I thought he gave up on that "You're all just fleshbots!" shtick a while ago. Aaargh.


I think we got a tad mixed up with all the word walls. I could be tired and mis-remembering, but I don't think I stated that it's because of women showing skin that men rape them.

It is an excuse often given, though. "She was asking for it!" "She dressed like a whore!".

And if I did make the claim, I withdraw it as 'tis bollocks; I'm in the camp of men should be keeping their hands to themselves, no matter how a woman dresses. We're all born naked, and we're naked under these clothes, after all.

 

[buckshot24]

You keep fucking that chicken buck.

I bet the vast majority of what you consider to be moral could easily be explained as a utility maximizing long term gain.

In fact, name something that you think is moral that is not for the benefit of society in the long run. Go for it.

Then quit making moral judgments. Just say your behavior isn't utilizing long term gain. But nobody does that, meat machine.

 

[buckshot24]

I thought he gave up on that "You're all just fleshbots!" shtick a while ago. Aaargh.

I like meat machine.

 

[Grooveriding]

Morality has been hijacked by religion. It's one of the few things left they try to lay claim to in order to justify their existence and give some sort of 'evidence' of something they feel religion is responsible for. It's one of those things where we all universally have empathy and understand logically it originates from our brain function, but you cannot really display its process and function occurring. You can put someone in an MRI and show real-time activity in the brain, showing it working and firing in different brain centers from different stimuli, but that is as far as we can go so far.

If you need a laid down code of conduct with magical punishments for disobeying it in order to be a reasonably decent human being to others, you have problems. I think there are objective morals because there are so many non-religious people who have no desire to rape, kill and thieve without giving it any thought. Arguably it is down to our ability to put ourselves in the place of others and understand what it would be like to do something awful to someone else because we can imagine it being done to us. I'd expect you'd be more likely to mistreat others as a religious person because there are circumstances under which your religion tells you to do so and the list of 'big bad things' the religious judge other people for if they fall under it.

I don't know that religion is the biggest cause of problems, but it's certainly up there and we will be better off when it has been further marginalized to the point of a silly thing the minority partakes in. You can make the argument that it is still human behaviour, because of the miserable men that created these religions thousands of years ago. The chickens that hatched the religion eggs.

The idea of judging women for causing a sexual response in men due to their appearance being something negative is something that generally has been derived from religions. They all have ordinances in place against it. The extreme with Islam and having women wearing that full cover getup in Islamic theocracies, Judaism does it as well - you see the orthodox Jewish having their women in those long skirts never showing any skin and the flat shoes. Christianity has it as well - probably the least heavy on dress code, in Catholic churches, for example, you will see women at weddings not wearing a dress that bares their shoulders/arms. They all have edicts on women being humble and downplaying themselves because the bronze age men a couple thousand years ago decided to blame them for giving them a stiffy.

 

[realibrad]

Then quit making moral judgments. Just say your behavior isn't utilizing long term gain. But nobody does that, meat machine.

You are not going to answer my question?

Give me something that you think is moral that is not simply acting to benefit society in the long term by increasing utility.

 

[Moonbeam]

You are not going to answer my question?

Give me something that you think is moral that is not simply acting to benefit society in the long term by increasing utility.

That's not very fair. You are using God to tell you what is utilitarian and hiding that fact from us. If you didn't cheat like that you would have no idea what utilitarian is.

 

[buckshot24]

You are not going to answer my question?

Give me something that you think is moral that is not simply acting to benefit society in the long term by increasing utility.

Quit acting like things are "wrong" when you mean they don't promote the general well being of the species.

 

[realibrad]

Quit acting like things are "wrong" when you mean they don't promote the general well being of the species.

You really don't want to answer the question do you?

If I am wrong then give me an example. If mortality is not something that can come from reason and only from God, then please explain. You won't of course. I just have logic on my side and you have God on yours.

 

[realibrad]

That's not very fair. You are using God to tell you what is utilitarian and hiding that fact from us. If you didn't cheat like that you would have no idea what utilitarian is.

If I am, then I am not aware. If God is internal and I cannot separate myself from him, then my mind is not my own and you are thus arguing with God.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

He is not saying the girl dressed like a hooker. He is applying the logic and showing how stupid it would be if someone were to dress like a hooker.

I've been incredibly constrained to posting thanks to an incredibly busy time of my job at the moment - but I've thought to set aside some time today to clarify one specific thing here.....

It's definitely not a surprise to realize that plenty of people here are having some issues creating the connection between the thread title and the topic of the thread. Though, it's certainly not surprising to realize which users are having issues making those incredibly huge mental milestones of making those connections. Surprising? Hardly. It's tough for these people to make monetary connections, let alone metaphorical connections. It's much easier to fool yourself into thinking you're halfway past the average IQ by saying "THAT'S A SCARECROW!11!1!one!1". It's also pretty hilarious of the correlating political stance of those that are failing to comprehend this amazing logic - even though it was posted as early as the first page for many people to clarify.

But once again, the people that have an understanding of simple sarcasm and logical thought process is not surprising. The correlation is rather hilarious though from an outsiders point of view. Carry on, this thread is making me laugh hysterically.

 

[MongGrel]

Then quit making moral judgments. Just say your behavior isn't utilizing long term gain. But nobody does that, meat machine.

Everyone makes moral judgements.

You just seem to think you have the market on those righteously justified, and are one of the ultimate authorities on the topic for some odd reason.

Makes you pretty shallow in my book.

 

[buckshot24]

You really don't want to answer the question do you?

If I am wrong then give me an example. If mortality is not something that can come from reason and only from God, then please explain. You won't of course. I just have logic on my side and you have God on yours.

Please note, I didn't say you were wrong. My statement assumes you are right.

 

[Moonbeam]

realibrad: If I am, then I am not aware.

M; No if about it which is why I told you.

r: If God is internal and I cannot separate myself from him, then my mind is not my own and you are thus arguing with God.

M: When something is an 'if' to you and you have no internal certainty, do not go with a 'them' because you are not able to reach the logical conclusion and are just making shit up like you did with utility. Consider yourself in a hopeless trap where every thought you have is a trick your ego plays to cause you to identify with it. You are not your ego and yet all of you you call yourself IS ego. That is the trap from which there is no exit. Se the trap and stop going away from the fact there is no escape. You can't escape the trap with thought, you can only make it disappear by ending thought and becoming real. To be real is to be. To awaken in the now. God is being and you are him when you are too. We ran away from ourselves because we were told we are worthless. You know that is a lie because you know that utility implies value. How do you know, because you used to be a long time ago.

 

[mikeymikec]

I've been incredibly constrained to posting thanks to an incredibly busy time of my job at the moment - but I've thought to set aside some time today to clarify one specific thing here.....

It's definitely not a surprise to realize that plenty of people here are having some issues creating the connection between the thread title and the topic of the thread. Though, it's certainly not surprising to realize which users are having issues making those incredibly huge mental milestones of making those connections. Surprising? Hardly. It's tough for these people to make monetary connections, let alone metaphorical connections. It's much easier to fool yourself into thinking you're halfway past the average IQ by saying "THAT'S A SCARECROW!11!1!one!1". It's also pretty hilarious of the correlating political stance of those that are failing to comprehend this amazing logic - even though it was posted as early as the first page for many people to clarify.

But once again, the people that have an understanding of simple sarcasm and logical thought process is not surprising. The correlation is rather hilarious though from an outsiders point of view. Carry on, this thread is making me laugh hysterically.

What a complete and total non-response. OP starts with some very iffy logic that speaks volumes about his own bias rather than the 'topic', then when called out on his bias proceeds to ignore that point completely and start banging on about something completely different to his original points, then claims sarcasm and it being other peoples' fault that they "don't understand".

Troll on, dear OP.

 

[DrDoug]

...

... Carry on, this thread is making me laugh hysterically.

I'm glad to see you join in on the laughter with the rest of us. If it wasn't for you we wouldn't have this thread to laugh at so thanks!

It's good to see that you can laugh at your own stupidity too.

 

[chipwitch]

You are giving up that joy out of fear of something that has a .00013% chance of happening.

You're conflating your statistic of "abduction" (.0013%) to mine of "sex abuse of girls" (20-25%). .0013%, in that case is a straw man because I posit that sex abuse of a child causes permanent emotional scars. If one finds sex abuse of their daughter (20-25% chance) to be no more harmful than a skinned knee, then I understand the reluctance to withhold photo sharing. We aren't talking about school photos here. We're talking about naked pictures.

All children have targets on their backs. Girls have much bigger ones. Sex predators are a reality.