MovieChat Forums > Hick (2012) Discussion > Chloe Moretz in this film is the epitome...

Chloe Moretz in this film is the epitome of jailbait

posted 12 years ago by Redrum237
114 replies | jump to latest

We all know it's true.

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 12 years ago

She still looks too much like a child, so I'm gonna say no. At least not for everyone. Maybe for old perverts like you.

[–] CTurbo 12 years ago

I disagree too. I've always thought the term jailbait was intended for girls who are under age, but look "old enough" whereas Chloe actually looks younger than her real age. I was surprised to see that she is 15 now because I would have thought she was 12 or 13 still.

[–] snoop1123 12 years ago

Actually in this movie she looks between 16 and 17. If you think otherwise you clearly have forgotten just how young high school students look. I think people have had their minds warped a little bit when they've been out of school for a while and see these TV shows and movies that have mid to late 20 year olds playing high school students.

If you've heard of it, it's already too mainstream for me. -Commander Shepard

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 12 years ago

Actually in this movie she looks between 16 and 17. If you think otherwise you clearly have forgotten just how young high school students look.

I think it is absurd that you believe that people must either share your perception of things or else they have lost touch with reality. I think you are CHOOSING to see her like a 16/17 yo girl to try and feel less bad about yourself for desiring a child.

[–] miruleyall 12 years ago

meh, still needs a couple of years.

Insert @V@T@R

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chivers677 12 years ago

To be honest I wasn't sure if it'd be 'wrong' to find her hot or not (I'm 17 by the way). I mean, we're not the perverts here! The director & the rest of the crew are the ones to blame for how she was dressed and portrayed in the film. I don't blame anyone for finding her attractive. Just watch the trailer, you can tell she's supposed to be the hot mean and dangerous type of character. If that makes sense.

"Stop looking at the walls, look out the window." ~ Karl Pilkington On Art

[–] Redrum237 12 years ago

Exactly chivers677, this film deliberately tries to play up her sexuality and make her look sexy. It seems like jailbait sexploitation. Now that being said, I would feel kind of weird watching this film knowing she's only like 14.

But in 3 or 4 years...wow she's gonna be hot.

[–] xakanis 12 years ago

There is nothing explicit though and no nudity how is it sexploitation? They could have cast a maggie gyllenhall and been totally safe.

[–] nginx 12 years ago

That's the exact response I had in mind. I saw nothing explicit in this movie on Chloe's part. Was she being in her underwear explicit? My sister wears nothing but tank top and underwear at home. Its a casual wear, I don't see anything unusual or explicit about that. People are becoming more and more prudish it seems.

It's all in the mind. If you are thinking dirty all the time, that's all you'll see.

He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither ~ B. Franklin

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 12 years ago

If you are 17 then I'd say it is 100% okay for you to find her hot.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 12 years ago

What if she grows up to be not hot at all? Like those hot girls one used to know in high school and then you see them 2 years later and they are all fat and ugly.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 12 years ago

Well, I know LOTS of girls that were amazingly hot when we were in highschool but got fat and ugly when we grew up. And I also knew lots of ugly girls in highschool that are amazingly hot today.

[–] nginx 12 years ago

Most girls I found attractive back in high school are not as attractive anymore. It's not that they all became fat in 4 years time but they have lost that beauty that make some people so hot in their teen years. While some others I never took notice of before are suddenly so hot. That's the way the cookie crumbles I guess.

He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither ~ B. Franklin

[–] nginx 12 years ago

But if you're 18 and find her hot, you are a pedo. lol

He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither ~ B. Franklin

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 12 years ago

mc-arab:

There are many things wrong with your views on humanity. We are animals, but we are RATIONAL animals. Our choices, thoughts, likes, dislikes, conscience in general are not determined by our biology or instincts like they are with other animals. Biological determinism does not really exist in human beings. Humans are complex beings with complex thought processes and morality DOES exist for us. It is not an illusion just because it doesn't exist in nature. Abstract concepts don't cease to exist just because you can't find them in other animals. Your views are plain wrong and refuted by science itself. Only someone with no real information about current human studies could think like you.

A hundred years ago it was okay to marry underage girls because people were ignorants (technically we still are, but we ignore different things). There wasn't enough exposure of human studies for people to know that teenagers are not yet fully developed psychologically or physically. Frankly, I find it distburing that there are some people who still think like you in this day and age.

I suggest you start reading my friend. A simple google search should give you enough information to know that we are NOT "just" animals and human sciences (you know, sociology, psychology, pedagogy, etc) don't support such theory. Culture, morality, arts, conscience and other abstract concepts in general are not an illusion just because you can't find them in nature.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 12 years ago

Oh no sir, you did not take my advice; you didn't start reading. I did say human sciences (sociology, psychology, pedagogy, educational sciences, communications, etc) prove that you are wrong about the human condition, not only philosophy.

About morality, it absolutely exists. You seem to be confused about this entire topic. Just because something doesn't exist physically that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We have given a definition to the word; we have given it context, significance, meaning and importance and that makes it a reality. Tell me, is "culture" an illusion? You can't find culture in nature, but the word does have some very specific definitions and is the object of study of sociology and anthropology. How about laws or religion? Are they illusions just because we created them? Morality is a product of humans' reasoning. Different societies have different moral standards and such views are also studied by social sciences.

Just because morality doesn't have an absolute point of reference by which to measure it that doesn't mean it isn't a reality. "Good" or "Bad" may not exist for the rest of the world's animals, but they do exist for us. Morality absolutely exists regardless of whether or not you say otherwise. What you are doing is the exact same a baby does when he shut his eyes and thinks the whole world dissapears. Sorry Mr. mc-arab, but the world does not disappear when you shut your eyes.

Humans have the ability to REASON, and that condition allows us to live under different circumstances than the rest of the animals. Morality is one of such circumstances, whether you like it or not.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 12 years ago

That's what people do when they don't know what else to say. You didn't actually engage in any of the points I mentioned. You just insulted me and continue saying ignorant things. Are you familiar with the argumentative theory of reasoning? Because that is exactly what you are doing: "Whether it's a politician whose point has been refuted or a conspiracy theorist who has been definitively proven insane, they will immediately shift to the next talking point or conspiracy theory that backs up their side, not even skipping a beat. They keep fighting to defend their position even after it is factually shown to be untrue."

If morality existed then places like Somalia or Darfur wouldn't exist. People do what they want and how we look at it places a label on it.

Morality absolutely exists there. They simply use different standards for what is moral and what's not, and I did address this point in my previous reply. This is what I said about it:

Morality is a product of humans' reasoning. Different societies have different moral standards and such views are also studied by social sciences.

And since apparently you didn't read this, I'll just repeat it: "I did say human sciences (sociology, psychology, pedagogy, educational sciences, communications, etc) prove that you are wrong about the human condition, not only philosophy." But it's okay. Continue with your ignorant views. You are not really harming anyone except for yourself.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 12 years ago

Oh God, not another one of those guys... Listen, talking to people who ignore essential information is pointless. If you have never studied human sciences in your life you won't know what I am talking about. Your disagreement is a product of your lack of information about the subject matter. Arguing with people like you is like arguing with a blind man who claims that my blue shirt is actually red. You won't know I'm right unless you start reading about this matter. In some cases ignorance is not really a bliss my friend. I suggest you start educating yourself.

I've had enough of pedophiles like you pointlessly trying to refute science itself just to feel less bad about yourselves for wanting to spend the night with little girls.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 12 years ago

I guess you didn't get this part, so I'll just say it again:

Your disagreement is a product of your lack of information about the subject matter. Arguing with people like you is like arguing with a blind man who claims that my blue shirt is actually red. You won't know I'm right unless you start reading about this matter.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 12 years ago

The problem here is that I know I have studies in Human Sciences, and you know you don't know shït about it. Science is backing me up on this one. There's not one single serious prevailing theory that supports your idea that we are just like any other animal. Science doesn't agree with you, and that's were you are showing that it is irrelevant if you repeat the same thing I said to you. When I say it I'm telling the truth, when you say it you are lying.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 12 years ago

Nope, I never said that we are NOTHING like other animals. You are just making this up. I just said that we don't base our decisions in biology alone like other animals and thus, there's no point in using "nature" or biology to say what is normal or isn't in human beings. And nope, you have not read more than I have about this matter. It's easy for anyone to say he is Stephen Hawking whenever he wants to boost his credibility in a discussion about astrophysics, but the problem is that you are NOT showing that you actually know what you are talking about. You are just talking out of your ass. But again, you won't know this unless you actually open a book.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 12 years ago

Lol right! you've shown you know what you are talking about? Lets see some of your smart quotes:

You are seriously deluding yourself and giving WAY WAY WAY too much credit to the human race. We do have animal instincts because technically, we are animals.

AAAAAND you just proved how dumb you really are. I never said a thing about Chloe Moretz, jailbait, any child, or any other female that may be referred to as jailbait, and yet you accused me of being a pedophile.

Oh look, I can say it too.

I didn't say we are just like any other animal. You implied we were nothing like any other animal, which is what I refuted. My stance is more of a middle ground of what you think I said and what you said.

I've easily shown I know what I'm talking about

I don't see ANYTHING there to suggest that you know what you are talking about. You haven't said ANYTHING to even try to defend your point of view. The extent of your argument seems to be: "it is like I say, because I say so". Lol right! And then you add:

If you really want to get all philosophical though, free will is an illusion. Look into quantum mechanics and indeterminism.

Lol you think you are smart just because you brought up a very VERY random philosophical notion that has NOTHING to do with the subject matter?

I've explained why we are not like other animals. You haven't refuted this in any way.

We are animals, but we are RATIONAL animals. Our choices, thoughts, likes, dislikes, conscience in general are not determined by our biology or instincts like they are with other animals. Biological determinism does not really exist in human beings. Humans are complex beings with complex thought processes and morality DOES exist for us. It is not an illusion just because it doesn't exist in nature. Abstract concepts don't cease to exist just because you can't find them in other animals.

Can you prove any of this wrong? No, you can't, unless you start making up information, because science won't support your point of view.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 12 years ago

Not akin to that at all. Science has proven that I'm right. I mean, really? I need proof that human beings reason and have complex thought processes??? REALLY? Wow... you just LOVE to argue, don't you? I thought that was pretty much common knowledge by now, but okay, I'll give you proof that you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 12 years ago

Oh, I have basis. My basis is every single stupid post you have made in here.

This is a start:

The theory of biological determinism, also called genetic determinism, is in essence the exact opposite of the Standard Social Science Model described in Evolution and Human Nature. Whereas the SSSM assumes that no part of human nature is inherited and all human attributes are fixed by cultural forces, biological determinism assumes that all or virtually all human behavior is innate and cannot be changed or altered.

Taken from http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/ph6.shtml

Most people believe that a person's environment, social factors and other factors from the environment influence a person's likes, dislikes and other preferences. However, those who advocate biological determinism believe that all of these things are predetermined and that environment and social factors cannot influence or change them.

According to biological determinism, everything from music tastes to predisposition to commit crimes like murder is laid out in our genetic makeup. Customs, education, expectations and all other variables are not considered.

Social determinism is the opposite of biological or genetic determinism. This concept asserts that social and environmental factors determine a person's characteristics and traits.

Biological determinism has not been proven. Scientists and researchers disagree on how much a person's genetics and environment contribute to characteristics, personality and other traits. Many researchers believe that both genetics and other environmental factors contribute to characteristics, preferences and traits.

Taken from http://www.nurture-or-nature.com/articles/biological-determinism/i ndex.php

Reason is a term that refers to the capacity human beings have to make sense of things, to establish and verify facts, and to change or justify practices, institutions, and beliefs.[1] It is closely associated with such characteristically human activities as philosophy, science, language, mathematics, and art, and is normally considered to be a definitive characteristic of human nature.[2] The concept of reason is sometimes referred to as rationality and sometimes as discursive reason, in opposition to intuitive reason.[3]

Taken from wikipedia. These are the references:

1.^ "So We Need Something Else for Reason to Mean", International Journal of Philosophical Studies 8: 3, 271 — 295.
2.^ Alasdair MacIntyre, Dependent Rational Animals: Why Human Beings Need the Virtues, Peru, Illinois: 2002.
3.^ Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of intuitive reason

Cognitive science has shown repeatedly that seemingly simple human behaviors are far more complicated than we might have imagined and that our folk theories purporting to account for them are in many ways wrong from the start. The vast scope of human thought is a recognized major problem: it lies far beyond the abilities of other species and we have no scientific consensus on what makes it possible.

Taken from http://onthehuman.org/2009/08/the-scope-of-human-thought/
So? Are you going to keep denying science itself?

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 12 years ago

I knew you were going to make something up to try and save face. Now that you realized that you were wrong all this time, instead of accepting your mistake and stupidity, you are just acting like if you knew the truth all this time and you were just trollin. Classic. I can't say I'm surprised though; people don't like admitting when they are wrong. And the only reason why I was stubborn is because, apparently, as I PROVED, I was right all along and you two pedophiles were WRONG :) and it always feels good to prove pedophiles wrong!

[–] beersandshots 12 years ago

Wow.. Point, set, and match to Goondocks. Cheers, TftG!

"In a time of universal deceit,
telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
George Orwell

[–] zerlinde6 11 years ago

Why did you even bother trying to reason with someone like this? Total waste of time and energy.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DeltronFF 12 years ago

When I first saw the movie poster and didn't know who it was, she definitely comes off looking like a smoking 18-21 year old. After watching the trailer she seems a bit younger- but the movie poster w/her holding the gun, she looks at least 18.

----------
The sticky stuff on the stairs tastes bitter!

[–] flasuss 12 years ago

"but the movie poster w/her holding the gun, she looks at least 18."

Yeah, I agree, although I knew here before. And I was surprised- in Hugo, for example, she clearly looks like a 12-13 year old girl, but in the poster she looks much older.

Another problem is that Hollywood almost always has 20-somethings play teenagers, and even if they do look like teens we just assume they are always older.

When you kill a man to defend an idea, you're not defending an idea. You're killing a man.

[–] loccomotive2000 12 years ago

Jailbait? She isn't even remotely hot, and I'm not saying that to be PC, I know a bunch of 14 year olds who have more sex appeal. How she keeps asking everyone if she's pretty is really annoying; I'd dump her out of the car and offer Blake Lively a free ride.

[–] aoa8212 12 years ago

It's true. It's damn true. :)

[–] CTurbo 12 years ago

I'm in my early 30s, and I think she looks like a little girl. She's cute, but in a "cute little girl" innocent kinda way. However, I will admit that sometimes some girls around her age DO look "like jailbait" as in they make me feel like a dirty old man just because I think they're pretty. I do not lust after little girls though. My wife was 19 when I met her, I was 25, and that was ALMOST too much of an age gap at the time for me. I'm sure if we had met a couple years earlier, we never would have dated.

[–] HoneyBlonde 12 years ago

She looks every bit of 14 to me. I would not consider her "jailbait". I associate "jailbait" with mature looking 14 year old girls or underage girls. She does not look mature for her age.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nginx 12 years ago

Let's face it, the fact that someone is considered a adult at 18 is purely a legal and social concept and has nothing to do with science or biology. Being attracted to a member of the opposite sex irrespective of age is also biological and beyond anybody's control. Those who desire underage women aren't really pedophiles but rather those who choose to act upon their desires are.

He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither ~ B. Franklin

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 12 years ago

Well, you are wrong. Allow me to tell you why. First of all, this IS science. Don't you think social sciences are science? People are social constructs, most of our decisions, likes and dislikes are a product of our environment, biology, and a correlation between these two factors. You can't simply say "if something is a product of society, then it doesn't count". It absolutely counts, since most of the traits of our personality come precisely from social interactions and culture. We are smart enough to construct and understand philosophy, science, ethics, morals, etc. There's no point in saying that such things don't count because we made them up.

Now as I've already proven before, just because humans have a biological urge, that doesn't mean that we are going to act on that urge. Any other animal craps whenever it feels the urge to take a dump; we don't. If we are in a public place, with no restroom, we don't take our clothes off right there and take a dump in front of everyone. It is IRRELEVANT if you feel like fücking a 15yo, you are allegedly intelligent enough to understand that a 15yo is mostly still an immature kid, that if you are 30-something you are old enough to be her dad, that according to modern human sciences most teenagers still haven't fully developed physically or psychologically.

All this crap that it is okay to desire teenagers because biology says so is precisely that: crap. Biological determinism doesn't exist, therefore, there's no such thing as something that's "biological and beyond anybody's control". If you desire your 15yo neighbor, then you should just try to decrease that urge, not ask her out on a date.

[–] cldne2000 12 years ago

(/pedo mode on)
or try to sneakily talk to her when no one sees and get her over to your place :O
(/pedo mode off)
yep, its a sick desire according to society today, it might not have been in the middle ages, but we have sadly gotten too sophisticated/intelligent/organized as societies and these things are now mostly impossible (also laws have become insanely over-done in every area with every small violation for every possible thing out here -- what is freedom now?). but yes basically to act on these urges today you are risking everything so better not do it. and you are right, "pedos" do KNOW what they want is wrong, its just about the desire and if youre willing to risk it :X
yes, i do look at Chloe and find her attractive/sexy, but would i ever risk it? hell no. f--- the world today!

[–] nginx 12 years ago

I don't get it. Did you even read my comment? You are basically saying the same thing I did and expanded on it.

Read again: "Those who desire underage women aren't really pedophiles but rather those who choose to act upon their desires are."

That means social constructs obviously do matter. Basically what I am saying is that you cannot call someone a pedophile for thinking a 14 year old is hot as she is already past her puberty and that makes her biologically available to mate. But if someone acts upon his urge and does the nasty then he is a pedo because he clearly took advantage of an immature kid.

Having said you have to realize that 18 years is not a fixed age set in stone for maturity either. Some mature way earlier and some mature after 20. The law on the other hand is not flexible and that has landed many unassuming guys on the sex offender's list.

Btw Biological determinism does exist. That is exactly why sometimes even a 20 year old guy can suddenly feel attracted to a 50 year old women for no reason. It used to be taboo in the olden days but society is becoming more open nowadays.

He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither ~ B. Franklin

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 12 years ago

Again, the problem is that some people think that the fact that we have biological urges is an excuse for desiring children. A girl can get her period since she's 11, 12, or 13, that doesn't mean it is normal or fine for a man to desire a girl of that age. Not at all.

And no, biological determinism does not exist in human beings. Biological determinism would lead you to believe that it is fine and okay to feel sexual desire towards any girl that has already gotten her period, because biology says so. In the same way, the misconception that biological determinism exist in human beings would lead you to believe that feeling a romantic attraction towards a woman who has stopped ovulating because of her age is not normal and even a deviation.

Read a little about biological determinism:

The theory of biological determinism, also called genetic determinism, is in essence the exact opposite of the Standard Social Science Model described in Evolution and Human Nature. Whereas the SSSM assumes that no part of human nature is inherited and all human attributes are fixed by cultural forces, biological determinism assumes that all or virtually all human behavior is innate and cannot be changed or altered.

Taken from http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/ph6.shtml

Most people believe that a person's environment, social factors and other factors from the environment influence a person's likes, dislikes and other preferences. However, those who advocate biological determinism believe that all of these things are predetermined and that environment and social factors cannot influence or change them.

According to biological determinism, everything from music tastes to predisposition to commit crimes like murder is laid out in our genetic makeup. Customs, education, expectations and all other variables are not considered.

Social determinism is the opposite of biological or genetic determinism. This concept asserts that social and environmental factors determine a person's characteristics and traits.

Biological determinism has not been proven. Scientists and researchers disagree on how much a person's genetics and environment contribute to characteristics, personality and other traits. Many researchers believe that both genetics and other environmental factors contribute to characteristics, preferences and traits.

Taken from http://www.nurture-or-nature.com/articles/biological-determinism/i ndex.php

Neither social sciences or biology support the idea of a biological determinism.

[–] mithril 12 years ago

I kinda agree with your points but you seem to repeat yourself a lot and seem a bit full of yourself. :) From the US i am guessing? :)

You say it is wrong but earlier you said that morality does exist but in places like Darfur they use different standards of moral? So why is there wrong or right when you can change your moral standards? Depending on time and place.

For instance, most european countries have age of consent at 13-15 years, are those countries just evil then? Japan has 13, evil?

I am guessing you are using pseudo-intellectual reasoning to support your own prudish "american age of consent at 18"-worldview :P

So what we can gather here is that morality and a million other social rules exist, but mostly they are human concepts broken and bent on a whim of humanity as we evolve or devolve...it is very culture dependent.

Most states in usa and canada have age of consent at 16, and some at 17, only a few at 18. FYI.

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 12 years ago

The reason why I'm stubborn is because, simply, I am right. The reason why I seem to be full of myself and pseudo-intellectual to you is because, simply, you are not intellectual at all. When you have already refuted the argument that biological determinism exists in human beings, and yet you keep getting replies from stupid people who just don't like reading about science (or even the posts they are replying to), you can't help but repeat what you've already said. You have no argument to support your stupid view that it is okay to fück little girls and that's why you are using your ad hominem fallacies as a shelter. I have no need to change my argument because my argument is the right one, you are wrong.

Let me explain it to you in a simple way:

- First of all, why are you thinking in such an absolute way? NO ONE here is saying that your acts make you either an evil person or a kind and loving altruist. Stop thinking in terms of black and white and start thinking in gray.

- I NEVER said that as soon as a girl turns 18 she is mature enough to engage in a relation with a 40 yo. I know ages of consent are just political views and don't really represent the actual maturity of a person. Quite frankly, I don't think most 18 yo have fully matured psychologically at all, but I also know a few 16yo who are as mature as any 20 yo adult. I'm basing this on actual human development studies and in my own experience as a teacher.

- What you said about european countries is wrong; the ages of consent in most european countries range from 14 to 16, not 13 to 15, and there are MANY articles that penalize sex with teens if certain conditions apply. For instance, according to the german criminal code, the age of consent in Germany is 14, but that's only as long as a person over the age of 21 is not exploiting a 14–15 year-old person's lack of capacity for sexual self-determination. In Finland the age of consent is 16, but it raises to 18 if the adult is in a position of power. So apparently, even when the legal age is 15 or whatever, laws still take the teenager's immaturity as a consideration.

- Also, laws don't always equal moral or immoral. Even if it is legal for a 40yo to engage in sexual activity with a 15yo in some countries, most people would still find it creepy and immoral. I know this because I've talked with a few european friends about this matter before. Feel free to disbelieve, but this is an example of how LAWS are not always the same as "socially acceptable" or "moral". You are not bound by law to give your seat to an elderly woman when riding a bus, but most people, if not ALL, would agree that it is the moral thing to do. In the US, the first amendment gives a 15yo the right to express his opinion, but that doesn't mean that it will be seen as morally acceptable for a 15yo to tell an elderly woman that he thinks she's dumb.

So I'm sorry old man, but I'm guessing you are using fallacies to support your argument because you don't have a real argument at all. You just want to feel less bad for desiring 13 yo kids. Oh, and also, I'm not american at all. Dumbass.

[–] mithril 12 years ago

Heh, you are funny! :) You are the one who is thinking in black and white... "i am right", "science is with me", "there is no biogical determinism", "you are wrong", "you don't know science" etc...

These are YOUR opinions not fact.

Check your previous posts on this thread... not nice to say that someone is using ad hominem when you use them in almost everyone of your posts ;) and don't get me started on other fallacies that you use.

And as a side note you seem to be answering to questions i didn't even post and somehow i get the impression from your rant that you think that we have exchanged messages before... we haven't.

Spain is the one with 13, i'll give you that, most of the other countries in central and south europe are 14-15.

And in the end who's to decide what is socially acceptable? Certainly not you.

FYI... i don't desire young girls (not too young anyway), i just find annoying you funny. :) Biologically men do desire young and hot girls/women... social norms whatever they are tells us to act against our "nature".

FYI number 2 , most scientist agree that there is some biological factors that decide what we become... homosexuality for instance might be based on genes. So there is some amount of biological determinism. Some are more declined to do something, but mostly the environment makes us what we are.

Are you so angry because as a teacher you found your young pupils desirable and had to resist and that made you lash out on the forums? <- ad hominem :P

If you really want to carry on with this argument you can do it by yourself, you are fairly intelligent, but a bit too sure on your biased views on things.

You say that people shouldn't see in black and white, when you do just that, you say don't use ad hominem attacks when you do just that. You say that laws and social rules say that we can't frak young girls, but when i point that most countries laws allow that and you can bend them, then you say laws don't matter, only your ideas of morals do. :)

So in the end we can agree to disagree, social rules and norms are all well and good, but they are just that, opinions on things dependent on the individual, place and time. I agree we must have some codes of conduct, but where do we draw the line?

Billions of people in the world are starving, we as westerners could help them by lowering our standards and consumption, but do we do that? No! There are some morals and rules for you :(. We are not that far evolved from apes as you'd like to think.

Social sciences, psychology etc... are at best soft sciences. Very abstract and hard to quantify...ever changing fields, more so than let's say chemisty, physics and math. Btw, imho economics is not a science at all, just a combination of other sciences, mainly bs. :)

It was fun chatting with you. You must have been a great teacher! <- not an ad hominem. You seem really sure of your opinions, kids respect that. Alpha male. ;)

PS. If someone finds a 13-year old attractive and even if someone boinks her, he/she is not a pedophile. It is an incorrect term, the correct term is Hebephilia, and if you do the dirty with 14-16 year olds that is called Ephebophilia.

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 12 years ago

Heh, you are funny! :) You are the one who is thinking in black and white... "i am right", "science is with me", "there is no biogical determinism", "you are wrong", "you don't know science" etc...

These are YOUR opinions not fact.

When I said that you shouldn't think in black and white I meant moral issues. People are NOT either 100% evil or 100% good. Even Hitler used to laugh and love. In discussions like this one someone can be either right or wrong. Science IS backing me up as I've proven lots of times. Also, my opinion is a SUPPORTED opinion. There's a difference between mere "opinion" and a supported one. As Edward Damer would tell you, just because everyone has the right to express an opinion that doesn't mean that all opinions are equally valid or right. There is such a thing as a supported opinion, and then there are the kind of opinions you are expressing here. As argumentative theories say, the mere fact that we are presenting opposing opinions here means that one of us must be wrong, especially when talking about things that can be supported by science or reason.

Check your previous posts on this thread... not nice to say that someone is using ad hominem when you use them in almost everyone of your posts ;) and don't get me started on other fallacies that you use.

An ad hominem fallacy occurs only when I'm not presenting my own arguments and instead I'm just trying to diminish your credibility with insults. I'm not doing that at all. I am refuting your misinformed arguments and as an extra I'm pointing out the fact that you have not read anything about this matter in your life.

And in the end who's to decide what is socially acceptable? Certainly not you.

Society decides what is socially acceptable, as the term itself is telling you: "SOCIALLY acceptable".

FYI... i don't desire young girls (not too young anyway), i just find annoying you funny. :) Biologically men do desire young and hot girls/women... social norms whatever they are tells us to act against our "nature".

The problem is that you are thinking that human nature is the exact same as the nature of all other animals. Abstract thought (i.e. everything related to reason, conscience, morality, etc) IS part of human nature. That means that not acting on sudden biological urges is as normal for humans as taking a dump.

FYI number 2 , most scientist agree that there is some biological factors that decide what we become... homosexuality for instance might be based on genes. So there is some amount of biological determinism. Some are more declined to do something, but mostly the environment makes us what we are.

Really? When have i EVER said that biology doesn't take a part in who we are? I've said from the begining that our personalities are formed by both environmental and biological factors, and also a correlation between these two. However, what you are describing is NOT biological determinism. Biological determinism doesn't exist in human beings, because that would mean that we take ALL our traits from biology and that's not true.

And wow! Social sciences are crap? WOW! The mother of all ad hominem arguments. Whenever science proves you wrong, the only thing left to say is "science doesn't even count anyway", right? I'm sorry but social sciences ARE science. You are only saying the contrary because you have NOTHING to back up your claim! I've found people like you before. Whenever science proves you wrong and you have nothing to back up your views, the only thing left for you to do is use ad hominem arguments against science itself, which is pretty stupid really. And for your information, scientific research in social sciences is based on BOTH quantitative methods and qualitative methods, and both of them are objective. I guess philosophy is plain stupid according to you, right? Beacuse philosophy is NOT quantifiable at all, since it is not based on any kind of empirical evidence, but rather on REASON.

When you try to diminish the credibility of scientific paradigms, you just sound like a bitter christian! Always trying to act as if science is wrong. And by the way, biology also supports the idea that human traits are formed mainly by environment, and that's a natural science, not a social science.

What makes me angry is finding dumb, misinformed people trying to lecture ME about my own area of expertise. I keep refuting you with facts and actual science and you keep coming back with your ad hominems instead of accepting you were wrong! I'm going to tell you what I tell ALL my students: If you know you are not really informed about a certain matter, then why open your mouth at all??? You don't see me talking about chemistry, because I just don't know shït about it. And I'll say it again, your ad hominem fallacy against science itself is just plain funny. Social sciences don't count because they don't support your ignorant views? For crying out loud...

[–] mithril 12 years ago

Okay, you lured me in. I just can't resist answering this one. :) But i really do have a life outside of imdb forums so i don't have too much time to argue with you.

I am a beliver in science and i am an atheist btw. I just question everything and i do mean everything, even science. Science has a political dimension. I can't stand so called "science belivers" especially if it is a field they are educated in. They use it as warm blanket to cover themselves with and use it to show their "superiority" towards others.

Don't be so blind to the flaws of science and the scientific method, especially those "soft sciences" like social sciences. They are open to interpretation and what is true in one case might not be true in another. "Hard sciences" like psyhics are easier in that sense. You can usually verify the results everywhere, not so in psych etc...

I don't have a horse in this race, i don't have view or a point other than you are full of yourself and use weird scientific reasoning to support your claims. They are mostly not valid.

I know you are angry when i attack your scientific beliefs because you are educated in that area and tend to use it everywhere you can, but when i point out the flaws in your reasoning you feel lost. As if i'm saying that you life has no meaning. Trust me, it is mark of a good scientist to be unsure of things, and not blatantly use it as an excuse for everything.

But in the end i do belive in science, but mostly physics, math, geography, chemistry. A little less on those verbal hobbies we call psychology, sociology etc...

A quote from wikipedia for you:

A related aspect of the hard versus soft distinction has to do with the ease of drawing strong conclusions. In soft sciences, there are often numerous variables that might have an influence on some variable of interest, and many of those variables either may be non-quantifiable or may be quantifiable but difficult to obtain data on; but further, even with plentiful data, it may be difficult to disentangle the effects of such a large number of variables. In contrast, typically in the hard sciences there are only a few, readily identified, causative variables, making it easier to infer specific causative effects.

And it would do well for you to read this page:

http://plover.net/~bonds/nolongeraskeptic.html

Phew! Now i'm done arguing for real this time. :)

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 12 years ago

Listen, I'm not even going to read that last post. When people start using ad hominem fallacies against accepted scientific methods, it is time to declare the conversation pointless and worthless. One would never win a discussion against a creationist, because they delude themselves into thinking that scientific evidence is wrong, in the same way you are denying objective scientific evidence because you want reality to be different. I'm just going to say that my argument, as I've proven lots of times, is based on science, information and reason, yours on the other hand, well, you have NO argument, you just want to win because you don't want to accept you were wrong! Just like those other bastards who noticed they were wrong and they even deleted their posts out of shame. I really hope you see the light someday. Have a good day.

[–] chilone 11 years ago

I'm a creationist and I don't say that scientific evidence is wrong.

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 11 years ago

That's great.

[–] chilone 11 years ago

Yes! It is :o] I also have fantasized about killing people in the most heinous ways imaginable. I've had MANY fantasies involving what would be called "taboo" sex etc. etc. etc. And guess what? I will NEVER act on ANY of them. Why? Because I have morals that prohibit me from doing so. Is it wrong for me to have these fantasies? Absolutely not. Is there something "wrong with me"? Nope. That's like saying that it's wrong and sick to watch movies that have any morally objectionable behavior in them. Having extreme fantasies is not psychotic and wrong. Acting them out is.

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chilone 11 years ago

Nope lol. I'm not hypocritical at all. I embrace Jesus BECAUSE I know and acknowledge that I'm a depraved, hell doomed sinner and He is my righteousness. Do you honestly believe that Christians are better than non-believers? The only hypocritical Christians are the ones that DO think that they are better. Me thinks that you with all your nastiness and insults is the one that should see a psychiatrist.

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

[–] chilone 11 years ago

BTW putting me on ignore (OOoo mur-DUR!!) is retarded. First, I know you're reading this and second, I'm not writing this to show YOU who you are. I'm writing it to show everyone ELSE who you are lol.

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chilone 11 years ago

From the US i am guessing? :)

Narrow minded and jealous I'm guessing.

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

[–] HippieDrillSealOfApproval 11 years ago

Well, you are wrong. Allow me to tell you why. First of all, this IS science. Don't you think social sciences are science? People are social constructs, most of our decisions, likes and dislikes are a product of our environment, biology, and a correlation between these two factors.

Way to contradict yourself.

What are words for when no one listens anymore

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 11 years ago

Ignorant people tend to see contradictions where there are none. Oh wait, after reading your other post, I realize that you are one of those ignorant, stupid, biased pervs who will say any kind of fallacy that comes to their mind in order to defend their invalid points of views.

[–] HippieDrillSealOfApproval 11 years ago

Perhaps so, but I wouldn't know because I'm not ignorant. I was merely pointing out your contradiction. You told someone who said "Being attracted to a member of the opposite sex irrespective of age is also biological and beyond anybody's control" they were wrong. THEN you say "most of our decisions, likes and dislikes are a product of our environment, biology, and a correlation between these two factors". How in sam hell is that not a contradiction?

What are words for when no one listens anymore

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 11 years ago

If instead of trying to take quotes out of context to support your argument, you actually tried reading the conversation, you would realize that the WHOLE point of my numerous replies is that human beings are not controlled merely by biology. The point of your pervert pals was that if biology says so, then humans have nothing to say about it because we are animals just like any other. My point was simply that we are NOT animals like any other, and we can, say, develope sphincter control even if our body is telling us that we must take a dump, unlike most other animals. The same goes to these situations. Just saying "it is okay because our biology tells us to *beep* kids" is plain WRONG and nothing you say about it will change that.

[–] HippieDrillSealOfApproval 11 years ago

I did read it and I took nothing out of context. I wasn't addressing the right/wrong of it. And for the record, social science is NOT science. it's SOFT science. While you may be right that we have a say in whether we act on our desires, you're dead wrong if you think we have a say in whether or not we have said desires. I didn't read anyone who was justifying acting on the attraction, they were merely pointing out that the attractions themselves are beyond anyone's control. A man who's attracted to adolescent girls is no more in control of whether he has that attraction or not than a gay man is in control of being attracted to men. Attraction happens on a subconscious level beyond our control.

What are words for when no one listens anymore

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 11 years ago

Social science IS science. You can try and ad more fallacies to your argument, you can flood your posts with ad hominem, but no respected scientist will agree with you that social sciences are not science. The term "soft science" is still aknowledging the FACT that social science is science. And actually, no, the pervs here weren't just saying that we have desire and that's it, the pervs who deleted their posts were arguing that it is perfectly normal and ok to feel desire for teens because biology says so. It is not. You can feel desire, we can't control it, but it is definitely not ok. Got anything else? You are wrong about everything of course, but if you wish to continue making stupid claims, go on. I'll be happy to keep proving you wrong.

[–] HippieDrillSealOfApproval 11 years ago

Social science IS science. You can try and ad more fallacies to your argument, you can flood your posts with ad hominem

What ad hominem?

but no respected scientist will agree with you that social sciences are not science.

Argumentum ad verecundiam...What was that you were saying about fallacies?

The term "soft science" is still aknowledging the FACT that social science is science.

Rather, it's pointing out that there are some critical differences that prevent it from being hard science.

And actually, no, the pervs here weren't just saying that we have desire and that's it, the pervs who deleted their posts were arguing that it is perfectly normal and ok to feel desire for teens because biology says so. It is not.

A, that is OK. B, it's still not justifying actions.

You can feel desire, we can't control it, but it is definitely not ok in the same way it is not okay to take a dump in a public place just because we felt the need to take a dump.

Fecal fixation aside, attractions are just about how people feel, they require no justification. There's no right or wrong ways to feel.

Got anything else? You are wrong about everything of course, but if you wish to continue making stupid claims, go on. I'll be happy to keep proving you wrong.

Keep? One can hardly keep doing something until they've started doing it. In other words, you haven't proven me wrong about sh!t, Jack.

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 11 years ago

What ad hominem?

To say that social sciences are no science, just because you don't like the conclusions that social sciences have placed before you IS ad hominem. You are trying to diminish the credibility of Social Sciences' studies of human beings just because you don't like the fact that they don't support your views.

Argumentum ad verecundiam...What was that you were saying about fallacies?

LOL THANK YOU! Thank you so much for this! You just keep proving that you don't know what the hell you are talking about! You are making this VERY easy.

The "appeal to authority" fallacy has, saddly, felt victim of an absurd misconception thanks to dumb ignorant people like you. Please, READ before using the "appeal to authority fallacy!" rant. An appeal to authority fallacy occurs only and ONLY when:

a) the authority in question is not really an authority on the subject matter or
b) if there is no general agreement among authorities about the subject matter.

Needless to say, there was no "argumentum ad verecundiam" in my post. ALL social scientists, who are the obvious experts about the subject matter, agree that social sciences are science. In fact, natural scientists and philosophers agree about this too. Maybe you can find one obscure physicist who disagrees, I don't know, but that's pretty much irrelevant, because the consensus is that you are wrong.

Rather, it's pointing out that there are some critical differences that prevent it from being hard science.

That doesn't mean that they are not science as you claimed, and that doesn't mean that they are wrong about this matter as you would want them to be.

A, that is OK. B, it's still not justifying actions.

Nope, it's not okay.

ecal fixation aside, attractions are just about how people feel, they require no justification. There's no right or wrong ways to feel.

Yes there are right and wrong ways to feel. You can feel the desire to kill everyone you meet, but even if you don't actually kill them that doesn't mean that there isn't something very wrong with you.

Keep? One can hardly keep doing something until they've started doing it. In other words, you haven't proven me wrong about sh!t, Jack.

I've proven you wrong time and time again.

[–] HippieDrillSealOfApproval 11 years ago

To say that social sciences are no science, just because you don't like the conclusions that social sciences have placed before you IS ad hominem

LMAO. You have no clue what ad hominem is.

LOL THANK YOU! Thank you so much for this! You just keep proving that you don't know what the hell you are talking about! You are making this VERY easy.

The "appeal to authority" fallacy has, saddly, felt victim of an absurd misconception thanks to dumb ignorant people like you. Please, READ before using the "appeal to authority fallacy!" rant. An appeal to authority fallacy occurs only and ONLY when:

a) the authority in question is not really an authority on the subject matter or
b) if there is no general agreement among authorities about the subject matter.

Needless to say, there was no "argumentum ad verecundiam" in my post. ALL social scientists, who are the obvious experts about the subject matter, agree that social sciences are science. In fact, natural scientists and philosophers agree about this too. Maybe you can find one obscure physicist who disagrees, I don't know, but that's pretty much irrelevant, because the consensus is that you are wrong.

What a load of horse sh!t. You're embarrassing yourself and you're too stupid too realize it. Argumentum ad verecundiam is ALWAYS a fallacy if something is claimed to be true because experts agree. Something is either true or it's not. You shuld quit while you're ahead. Oh...too late.

Nope, it's not okay.

It's not OK in your opinion. Your rather warped opinion.

Yes there are right and wrong ways to feel. You can feel the desire to kill everyone you meet, but even if you don't actually kill them that doesn't mean that there isn't something very wrong with you.

You're confusing the symptom and the cause. You're moving the goalposts. You're a fallacy master, it seems. Yes, there could be something wrong with someone that might cause them to want to kill somebody. That does not however mean that it's somehow necessarily objectively wrong to want to kill somebody.

I've proven you wrong time and time again.

The only thing you've proven is that A, you're the poster child for Dunning–Kruger effect and B, you're completely out of your depth.

What are words for when no one listens anymore

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 11 years ago

LMAO. You have no clue what ad hominem is.

Apparently I know much more about logic and fallacies than you. Ad hominem means that instead of actually trying to counterargument, you are just pointing out unpopular characteristics about the opposing party. You and your pervert friends don't like what social sciences say about this matter, so your only defense is saying that my studies in S.S. don't matter because "social science is no science anyway bla bla".

What a load of horse sh!t. You're embarrassing yourself and you're too stupid too realize it. Argumentum ad verecundiam is ALWAYS a fallacy if something is claimed to be true because experts agree. Something is either true or it's not. You shuld quit while you're ahead. Oh...too late.

Lol appealing to authorities is always a fallacy?!?!?! WTF! This is too goddamn funny!!!!!! How about you prove this claim of yours? Lets see what your sources of information say about this matter.

"The appeal to authority is often applied fallaciously: either the authority is not a subject-matter expert, or there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter, or both.

The strength of this authoritative argument depends upon two factors:
- The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
- There exists consensus among legitimate experts in the subject matter under discussion."

Source: Wikipedia. Their references are Salmon's Introduction to Critical Reasoning and Gensler's Introduction to logic.

"I. Argumentum ad Verecundiam: (argument from authority) the fallacy of appealing to the testimony of an authority outside his special field. Anyone can give opinions or advice; the fallacy only occurs when the reason for assenting to the conclusion is based on following the recommendation or advice of an improper authority."

Source: http://philosophy.lander.edu

"We must often rely upon expert opinion when drawing conclusions about technical matters where we lack the time or expertise to form an informed opinion. For instance, those of us who are not physicians usually rely upon those who are when making medical decisions, and we are not wrong to do so. There are, however, four major ways in which such arguments can go wrong:

- The "authority" cited is not an expert on the issue
- The authority is an expert, but is not disinterested. That is, the expert is biased towards one side of the issue, and his opinion is thereby untrustworthy.

Source: http://www.fallacyfiles.org

ETC, ETC. So how about you show me YOUR sources of information? Oh wait, there is no source of information that supports you, because you are a dumbass and you just take everything out of your ass.

It's not OK in your opinion. Your rather warped opinion.

It's not okay and that's it. Your twisted sense of morality is irrelevant to sane people.

You're confusing the symptom and the cause. You're moving the goalposts. You're a fallacy master, it seems. Yes, there could be something wrong with someone that might cause them to want to kill somebody. That does not however mean that it's somehow necessarily objectively wrong to want to kill somebody.

Sorry, but when someone who doesn't understand what a fallacy is calls you a fallacy master, that is taken as a compliment. This is absurd. There's no confusion anywhere. You said that there's nothing wrong with feeling immoral feelings. You say that it is not wrong for a perv like you to be attracted to young girls. My example follows the exact same premise: if you don't kill everybody, then wanting to kill everybody is not wrong in any way.

The only thing you've proven is that A, you're the poster child for Dunning–Kruger effect and B, you're completely out of your depth.

Sorry, but your lies, fallacies and ignorance are not giving you any points. You are factually wrong and I've proven it time and time again.

[–] HippieDrillSealOfApproval 11 years ago

Ad hominem means that instead of actually trying to counterargument, you are just pointing out unpopular characteristics about the opposing party.

Right, but that's not what I did.

see what your sources of information say about this matter.

"The appeal to authority is often applied fallaciously: either the authority is not a subject-matter expert, or there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter, or both.

The strength of this authoritative argument depends upon two factors:
- The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
- There exists consensus among legitimate experts in the subject matter under discussion."

Source: Wikipedia. Their references are Salmon's Introduction to Critical Reasoning and Gensler's Introduction to logic.

"I. Argumentum ad Verecundiam: (argument from authority) the fallacy of appealing to the testimony of an authority outside his special field. Anyone can give opinions or advice; the fallacy only occurs when the reason for assenting to the conclusion is based on following the recommendation or advice of an improper authority."

Source: http://philosophy.lander.edu

"We must often rely upon expert opinion when drawing conclusions about technical matters where we lack the time or expertise to form an informed opinion. For instance, those of us who are not physicians usually rely upon those who are when making medical decisions, and we are not wrong to do so. There are, however, four major ways in which such arguments can go wrong:

- The "authority" cited is not an expert on the issue
- The authority is an expert, but is not disinterested. That is, the expert is biased towards one side of the issue, and his opinion is thereby untrustworthy.

Source: http://www.fallacyfiles.org

ETC, ETC. So how about you show me YOUR sources of information? Oh wait, there are no source of information that supports you, because you are a dumbass and you just take everything out of your ass.

It's as if you didn't read my post at all. I specifically explained WHY AVD is a fallacy, and you proceed to post all that sh!t that you clearly didn't even understand. Look here, Bozo, it's real simple. It's ALWAYS a fallacy to say that x is true BECAUSE an authority agrees that x is true.

It's not okay and that's it. Your twisted sense of morality is irrelevant to sane people.

You're the one claiming people are wrong to feel how they feel, yet I'M the twisted one?

You said that there's nothing wrong with feeling immoral feelings. You say that it is not wrong for a perv like you to be attracted to young girls. My example follows the exact same premise: if you don't kill everybody, then wanting to kill everybody is not wrong in any way.

Your attempts at logic are painful. Whether something is immoral or not is subjective to begin with. You may FEEL that someone is wrong for feeling a certain way, but no one can ACTUALLY be wrong in an objective sense for how they feel.

if you don't kill everybody, then wanting to kill everybody is not wrong in any way.

Yes, that's true! It's the ACT that's wrong, not the thought/feeling. The act is wrong because it involved harming someone. The thought/feeling is not wrong because...it's just a thought/feeling and thus harms no one. I can think you're a jackass and I'd like to punch you in the face and that's not wrong and won't hurt you. But if I ACTUALLY punched you in the face, that would be wrong because it would hurt you. See the difference, Skippy?

What are words for when no one listens anymore

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 11 years ago

Right, but that's not what I did.

Well, you were following on the steps of your perv pal who said that social sciences are wrong about this because they are soft. The funniest part is that you actually said that social sciences are no science, because they are soft science LOL! Right after talking about contradictions! Then you tried and change your argument from "they are no science" to "they are no hard science". The first lie you said was that they were no science, don't try and change it.

It's as if you didn't read my post at all. I specifically explained WHY AVD is a fallacy, and you proceed to post all that sh!t that you clearly didn't even understand. Look here, Bozo, it's real simple. It's ALWAYS a fallacy to say that x is true BECAUSE an authority agrees that x is true.

Sorry, but you are WRONG. An appeal to authority is ONLY a fallacy when certain criteria is met, not whenever authorities on the subject matter disagree with you. You said that I was committing a fallacy because I said that there is no respected scientist that would agree with you, i.e. there is a consensus among scientists about the status of Social Sciences as science. That's NOT a logical fallacy and you will never be able to twist it into a logical fallacy. You are WRONG. You can keep trying to twist your and my words to try and save face, but you are fooling no one. You don't know what the hell you are talking about and that's it.

You're the one claiming people are wrong to feel how they feel, yet I'M the twisted one?

I'm the one saying that there are certain feelings that are definitely wrong. Feeling attraction towards young girls or feeling the desire to kill people are feelings, but feeling them is definitely NOT right or neutral. You said that feelings are NEVER right or wrong as long as you don't act on those feelings. You are wrong about that.

Your attempts at logic are painful. Whether something is immoral or not is subjective to begin with. You may FEEL that someone is wrong for feeling a certain way, but no one can ACTUALLY be wrong in an objective sense for how they feel.

Sorry, but your moral subjectivism will not help you this time. Pedophiles like you just LOVE to hide under the "morality is subjective" lie. It is not. There are moral standards in society. As long as human beings, as social constructs, say it is wrong to feel desire for young girls, then you are definitely wrong and that's it. A shïtload of philosophers of morality and ethics would love to bïtch-slap the ignorance out of you. You can try and rant about morals being subjective, but that won't hold in court or society. You are wrong and that's it.

Yes, that's true! It's the ACT that's wrong, not the thought/feeling. The act is wrong because it involved harming someone. The thought/feeling is not wrong because...it's just a thought/feeling and thus harms no one. I can think you're a jackass and I'd like to punch you in the face and that's not wrong and won't hurt you. But if I ACTUALLY punched you in the face, that would be wrong because it would hurt you. See the difference, Skippy?

Wow... this is... wow. It's sad to know that there is people like you out there, people who are completely ignorant of psychology, logic and science in general. Sorry, but there's no way in the world that you can make a valid argument in favor of the idea that it is not wrong for people to desire kids or to kill people as long as they don't actually do it. If this is all you have to give about this matter, then just stop right now because you won't convince anyone.

[–] HippieDrillSealOfApproval 11 years ago

Well, you were following on the steps of your perv pal who said that social sciences are wrong about this because they are soft. The funniest part is that you actually said that social sciences are no science, because they are no science LOL! Right after talking about contradictions! Then you tried and change your argument from "they are no science" to "they are no hard science". The first lie you said was that they were no science, don't try and change it.

You are a thick one. The term soft-science is intended to denote that it's NOT actually science, despite the name science being in the term.

An appeal to authority is ONLY a fallacy when certain criteria is met,

Right. Like, for example, claiming x is true because an authority believes it.

not whenever authorities on the subject matter disagree with you

Projection?

You said that I was committing a fallacy because I said that there is no respected scientist that would agree with you,

Not only is it a fallacy, it's a completely unsupportable claim.

That's NOT a logical fallacy and you will never be able to twist it into a logical fallacy.

I never claims that "there is a consensus among scientists about the status of Social Sciences as science" was a fallacy. Geez, dawg, you're confused. You're just arguing for the sake of it. You don't even have a clue what's really transpiring.

I'm the one saying that there are certain feelings that are definitely wrong. Feeling attraction towards young girls or feeling the desire to kill people are feelings, but feeling them is definitely NOT right or neutral. You said that feelings are NEVER right or wrong as long as you don't act on those feelings. You are wrong about that.

You've offered no argument to support your claims that it's wrong. If you can't illustrate WHY it's wrong, then you're just blowing smoke.

Pedophiles like you just LOVE to hide under the "morality is subjective" lie.

Actually, it's ebephile, you ignoramus. Get your facts straight.

It is not

Oh... PLEASE do explain how morality is not subjective. This ought to be good.

There are moral standards in society. As long as human beings, as social constructs, say it is wrong to feel desire for young girls, then you are definitely wrong and that's it. A shïtload of philosophers of morality and ethics would love to bïtch-slap the ignorance out of you. You can try and rant about morals being subjective, but that won't hold in court or society. You are wrong and that's it.

Holy crap, dude, you're killing me with irony here. Let me try and explain this in a way you can understand it, scooter. Yes, there ARE moral standards in society (who the heck claimed otherwise?). However, because a moral standard exists does not make it right by default. Suggesting as much is yet another logical fallacy...argumentam ad populam.

wow. It's sad to know that there is people like you out there

People like what? People with the ability to reason? Yeah, I guess I can see why that would bother a cretin like you.

but there's no way in the world that you can make a valid argument in favor of the idea that it is not wrong for people to desire kids or to kill people as long as they don't actually do it. If this is all you have to give about this matter, then just stop right now because you won't convince anyone.

I've already made a valid argument for it. That it went completely over your head is hardly my problem.

What are words for when no one listens anymore

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 11 years ago

You are a thick one. The term soft-science is intended to denote that it's NOT actually science, despite the name science being in the term.

Wow, apparently you are ignorant of your own expression. Or maybe you aren't, but you are trying to distort its meaning to try and save face again. The term "soft" science refers to the fact that human beings are complex objects of study, and that it is difficult to establish laws and, sometimes, to quantify data in social sciences. The phrase does NOT refer to Social Sciences not being science! This is ridiculous.

Right. Like, for example, claiming x is true because an authority believes it.

As I said, show me your sources that claim that everytime someone appeals to an authority it constitutes an appeal to authority fallacy. If you can't support your argument with anything other than your own faulty reasoning, then please accept that you don't know what you are talking about and shut up.

Also, please tell me how telling to you that there is a consensus in the scientific and philosophic communities about the status of Social Sciences as science is an appeal to authority fallacy.

Also, how is it a projection LOL! Scientists disagree with you, not with me.

Not only is it a fallacy, it's a completely unsupportable claim.

I've shown you the TRUE definition of the Appeal to Authority Fallacy. There's no fallacy in telling you that there's a consensus in the scientific community. Also, for someone who talks about "unsupportable claim", you've done NOTHING to support the claim that social sciences are no science, or that everytime someone appeals to an authority it is a fallacy. How about you show me your sources of information?

You've offered no argument to support your claims that it's wrong. If you can't illustrate WHY it's wrong, then you're just blowing smoke.

I've given arguments since my first posts. Feel free to read them.

Actually, it's ebephile, you ignoramus. Get your facts straight.

LOL you keep making this easier with each reply. First of all, what's an "ebephile"???? Does that word even exist?! Did you mean HEBEPHILE??? If so, I do know the difference between a pedophile and an hebephile, the problem is that I do believe you are a closeth pedo.

Second, LOL! This is AMAZING! Truly amazingly funny! YOU are talking about facts? The guy who says that everytime you appeal to an authority is a fallacy (even when such authority is ALL the scientific community)! The guy who says that "social science is no science because it is a soft science" LOL

Oh... PLEASE do explain how morality is not subjective. This ought to be good.

First of all, your point of view that morality is subjective is a self-defeating argument. If everything in morality is subjective, then the fact that society says that you are wrong makes you morally wrong for most people in society, except for a minority of pedophiles like you, and NOTHING you say will change the fact that you are seen as WRONG by almost everyone. If everything in morality is subjective, then society is not wrong in telling you that you are wrong. You can say that it is not wrong because it is subjective, but then your argument in itself would be subjective, therefore useless. Since there is no observable standard in nature as to what's moral or immoral, human beings have developed ethics and laws. So, I'm sorry, but as long as society views your pedophilia and/or "ebephilia" as morally wrong, then that one single standard says you are wrong. Laws and social conventions are the only thing in which to base our moral judgements, whether you like it or not.

Holy crap, dude, you're killing me with irony here. Let me try and explain this in a way you can understand it, scooter. Yes, there ARE moral standards in society (who the heck claimed otherwise?). However, because a moral stands exists does not make it right by default. Suggesting as much is yet another logical fallacy...argumentam ad populam.

Oh God, please stop talking about fallacies. Someone like YOU, who clearly doesn't understand anything about fallacies, has no right to say what's a fallacy or isnt'. There is no ad "populam" (it's POPULUM dumbass) here. Sure, something is not right just because everyone says so, but only when you can factually prove them to be wrong. How can you prove that laws and society are wrong? The idea behind your pedo and hebo feelings being wrong is founded in social sciences as I've already explained time and time again, not in what's popular or isn't.

People like what? People with the ability to reason? Yeah, I guess I can see why that would bother a cretin like you.

The saddest part is that you still believe that you are somehow reasoning, even after proven to be factually wrong time and time again.

I've already made a valid argument for it. That it went completely over your head is hardly my problem.

No, you haven't. Your subjectivist views are self-defeating.

[–] HippieDrillSealOfApproval 11 years ago

The term "soft" science refers to the fact that human beings are complex objects of study, and that it is difficult to establish laws and, sometimes, to quantify data in social sciences.

In other words, it's not science.

As I said, show me your sources that claim that everytime someone appeals to an authority it constitutes an appeal to authority fallacy. If you can't support your argument with anything other than your own faulty reasoning, then please accept that you don't know what you are talking about and shut up.

Also, please tell me how telling to you that there is a consensus in the scientific and philosophic communities about the status of Social Sciences as science is an appeal to authority fallacy.

Also, how is it a projection LOL! Scientists disagree with you, not with me.

This is growing tedious. You type long responses but say nothing. You also don't appear to be very capable of following an argument. Which makes it kind of a waste of time from perspective. You're only interested in gainsaying and congratulating yourself when you think you're right, not having any kind of meaningful debate.

I've shown you the TRUE definition of the Appeal to Authority Fallacy.

The funny part is, our definitions don't differ. You're just unable to grasp why you used it fallaciously. That's another reason I'm tiring of this, I'm sick of explaining the same things to you over and over ad nausuam only to have you still not get it or just flat out ignore it.

I've given arguments since my first posts. Feel free to read them.

You've given opinions. Opinions aren't arguments.

LOL you keep making this easier with each reply. First of all, what's an "ebephile"???? Does that word even exist?! Did you mean HEBEPHILE??? If so, I do know the difference between a pedophile and an hebephile,

Spelling error on my part. I meant ephebophilia. But hebephile is appropriate too. Point is, you're use of the word pedophile here is ignorant.

the problem is that I do believe you are a closeth pedo.

I don't give two sh!ts what you believe.

Second, LOL! This is AMAZING! Truly amazingly funny! YOU are talking about facts? The guy who says that everytime you appeal to an authority is a fallacy (even when such authority is ALL the scientific community)! The guy who says that "social science is no science because it is a soft science" LOL

Yet again proving you didn't comprehend what I actually said. I really wish I didn't have this compulsive drive to keep responding to stupid fucqs like you, because this is really getting old.

First of all, your point of view that morality is subjective is a self-defeating argument. If everything in morality is subjective, then the fact that society says that you are wrong makes you morally wrong for most people in society, except for a minority of pedophiles like you, and NOTHING you say will change the fact that you are seen as WRONG by almost everyone. If everything in morality is subjective, then society is not wrong in telling you that you are wrong. You can say that it is not wrong because it is subjective, but then your argument in itself would be subjective, therefore useless. Since there is no observable standard in nature as to what's moral or immoral, human beings have developed ethics and laws. So, I'm sorry, but as long as society views your pedophilia and/or "ebephilia" as morally wrong, then that one single standard says you are wrong. Laws and social conventions are the only thing in which to base our moral judgements, whether you like it or not.

Yikes, you really don't grasp the idea of subjectivity and objectivity. Morals vary from one society to another. Modern Western society has deemed it morally wrong for adults to have relations with minors but there are many other cultures where it's morally acceptable. All that tells us that morally is cultural and thus NOT objective.

Oh God, please stop talking about fallacies. Someone like YOU, who clearly doesn't understand anything about fallacies, has no right to say what's a fallacy or isnt'. There is no ad "populam" (it's POPULUM dumbass) here. Sure, something is not right just because everyone says so, but only when you can factually prove them to be wrong. How can you prove that laws and society are wrong? The idea behind your pedo and hebo feelings being wrong is founded in social sciences as I've already explained time and time again, not in what's popular or isn't.

Oh, pointed out a typo, big boy! If you want me to stop talking about fallacies...stop forwarding them!

The saddest part is that you still believe that you are somehow reasoning, even after proven to be factually wrong time and time again.

Rather, the sad part is the you're delusional enough to actually believe you've forwarded anything resembling a fact here.

Your subjectivism views are self-defeating.

That's nonsense. You clearly don't even understand what subjectivism is.

What are words for when no one listens anymore

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 11 years ago

In other words, it's not science.

In other words, you are an idiot and you are factually wrong. Social sciences use the scientific method and they can be falsifiable, i.e. they are science. No scientist or philosopher agrees with your idiotic idea.

This is growing tedious. You type long responses but say nothing. You also don't appear to be very capable of following an argument. Which makes it kind of a waste of time from perspective. You're only interested in gainsaying and congratulating yourself when you think you're right, not having any kind of meaningful debate.

Funny how ALL of that nonsense was just a way to avoid showing the sources of information that support your ideas that "social sciences are not science" and that "everytime you appeal to an authority it is a fallacy". I'm still waiting for your sources.

The funny part is, our definitions don't differ. You're just unable to grasp why you used it fallaciously. That's another reason I'm tiring of this, I'm sick of explaining the same things to you over and over ad nausuam only to have you still not get it or just flat out ignore it.

No, actually, our definitions are not the same.

My definition (the definition of a shïtload of logic scholars) is that appealing to authority is a fallacy ONLY when it meets certain criteria.

Your own, made up, ignorant definition, as you said with your own words, is that everytime you appeal to authority it is a fallacy. You even said my definitions (which are not even mine to begin with) are BS. So how are our definitions the same?

You've given opinions. Opinions aren't arguments.

My argument has been backed up by actual reason, science and sources of information. Your mere opinions have been backed up by nothing, except by your own faulty reasoning and imagination.

Spelling error on my part. I meant ephebophilia. But hebephile is appropriate too. Point is, you're use of the word pedophile here is ignorant.

Nope, I've always known the difference between ephebophilia and pedophilia, but I do believe you are a mere pedophile. Ephebophilia is also wrong by the way.

Yet again proving you didn't comprehend what I actually said. I really wish I didn't have this compulsive drive to keep responding to stupid fucqs like you, because this is really getting old.

This is what you actually said, and I quote:

"Argumentum ad verecundiam...What was that you were saying about fallacies?". That was your reply when I said that no respected scientist or philosopher would agree with you about S.S. not being science. You have failed to tell me how is that an appeal to authority fallacy in the first place.

You also said: "for the record, social science is NOT science. it's SOFT science". A dumb contradiction in and of itself, not to mention the fact that you are wrong about S.S. not being science.

Yikes, you really don't grasp the idea of subjectivity and objectivity. Morals vary from one society to another. Modern Western society has deemed it morally wrong for adults to have relations with minors but there are many other cultures where it's morally acceptable. All that tells us that morally is cultural and thus NOT objective.

What that tells us is that morality is RELATIVE, not really subjective. You are wrong about certain feelings and nothing will change that. Your premise that you are not wrong if you desire to kill everyone as long as you don't do it is wrong in and of itself. Every single psychiatrist and psychologist would like to have a word with you.

Also, if you still claim that everything in morality is subjective, then people are not wrong in thinking that you are objectively wrong, since your counterargument about morality would be, in itself, subjective.

Oh, pointed out a typo, big boy! If you want me to stop talking about fallacies...stop forwarding them!

I've proven with actual definitions that you are wrong about fallacies. How about you start proving ME wrong? How about you show me a source of information to back up your claim that every single appeal to authority is a fallacy?

Rather, the sad part is the you're delusional enough to actually believe you've forwarded anything resembling a fact here.

Oh God...

That's nonsense. You clearly don't even understand what subjectivism is.

Moral subjectivism means that every single moral judgement is subjective. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that any kind of defense you may have against people telling you that you are morally wrong would be subjective in and of itself, i.e. useless for anyone other than you. As I said, your point of view is self-defeating, if it isn't feel free to explain why.

[–] HippieDrillSealOfApproval 11 years ago

In other words, you are an idiot and you are factually wrong. Social sciences use the scientific method and they can be falsifiable, i.e. they are science. No scientist or philosopher agrees with your idiotic idea.

Explain how one would falsify a "scientific" claim like...it's wrong to be sexually attracted to young girls. Oh, wait...you can't because it ain't science!

Your own, made up, ignorant definition, as you said with your own words, is that everytime you appeal to authority it is a fallacy. You even said my definitions (which are not even mine to begin with) are BS. So how are our definitions the same?

Nothing "made up" about it. The difference is, unlike you, I actually understand the definition.

My argument has been backed up by actual reason, science and sources of information. Your mere opinions have been backed up by nothing, except by your own faulty reasoning and imagination.

Nope. What you believe about science is not the same as actual science.

Nope, I've always known the difference between ephebophilia and pedophilia, but I do believe you are a mere pedohpile.

You know the difference, yet continue to use it incorrectly? Are you blind? Stupid? Both?

Ephebophilia is also wrong by the way.

Wow, what a prude.

Argumentum ad verecundiam...What was that you were saying about fallacies?". That was your reply when I said that no respected scientist or philosopher would agree with you about S.S. not being science. You have failed to tell me how is that an appeal to authority fallacy in the first place.

You also said: "for the record, social science is NOT science. it's SOFT science". A dumb contradiction in and of itself, not to mention the fact that you are wrong about S.S. not being science.

What the fuqc is this, Groundhog Day? You keep spewing the same crap over and over. I've already addressed it.

What that tells us is that morality is RELATIVE, not really subjective.

If it's relative, it's subjective, dumbass. Thing that are objectively true aren't dependent on relative variances in order to be objective.

Every single psychiatrist and psychologist would like to have a word with you.

More unsupportable nonsense. I'd wager a good number of them would agree with me.

Also, if you still claim that everything in morality is subjective, then people are not wrong in thinking that you are objectively wrong, since your counterargument about morality would be, in itself, subjective.

LOL, you thought that convoluted nonsense was smart, didn't you? I'm not saying that ALL things are subjective, just all things regarding morality.

Moral subjectivism means that every single moral judgement is subjective. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that any kind of defense you may have against people telling you that you are morally wrong would be subjective in and of itself, i.e. useless for anyone other than you. As I said, your point of view is self-defeating, if it isn't feel free to explain why.

I don't even know why I'm bothering here. That entire post just screams that you don't know WTF you're talking about. OF COURSE moral judgement are subjective. That's a fact. If you're claiming they can be objective, the onus is on you to demonstrate how that would obtain.

What are words for when no one listens anymore

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 11 years ago

Explain how one would falsify a "scientific" claim like...it's wrong to be sexually attracted to young girls. Oh, wait...you can't because it ain't science!

Wow you are VERY confused. When did ANYONE ever said that the claim that it is wrong to do something is science? I've NEVER said such thing. I said that the idea that it is wrong to desire teens is wrong, and that claim is based on scientific studies. The idea is simple: most underage teens are not yet fully developed psychologically or physically (that is backed up by social sciences and no amount of ad hominem will change that), therefore they are not capable of giving a real informed consent to engage in sexual behavior. Any adult perv, like you, who desires a teenager is wrong, because you are basically desiring someone who is immature and who still has many attributes that are comparable to those of a kid. You can twist this as much as you like, but you won't convince anyone, so don't try. You can argue "but they bla bla", nope, don't try.

Nothing "made up" about it. The difference is, unlike you, I actually understand the definition.

You keep going around circles, but how about you actually show me that source of information I've been waiting? Prove to me that everytime you appeal to an authority it is a logical fallacy. You also said that our definitions are the same, just after you called my definitions (not mine by the way) BS.

Nope. What you believe about science is not the same as actual science.

How about you stop using your own faulty reasoning and you start showing me your own sources? I've posted a lot of sources to back up my claims, you haven't. If you can't back up your claims, then they are worthless.

You know the difference, yet continue to use it incorrectly? Are you blind? Stupid? Both?

Not incorrectly, no, I said before that I use pedophile as a derogatory term, but not in your case. In your case I'm using it because I'm sure you are a pedohpile.

What the fuqc is this, Groundhog Day? You keep spewing the same crap over and over. I've already addressed it.

Yes, you addressed it by telling lies. You addressed it by saying, and I quote:

"our definitions don't differ" - I proved to you that they do differ. The thing is that my definitions are the actual definitions, yours isn't. Your definition was made up by your own faulty reasoning.

"I never claims that "there is a consensus among scientists about the status of Social Sciences as science" was a fallacy" - But you did say so. I told you that no respected scientist would agree with you (which means that there is a consensus in the scientific community) and you replied saying that that's a fallacy.

So, apparently, you did address this point, but only using lies and more lies because you just won't accept how wrong you are.

Wow, what a prude.

How can anyone explain a pervert like you why you are wrong?

More unsupportable nonsense. I'd wager a good number of them would agree with me.

Keep living in your own twisted reality.

LOL, you thought that convoluted nonsense was smart, didn't you? I'm not saying that ALL things are subjective, just all things regarding morality.

You didn't address my point. If morality is subjective, then how can you claim that people are wrong in telling you that you are wrong? You can't make a proper defense about your moral views regarding teens not being wrong, if your views are subjective. As I said, your argument is self-defeating.

I don't even know why I'm bothering here. That entire post just screams that you don't know WTF you're talking about. OF COURSE moral judgement are subjective. That's a fact. If you're claiming they can be objective, the onus is on you to demonstrate how that would obtain.

So how about you explain to me WHY your argument isn't self-defeating? didn't you claim that I was wrong about that? You said that your argument isn't self-defeating, I explained to you why and you avoided giving an answer.

Also, you ARE objective when you are not basing your appreciation on your own points of view, and instead you are basing them in previously, generally agreed upon standards. If the generally agreed upon standard is that killing and fücking kids is wrong, then whenever you think about doing such things can be deemed objectively wrong, because my moral appreciation is not based on MY own subjective standard, but rather on a previously agreed upon standard.

So far you've been factually wrong about the next things:

- You claimed that Social Sciences are no science (you've failed to support this claim with an actual source of information).

- You claimed that Social Sciences are no science, but they are soft science (a dumb contradiction).

- You claimed that an appeal to authority argument occurs every single time you appeal to an authority (you never backed this up either, because you know this is stupid and there's no way to back this up).

- You claim that morality can never be objective. If you read anything about philosophical objectivity and subjectivity you'll realize that an appreciation is definitely objective if you aren't basing it on your own subjective standards, as it happens with extreme moral examples, such as feeling the desire to fück 13 yo girls and to kill people.

[–] HippieDrillSealOfApproval 11 years ago

Wow you are VERY confused. When did ANYONE ever said that the claim that it is wrong to do something is science? I've NEVER said such thing. I said that the idea that it is wrong to desire teens is wrong, and that claim is based on scientific studies.

Wait, I’M confused? LOL. I can’t tell if you’re truly as stupid as you appear or are just being coy. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. If you’re claiming it’s BASED on science, for all intents and purposes, that’s saying it’s science!

Wow you are VERY confused. When did ANYONE ever said that the claim that it is wrong to do something is science? I've NEVER said such thing. I said that the idea that it is wrong to desire teens is wrong, and that claim is based on scientific studies.

If that were the case, they should be prohibited from sex period, not just sex with adults. And if you’re going to claim there’s some special circumstance that obtains ONLY from sex with an adult, you need to support that.

therefore they are not capable of giving a real informed consent to engage in sexual behavior.

The idea of real consent is rife with logical problems. Consent is merely agreeing to do something. There is no distinction between agreeing to do something and REALLY agreeing to do something. You either agree to do something or you don't.

Any adult perv, like you, who desires a teenager is wrong, because you are basically desiring someone who is immature and who still has many attributes that are comparable to those of a kid.

Hogwash. Equal maturity is not required to have mutual consent.

Keep living in your own twisted reality.

If the alternative is your reality, I think I will.

If morality is subjective, then how can you claim that people are wrong in telling you that you are wrong? You can't make a proper defense about your moral views regarding teens not being wrong, if your views are subjective. As I said, your argument is self-defeating.

Because telling me I’m wrong has fucq all to do with morality.

So how about you explain to me WHY your argument isn't self-defeating?

To be honest, I don’t even know WTF you think you’re referring to with “self defeating” here. It doesn’t even make sense in the context of this argument.

Also, you ARE objective when you are not basing your appreciation on your own points of view, and instead you are basing them in previously, generally agreed upon standards.

Oh vey, conforming to a standard is NOT objective, you friggin dolt. Again, that’s an argumantam ad populum.

If the generally agreed upon standard is that killing and fücking kids is wrong, then whenever you think about doing such things can be deemed objectively wrong

OMG, just stop! You have NO CLUE what objective means. Hint hint...it DOESN'T mean what most people think.

What are words for when no one listens anymore

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 11 years ago

Wait, I’M confused? LOL. I can’t tell if you’re truly as stupid as you appear or are just being coy. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. If you’re claiming it’s BASED on science, for all intents and purposes, that’s saying it’s science!

Indeed you are extremely confused about science. The claim "Earth orbits around the sun" is based on astronomical observations, but that doesn't mean that I'm producing science just by saying it. Indeed you are VERY confused. Also, way to avoid the actual argument.

If that were the case, they should be prohibited from sex period, not just sex with adults. And if you’re going to claim there’s some special circumstance that obtains ONLY from sex with an adult, you need to support that.

You talk a lot about "support" without actually supporting anything you say. I don't know if you've noticed, but parents are not fond of the idea of teenagers having sex with other teenagers either, not just adults. When underage teens have sex with other underage teens, they can't be prosecuted because the argument about them not making mature decisions falls on BOTH sides dumbass, but this doesn't apply to an adult. So, yes, you are a pervert.

The idea of real consent is rife with logical problems. Consent is merely agreeing to do something. There is no distinction between agreeing to do something and REALLY agreeing to do something.

If a teen agrees to have sex with you, then her agreement does not really count because she is not mature enough to be fully aware of the consequences, PERIOD. Anything else you said is irrelevant.

Hogwash. Equal maturity is not required to have mutual consent.

You seem to think that the problem is the word "consent". It is not. A 14yo can give consent, but the idea is that she is not mature enough to make such choice, but perverts like you are, so you are taking advantage of your position.

If the alternative is your reality, I think I will.

Thank you! Finally you are accepting that you don't live in the REAL reality! You are living in your own made up, imaginary fallacious world, but not OUR objective reality. Thank you so much for finally accepting it!

Because telling me I’m wrong has fucq all to do with morality.

But they are not wrong in telling you that you are wrong, because according to you these matters are subjective and that means that they aren't wrong either. See, your self-defeating argument is absurd. You are objectively wrong.

To be honest, I don’t even know WTF you think you’re referring to with “self defeating” here. It doesn’t even make sense in the context of this argument

Self-defeating argument: When you claim that everything regarding morality is subjective, then you claim that there are no right or wrong moral judgements, because they are also subjective. If most people tell you that you are morally wrong about your pervertions, you can claim that you are not wrong because it is subjective, but you CAN'T claim that they are wrong either, because you are also being as subjective as them. The conclusion is that laws and society may be subjective according to you (buy they aren't really), but you are also subjective. Therefore, you have ONE subjective pervert vs. a LOT of subjective people telling you that you are wrong. This means that it doesn't matter how much you fight, you will still be seen as the pervert you are.

Oh vey, conforming to a standard is NOT objective, you friggin dolt. Againt, that’s an argumantam ad populum.

Nope, you are not making any sense. The standard itself is a general agreement in society, whenever I make a moral judgement of your attitudes, if I don't base it on MY own subjective standard, and instead I base it on the previously agreed standard, then I'm not being subjective. The nature of the generally agreed-upon standard can be questioned, but MY moral judgement is not subjective in any way. Now, if we question the nature of the generally agreed-upon standard itself, you will find that it is based on science, therefore, it is still more objective than anything you can come up with.

Conlusion: you ARE objectivelly wrong.

OMG, just stop! You have NO CLUE what objective means. Hint hint...it DOESN'T mean what most people think.

If you are talking about epistemological and ontological objectivity and subjectivity, then you are still wrong. The philosophical notions of objectivity and subjectivity support my claim that you can make objective moral judgements.

[–] HippieDrillSealOfApproval 11 years ago

The claim "Earth orbits the sun" is based on astronomical observations, but that doesn't mean that I'm producing science just by saying it. Indeed you are VERY confused. Also, way to avoid the actual argument.

Sigh. Point is, you're claiming science SUPPORTS or VERIFIES your view. I'm not going to play a semantics game here.

You talk a lot about "support" without actually supporting anything you say. I don't know if you've noticed, but parents are not fond of the idea of teenagers having sex with other teenagers either, not just adults. When underage teens have sex with other underage teens, they can't be prosecuted because the argument about them not making informed decisions falls on BOTH sides dumbass, but this doesn't apply to an adult. So, yes, you are a pervert.

This is almost surreal. You've managed to stand out as an idiot on a forum teeming with idiots. You spend all your time defeating straw man arguments. My point was simply that teens having sex with teens is MUCH MORE accepted that teens having sex with adults. I didn't figure even you were obtuse enough to debate that.

If a teen agrees to have sex with you, then her agreement does not really count because she is not mature enough to be fully aware of the consequences, PERIOD. Anything else you said is irrelevant.

All you're doing is citing the legal position (a position I'm well aware of, by the way). That proves nothing other than what the legal position happens to be.

You seem to think that the problem is the word "conent". It is not. A 14yo can give consent, but the idea is that she is not mature enough to make such choice, but perverts like you are, so you are taking advantage of your position.

Again, I'm fully aware of what the consensus views are. No need to pretend otherwise.

Finally you are accepting that you don't live in the REAL reality!

I said nothing of real reality. I said YOUR reality. Apparently your reading comprehension sucks too. Is there any intellectual facet you don't suck at?

You are living in your own made up, imaginary fallacious world, but not OUR objective reality. Thank you so much for finally accepting it!

Everyone lives in their own reality. There is no one, objective, correct reality, you naive little fool. That's not to say there aren't SOME things that are universal realities, mind you...so don't even go there.

But they are not wrong in telling you that you are wrong, because according to you these matters are subjective and that means that they aren't wrong either. See, your self-defeating argument is absurd. You are objectively wrong.

You just don't get it. If I say Barrack Obama is the President, that's an objective fact. If you say Barrack Obama is not the President, you'd be objectively wrong. Similarly, it's a fact that morality is subjective, and claims to the contrary, are objectively false.

Self-defeating argument: When you claim that everything regarding morality is subjective, then you claim that there are no right or wrong moral judgements, because they are also subjective. If most people tell you that you are morally wrong about your pervertions, you can claim that you are not wrong because it is subjective, but you CAN'T claim that they are wrong either, because you are also being as subjective as them. The conclusion is that laws and society may be subjective according to you (buy they aren't really), but you are also subjective. Therefore, you have ONE subjective pervert vs. a LOT of subjective people telling you that you are wrong. This means that it doesn't matter how much you fight, you will still be seen as the pervert you are.

But...I never claimed that anyone's moral views were objectively wrong. Try and follow along here.

Self-defeating argument: When you claim that everything regarding morality is subjective, then you claim that there are no right or wrong moral judgements, because they are also subjective. If most people tell you that you are morally wrong about your pervertions, you can claim that you are not wrong because it is subjective, but you CAN'T claim that they are wrong either, because you are also being as subjective as them. The conclusion is that laws and society may be subjective according to you (buy they aren't really), but you are also subjective. Therefore, you have ONE subjective pervert vs. a LOT of subjective people telling you that you are wrong. This means that it doesn't matter how much you fight, you will still be seen as the pervert you are.

Of course you're still being subjective because the "agreed upon standard" itself is subjective. All you're doing is following the pack.

but MY moral judgement is not subjective in any way. Now, if we question the nature of the generally agreed-upon standard itself, you will find that it is based on science, therefore, it is still more objective than anything you can come up with.

Agree with a subjective view doesn't somehow make it no longer subjective.

Conlusion: you ARE objectivelly wrong.

LOL. I feel like I'm watching a computer have a meltdown or something.

If you are talking about epistemological and ontological objectivity and subjectivity, then you are still wrong. The philosophical notions of objectivity and subjectivity support my claim that you can make objective moral judgements.

No, they don't. NOTHING in philosophy states that moral judgments are objective. The problem is, you just don't know what objective means. You seem to think that if someone else says something subjective and you agree to it, that somehow you're being objective. It just doesn't work like that. To be objective, something has to be a fact about the world, a fact about what reality is like. Something like it's wrong for men to be attracted to female minors is NOT a fact about what the world or reality is like. It's a subjective opinion. It can be nothing else. For that matter, ANY right/wrong assessment can ONLY be subjective because they're just about what people feel/believe.

What are words for when no one listens anymore

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 11 years ago

Sigh. Point is, you're claiming science SUPPORTS or VERIFIES your view. I'm not going to play a semantics game here.

And that's a fact. Science supports my statements as I've proven time and time again in other posts, with actual sources of information.

This is almost surreal. You've managed to stand out as an idiot on a forum teeming with idiots. You spend all your time defeating straw man arguments. My point was simply that teens having sex with teens is MUCH MORE accepted that teens having sex with adults. I didn't figure even you were obtuse enough to debate that.

Your point is.... well... pointless. What do you think you are proving exactly? It is definitely much more accepted for teens to have sex with teens because, as I said, teens can't be prosecuted. The "physical and psychological immaturity" idea applies to both parts when both are teens, therefore there's no crime being commited. There's not much morally wrong about it. I can't believe you, an old pervert, are actually trying to compare yourself with a teen just to act as if it isn't wrong for you to try and have sex with teenagers! This is disgraceful.

All you're doing is citing the legal position (a position I'm well aware of, by the way). That proves nothing other than what the legal position happens to be.

Oh I'm sure you are very aware of it, since you are probably on the sex offenders list. And that legal position happens to be based on social studies by the way, so I don't get your point.

I said nothing of real reality. I said YOUR reality. Apparently your reading comprehension sucks too. Is there any intellectual facet you don't suck at?

Oh no sir, my reality happens to be the reality that almost everyone else shares. YOUR reality, as you have said so, is NOT the same as my reality, which means that it is not the same as the objective reality most people live on.

You just don't get it. If I say Barrack Obama is the President, that's an objective fact. If you say Barrack Obama is not the President, you'd be objectively wrong. Similarly, it's a fact that morality is subjective, and claims to the contrary, are objectively false.

You are wrong about many things in such a short paragraph.

1 - Few things regarding philosophy (including ethics and morality) are facts. When you say that morality is subjective and that's a fact you are factually wrong. Philosophical views today lean towards a RELATIVE morality, not a subjective one, so you are wrong.

2 - You still don't get what I'm telling you about subjectivity. If society tells you that you are morally wrong, then they are not wrong in thinking that way and you ARE wrong. How can you claim that they are wrong if everything regarding morality is subjective? Under that logic, both them and you are subjective, meaning that they are not wrong in telling you that you are a pervert.

But...I never claimed that anyone's moral views were objectively wrong. Try and follow along here.

Okay then there's nothing more to say about this. According to you, if society tells you that you are wrong, then you are wrong by society's standards. You aren't wrong according to your standards, but your own personal standards are irrelevant to society. Morality is not subjective by the way.

Agree with a subjective view doesn't somehow make it no longer subjective.

No, they don't. NOTHING in philosophy states that moral judgments are objective. The problem is, you just don't know what objective means. You seem to think that if someone else says something subjective and you agree to it, that somehow you're being objective. It just doesn't work like that. To be objective, something has to be a fact about the world, a fact about what reality is like. Something like it's wrong for men to be attracted to female minors is NOT a fact about what the world or reality is like. It's a subjective opinion. It can be nothing else. For that matter, ANY right/wrong assessment can ONLY be objective because they're just about what people feel/believe.

Apparently, you don't know what you are talking about, as usual.

Read about the REAL philosophical definitions of objective and subjective in philosophy:

"In epistemology, a statement (claim, assertion, proposition) is epistemologically objective if its truth value can be determined intersubjectively by generally-agreed methods or procedures" - Source: "Thinking Critically About the "Subjective" / "Objective" Distinction", by Sandra LaFave

That's the general idea behind developing objective research methods, psychometrics, moral judgements, objective criticisms in arts, etc. As you can see, you are WRONG. A moral judgement based on previously agreed upon methods is not a subjective judgement.

[–] HippieDrillSealOfApproval 11 years ago

And that's a fact. Science supports my statements as I've proven time and time again in other posts, with actual sources of information.

Nope. All you've done is make claims. You've yet to support them. It's fine that you believe that it's wrong for men to be attracted to female minors. I have no problem with that. It's your view and your entitled to it. But when you start claiming that SCIENCE support your view, then you better back that sh!t up with some cold, hard fact!

It is definitely much more accepted for teens to have sex with teens because, as I said, teens can't be prosecuted.

Um...the reason they can't be prosecuted is BECAUSE it's much more accepted.

trying to compare yourself with a teen just to act as if it isn't wrong for you to try and have sex with teenagers! This is disgraceful.

You think I was comparing myself to a teen? Really? I mean, Really? You are a fucqing moron of epic proportions.

Oh no sir, my reality happens to be the reality that almost everyone else shares. YOUR reality, as you have said so, is NOT the same as my reality, which means that it is not the same as the objective reality most people live on.

You are one dim son of a bitch. If only MOST people live in this reality, then it can't be the REAL reality. A REAL reality could only obtain if EVERYONE lived in it. It only takes ONE person to deviate from it and your whole "one reality" idea goes right out the fucqing window.

Few things regarding philosophy (including ethics and morality) are facts.

I didn't claim otherwise.

When you say that morality is subjective and that's a fact you are factually wrong. Philosophical views today lean towards a RELATIVE morality, not a subjective one, so you are wrong.

A relative morality is still subjective. Relative does not preclude subjective. I've already covered this.

If society tells you that you are morally wrong, then they are not wrong in thinking that way and you ARE wrong.

That's just argumentam ad populum. No matter how many times you regurgitate it, it will STILL be argumentam ad populum.

How can you claim that they are wrong if everything regarding morality is subjective? Under that logic, both them and you are subjective, meaning that they are not wrong in telling you that you are a pervert.

I'm not claiming they're wrong, you fucqing imbecile. I'm claiming YOU'RE wrong about morality being objective.

According to you, if society tells you that you are wrong, then you are wrong by society's standards. You aren't wrong according to your standards, but your own personal standards are irrelevant to society.

It's comical that you thought I'd disagree with any if that. Just goes to show you don't have a clue what's even being discussed.

Morality is not subjective by the way.

Repeating a falsehood, no matter how many times, won't make it true. But that won't stop you from trying.

In epistemology, a statement (claim, assertion, proposition) is epistemologically objective if its truth value can be determined intersubjectively by generally-agreed methods or procedures

But, THAT's the problem. There is no truth value here! It's wrong for men to be attracted to young girls can neither be true or false because it's just an opinion.

That's the general idea behind developing objective research methods, psychometrics, moral judgements, etc. As you can see, you are WRONG. A moral judgement based on previously agreed upon methods is not a subjective judgement.

This is great fun watching you forward things you don't understand in an attempt to refute something you don't understand.

What are words for when no one listens anymore

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 11 years ago

So how about we end this already? You are a VERY confused, ignorant and dumb person. You said incorrect definitions of certain fallacies, you've given incorrect information regarding science, you've given incorrect information regarding the words objective and subjective, you said that our definitions of an "appeal to authority fallacy" are the same, when in fact they were not, you kept going in circles whenever I asked you to back up your claims with actual sources, etc, etc. You keep using lies, imagination, misinformation and fallacies as an argument. There's nothing I can do for you. I've spent countless hours already replying to your pervert friends. They felt so ashamed by their own ignorance once they realized they were wrong, that they even deleted their own posts.

If you are a pervert, then nothing I can say will take you out of your mistake. You will try and distort reality to your convenience in order to try and support your argument. Science is against you, philosophy is against you, morality is against you, reality itself is against you. There's no point in continuing this anymore. You will never accept you are wrong. You didn't even accept it when I proved to you that your definition of "appeal to authority fallacy" was wrong, so what's the point? Good bye and I'd tell you to have a good life, but I hope you don't. For you, having a good life probably means raping young girls, so I hope you have an awful life. Good bye.

[–] HippieDrillSealOfApproval 11 years ago

Not only are you a delusional arrogant idiot, but an ass hole to boot. You don't know me at all yet you assume I'm a rapist? Go fuqc yourself you presumptuous vile piece of human garbage. It's been fun knocking your dumb ass six ways from Sunday but it's nearing the expiration date.

What are words for when no one listens anymore

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 11 years ago

By the way, now that we are pointing out alleged contradictions, I found two very obvious contradictions in your posts.

1 - First you said that Social Sciences are not science, but then you call them "soft science". The colloquial term "soft science" still acknowledges the fact that S.S. are science.

2 - You said "I wouldn't know because I'm not ignorant", but obviously you are, so there are numerous contradictions in your posts.

[–] HippieDrillSealOfApproval 11 years ago

1 - First you said that Social Sciences are not science, but then you call them "soft science". The colloquial term "soft science" still acknowledges the fact that S.S. are science.

Really??? That's the best you got?

2 - You said "I wouldn't know because I'm not ignorant", but obviously you are, so there are numerous contradictions in your posts.

Christ on a bike, your understanding of what a contradiction is is nearly as bad as your understanding of science.

What are words for when no one listens anymore

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 11 years ago

It is always funny to see someone saying so many lies about science and logic, and then acting as if they were actually right.

[–] HippieDrillSealOfApproval 11 years ago

I'm not sure what you're referring to, since I've not seen you offer even one shred of science or logic.

What are words for when no one listens anymore

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 11 years ago

I've been talking about science and logic in all my posts and I've proven I'm right with actual sources of information. You, on the other hand, claimed that social sciences are not sciences because they are soft science (a dumb contradiction in and of itself, besides being a statement that's completely false) and you have also shown that you don't know the definition of the fallacies you are mentioning. Therefore, you don't know anything about science or logic.

[–] HippieDrillSealOfApproval 11 years ago

No, you've made weak appeals to what you "think" science and logic say about the matter, but all you've really done is show how poor your understanding of science and logic are.

What are words for when no one listens anymore

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 11 years ago

Nope. I've shown you what actual science and logic say about the subject matter. You've done nothing but tell lies. Where is your source of information that says that everytime you appeal to an authority it is a fallacy? Come on. Lets also address this statement of yours: social sciences are no science because they are soft science. How about we work with this statement? Is it not a stupid contradiction? How about you show me your sources that say that social science is not science and then I show you what Comte and the scientific and philosophic communities have to say about your stupid notions?

[–] Amari-Sali 12 years ago

I'll admit she is cute, but in this movie she looks 13 like her character.

---
http://amari-sali.blogspot.com/

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]