Pedophiles

[BashfulAnthony]

Hi Rose,

Of course you can decide what to believe in some circumstances,  when evidence for its truth/falsity is available ... but if such is not the case the honest thing to do is remain undecided.

If, however, the evidence presented to you confirms the truth of it, then you have no choice ... you can't then decide not to believe it. And vice-versa, of course! 

No idea what you mean by "the only honest thing to do is remain undecided". If you mean do nothing until you have repeatable, testable evidence in order to decide, that's just one option. Another option is to choose a view. They are equally valid and honest options. If we all sat around undecided until we have repeatable testable evidence for every decision we made very little would get done - especially in relation to business decisions.

You can choose to live your life according to your belief that we have to remain undecided if you want, but thankfully many of us choose a different belief from you in life and choose to take a risk and adopt a view on many things for which you might think the "honest" thing to do is remain undecided and do nothing.

Fine! But centering your life round something which some other human has thought up is not for me.

I am quite capable of arriving at my own moral code and living by it, but perhaps my mistake is in thinking that everybody else can too.

I would be interested to know a moral code you live by that someone else in history did not think of first. Can you give me an example of a moral code that you came u with all by yourself?

There are variations possible, in any moral code.  I was suggesting that Leonard had not the right to claim his code was the only one to live by, not that he stated what it actually is!

BA - My question was addressed to Leonard, not to you.

Pardon me!  I commented because I know he won't, since he has no answer, as usual.  Possibly Shaker will help him out.

[Leonard James]

If your moral code is influenced by nurture, how are you claiming you came up with your moral code all by yourself? Your claim is just another one of the beliefs you choose to hold - unless you can provide us with repeatable, testable evidence that you live by a moral code that you came up with all by yourself.

The code I live by is the result of my life experience. How much I have been influenced by others, I have no idea, any more than anybody else here has.

Nevertheless, I refuse to follow the dictates of any religion or belief. I am quite prepared to break the law if I consider it right to do so, simply because the law is arrived at by other humans, and I am just as likely to be right as they are.

Does that answer your question?

[BashfulAnthony]

I think people who advocate breaking the Law should be ashamed of themselves.  We live in a democracy, but we are defined by the rule of law.  If you object to any particular law, then there are ways to express your disaffection: campaigning, petitioning,  by way of the ballot box, if necessary.  To advocate breaking the Law is mischievous, dangerous, and probably illegal.

[BashfulAnthony]

I think people who advocate breaking the Law should be ashamed of themselves.  We live in a democracy, but we are defined by the rule of law.  If you object to any particular law, then there are ways to express your disaffection: campaigning, petitioning,  by way of the ballot box, if necessary.  To advocate breaking the Law is mischievous, dangerous, and probably illegal.

Hogwash.

The suffragettes broke the law to achieve their aims.

Just one example of many, where there was a need to break the law to improve it.

They broke the Law, and that was wrong.  The campaign for universal suffrage would have been successful in the final analysis.  What you advocate is, in effect, anarchy.  There is always a proper and lawful way to effect change, though it may take longer.  Dangerous idiots like you don't deserve to live in a democracy if you are prepared to violate one of its core principles.

[Aruntraveller]

I think people who advocate breaking the Law should be ashamed of themselves.  We live in a democracy, but we are defined by the rule of law.  If you object to any particular law, then there are ways to express your disaffection: campaigning, petitioning,  by way of the ballot box, if necessary.  To advocate breaking the Law is mischievous, dangerous, and probably illegal.

Hogwash.

The suffragettes broke the law to achieve their aims.

Just one example of many, where there was a need to break the law to improve it.

They broke the Law, and that was wrong.  The campaign for universal suffrage would have been successful in the final analysis.  What you advocate is, in effect, anarchy.  There is always a proper and lawful way to effect change, though it may take longer.  Dangerous idiots like you don't deserve to live in a democracy if you are prepared to violate one of its core principles.

Oh you've fallen for the line that we live in a democracy have you? Well that's a whole other kettle of fish. (see below)

But, if you know a law to be unjust and you have no other way of making your voice heard and you are prepared to accept the consequences of your action then it may be a last resort but I see no reason for not acting.
I see no reason for your unnecessary name calling - which incidentally detracts from the point (which has some merit) you are making.

[BashfulAnthony]

I think people who advocate breaking the Law should be ashamed of themselves.  We live in a democracy, but we are defined by the rule of law.  If you object to any particular law, then there are ways to express your disaffection: campaigning, petitioning,  by way of the ballot box, if necessary.  To advocate breaking the Law is mischievous, dangerous, and probably illegal.

Hogwash.

The suffragettes broke the law to achieve their aims.

Just one example of many, where there was a need to break the law to improve it.

They broke the Law, and that was wrong.  The campaign for universal suffrage would have been successful in the final analysis.  What you advocate is, in effect, anarchy.  There is always a proper and lawful way to effect change, though it may take longer.  Dangerous idiots like you don't deserve to live in a democracy if you are prepared to violate one of its core principles.

Oh you've fallen for the line that we live in a democracy have you? Well that's a whole other kettle of fish.

But, if you know a law to be unjust and you have no other way of making your voice heard and you are prepared to accept the consequences of your action then it may be a last resort but I see no reason for not acting.
I see no reason for your unnecessary name calling - which incidentally detracts from the point (which has some merit) you are making.

You are exasperating, and so wrong, that's why I name-called.  When you say there is no other way to make your voice heard you are being absurd: put your point to the Press, to the media generally, to your MP, organise a petition, on-line if you like, canvass local people, twitter, use Facebook, get a sandwich board(!!!), the ballot box.  What more do you want?

[floo]

I think people who advocate breaking the Law should be ashamed of themselves.  We live in a democracy, but we are defined by the rule of law.  If you object to any particular law, then there are ways to express your disaffection: campaigning, petitioning,  by way of the ballot box, if necessary.  To advocate breaking the Law is mischievous, dangerous, and probably illegal.

Hogwash.

The suffragettes broke the law to achieve their aims.

Just one example of many, where there was a need to break the law to improve it.

They broke the Law, and that was wrong.  The campaign for universal suffrage would have been successful in the final analysis.  What you advocate is, in effect, anarchy.  There is always a proper and lawful way to effect change, though it may take longer.  Dangerous idiots like you don't deserve to live in a democracy if you are prepared to violate one of its core principles.

Oh you've fallen for the line that we live in a democracy have you? Well that's a whole other kettle of fish. (see below)

But, if you know a law to be unjust and you have no other way of making your voice heard and you are prepared to accept the consequences of your action then it may be a last resort but I see no reason for not acting.
I see no reason for your unnecessary name calling - which incidentally detracts from the point (which has some merit) you are making.

Where women's suffrage is concerned if those brave women hadn't stood up for our rights in the way that they did, we wouldn't have the vote and still be subservient to the male of the species! GOOD FOR THEM!

[Aruntraveller]

BA

An interesting read:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/oct/28/immigration-humanrights

[BashfulAnthony]

I think people who advocate breaking the Law should be ashamed of themselves.  We live in a democracy, but we are defined by the rule of law.  If you object to any particular law, then there are ways to express your disaffection: campaigning, petitioning,  by way of the ballot box, if necessary.  To advocate breaking the Law is mischievous, dangerous, and probably illegal.

Hogwash.

The suffragettes broke the law to achieve their aims.

Just one example of many, where there was a need to break the law to improve it.

They broke the Law, and that was wrong.  The campaign for universal suffrage would have been successful in the final analysis.  What you advocate is, in effect, anarchy.  There is always a proper and lawful way to effect change, though it may take longer.  Dangerous idiots like you don't deserve to live in a democracy if you are prepared to violate one of its core principles.

Oh you've fallen for the line that we live in a democracy have you? Well that's a whole other kettle of fish. (see below)

But, if you know a law to be unjust and you have no other way of making your voice heard and you are prepared to accept the consequences of your action then it may be a last resort but I see no reason for not acting.
I see no reason for your unnecessary name calling - which incidentally detracts from the point (which has some merit) you are making.

Where women's suffrage is concerned if those brave women hadn't stood up for our rights in the way that they did, we wouldn't have the vote and still be subservient to the male of the species! GOOD FOR THEM!

Don't be ridiculous!

[BashfulAnthony]

BA

An interesting read:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/oct/28/immigration-humanrights

Yes, interesting, but wrong.  Once we accept that it is okay to go down that road, we are on a slippery slope.  Where does it end?    As far as Paul and his actions were concerned, he lived in a different age, and was not fortunate enough to live in a democratic system, and so had little recourse but to do as he did.  As far as we are concerned, in the now, we have all the resources we need to effect change, if it is needed, and is the will of all, and is legal. We live in a democracy, and when we look around the world, and its upheavals, we should cherish it, and stick to its rules.

[cyberman]

In the UK the age of consent has never been 25, it has been 16 for as long as I can remember and I am older than Hope!

For gay male relationships it has only been 16 for quite a short time, floo. Can't remember exactly but some time during the last 10 - 15 years

[floo]

In the UK the age of consent has never been 25, it has been 16 for as long as I can remember and I am older than Hope!

For gay male relationships it has only been 16 for quite a short time, floo. Can't remember exactly but some time during the last 10 - 15 years

That is true, but I was thinking of heterosexual relationships, which is to what I think Hope was referring

[Shaker]

In the UK the age of consent has never been 25, it has been 16 for as long as I can remember and I am older than Hope!

For gay male relationships it has only been 16 for quite a short time, floo. Can't remember exactly but some time during the last 10 - 15 years

January 2001.

[Leonard James]

In the UK the age of consent has never been 25, it has been 16 for as long as I can remember and I am older than Hope!

For gay male relationships it has only been 16 for quite a short time, floo. Can't remember exactly but some time during the last 10 - 15 years

January 2001.

Now it seems unbelievable how long Christian teaching bamboozled people into believing it was wrong.

[Shaker]

Yeah

[Hope]

Now it seems unbelievable how long Christian teaching bamboozled people into believing it was wrong.

Legal doesn't mean 'not wrong', Len. 

[Shaker]

Now it seems unbelievable how long Christian teaching bamboozled people into believing it was wrong.

Legal doesn't mean 'not wrong', Len.

Legally speaking that's pretty much exactly what it does mean.

[floo]

Now it seems unbelievable how long Christian teaching bamboozled people into believing it was wrong.

Legal doesn't mean 'not wrong', Len.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! What is wrong with being gay and in a loving relationship with your partner? 'Because the Bible says so', is NOT a rational answer!

[Leonard James]

Now it seems unbelievable how long Christian teaching bamboozled people into believing it was wrong.

Legal doesn't mean 'not wrong', Len.

It does for law-abiding citizens.

[BashfulAnthony]

Now it seems unbelievable how long Christian teaching bamboozled people into believing it was wrong.

Legal doesn't mean 'not wrong', Len.

It does for law-abiding citizens.

But you advocated law-breaking, so you are a hypocrite!

[cyberman]

Now it seems unbelievable how long Christian teaching bamboozled people into believing it was wrong.

Legal doesn't mean 'not wrong', Len.

It does for law-abiding citizens.

Lots of law abiding citizens think that adultery is wrong, for example, so no, 'legal' and 'not wrong' are not synonymous in the eyes of law abiding citizens.

[floo]

Now it seems unbelievable how long Christian teaching bamboozled people into believing it was wrong.

Legal doesn't mean 'not wrong', Len.

It does for law-abiding citizens.

Lots of law abiding citizens think that adultery is wrong, for example, so no, 'legal' and 'not wrong' are not synonymous in the eyes of law abiding citizens.

Cheating in your partner is wrong, homosexuality isn't!

[Leonard James]

Lots of law abiding citizens think that adultery is wrong, for example, so no, 'legal' and 'not wrong' are not synonymous in the eyes of law abiding citizens.

Very few citizens are totally law-abiding, but that does not mean the law is automatically right. What is morally right/wrong for one person is not necessarily so for another. In the eyes of the law, however, wrong can never be right.

[cyberman]

Now it seems unbelievable how long Christian teaching bamboozled people into believing it was wrong.

Legal doesn't mean 'not wrong', Len.

It does for law-abiding citizens.

Lots of law abiding citizens think that adultery is wrong, for example, so no, 'legal' and 'not wrong' are not synonymous in the eyes of law abiding citizens.

Cheating in your partner is wrong, homosexuality isn't!

I agree. And...?

[Shaker]

The statement "Adultery is wrong" is subjective opinion, agreed to by some and not others, as is "Homosexuality is wrong." On the other hand, homosexuality is legal and adultery is not illegal.