Will Societal Creation Be Immoral? Forum: Spacesettlers
Thread: Will Societal Creation Be Immoral?
# 4667 byxenophile2002@... on Dec. 2, 2003, 8:45 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers, "victoriatangoman" wrote:
Then you wouldn't have signed up for immigration.
> All kidding aside, if you step outside *society* you'll see many
> things that we take for granted and view as normal, are just as
> arbitrary as what you wrote here.
Too true. Why don't Americans eat horsemeat? Why do the Japanese
consider it fashionable to use English song lyrics?
> The trick is to migrate from one mindset to the other. I don't see
> a path that leads one on that journey.
>
> Who's going to be the *first* to offer up stringy and mangey old
> Pa' for dinner after his funeral and watch the guests retch at the
> thought?
Presumably this would be some group that has existed on Earth and is
already comfortable with the idea. They have had, up 'till now, to
make due with symbolic cannibalism, using pork or lamb.
> OOPS! I wrote too soon. LMAO at the freakishness and tragedy. You
> may be on to something:
>
> German 'cannibal' tells of regret
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3230774.stm
EEEEWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!
But what I've suggested is a little different.
> Question: For those who are in favor of limited government, you'll
> note that Germany doesn't have a law against cannibalism. Is this
> consistent with your beliefs?
>
> Follow-up Question: This device is legal. Should there be a law
> against it? Still more laws. (sorry about this but I just finished
> having a debate with my assistant who's upset about all the laws
> and the role of government, (zoning troubles))
> http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Midwest/11/05/traffic.lights.ap/
I'll let the libertarians answer the question directed to them.
Liberationists, OTOH...
=====================================================================
> immigrate.
> How about old fogeys (21+), aren't they tainted by the evil,
> repressive ways as well.
Yes, they are. That is why they wait until a new generation is of
adult age before making certain changes, such as the reduction of
AoC. Besides, even repressive Earth societies allow that the over-21
crowd is "old enough."
> Besides most of the utility a person offers for immigration are
> from skills mastered after the age of 18.
Yes, but many of those skilled adults have children. They can't come
along. And they don't want anybody cold-blooded enough to leave
their kids behind. Only singles and marrieds w/o kids over 5.
> Again, I enjoyed the speculation. It all sounds plausible if we can
> rid ourselves of ingrained sexual baggage and parental paranoia.
> How do we do that? The Netherlands has a very progressive attitude
> towards sexuality and teen sexuality with a special age of consent
> category for those between 12-16.
And the Netherlands seem to have fewer teen pregnancies, abortions,
rape, child molestation, STD's, and so on. Funny how that works out.
> The end state you posit doesn't present any inherent
> inconsistencies but how do we make possible the migration of
> attitudinal changes that are necessary?
Presumably, this has happened before the habitat is ever built.
> Sexual repression runs deep in the psyche of Western civilization.
> America seems to be leading the way.
Tell me about it. But what I'm doing here isn't pointing out that
Earth societies suck, or that they are great. I'm presenting a
couple of societies that many would find objectionable, but that are
more likely to exist than the "let's run around eating each other"
or "let's have a bunch of babies so we can molest them for
generations on end" habitats that we both agree are unlikely. Should
Humanity in general "do something" about those gross Cannibals, or
those perverted Liberationists? *Are* they gross and perverted,
respectively? Who gets to decide that? And even if they are, when
should there be sanctions? Could a war ever be justified? Not a war
to gain territory (building territory is easier), but a war to rescue
the children? What if the children don't want to be rescued?
> Consider some of these cases:
>
> Now when a 17 year old boy has sex with his 15 year girlfriend, he
> won't be convicted just of rape, but will also be classified a
> *violent offender.*
> http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1069170401061
This is an excellent example of American idiocy. I'm sorry, but as
an American myself, I find this sort of thing embarrassing.
> I don't know how much play this story got in the US but I was
living
> in Europe at the time and it was BIG. The crazy Americans had
jailed
> an 11 year old boy, for helping his 5 year old sister go to the
> bathroom. The family had to flee Colorado to Switzerland with their
> other 3 children and the Swiss Foreign Affairs Dept had to get
> involved to free the boy.
>
> Type the kids name, Raoul Wthrich, into Google and see how many
> European entries come up compared to English only.
>
> http://www.kenlayne.com/1999/1115_jailingraoul/
>
http://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/e/home/recent/press/press_old/1999/10.htm
> l
>
> American law seems to make no distinction between a 16-18 year old
> teenager and a 7 year old with respect to sexual matters. If you
> date a 17 year old girl are you really a child molester, or sexual
> predator, like the the guy who targets the 7 year old?
Have you noticed that, as we raise the age at which one is allowed to
be a sexual being, we also lower the age at which one may be tried
and punished as an adult? Can you smell that?
That's hypocrisy.
> "Those who engage in intercourse with adolescents are neither as
> dangerous nor as morally reprehensible as those who engage in such
> conduct with very young children. In part this is true because the
> post-pubescent child is a more plausible, though certainly not an
> acceptable, target of sexual desire. More importantly, the sexually
> mature though underage adolescent may play such an active role in
> encouraging sexual relations that the conduct of the older
> participant in yielding to temptation must be viewed as evidencing
> a less grievous moral default than exhibited by the exploiter of a
> very young child."
>
http://www.dclawstudent.blogspot.com/2003_11_01_dclawstudent_archive.
> html#106978472534084539
>
> Look here for the devastation caused by a sexually repressed
> culture that sees dysfunction everywhere and criminalizes normal
> childhood sexual behavior and exploration.
> http://www.allaboutsex.org/molested-onefamilysstory-salon.html
You... you go to AAS?! *I* go to AAS! Tangoman, we're brothers! Do
you think Sweetcheeks is real? Never mind, don't answer that.
> Look here for the heavy hand of the law being applied to
> responsible parents when a Mother's decision to give her son
> condoms is criminalized.
> http://www.allaboutsex.org/AAS_Master_Frameset.cfm
That URL will only take one to the master frameset. For the article
itself, try http://www.allaboutsex.org/MomProsecutedForCondoms.html
> Considering all of the above, how the heck are we going to get from
> this type of mindset to one where teen-sex is openly acknowledged
> and condoned as being helthy and normal? And specifially to your
Perhaps the habitat is founded by folks who are fans of AAS? Or by
Netherlanders?
> point about pedophilia, it sure would be nice to actually determine
> that it is indeed caused by sexual repression and would vanish in a
> more open environment. I'd love to see the test for that
> hypothesis.
I don't know if that is true or not, only that it is the argument
made by the hypothetical Liberationists.
Xenophile (who recommends AAS to everybody, young or old, male or
female, prude or Liberationist)