Derf
Well-known member
That moral compass you don't know the origin of? How trustworthy is it? What if it says a man can marry another man?
Answering old threads thread
- Thread starter Idolater
- Start date
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Works better than yours considering I can flat out say that there's no justification for forcing yourself on another under any circumstances. If it's God given (that as I've stated already I'm cool with) then what happened to yours? Same sex folks can already marry so that's kinda moot and not interested in that sidebar anyway. Some wingnuts think gay people should be executed so meh.
Derf
Well-known member
But that's what their moral compass is telling them to do, so meh back at yours. And God seems to agree more with them than you. So how good is your moral compass? It's no better than your opinion. Meh, indeed.
glorydaz
Well-known member
I don't believe their moral compass is telling them it's fine. They know it's wrong, but do it anyway.
Derf
Well-known member
In which case, it can't be relied upon, because it's too easy to ignore, as anyone, even Mr. Brain, would have to admit.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
From your post #111
"Depends. How long has she avoided me, and why. I will say having sex with a lump of motionless flesh wouldn't be very satisfying. But that goes back to the dual nature of sex... and marriage. She belongs to me, and I belong to her."
Charming that innit? She does not "belong" to you like something you've bought and nor is she obliged to be at your beck and call whenever you feel the need to have sex. If she doesn't want to engage in intercourse and you force it upon her against her will then you are raping your wife and ergo a rapist. If you are somehow unable to fathom out just how much of a violation that is then you just carry on with your lame little sidebar about gay people. I sincerely hope you aren't married frankly.
a.k.a. Natural Law
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
I hate trolley problems. But I think that in this case we can imagine one that's actually easy. Imagine there are two people [presumably fertile] man and [presumably fertile] wife, and no one else, and if they don't multiply then well that's it for the human race.
But the wife resists and is uninterested.
Should the man override his wife's decision?
If not, what about when she's getting on in years and is nearing the end of her natural fertility?
An even easier trolley problem here would be a single woman and ten men, all presumably fertile, but the woman is uninterested in marrying any of them. Should her right against being raped be broken, in order to ensure the survival of the species? If she doesn't comply, and is not forced, then mankind goes extinct.
I say that in both cases, the answer is dead easy, and that this is what an absolute right looks like, this is what we mean by an absolute right. Even if it means the end of mankind (iow no matter the consequences), she still unilaterally reserves her natural moral right against being raped, end of story. And in these trolley problems, it's the end of mankind as well. Oh well----that's what makes it an absolute right.
And oh yeah, us men protecting this right of theirs is what makes them powerful. It is their power, and it exists because we honor and preserve it. If ever we violate it, we have not only taken their power from them, which is theft, but we also have become violent criminals, in certain circumstances deserving of execution, and we are also subject to being killed or maimed by the victim or by anybody else nearby in any attempt we make to rape.
A moral regime has laws against rape, and an immoral one doesn't.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Interesting that you would presented as a dichotomy, especially considering that the original thread and others of the same time period devolved around the changing definition of "rape" and thus the changing laws against "rape".
Today we pretend that we are moral, but the laws that we have against rape are immoral.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
What do you think about the trolley problems?
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Yes this moral theory believes in human rights but it believes that there is basically just one right, and all the others basically 'grow' out of it like a tree trunk supporting limbs and branches. It proceeds from the principle of self ownership, which is fine for unbelievers but it conflicts with Scripture, so it's wrong for a Christian. 1st Corinthians 6:20 " ye are bought with a price" You do not own yourself. So all ideas that proceed logically from the principle of self ownership are null and void for you as a Christian. You are not your own. Your rights do not belong to you, they belong to your Master, as you yourself do. You are His.
So your moral theory here is wrong on its face, again as a Christian man, because it proceeds from self-ownership, which you as a Bible believer shun.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
lol!
My wife (assuming I was married) does in fact "belong" to me. She is, in fact, my wife. She is not someone else's wife. She is not an unmarried woman.
No one ever suggested it was as such.
If a man, who is designed to be more sexually active than women, marries a woman, who then refuses to satisfy her husband's needs for sex, she is abandoning her duties as a wife. She is at fault.
She is denying his flesh, despite being made one with him, both literally and figuratively.
He has the right to take what is his, and that includes sexual gratification from his wife, who belongs to him.
Then she should have never married her husband to begin with.
Marriage is a contractual agreement between a man and a woman.
Barring forced marriages, it was her will to become one with him in marriage. She already gave her consent. Ergo, he's not a rapist for taking what is, by definition, and by law, his.
if it were actually a violation, then you'd probably have a point. But since it isn't, it just sounds like whining on your part.
Oh boo hoo, Arty's having a tantrum.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Yes agreed. She is sinning against him.
So if she is breaching the contract you take her to court, for divorce.
You don't rape her.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Define rape
Your difficulty in understanding probabilities here sheds light on why you seem unable to comprehend evolution. One dimensional, linear analysis leads you astray. In drawing conclusions you need to make appropriate comparisons. Control groups can lead to conclusive support for causation as you know. Here, you draw the wrong conclusion from the evidence. You believe rape does not usually lead to reproduction - which is true on a simplistic level but absurd in light of an appropriate comparison. Claiming that rape has nothing to do with reproduction is very, very odd. To interpret this correctly you must compare the probability of pregnancy of intercourse by rape and the probability of intercourse by consensual intercourse. A healthy young couple having unprotected intercourse only has a 5% chance of creating a pregnancy. The odds are exactly the same as rape. The vast majority of intercourse does not result in pregnancy. This of course does not even imply that intercourse does not cause pregnancy.
Blaming them by accusing them of lying about rape on the basis of conception is the result of the type of misunderstanding that you are making. It is stupid when people deny there was rape at all because there was a birth. A birth does not give any information on the veracity level of a woman's claim.
It is a s reliable as intercourse in general.
Last edited:
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
A robot with a reproductive device and another robot with either a compatible or with an incompatible reproductive device. The first robot does stuff with its own reproductive device to the other robot, or it does stuff to the other robot's reproductive device, or both, and the other robot is saying No, resisting, or not granting informed consent.
There seem to be people who force sex on their wives which society now legally defines as rape, but these men have no problem seeing themselves more moral than the law in behaving this way.
It used to be illegal to stop two mental patients from having intercourse on a psych ward during the act. This was based on religious notions about God's will.
Religion can prevent morals from evolving.
It used to be illegal to stop two mental patients from having intercourse on a psych ward during the act. This was based on religious notions about God's will.
Religion can prevent morals from evolving.