Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Totalitarianist · 11-10-2002, 07:59 PM

How many times have you heard this? It is pure nonsense surely. You must realise that this would, I say, if pleasure is present in all persons involved--justify paedophilia! What if an eleven year girl enjoys experiencing sexual contact with an older man? If you believe that anything that is a source of pleasure and that causes no pain is okay, and acknowledge the possibility that pleasure is present among all persons involved in such an event, you have yourself, and of yourself, I say, a justification for paedophilia!
And this is why I believe that the premise "All things that are a source of pleasure and cause no pain are okay" is false, given that paedophilia is morally wrong.

11-10-2002, 08:10 PM

[edited, my brain is fried by TV's weirdness]

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: Jagged Little Pill ]

elwoodblues · 11-10-2002, 08:42 PM

I always saw an implied addendum in this. "All things that are a source of pleasure and cause no pain are okay... when all parties are consenting adults." But that's just me.

Doubting Didymus · 11-10-2002, 08:48 PM

Quite simply, there should be a small addendum to that statement that stresses the importance not only of not causing pain, but infringes on nobodies rights. Once that little extra is grafted on, I am in total agreement.

"anything that is a source of pleasure, cuses no pain or other harm, and does not infringe on the rights of others is okay"

A small change, but it makes all the difference to me.

Doubting Didymus · 11-10-2002, 08:50 PM

Oh its you trebaxian. I was wondering how I missed coming across someone with that many posts.

I preferred your old name.

Totalitarianist · 11-10-2002, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus:
Oh its you trebaxian. I was wondering how I missed coming across someone with that many posts.

I preferred your old name.

Of course you would. It is a true name.

Totalitarianist · 11-10-2002, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus:
Quite simply, there should be a small addendum to that statement that stresses the importance not only of not causing pain, but infringes on nobodies rights. Once that little extra is grafted on, I am in total agreement.

"anything that is a source of pleasure, cuses no pain or other harm, and does not infringe on the rights of others is okay"

A small change, but it makes all the difference to me.

Rights? Do not we have the "right" to feel pleasure so long as it does not harm anyone else?

Doubting Didymus · 11-10-2002, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lady Anoteros:


Of course you would. It is a true name.

Really? Truly?

Totalitarianist · 11-10-2002, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus:


Really? Truly?

I do not know what you mean by that. So let us stop talking about this.

11-10-2002, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Trebaxian Vir:

And this is why I believe that the premise "All things that are a source of pleasure and cause no pain are okay" is false, given that paedophilia is morally wrong.

You are absolutly correct and I would take this one step further and say that pleasure cannot be conceive to exist without pain in equal proportions. The same is true for winners and losers in that for every winner there must at least be one loser and if we are both winners ther must at least be one loser hiding in a bush somewhere.

Pleasure without pain was Stuart Mill's idea was it not? How did it go again: The Utilitarian Principle was based on its intensity, propinquity, fecunditity, duration and extent.

11-10-2002, 07:59 PM	#1
Totalitarianist Banned Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 1,234	"All things that are a source of pleasure and cause no pain are okay." How many times have you heard this? It is pure nonsense surely. You must realise that this would, I say, if pleasure is present in all persons involved--justify paedophilia! What if an eleven year girl enjoys experiencing sexual contact with an older man? If you believe that anything that is a source of pleasure and that causes no pain is okay, and acknowledge the possibility that pleasure is present among all persons involved in such an event, you have yourself, and of yourself, I say, a justification for paedophilia! And this is why I believe that the premise "All things that are a source of pleasure and cause no pain are okay" is false, given that paedophilia is morally wrong.

11-10-2002, 08:10 PM	#2
Jagged Guest Posts: n/a	[edited, my brain is fried by TV's weirdness] [ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: Jagged Little Pill ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-10-2002, 08:42 PM	#3
elwoodblues Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Dunmanifestin, Discworld Posts: 4,836	I always saw an implied addendum in this. "All things that are a source of pleasure and cause no pain are okay... when all parties are consenting adults." But that's just me.

11-10-2002, 08:48 PM	#4
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	Quite simply, there should be a small addendum to that statement that stresses the importance not only of not causing pain, but infringes on nobodies rights. Once that little extra is grafted on, I am in total agreement. "anything that is a source of pleasure, cuses no pain or other harm, and does not infringe on the rights of others is okay" A small change, but it makes all the difference to me.

11-10-2002, 08:50 PM	#5
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	Oh its you trebaxian. I was wondering how I missed coming across someone with that many posts. I preferred your old name.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.