Politically Correct, politics, Transgenderism

Moral Degradation

This is an exchange over some basic political issues:

Adrian Mustaffa:

this is proof I see right wing call’n people shit but where’s the Gdamn proof of Democrats..huh I’ve heard the right wing even claim the Dems are kidnapp’n kids for human trafficking shit hell even eating children where’s the fkn proof of crazy shit like that..why don’t you tell me what Democrat been proven to be a Pedophile or tried to legalize it tell me who.

GOP Missouri Lawmaker Defends Supporting 12-Year-Olds’ Right To Legally Marry | HuffPost Latest News

TheSire:

It’s hard because you’re pretending to be neutral but you’re really just a leftist. This is just a ploy for individuals like yourself to mutilate the genitals of children for your sycophant fantasies.

Firstly, I think the nationwide trans movement just is pedophilic. So, for my position, that’s able to establish things. Secondly, if it weren’t for conservatives’ sources you wouldn’t hear about the occasions in which leftists do defend pedophiles indirectly:


Key words is indirectly. There’s also the famous 70s when democrats tried to undermine the Justice system by not taking crime seriously. A case like the Genesee River killer is where they pleaded down a case where a serial killer raped and murdered a boy and leftist organizations snuck him into towns even though he was clearly a threat for the inhabitants. This beliefs about Justice occur today as well.

The leftist organization has defended a multitude of killers and rapists in spite of the overwhelming evidence. So, my claim isn’t to suppose democrats do these things directly but indirectly through affiliate organizations and rarely through legislation.

For example, they do this through finding scientific research into defending the immortality:

And then they try to liberalize the American people to later come to accept such immoral practice.

It’s a bit more involved than you’re making it. But even worse is that the leftists’ standards also logically imply pedophilic thought is correct:

Adrian Mustaffa:

2019 and ?has nothing to do with 12yrs old for marriage and nothing about legalize Pedophilia you people are sick I post something to date and you pull up some old ass shit about registering get lost.

TheSire:

You see, democratic pedophilia is perfectly fine as long as it happened 3-4 years ago. The request was evidence of an action of democrats in the past with regards to pedophilia. Now, returning to the so-called pedophilic statements by Sen Eric Moon, Moon himself has clarified. Moon seems to think it is fine for consenting teens to marry if they have parental permission. So, he isn’t actually supporting adults marrying teenagers but teenagers marrying one another.

According to Moon, the anecdote he discussed in the hearing was of two 12-year-old children marrying — not an adult and child.

“I do not support adults marrying minors. In fact, if there’s an instance in which an adult has recently married a minor in the state of Missouri, I’ll make it a priority to remove and prohibit adults from marrying minors. Furthermore, if a person is raped, no matter the age, the rapist should be punished to the fullest extent of the law,” Moon said in the video response.

Missouri Senator Mike Moon denies support of child-adult marriage (news-leader.com)

It is rather dishonest to attack Moon and ignore his comments to defend one’s own creepy addiction to mutilating children’s genitals. You may disagree with him and that is fine but provide your argument rather than lying about his actual position. I suppose you may charge him with arbitrariness. Why can you give 12-year-olds the right of marriage but not the ability to choose their spouse? That is a further debate. But you may also challenge him whether you think they have the ability to consent to sex, but that also is a further debate. Furthermore, you can just condemn both, but Democrats are so distasteful that they will accept one and hope for the other.

It is also difficult when one looks at the rest of the world and sees that this sorts of things have been the norm and the modern standards are semi-arbitrary in order to protect children but with obvious technical issues:

Statutory rape laws and age of consent laws can be technicalities. The threshold is somewhat arbitrary. That generates borderline cases. If an 18-year-old girl has premarital sex with a 17-year-old boy, that’s technically statutory rape, yet the transaction is clearly consensual.

Any legal age will be somewhat arbitrary, but you can’t have these laws without a stipulated age, so that’s a necessary and justifiable consequence of having such laws in the first place.  We ought to have such laws. But enforcement of the law should make allowance for the arbitrary cutoff, and focus on clear-cut examples rather than marginal cases.

Triablogue: “Child marriage”

It is rather intellectually lazy for someone not to recognize the complexities of the debate. There is also the issue of how usual it is for teens to engage in sexual activity. It seems like general trends hold that sexual activity amongst such groups will increase and probably are underreported as is:

Trends in Frequency of Sexual Activity and Number of Sexual Partners Among Adults Aged 18 to 44 Years in the US, 2000-2018 | Adolescent Medicine | JAMA Network Open | JAMA Network

Over Half of U.S. Teens Have Had Sexual Intercourse by Age 18, New Report Shows (cdc.gov)

I also think one other issue is that consent has become the golden calf of sexual ethics. Consent is necessary for acceptable sexual relations, but it isn’t sufficient. Two thought experiments, one in which two adults become inebriated and sleep together. In such, you don’t have proper reasoning faculties, but it doesn’t seem ipso facto to be rape. Usually, the thought can be like drunk driving, you can have the initial consent of getting inebriated and then drunkenly drive. Even though you didn’t consent to driving drunk, you have caused the state of affairs in the relevant sense. Or whatever ways you wish to explain the justification for such.

 

From what I’ve read, homosexual and transgender apologists usually invoke consent as the differential factor. Let’s consider that. From a Christian perspective, I think consent is often a morally relevant factor. 
 
However, that’s not a universal principle. Consent doesn’t ipso facto make a transaction morally permissible. Conversely, lack of consent doesn’t ipso facto make a transaction morally impermissible. 
 
v) For instance, if someone is mentally ill, they may be in no condition to give informed consent for treatment. Suppose psychotropic drugs can restore their sanity. In that situation, I don’t think it would be wrong if, say, their brother authorized medication against their will. If the patient is not in his right mind, you are protecting him from himself or others–just as you might take the car keys away from a drunken friend and drive him to your own house until he dries out. Once he sobers up, you return the car keys. It might then be a question of whether maintenance should be a matter of consent. 
 
vi) In a pilot episode (“Eyes”) of Night Gallery, Joan Crawford plays a wealthy heiress blind from birth. She procures an eye-donor who’s hard up for money. Of course, the eye transplant will leave him blind. 
 
He consents to the operation. Still, the viewer is supposed to regard the woman as a villain. She’s exploiting his financial desperation. She’s harming him to benefit herself. The fact that the transaction is consensual doesn’t make harvesting his eyes morally permissible. Even if somebody consents to be harmed, that doesn’t automatically give you the right to harm them. Indeed, that may be taking advantage of his weakness. 

Triablogue: Immoral consent 

You can also think of a mother that wishes to spare her daughter of being sexually exploited by prison guards, so she offers herself in her stead. It satisfied the condition of consent, but it isn’t sufficient to be a moral state of affairs.

One last point, democrats going soft on criminals (including pedophiles) is much worse than the supposed marriage law that nobody cared about until they wanted to get rid of child genital mutilation.  For example:

In NYS, you have Gov. Hochul only arresting a repeat criminal that was attacking innocent people for her public image before an election. He also so happened to be a rapist that targeted a teenager and forced them to have sex with him at gun point.

https://nypost.com/2022/08/19/hochul-orders-arrest-of-sex-fiend-after-nyc-sucker-punch-attack/

Woke DA Attacks Judge To Save TRIPLE Murderer – YouTube

My point is if you’re not going to take crime seriously, then that also applies to sexual crimes. You have commonly for 40 years liberals making laws softer for sex offenders.

Even worse you had a Supreme Court rule that execution of child rapists is a cruel and unusual punishment. So, if you’re not interested in the overturning of Kennedy v. Louisiana and other such things that make it impossible for the execution of child predators then you’re not really serious about punishing child predators.

Furthermore, in the article with reference to the California sex offender registry, Scott Wiener who promoted the Bill still remains in the state senate. So, it’s hardly just an issue of the past.

Leave a comment