What about plowing a doll? Does that count lol?
Adultery bans after Dobbs?
- Thread starter WolfBear
- Start date
What about plowing a doll? Does that count lol?
Even the South has adultery lol:
Todd Chrisley’s ex-business partner: We had gay affair, paid off blackmailer
Mark Braddock testified in Todd and Julie Chrisley’s federal tax fraud trial Tuesday that he and Todd were intimate for about a year in the early 2000s.
pagesix.com
History Learner
Well-known member
Depends on context; if you're not married and/or do not have kids, I don't care because you're not harming others or society at large. Again, circumstances/intent matters.
Even the South has adultery lol:
Todd Chrisley’s ex-business partner: We had gay affair, paid off blackmailer
Mark Braddock testified in Todd and Julie Chrisley’s federal tax fraud trial Tuesday that he and Todd were intimate for about a year in the early 2000s.
Cool, and we've always had murder too; does the existence of that mean we should legalize murder? We've also had pedophiles, does that mean we should look the other way at scum raping kids?
What if you are married and do have kids?
Actually, I do support legalizing child sex dolls, child sex robots, and cartoon/animated child porn. I believe that compelling those minor-attracted persons for whom another viable harm-free alternative exists to get castrated anyway would be extraordinarily cruel. I remember what happened to Alan Turing, though he was gay rather than attracted to minors. (Yes, I do believe that the analogy is pertinent since being attracted to someone of the same sex and being permanently satisfied with a child sex doll are both completely harm-free activities.)
I don't buy the symbolic harm argument since actual harm (such as castration) is worse than symbolic harm and since one can also see symbolic harm in naked images of short, androgynous-looking, small-breasted women due to their resemblance to minors:
Australia's 'small breast' ban
Australia has vowed to fight child exploitation — but is stamping out images of "small-breasted" women really the right way to do it?
theweek.com
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
let's be real here. when we hate something, we want to see it destroyed especially if we feel personally wronged by it. The thing is No matter how much I may loathe something I don't an external party besides God and God alone to enforce morality typically those who are quick to want to legislate morality onto others are the ones who have the most skeletons in their closet. If I can't even trust the government to NOT kill me for having the wrong opinion, why would I trust them with ANYTHING ELSE?
History Learner
Well-known member
What if you are married and do have kids?
Actually, I do support legalizing child sex dolls, child sex robots, and cartoon/animated child porn. I believe that compelling those minor-attracted persons for whom another viable harm-free alternative exists to get castrated anyway would be extraordinarily cruel. I remember what happened to Alan Turing, though he was gay rather than attracted to minors. (Yes, I do believe that the analogy is pertinent since being attracted to someone of the same sex and being permanently satisfied with a child sex doll are both completely harm-free activities.)
I don't buy the symbolic harm argument since actual harm (such as castration) is worse than symbolic harm and since one can also see symbolic harm in naked images of short, androgynous-looking, small-breasted women due to their resemblance to minors:
Australia's 'small breast' ban
Australia has vowed to fight child exploitation — but is stamping out images of "small-breasted" women really the right way to do it?
The solution for "Minor Attracted Persons" is a noose at best.
History Learner
Well-known member
Simple question: Why did God give Moses the 10 Commandments?
Outside of that, I'm not necessarily even arguing for a Theocracy, but rather a return to what was common in the West until the last couple of hundred years.
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
I know what you want me to say but I won't. he's God and he can do what he wants. He's blameless and without sin he has the right to judge and make laws. Humans not so much.
History Learner
Well-known member
Then why did he give Laws to Humans that he explicitly told us to enforce among ourselves and when we failed to do so, he punished us for it? Let’s not play cherry picker here, shall we?
If you believe he is blameless, then why are you doubting his plan/intentions for us?
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
And let's totally ignore the part in the bible where Jesus said "He who has not sinned cast the first stone" or "Those that live by the sword die by the sword." (People REALLY love to ignore that scripture)
And i'm not doubting him so much as your idea of his plan. An idea that happens to give you the aok to do what you desire. (Like making adultery illegal and other purity laws) few have ever made a bigger mockery of God than those that claim to champion his cause.
Frankly people like you make it hard not to doubt because no matter how many times it's happened you guys fail to relize that you can and will be impaled by your own sword.
FWIW, I used the term MAPs here because there are also hebephiles and ephebophiles in addition to pedophiles. So, MAPs is more accurate than just pedophiles. And I am curious, would you hang yourself if you were attracted to minors? Even once? Even to a post-pubescent minor? Even if you were well-aware that having sex with minors is wrong and that you would thus never do it even if you remained alive?
@History Learner By your own logic here, Anatoly Karlin, a blogger that you like, should hang themselves because they previously publicly declared that they found Petro Poroshenko's 14-year-old daughters attractive:
rationalwiki.org
At least, if RationalWiki isn't misrepresenting his views and/or statements here.
Anatoly Karlin
Anatoly Karlin (Анатолий Карлин),[note 1] (1988–) known as powerfultakes,[4][5] and Nooceleration[6] is a Russian troll who admires orcs,[7][8] far-right eugenicist,[9][10] anti-semitic conspiracy theorist,[11] anti-vegan activist, self-confessed glue sniffing addict[12] and former writer for...
At least, if RationalWiki isn't misrepresenting his views and/or statements here.
History Learner
Well-known member
Nothing is being ignored, at least by me. You on the other hand are continuously cherry picking that which suits your "feel good" desires of being absolved of any responsibility in society by ignoring millennia of teachings and interpretations. You're attempting to take sentences out of context when taking them in their entire setting shows they are not suggesting what you believe at all.
Then why, I once again find myself asking, don't we go Full Purge? If we have no right judge adultery as a society, then by what right do we have to judge theft? Rape? Murder? The list goes on, and to which you have to answer why do we have any laws concerning behavior? That's the end result of your moral relativism. If you're going to cite secular reasons, then that leads into my response to the next person.
Originally, I was looking at this through a completely secular, materialist prospective of impacts, both in the immediate family and wider impacts on society at large. The religious lens I've applied here is solely in response to the framing of the above poster, who brought up a Christian perspective. If you wish to look at it from a secular view, that's just returning to what I was doing originally.
If, however, that is not your objection and you feel you should not be contained by moral laws, then we also go back to what I said earlier: Balkanize the United States. Our overarching views of society, of personal accountability, of morality itself is so skewed as to make continued co-existence pointless at best, likely painful in general and in the long run just lays the groundwork for a massive bloodletting. If you're not American however-I genuinely don't know your nationality-then why are you to be concerned by the state of law within the United States? Whatever we do won't impact you, nor is it for you to decide what we do either.
Last edited:
History Learner
Well-known member
I, quite frankly, do not care what you call them nor do I care who they are. If they have raped a child, they deserve the noose, end of story. If they haven't, but have adopted a framework of consistent attraction or identity as the PC term of "Minor Attracted Person" entails, then they deserve to be locked up for the safety of society, the same way we do for people who are in psychosis.
@History Learner By your own logic here, Anatoly Karlin, a blogger that you like, should hang themselves because they previously publicly declared that they found Petro Poroshenko's 14-year-old daughters attractive:
Anatoly Karlin
Anatoly Karlin (Анатолий Карлин),[note 1] (1988–) known as powerfultakes,[4][5] and Nooceleration[6] is a Russian troll who admires orcs,[7][8] far-right eugenicist,[9][10] anti-semitic conspiracy theorist,[11] anti-vegan activist, self-confessed glue sniffing addict[12] and former writer for...
At least, if RationalWiki isn't misrepresenting his views and/or statements here.
For one, I've never said I like Karlin, I have read some of his things and do find he makes some good points. If he made that comment knowing the girl's age, then yes that's reprehensible. I'm not really amused by these lame "gotcha" attempts in general either.
History Learner
Well-known member
I find the lack of reading that which is posted disturbing:
Morally driven laws has been a consistent facet of Western Civilization since its inception; Pre-Christian Rome took a negative view of adultery, so it extends earlier than just Christ's teachings. Even ignoring that, there's plenty of examples of "breach of contract" resulting in imprisonment.
Adultery is a breach of contract.
Some guy going out and fucking women on the side you risk giving your wife an STD. Same if the wife cheats, and in many ways its fundamentally unfair for some one to work hard to support a spouse and children and then wake up your house taken away from you, your children taken away from you because your spouse decided to cheat with another person.
Which is what happens all of the time these days.
Going back to if you cheat you lose would be a fairer way of doing things.
Some guy going out and fucking women on the side you risk giving your wife an STD. Same if the wife cheats, and in many ways its fundamentally unfair for some one to work hard to support a spouse and children and then wake up your house taken away from you, your children taken away from you because your spouse decided to cheat with another person.
Which is what happens all of the time these days.
Going back to if you cheat you lose would be a fairer way of doing things.
History Learner
Well-known member
Hell, just look at what divorce does to the children of the couple in question. This is what I mean when I talk about societal impact, reducing this issue down to just "what two adults do in the bedroom" is absurd when the ramifications of what said adults do is extremely likely to impact the community at large:
Children in intact families have lower rates of delinquency than children in non-intact families.23) Robert Sampson (then professor of sociology at the University of Chicago) reported, after studying 171 cities in the United States with populations over 100,000, that the divorce rate predicted the robbery rate of any given area, regardless of its economic and racial composition. In these communities, he found that lower divorce rates indicated higher formal and informal social controls (such as the supervision of children) and lower crime rates.24)
In 1994, it was reported in Wisconsin that the incarceration rate of juvenile delinquents was 12 times higher among children of divorced parents than among children of married parents.25) A 2004 study showed that children from stepparent and single mother families also have significantly higher incarceration rates than children in intact families.26) In a British longitudinal study of males aged eight to 32, David P. Farrington, professor of criminology at Cambridge University, found experiencing parental divorce before age 10 to be a major predictor of adolescent delinquency and adult criminality.27) Another study found that boys who go through family transitions at the age of 14 or 15 are more likely to be delinquent when they are 16 or 17.28) Adolescents from divorced families (particularly those in divorced single-father families) display more antisocial and violent behavior than adolescents in biologically intact families.29) An Australian parliamentary review of the literature found that divorce increases the likelihood that children will feel hostility and rejection.30)
Children of divorced parents are significantly more likely than children of intact married families to be delinquent by age 15, regardless of when the divorce took place.31) A 1985 study that tracked one thousand families with children ages six to 18 for six years found that children living in intact married families exhibited the least delinquency, while children with stepfathers were more likely to exhibit the most disruptive behavior. In this study, the behavior of single-parent children fell between that of children of intact and stepfather families.32)
Parental divorce contributes to what some studies term “externalizing behaviors,” which include weapon carrying, fighting, substance abuse, and binge drinking.33) Another study found that the sons of divorced parents are at no greater risk of involvement in delinquent behavior than boys living in intact families if the mother and father “engage in competent parenting.”34) Good parenting on the part of divorced fathers achieved no such effects for the daughters of divorce, according to this same study. Among adolescent girls, there is a strong correlation between family structure and delinquency,35) hostile behavior,36) drug use, larceny, skipping school,37) and alcohol abuse.38)
The point about STDs is also good as a general note in light of the fact that Gonorrhea, Syphilis and Chlamydia are becoming drug resistant. They're also expecting an explosion of AIDs this decade if the current cure efforts fail. It's worth noting the secular explanation for the adoption of monogamy is because we adopted it as a survival mechanism against STDs:Writing in the journal Nature Communications, Bauch and his colleague Richard McElreath from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany, describe how they built a computer model to explore how bacterial sexually transmitted infections such as chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis that can cause infertility, affected populations of different sizes. The authors considered both small hunter gatherer-like populations of around 30 individuals and large agricultural-like populations of up to 300 individuals, running 2,000 simulations for each that covered a period of 30,000 years.
In small polygynous communities, the researchers found that outbreaks of such STIs were short-lived, allowing the polygynous population to bounce back. With their offspring outnumbering those from monogamous individuals, polygyny remained the primary modus operandi.
But when the team looked at the impact of STIs on larger polygynous societies, they found a very different effect. Instead of clearing quickly, diseases such as chlamydia and gonorrhea became endemic. As a result, the population plummeted and monogamists, who did not have multiple partners, became top dog. The team also found that while monogamists who didn’t ‘punish’ polygyny could gain a temporary foothold, it was monogamists that ‘punished’ polygyny – often at their own expense of resources – that were the most successful. While the form of such punishments were not specified in the model, Bauch suggests fines or social ostracisation among the possible penalties. The results, they say, reveal that STIs could have played a role in the development of socially imposed monogamy that coincided with the rise of large communities that revolved around agriculture.
... Murder is wrong because it violates another person rights. Consensual poly doesn't. The other party agreed to this. No party was harmed.
Murder isn't illegal because of some nebulous feeling that it is wrong. It's illegal because it actively harms another human. Same with hitting someone with a car. The degree has to do with the state of mind of the offender (accident, on purpose, heat of the moment, etc).
But doing it with consent and full knowledge doesn't meet one of the key requirements of what crime should have: doing someone harm.
And if you start regulating for a nebulous social good, congrats, you've agreed with the communists in everything they need from you. Now what argument do you have against them teaching your kids to be gay? "It's for the greater good" they'll say right back at you.