How 'Bout a REAL Debate?
Offline I saw where Kelly's going to debate her new book with religious talking heads. What's her idea, to impress herself rolling up big scores against pushovers?
How 'bout a REAL debate----one between RRS and NAMBLA (http://www.nambla.org/, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA), about sex with children?
Should be worth the price of admission! NAMBLA could make RRS do a lot of backing and filling just by making an opening statement that agrees with quotes like these from RRS luminaries.......
1. All groups of social animals develop sets of rules (a morality)
2. Different societies in different times and places have had different opinions about sex with kids.
3. There is no absolute right and wrong.
Then, NAMBLA can just say, "RRS also tells us not to let anyone else do our thinking for us. So we took their advice and thought for ourself, and just like lots of other people in lots of other places and times, we decided it's OK to have sex with kids. So, RRS, don't shove your narrow, intolerant "morality" down other peoples throats."
Don't know what RRS will say then, but y'all better improve on Kelly's "I say I'm right about sex with kids because I am. Prove me wrong." (http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/kill_em_with_kindness/10614#comment-116027)
_________________________
Never trust a machine gun toting, yowling alleycat that says he wants to eradicate anything "peacefully".
- Login to post comments
Wow, that sounds gross. Thanks for that.
True.
Also true.
Yup.
Wait, what? In simple terms, we as a society (in Western cultures, at least) have decided to drop the ancient Greek approach to pederasty as counter-productive, and in many senses abusive. That's a pretty rational way of arriving at an ethical stance. You don't need an absolute morality for that. It's pragmatic and healthy.
So what was your problem?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
1: Doesn't sound like a challenge.
2: Giving those freaks any excuse for air time of any kind sounds like a bad idea to me. Sic the power of Annoymous on them.
3: How can you have a debate with a group when their members keep getting arrested before it's their time to speak? Auto-win = cheap win.
If people were smart, they'd demand nambla pay them to watch it.
There's nothing here to cause concern. The non-existance of absolute right and wrong does not preclude the subjective right and wrong that humans everywhere have loosly agreed upon and written into law. IE: No god does not mean you are allowed to do what you want to whoever you want; society itself is the final authority, not a god. Neither does the activities of another culture or species mean a practice is good in your own.
They'd be instantly up shit creek if they tried any of those roads.
Too bad for them that the final authority on the law says you can't do it, and that final authority isn't a god. So instead of kids, they'll have fun sharing themselves with Bubba on block E.
This is just sad and pathetic, and doesn't deserve a response. It's nothing more than an ad hominem. Directed at perhaps two individuals. Neither of whom are me.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
The age of consent varies massively in the 1st world never mind the 3rd world in fact according to wikipedia it seems to vary a lot in the US state by state so its hardly an moral absolute.
Good diagram of how it varies around the world
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Age_of_Consent.png
Also the punishment for breaking it also varies which makes the effective age of prosecution even more variable. Age of consent in the UK is 16 but no one is going to prosecute a 15 year old having sex with someone a similar age while I suspect in the US they would get 10 years etc.
Using the age of consent as proof of the existance of god makes about as much sense as hurriances are caused by being gay
What? I thought the price of gay was hurricanes! Am I wrong? Pretty sure the negotiations went like this:
God: Look, if you're going to have gay, I'm going to have to give you hurricanes, too. They're inseparable. No hurricanes, no gay.
Man: But then who will form the backbone of the entertainment industry? Okay, fine, we'll take hurricanes.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Why is Canada coloured green on that map? It should be blue! BLUE DAMNIT! (Age of consent is 14.)
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Well, if I had to guess, that would be because the legal age in Canada appears to have been raised like a year ago:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/05/01/crime-bill.html
=
http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb993-e.htm
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=2333570&Language=e&Mode=1
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/legisinfo/index.asp?Language=E&query=4316&Session=22&List=aka&query_2=3889#3889
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/legisinfo/index.asp?Language=E&query=4316&Session=22&List=aka&query_2=3243
It doesn't seem that the bill has come into force. It appears that the legislation in the first link is still the most recent. It is even linked to directly from other pages concerning age of consent within the Parliamentary Library website, even those citing bills wherein the age of consent is amended to 16. Oddly, however, neither Bill C-267 nor Bill C-306 is mentioned in that page, perhaps because it has not been revised since 2001. Still, I can't find a resource within the Library which definitively states that any bill has been ascended such that it ammends the legislation on the age of consent page.
Edit: Also, searches in the website for the Tackling Violent Crimes Act (which contained the 'proposed' amendment to age of consent) don't turn up any good information on that act or its force.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
No worries dude. I certainly do not claim to be a scholar of Canadian law. In fact, I find the whole subject to be quite confusing as it often just does not work anything like our laws do. Then too, I suspect that our laws are probably equally confusing form the other side of the fence as well.
=
In a general sense, this subject hasn't interested me for a good 16 years. I do however remember some political rumblings about it within the last couple of years. So I did a quick peek at the criminal code, and confirmed that it the age of consent is 16 in Canada, with exceptions to the rule. As per:
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-46/bo-ga:l_V-gb:s_150_1//en#anchorbo-ga:l_V-gb:s_150_1
PART VSEXUAL OFFENCES, PUBLIC MORALS AND DISORDERLY CONDUCT
Interpretation
Definitions
150. In this Part,
"guardian"«tuteur »
"guardian" includes any person who has in law or in fact the custody or control of another person;
"public place"«endroit public »
"public place" includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied;
"theatre"«théâtre »
"theatre" includes any place that is open to the public where entertainments are given, whether or not any charge is made for admission.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 138.
Sexual Offences
Consent no defence
150.1 (1) Subject to subsections (2) to (2.2), when an accused is charged with an offence under section 151 or 152 or subsection 153(1), 160(3) or 173(2) or is charged with an offence under section 271, 272 or 273 in respect of a complainant under the age of 16 years, it is not a defence that the complainant consented to the activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge.
Exception — complainant aged 12 or 13
(2) When an accused is charged with an offence under section 151 or 152, subsection 173(2) or section 271 in respect of a complainant who is 12 years of age or more but under the age of 14 years, it is a defence that the complainant consented to the activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge if the accused(a) is less than two years older than the complainant; and
(b) is not in a position of trust or authority towards the complainant, is not a person with whom the complainant is in a relationship of dependency and is not in a relationship with the complainant that is exploitative of the complainant.
Exception — complainant aged 14 or 15
(2.1) When an accused is charged with an offence under section 151 or 152, subsection 173(2) or section 271 in respect of a complainant who is 14 years of age or more but under the age of 16 years, it is a defence that the complainant consented to the activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge if(a) the accused
(i) is less than five years older than the complainant; and
(ii) is not in a position of trust or authority towards the complainant, is not a person with whom the complainant is in a relationship of dependency and is not in a relationship with the complainant that is exploitative of the complainant; or
(b) the accused is married to the complainant.
Exception for transitional purposes
(2.2) When the accused referred to in subsection (2.1) is five or more years older than the complainant, it is a defence that the complainant consented to the activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge if, on the day on which this subsection comes into force,(a) the accused is the common-law partner of the complainant, or has been cohabiting with the complainant in a conjugal relationship for a period of less than one year and they have had or are expecting to have a child as a result of the relationship; and
(b) the accused is not in a position of trust or authority towards the complainant, is not a person with whom the complainant is in a relationship of dependency and is not in a relationship with the complainant that is exploitative of the complainant.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
You know what I love the most about challenges for "real debates" between atheists and theists? Nine out of ten of them end with one sentence from the atheist, usually in the form of:
"Ok. Prove X."
Debate over.
In this case, it's a little more complicated, but not much:
"Yeah. We used rationality to change something that had empirically bad effects. What's the problem?"
End of Debate.
Anyway, it just helps to illustrate something that most atheists know already -- there simply is no debate between theism and atheism. The debate was won a long time ago, and like those rednecks with the confederate flags on their trucks, there are some people who just haven't gotten the memo.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
And Man totally got the better end of that deal. I mean, hurricanes really only do MAJOR damage to maybe four or five of the 50 states. And we got Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, Ellen Degeneres and Barney Frank. Man FTW.
Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.
Why Believe?
Aw. It was just a joke. Are you not feeling well today?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Yup, and that's the irony. Hardly any theist actually listens or learns from the debate. A lot of them just keep twisting and miscontruing everything, going down strange pathways of circular logic.
*Our world is far more complex than the rigid structure we want to assign to it, and we will probably never fully understand it.*
"Those believers who are sophisticated enough to understand the paradox have found exciting ways to bend logic into pretzel shapes in order to defend the indefensible." - Hamby
Thanks for making my point! It was fun reading what y'all said about the law being the final authority, and making absolute judgments like saying sex with children is "gross", and that NAMBLA a bunch of "freaks", when Kelly herself had said
You may be shocked to know that sex between older men and much younger men, often students, has only relatively recently fallen out of fashion. That is why it is a "norm"--it is relevant to cultures and therefore also time periods.
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/kill_em_with_kindness/10614#comment-114607
What makes Kelly a Hall of Famer, instead of just a run of the mill Schizophrenic Atheist like most of you, (http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15998) is that she threw that quote in someone's face to make them seem ignorant, then said later that her own opinion about sex with children is "right".
By the way, I was real impressed by the person who thought I was saying that "age of consent" is evidence for the existence of god. Also by everyone who just jumped in and assumed I'm a theist. Shows what kind of illogic y'all can get away with here.
You may have missed a memo. We don't all agree with Kelly just because.
But that's true, historically speaking, so I don't see your problem with it.
I think you've confused "a norm" with "normative". And you're probably not qualified to diagnose anyone here.
Are you okay? (Here I was worried about gerj!) You seem deeply irate about something. Usually when people claim there's an absolute authority above the law, they mean a god of some sort. We're used to being attacked with that idea from theists very frequently.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Epic fail. I already obliterated you once. I'm not going to do it again, since the first time still stands. You failed to answer or refute a single thing I said. You suck.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
It’s hilarious-----RRS knows good and well that lots of atheists and agnostics say y’all are hostile, shallow-thinking extremists, but you smear as a “theist” anybody who says it here in your forums. Good example of the “logic” schizophrenic atheists [http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15998] let each other get away with.
One example of how y’all are shallow-thinking embarrassments---you use emotional arguments whenever the theists let you get away with it. The theist talking heads may be too stupid to catch on, but y’all are masters of double talk and double standards. Your posts on this thread are a good example.
The facts are
You may be shocked to know that sex between older men and much younger men, often students, has only relatively recently fallen out of fashion.
(http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/kill_em_with_kindness/10614#comment-114607).
Most atheists and agnostics would fess up by now and say something like “OK—ya caught us using double standards and emotional reasoning. How ‘bout another beer?” But I gotta remember y'all are the sort of atheists who make a Core Member, Author and High Level Moderator out of a guy in his mid thirties who’s still putting little drawings of machinegun toting tomcats alongside his posts. I guess the rest of you y’all gotta decide for yourself if you want to end up that way too.
And now you start owning yourself. Thanks, saves me the effort.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
So you're just going to talk to yourself from now on? Is that how this works for you?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
The Toomygun Toting Tomcat said,
You know what I love the most about challenges for "real debates" between atheists and theists?
Whatsamatter, Tomcat? Having trouble reading again? I said a debate between RRS and NAMBLA, not a debate between RRS and theists. Don't see where beating the theists means you'll come out on top when NAMBLA uses your own logic against y'all.
And oh yes, about your quote
...like those rednecks with the confederate flags on their trucks...
Y'all wouldn't be so ignorant as to be a little prejudiced against poor white southerners now, would ya? (And y'all at RRS call him a core member of the RATIONAL response squad...tsk, tsk, tsk)
These are just a few more reasons why I send people here to make my point that whatever our philosophical differences are, we don't want to go getting like RRS and the fundies over them.
Hey there, Gaming God!
You said
You failed to answer or refute a single thing I said. You suck.
When I've talked about ignorant people who called NAMBLA "freaks", who'd ya think I meant?
Comic fail!
The only people I have run into who try to equate atheists to sickos like NAMBLA are theists. Does anyone else here smell a poser, or is it just me?
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I love it when people come in here and shoot off there mouth without knowing a damned thing about this site or it's members or it's logos.
IF the OP knew the history of the KITTEN and why it was used, they would KNOW that it is making fun of fundamentalism of any kind. The KITTEN is to poke fun at religion's claim of "peace"(kitten)vs the reality of the violence and club mentality(machine gun,"religion"
in it's REAL game of capture the flag over the world.
(BUT I AM SURE THE OP KNEW THAT)
To the OP:
1. Debate and blasphemy does not make us "fundies", it makes us honest with others and ourselves.
2. THIS SITE HAS NEVER, AND WILL NEVER ADVOCATE VIOLENCE, MUCH LESS THE OPRESSION OF THEISTS VIA GOVERNMENT FORCE.
Read, re-read, untill it soaks in. But do not come in here spewing bullshit about people you don't know.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Well said Brian.
When I ripped apart your post, how did you miss it?
Epic fail!
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Vastet, I think you oughta have said,
"When I (vastet) completely misread your (spirale2's) post, and responded with nonsequiters and hysterical emotionalism, like calling NAMBLA members 'freaks' when I (vastet) know good and well their behavior was considered acceptable until fairly recently (according to Kelly herself)".
If you think posts like yours demand a detailed response, then most of your acquaintances probably think you're a hostile whacko (though they'd know better than to tell you that to your face!)
Vastet, to judge from the picture you put alonside your posts, you must have been through some pretty bad stuff. That picture is pure pathos, and I sympathize with you. But you choose to stay in this group of Rarely Rational Scribblers, picking your old scabs with them and just staying angry. Rational, peaceful, mature atheists get out of groups like RRS because that sort of atheist sees that RRS is just a road to destruction.
Who do you think you take us for? You came here to discredit RRS. If anyone deserves rewards points for "non-sequitors" you'd make Donald Trump look like a street bum.
NOW, despense with the fallacious smere campain which no one is fooled by, and state your intent of being at this site in clear concise unambiguous terms.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
What you think is irrelevant.
You are really good at making a complete ass of yourself and also at making things up. I wonder if you're a politician.
Some more projection here.
So you're not a gamer.
And you don't know the context either. I suggest picking up Final Fantasy VIII. It's a good game. A bit old, but still good.
You probably think yourself witty with remarks like this, sadly they merely demonstrate the opposite: That you can only attack by attacking, you have no substance to attack with.
And so you had nothing with substance to present today. Oh well, maybe tomorrow.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Yall? Really?
Is this considered english where you are?
Pathetic. Go back to your trailer and watch Nascar and Fox News.
That's an order.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
NAMBLA...LMMFAO!