Evidence for God from Science

Indeed - I can't imagine a situation where animals are able to give and communicate consent where I wouldn't also feel obliged to take up vegetarianism.

I for one welcome our new crocodillian overlords, and look forward to their introduction of ProteinBasedMeatSubstitutePaste. Not Soylent Green though pls - the name makes me feel a bit queasy.

touchingcloth wrote:Indeed - I can't imagine a situation where animals are able to give and communicate consent where I wouldn't also feel obliged to take up vegetarianism.

I for one welcome our new crocodillian overlords, and look forward to their introduction of ProteinBasedMeatSubstitutePaste. Not Soylent Green though pls - the name makes me feel a bit queasy.

Vegetarianism? You discriminating animal you. Who says if animals could give consent than plants couldn't as well? They are living beings after all.

Byblos wrote:Let's try to bring the discussion to a focal point. While I agree with most that once the gate is opened for same sex marriage that it ought to also be opened for all other groups, I also do agree that a positive adult consent is required. This of course leaves out bestiality and necrophilia but keeps incest in. Bean, whatever argument you put forth against incest seems hollow and contrived. When 2 adults make and consensual decision, who are you or I or even the court system to tell them otherwise? You can't have it both ways, either adult consent is enough or the government must decide on our behalf.

I am not against it in the way you think. Like I said, all relationships are somewhat incestuous and our genetic diversity is at a safe point where closely related incest will not have harmful effects on children. I do, however, take issue with people manipulating more vulnerable through use of power or authority. I wouldn't want a father to marry his daughter even if she were adopted and not blood related. Conversely, if a brother and sister were seperated during childhood but then wanted to marry.. I say have at it. It's simply allowing for proper consent which I think certain power-based relationships can't allow for. Other examples include doctor-patient and student-teacher relationships.

The rest seemed to have missed the point. I'll try and correct this later when I have time. But many people have a hard time understanding consent and when consent becomes relevant.

The rest seemed to have missed the point. I'll try and correct this later when I have time. But many people have a hard time understanding consent and when consent becomes relevant.

I think the issue is that what you view as consent is YOUR opinion and nothing more.
While I may agree with you, that doesn't make either of us right and doesn't really effect someone in the Sudan or Bhutan or Mongolia ( just to name places).

PaulSacramento wrote:

The rest seemed to have missed the point. I'll try and correct this later when I have time. But many people have a hard time understanding consent and when consent becomes relevant.

I think the issue is that what you view as consent is YOUR opinion and nothing more.
While I may agree with you, that doesn't make either of us right and doesn't really effect someone in the Sudan or Bhutan or Mongolia ( just to name places).

The strawman most used is either pretending certain beings can consent when it's not true or pretending consent is the only relevant factor and trying to justify harmful activity with it. I'll address the subjectivity fallacy later, as I said. I don't feel any of the objections raised to be good ones.

Beanybag wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

The rest seemed to have missed the point. I'll try and correct this later when I have time. But many people have a hard time understanding consent and when consent becomes relevant.

I think the issue is that what you view as consent is YOUR opinion and nothing more.
While I may agree with you, that doesn't make either of us right and doesn't really effect someone in the Sudan or Bhutan or Mongolia ( just to name places).

The strawman most used is either pretending certain beings can consent when it's not true or pretending consent is the only relevant factor and trying to justify harmful activity with it. I'll address the subjectivity fallacy later, as I said. I don't feel any of the objections raised to be good ones.

I'll pass on your opinion to Balamaroo*tongue click*bollamkal of the Ik tribe in Uganda.

On a serious note of course, the fact is that we here in the west view certain things as acceptable and we viewed them based on a criteria that meet our needs in justifying what we think is right and wrong.
People in other parts of the world do that too, their criteria may just be different than ours.
Here, age of consent is 16 (typically if I recall) and in some places it is 14 ( I read somewhere it is 12 but I am not sure about that), most will agree however that even 16 is far too young ( especially parents of a 16year old), of course, in the "olden days" age of consent was established by the parents of the child.
There are still child brides in some countries.
But lets move away from age for a bit and lets all recall the urban legend of the "housewife, the jar of peanut butter and the golden retriever"
Or lets not.
Either way, allow me to argue on behalf of the "dark side":
No one was harmed, the dog got the peanut butter, the housewife got the "event" she wanted and all ( with exception of the peanut butter) went away happy.
Consent?
One could argue that it was irrelevant and most certainly of the dog was not interested, it had the teeth and jaw strength to make MORE than a statement.
Disgusting? sure. Disturbing? Most certainly.
Wrong? sez who?

Well, it'd be rape, so theres that. IInteresting to bring up age of consent, however. How do you decide it yourself? Scripture doesn't seem helpful on that one.

Beanybag wrote:Well, it'd be rape, so theres that. IInteresting to bring up age of consent, however. How do you decide it yourself? Scripture doesn't seem helpful on that one.

Age of consent is decided by the governing body in the jurisdiction in which you live; it has nothing to do with the Bible.

FL

touchingcloth wrote:ed - I can't imagine a situation where animals are able to give and communicate consent where I wouldn't also feel obliged to take up vegetarianism.

Am I to understand that the steer who provided my steak dinner did not give his consent at the slaughterhouse?

HERESY! You are a LIAR! Away from here, SATAN!

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Beanybag wrote:Well, it'd be rape, so theres that. IInteresting to bring up age of consent, however. How do you decide it yourself? Scripture doesn't seem helpful on that one.

Age of consent is decided by the governing body in the jurisdiction in which you live; it has nothing to do with the Bible.

FL

So, should people in the church marry at, say, 7 and that's okay? Maybe 9 is better?

Beanybag wrote:

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Beanybag wrote:Well, it'd be rape, so theres that. IInteresting to bring up age of consent, however. How do you decide it yourself? Scripture doesn't seem helpful on that one.

Age of consent is decided by the governing body in the jurisdiction in which you live; it has nothing to do with the Bible.

FL

So, should people in the church marry at, say, 7 and that's okay? Maybe 9 is better?

No, leaders of certain other religions marry 9 year old girls.

Very true.

Beanybag wrote:So, should people in the church marry at, say, 7 and that's okay? Maybe 9 is better?

Age of consent is determined by the jurisdiction in which you live. The Bible doesn't address this topic. Hello? Please turn your brain ON.

FL

Beanybag wrote:Well, it'd be rape, so theres that. IInteresting to bring up age of consent, however. How do you decide it yourself? Scripture doesn't seem helpful on that one.

Rape? based on who's opinion?
And what part of my post are you adressing that would be viewed as "rape" ?