galiel

Yep.

It turns out that most social dilemmas are not really as fuzzy, indeterminate and controversial as many people make them out to be--IF, and this is the world's biggest IF, one approaches them rationally, and not dogmatically.

Nor is any tremendous academic exptertise required. In most cases, common sense suffices (keeping in mind the "world's biggest IF")

NietzscheismyJesus

But here's what will happen:

you say "bad- never"

FrAndrew will say "Why Bad"

you say "Because bad"

He'll say "Prove bad"

You'll say "here bad"

FrAndrew will say " bad only social conditioning"

You'll say "but kids harmed"

He'll say "Taboo harm"

you say: "no - real harm"

he say: "how you know - prove"

You'll say: "me know - me was harmed..."

He'll say: "me think no harm, only taboo make you harm and shame"

you'll say "here, evidence"

He'll say: "me no convinced, still think taboo"

You'll say: "WTF? are you crazy?"

He'll say : "you big potty mouth"

You'll say: "@^%$@^%$@^%$@^%$@&^%@$"

He'll say: "See - you closed mind, big potty mouth - me go home now"

The Other Michael

As long as we are going with extreme examples, how about if the scenario is based on the child being horribly physically tortured and or murdered if the relationship doesn't take place?

I think one should be careful when advocating absolutes, as with a bit of thought it is often possible to come up with some variation where the absolute wouldn't be the best choice.

cheers,
Michael

Mad Kally

The Other Michael,
Now that's a far fetched scenario.

The Other Michael

Hi Kally,

That was the idea. But it seems like something happens every now and then that I'd of sworn couldn't possibly happen.

There are sufficient wacky people in the world, some of them with sufficient financial resources to allow them to do fairly grandiose things, that I could see it coming to pass.

Who'd of thought that people would be flying airplanes into buildings? People have been in the situation of having someone held hostage with a "do this or else" ultimatum being issued.

I'm just pointing out that unless you've actually considered all possible scenarios, it is probably a good idea to not make absolute statements.

cheers,
Michael

cjack

This is getting a bit silly, but...

Okay, for the sake of argument, let's say some group of pervert-terrorists are holding a 35 year old guy and a 7 year old girl hostage.

He is given an ultimatum: Either have sex with the girl, or watch her die a horrible death.

Does this make the sexual relations appropriate?

No.

Would he be saving her from a horrible death by doing so?

Yes.

So what's the problem?


In this circumstance (as I see it), he's still raping the little girl.

In the simplest terms, he's faced with a "lesser of two evils" dilemma, but the LESSER is still EVIL.

The question in this scenario is not whether or not it is appropriate to rape a child, but whether or not that action can be excused after considering the circumstances.


The original question (clarified in this quote) was:

"If all circumstances other than the relationship are equal, are there circumstances in which the sexual relationship would be better for the girl than the platonic relationship? If so, what are those circumstances?"


The answer is still a big fat NO.

[ November 09, 2002: Message edited by: cjack ]</p>

JohnV

Anyone else? FrAndrew?

Linda

Since this subject is relevant to issues of morality, it is being moved to the Moral Foundations and Principles Forum.

Clutch

How about this?

What if a group of Bin Ladenist terrorists are holding a 7 year-old girl hostage on a bus that will explode if it slows down to 50 MPH, killing the team of cancer researchers strapped to the roof who would otherwise cure Hodkins Disease within a month, but the first HD survivor of their treatment would be a Bin Laden supporter who would sponsor a bus-hijacking spree against cancer researchers on the brink of curing skin cancer, who can only be saved by putting eleven of them in a lifeboat designed for ten with food and water for six.

Could anybody permissibly have sex with the girl?

Is this thread anything more than a half-witted and degenerate attempt to get somebody, anybody, to say that this could somehow be okay? Following MM, let me answer:

No.

JohnV

This thread is an attempt to see if the positions of Fr Andrew and others have any applications in reality.

So far, the only scenarios proposed in which a sexual relationship would be better for the girl than a platonic relationship seem to be highly unlikely to ever occur - to put it mildly.

So, if we rule out imagination and stick to reality, it seems that no one can come up with circumstances in which the sexual relationship would be better for the girl than the platonic relationship.

Neither can anyone come up with reasonable circumstances in which the man would have the opportunity to provide the sexual relationship, but not also have the alternative of providing the platonic relationship.

If the answer is so obviously 'No' to you - great! However, pages and pages of posts on other threads show that it was not so obvious to everyone else. Therefore, this thread has a valid purpose, and your insults of it are unwarranted.