Under-Age Marriage Pic

[new2training]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
new2training wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

we have no moral authority to change it by force or coercion.

That does not sound like a true moral relativist as I understand it. YOU may believe we have no moral authority to change it “by force or coercion”.

Someone else may believe they do have, not only a moral authority, but a moral obligation to do so. If you are truly a moral relativist, you cannot say they are wrong to believe in such a obligation.

In fact, I’ll take it a step further and say that if someone decided to put a bullet in the husband’s head to rescue the girl, then as a moral relativist you have NO authority to say that person should not do that. As long as they view it as the right thing to do it should be okay in your book.

I agree. But only a relativist would agree with that. People that argue against me are not relativists.

Those that agrue against me absolutely believe coercion is wrong. If it is wrong then it is absolutely wrong in any circumstance – otherwise it is simply relative – to what one knows or believes. Which is it?[/quote]

If you agree, then why spend so much time and energy arguing that some of the other posters on this forum are “wrong.” When by your own admission as a relativist, there is no “right” or “wrong.” Only individual perspectives.

As dictated by your own belief system the people who say the marriage is “wrong” are justified in their belief that it is wrong. It seems to me that if you want to abide by the parameters of your own beliefs you cannot judge anybody else’s belief system.

I am trying to come to terms with the implications of complete moral relativism. So help me out here.

It appeals to me to a degree as I have a fairly open mind about what is acceptable human behavior. I tend to believe many things are relative but I can think of many extreme situations that I believe are “absolutely” wrong no matter the surrounding circumstances. Child torture and/or rape are obvious examples to me. (I’m no longer specifically talking about the marriage scenario in the OP)

Once I admit that there is even one example of an “absolute” then I cannot be a moral relativist.

Do you consider yourself a “complete” moral relativist. In your view is there any action or thought that is intrinsically morally wrong?

Genuinely curious.

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]pookie wrote:

Do you consider “Elections” and “Electrons” to be the same damn things because they differ only by one letter? [/quote]

Elections and Erections? They are close enough. Someone is going to get screwed.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
pookie wrote:

Do you consider “Elections” and “Electrons” to be the same damn things because they differ only by one letter?

Elections and Erections? They are close enough. Someone is going to get screwed.
[/quote]

elections too for that matter.

[pookie]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Does this not happen regardless of age in this society?[/quote]

Adults, even oppressed Islamic female adults, have more recourses than children when they find themselves in an unpleasant situation.

One can only be considered a victim if one considers what is happening to them to be hurtful. How do you know what she believes?

So, in your world, abusing a baby or a heavily retarded child is a victimless crime? If you’re careful not to cause them physical pain (although you’ve previously asked “who decided inflicting pain was wrong”, so maybe that’s ok too) you can basically do anything you wish with them because they’re unable to understand the very concept of “victim?”

Really, that makes sense to you?

Again this happenes to all women regardless of their age in this culture – what difference what the age is? This is all they know? It would be different if she were raised in western society and learned differently and then was sold into marriage.

Whether it is all they know is besides the point. If someone was born in a torture cell and tortured every day for life, that wouldn’t make torture “right” because it is all they know. Eating shit three times a day for a year won’t make it taste good.

That’s because it requires a knowledge of concepts. This is precisely the point I am trying to make about morality. One who does not understand the concepts you are trying to explain does not view it as a conscious moral decision or not to have relations with an 11 year old.

The problem is that you presume that those concepts are purely cultural and entirely relative. They’re not. Unless you really believe that women are mentally inferior, you can deduce from simple logic and common human experience a whole lot of ethical or “moral” rules.

Why do you make assumptions about what I am able to do based on an academic discussion on the internet? That seems beneath you based on your other posts I have read.

Hope.

Someone who’s arguments make him sound more like a NAMBLA member than a parent has us hoping that no kids are under his direct care.

If your 6 year old son doesn’t feel victimized when you get him to suck your dick, it’s all good, right? It’s just like kissing a pony.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]new2training wrote:
Do you consider yourself a “complete” moral relativist. In your view is there any action or thought that is intrinsically morally wrong?

Genuinely curious.
[/quote]

Thanks for asking!

Individually we must all be relativists because we all have different perceptions about reality; however, these do appear as absolutes to the observer. There cannot be such thing as an absolute relativist. To say that would be a contradiction – would it not? That is the common mistake that absolutists make in defining relativists. They apply their own standards to that which they judge when those standards are contradictory to what they are judging.

You will find moral relativism must exists whether you believe it or not. For example, why is only certain life valued simply as being a living organism which has rights and not others? For example, pro-life people are not pro-monkey life necessarily. Is that not moral relativism.

If one holds that morals are attributed to how we value human action then one must necessarily understand them as being relative because that is what it means to make a value judgment. It is completely related to what one knows or believes to be correct action. How can there be a universal truth for that?

[Schwarzfahrer]

[quote]pat36 wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:

Right. He basically bought a working uterus.

Most 11 year old girls do not yet have a functioning uterus, save for a very few early bloomers. She is barely starting puberty. She won’t be ready for a couple of years at least. Hopefully by then he will either be killed, die of something, or his dick will shrivel up.
[/quote]
why are you splitting pubic hair?

She will work for him and soon will be able to bear his children.

[quote]
And pat:
What’s right is right and what’s wrong is wrong. A 40 yr old fucking an 11 yr old is wrong on any planet at any time; she’s a kid. She is miserable. Killing is wrong, stealing is wrong, raping is wrong, etc.
Interesting you automatically assume it’s rape.

Fucking an 11 year old is rape, period. It doesn’t take a metal giant to figure that out.[/quote]

In our western culture we call it pedophilia, not rape, while in a culture without our concept of pedophilia this is different.
Or, for you:
In Afghanistan it’s not, period.

Something tells me that, if we were all afghani tribesmen, the self-acclaimed T-Men here would be among the first to take a child as an additional wife, boasting & praising their manliness as usual while people like me would sneer in disgust.

[Schwarzfahrer]

[quote]pookie wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Fucking an 11 year old is rape, period. It doesn’t take a metal giant to figure that out.

Let’s make this academic so as not to insult people’s sensibilities.

Let me pretend I am a child who is curious about such topic. Explain to me, as a child who has no understanding of “adult” conventions such as morality why this is wrong.

To keep it short: The adult will be the one who entirely controls the situation. His experience, maturity, knowledge, position of authority, etc. make it so that he is the one who dictates what happens and how. The child, not having the mental toolset - not to mention the physical ability - necessary to assert what she’s willing or not to do; unable to formulate why or why not, will end up victimized.

Even in a best case scenario, where the adult doesn’t take any advantage of the situation, it is an entirely lopsided relationship, with all the control residing in the adult “partner” (and I quote the term because there is no partnership here. It’s more a master-slave or boss-employee type thing.)

Suspend your disbelief that I am not a child and explain it like you would explain it to a four year old.

You cannot explain adult sexual relationships properly to a four year old.

How many good friends - not kids, you’re obviously childless - do you have that are under 10? Why?
[/quote]

Well, in their culture, your argument about who is mature and who is in charge does not apply because it’s always the man who’s in charge. No matter if she’s 11 or 31, he commends, she obeys. And as I told you, they don’t share our concept of childhood.

A child who’s fit to obey and can do the majority of gender appropriate tasks is considered an adult, albeit a weaker and less experienced one.
Instead of taking the moral high ground, it would be far better to tell me how you think we can stop these barbarical practices?

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
it would be far better to tell me how you think we can stop these barbarical practices?
[/quote]

This was precisely the point I was attempting to make. How does one who calls himself a moral absolutist act in an immoral manner to coerce a specific action when it is coercion that is what is considered immoral?

[pookie]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
No one said sex has taken place in this instance – only marriage.[/quote]

How naive of us to assume that sex might occur.

Nice back pedaling attempt there, but this argument from you is altogether different from your previous one where you were claiming that there was nothing wrong with having sex with the kid as long as the kid didn’t think it was wrong.

Regardless, as long as this girl does not believe she is a victim there is nothing inherently wrong here.

Ah, there it is.

Why would you argue that no sex has been mentioned if it’s not wrong? Feeding the girl hasn’t been mentioned either, but we all assume it’s going to occur.

As for “nothing inherently wrong”, let’s apply your reasoning to another situation: Let’s say you mother is hospitalized and in a coma. Someone walk by her room, notices it’s empty and proceeds to have sex with her. Your mom is in a coma, so she doesn’t feel victimized. You agree that nothing wrong has taken place here, right? If you walked in while he was going at it, would you excuse yourself and politely wait outside while he finished? I mean, you’re not going to intervene to prevent something that’s perfectly all right, right?

We are not talking about coercion as we understand it but rather a cultural practice. If you think that coercing a child into marriage is wrong then you also must think that coercing them to go to school is wrong – otherwise you are a relativist.

A culture enshrining a wrong act as acceptable does not make it less wrong.

Coercing children into school is not wrong. Causing unnecessary pain, suffering and anguish is wrong. Necessary ones are not. Choosing a lesser pain now rather than a greater one later is not wrong.

Relativism and relativity are conceptually the same. Relativity, by definition, may only have physical implications but it is the concept we are talking about that is exactly the same as relativism. There is no universal truth independent of the observer.

In Relativity, the speed of light is the same for all observers regardless of their position, speed, etc. So it would be a universal truth, and not at all “relative.”

You’ll seem a lot less foolish if you replace “Relativity” with “Theory of Gravitation” in your head. There’s no “Gravitism” to get it confused with, so that should help.

Note also that all mathematical proofs are universal truths independent of any observer. There were an infinity of prime numbers before any human knew what a prime number was and before Euler wrote his elegant proof for it.

But keep at it. You’re bound to eventually write something that can stand up to scrutiny, even if only by chance.

Electron and election are not even conceptually related so why would I assume they are related because they sound the same?

You do it with Relativity and relativism.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]pookie wrote:
You do it with Relativity and relativism.
[/quote]
Conceptually they are the same. Do you know what a concept is?

http://www.mindspring.com/~cunningr/pp/cc/HF30036.html

Do not argue special (or general) relativity with a physicist – I can pretty much guarantee you haven’t the mathematical background to even support its soundness or not.

Every physicist will tell you the concept is all that matters not the word we use to define it.

[lixy]

[quote]pookie wrote:
Coercing children into school is not wrong. Causing unnecessary pain, suffering and anguish is wrong. Necessary ones are not. Choosing a lesser pain now rather than a greater one later is not wrong. [/quote]

I’m pretty certain the parents of the girl couldn’t afford sending her to school. I agree that they shouldn’t have copulated like bunnies in those circumstances, but am not arrogant enough to claim knowing what the “lesser pain” in the context of an Afghan hill is.

[pookie]

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Well, in their culture, your argument about who is mature and who is in charge does not apply because it’s always the man who’s in charge. No matter if she’s 11 or 31, he commends, she obeys. And as I told you, they don’t share our concept of childhood.[/quote]

That’s exactly what is wrong with their culture and something they’ll eventually address as they discover that time didn’t stop in the 7th century.

[quote]A child who’s fit to obey and can do the majority of gender appropriate tasks is considered an adult, albeit a weaker and less experienced one.
Instead of taking the moral high ground, it would be far better to tell me how you think we can stop these barbarical practices?[/quote]

For one thing, we can stop making excuses for them and claiming these practices to be entirely normal for them. Human rights and dignity should be universal; that mean every person regardless of culture, race, gender, etc. should be free to do as they please as long as they don’t infringe the rights of others to do the same.

If we’re going to stop the barbaric traditions, we need to call them out and take a stand against them. Change will at best happen slowly, but it won’t happen at all if we keep having apologists making excuses for behavior they personally consider aberrant and trying to find reasons to preserve the status quo.

[new2training]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
new2training wrote:
Do you consider yourself a “complete” moral relativist. In your view is there any action or thought that is intrinsically morally wrong?

Genuinely curious.

Thanks for asking!

Individually we must all be relativists because we all have different perceptions about reality; [/quote]

Within that statement though is the acknowledgement that there is a “Reality.” No matter how different or imperfect our various perceptions of that Reality, there is one Reality.

Is it such a leap to believe that if there is a Reality, independent of differing perceptions of it, then there are certains things within it that just “are.” Such as the concept of right and wrong. Not only the concept of right and wrong but also right actions and right beliefs that are a disctinct and integral part of that reality.

[quote]

You will find moral relativism must exists whether you believe it or not. For example, why is only certain life valued simply as being a living organism which has rights and not others? For example, pro-life people are not pro-monkey life necessarily. Is that not moral relativism.

If one holds that morals are attributed to how we value human action then one must necessarily understand them as being relative because that is what it means to make a value judgment. It is completely related to what one knows or believes to be correct action. How can there be a universal truth for that?[/quote]

I’m still not certain how a relativist such as yourself makes life decisions. Don’t you have a moral code by which you live? I’m pretty sure the man behind the name Liftic does not go around stealing, raping, and killing.

Picture this - you see a man beating a child to death in an alley. You could physically put a stop to it at no risk to yourself. What would Liftic do?

I imagine that a true relativist would shrug their shoulders and say, “It must be okay within that man’s own moral framework to kill that child. Who am I to say he is wrong to do so?” Then go on his way to Starbucks and get a latte.

I don’t think you would choose nonaction in that scenario. If you did intervene. Why would you?

I’m curious, what would you do Liftic?

I think on an intellectual level relativism is an interesting concept but I do not think many people are truly relativists.

[Schwarzfahrer]

I see that.

My problem here is that nitpicking about everything won’t do the trick. Perhaps even on the contrary. As it is, most muslims see themselves morally far above us.
So it seems to me that we need to find real issues. Like genital mutilation. Or education.

No conservative afghani tribesman will see the malice in taking that child as a woman. He will point out that her fate was sealed when her parents decided to sell her. And that the money she raised did something good to her parents.

[pookie]

[quote]lixy wrote:
I’m pretty certain the parents of the girl couldn’t afford sending her to school.[/quote]

I’m pretty certain they could afford it, but didn’t want to.

Wow. Arguing with “I’m pretty certain” sure it easy. No pesky facts or evidence to keep track of. Just claim that what you’d like to be actually is (pretty certainly) and run with it.

I agree that they shouldn’t have copulated like bunnies in those circumstances, but am not arrogant enough to claim knowing what the “lesser pain” in the context of an Afghan hill is.

Well that’s nice. Lifty’s question had nothing to do about the girl in question and whether she’s going to school or not. He was asking why coercing children into going to school was not wrong but other types of coercions are.

Maybe you should try to understand and address the actual debate, instead of looking for occasions where you can dazzle us with your keen insights into arab culture.

[pat]

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:

Right. He basically bought a working uterus.

Most 11 year old girls do not yet have a functioning uterus, save for a very few early bloomers. She is barely starting puberty. She won’t be ready for a couple of years at least. Hopefully by then he will either be killed, die of something, or his dick will shrivel up.

why are you splitting pubic hair?

She will work for him and soon will be able to bear his children.
[/quote]
And in the meantime he is going to enjoy her bald very tight pussy as she writhes in pain trying to take the girth of a cock from a full grown man.
He could have gone for a 20 year old.

And pat:
What’s right is right and what’s wrong is wrong. A 40 yr old fucking an 11 yr old is wrong on any planet at any time; she’s a kid. She is miserable. Killing is wrong, stealing is wrong, raping is wrong, etc.
Interesting you automatically assume it’s rape.

Fucking an 11 year old is rape, period. It doesn’t take a metal giant to figure that out.

In our western culture we call it pedophilia, not rape, while in a culture without our concept of pedophilia this is different.
Or, for you:
In Afghanistan it’s not, period.

Something tells me that, if we were all afghani tribesmen, the self-acclaimed T-Men here would be among the first to take a child as an additional wife, boasting & praising their manliness as usual while people like me would sneer in disgust.

paedophilia - noun - a sexual attraction to children. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=paedophilia

If he parts her labia with his spam-dagger he is raping her. Period.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]pookie wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
No one said sex has taken place in this instance – only marriage.

How naive of us to assume that sex might occur.
[/quote]
I think it is more naive to assume that something did happen without sound proof. But then again I am an observer – albeit, a flawed one at times.

Nice back pedaling attempt there, but this argument from you is altogether different from your previous one where you were claiming that there was nothing wrong with having sex with the kid as long as the kid didn’t think it was wrong.

Does it matter what I think? What does she think? You seem concerned for this girl yet haven’t made any attempt to understand how she might feel except to relate it to how your 11 year old daughter might feel. Humans are animals. There is no measure that tells us otherwise. Animals breed and procreate. Who are you to say under what circumstances it should be allowed to happen?

Why would you argue that no sex has been mentioned if it’s not wrong? Feeding the girl hasn’t been mentioned either, but we all assume it’s going to occur.

How I behave is relative to what I think is correct. I do not judge the actions of other cultures unless they are forcibly coercing me to live under standards that I understand to be wrong.

As for “nothing inherently wrong”, let’s apply your reasoning to another situation: Let’s say you mother is hospitalized and in a coma. Someone walk by her room, notices it’s empty and proceeds to have sex with her. Your mom is in a coma, so she doesn’t feel victimized. You agree that nothing wrong has taken place here, right? If you walked in while he was going at it, would you excuse yourself and politely wait outside while he finished? I mean, you’re not going to intervene to prevent something that’s perfectly all right, right?

Of course it’s wrong to molest my mom in a coma – I have the strength to defend it. Causing pain is irrelevant to morality. Taking something by force that does not belong to you is immoral because you do not own it whether it causes pain or not. By all accounts this man owns this girl. He owns her and therefore can do whatever he wants with his property. Try to convince him he is wrong.

Besides this I never said I agree with the actions. I said it doesn’t matter because it is culturally relative.

A culture enshrining a wrong act as acceptable does not make it less wrong.

Really? Isn’t that how we define right and wrong?

Coercing children into school is not wrong. Causing unnecessary pain, suffering and anguish is wrong. Necessary ones are not. Choosing a lesser pain now rather than a greater one later is not wrong.

If you believe coercion is wrong and call your self an absolutist then you are wrong otherwise it is relative to what you believe is wrong.

Relativism and relativity are conceptually the same. Relativity, by definition, may only have physical implications but it is the concept we are talking about that is exactly the same as relativism. There is no universal truth independent of the observer.

In Relativity, the speed of light is the same for all observers regardless of their position, speed, etc. So it would be a universal truth, and not at all “relative.”

And you would do much better if you just understood that there is no such thing as a universal frame of reference concerning motion. The speed of light is a special case – hence it is called “Special Relativity” and gravity is a general case.

Since light is massless it cannot be considered to be in motion, rather it is the speed at which the EM filed is disturbed which creates radiation as light (photons), the carrier force for electromagnetism. Gravity should be completely analogous to lights but we have never measured the speed at which the force carriers for gravity (gravitons) travel since their existence is only theoretical.

Do not tread where you cannot swim.

[Headhunter]

[quote]nephorm wrote:
How nice that relativism can be used to justify raping children.

I am simply amazed.[/quote]

Beautiful and concise…and spot on.
Tip o’ the hat.

[pookie]

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
My problem here is that nitpicking about everything won’t do the trick. Perhaps even on the contrary. As it is, most muslims see themselves morally far above us.
So it seems to me that we need to find real issues. Like genital mutilation. Or education.[/quote]

No conservative afghani tribesman will see the malice in taking that child as a woman. He will point out that her fate was sealed when her parents decided to sell her. And that the money she raised did something good to her parents.

Change won’t come from the old generations. It never does. Educating the new and upcoming generations is the best way to effect change. There’s a reason the Taliban oppose and burn down NATO built schools in Afghanistan. They’re well aware that an educated population won’t be oppressed so easily; that they’ll demand compromise and change.

The problem is that we can’t go invading everywhere and doing the work for them. For one, they’ll resent us and resist the changes, no matter how good they’d be for them; second, it’s much better for a culture to change from within. It makes for longer-lasting change.

What we can do, though, is use available means of communication to denounce unfairness, injustice and indignity where we see it. We can see to it that our politicians do not support regressive regimes out of convenience. Modern wars are fought almost more in the Public Relations arena than on the battlefield (think of the Israel-Hezbollah conflict of last year…); there is no reason why the same World Opinion cannot eventually be an agent of change. If King Abdullah can be pressured into pardoning a rape victim in Saudi Arabia and the Sudanese government convinced of releasing the teddy bear teacher, then other changes can happen. We just need less people trying to explain and excuse those evil acts, and more people loudly condemning them and drawing attention to these matters.

[pat]

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
I see that.

My problem here is that nitpicking about everything won’t do the trick. Perhaps even on the contrary. As it is, most muslims see themselves morally far above us.
So it seems to me that we need to find real issues. Like genital mutilation. Or education.
[/quote]
Yes they do, but they are wrong.

[quote]
No conservative afghani tribesman will see the malice in taking that child as a woman. He will point out that her fate was sealed when her parents decided to sell her. And that the money she raised did something good to her parents. [/quote]

I hope they see it the same way when the allies drop a Daisycutter on his tribe; that it was his fate that is. The child bride probably prays for a bomb to release her from bondage.