Reply With Quote
OK.
Finally a reasonable argument for cutting and running from Iraq. Our services are needed elsewhere.
Hungary may legalize porn involving 14- to 17-year-olds for home use
USA TodayBUDAPEST, Hungary (AP) — A bill modifying Hungary's penal code could allow pornographic material involving 14- to 17-year-olds to be made and kept for personal use.
The Justice Ministry said the draft proposal, presented last month by Hungarian Justice Minister Jozsef Petretei, was in line with European Union norms which give members states the right to regulate the issue at national level.
But Opposition lawmakers attacked the proposal as "legalized pedophilia" and a family welfare group described it as "the waiting room of pros ution."
Petretei said Monday that the proposal had taken into account the age in Hungary — 14 — at which consensual sexual relations are allowed.
In other news, Neil Bush appointed ambassador to Hungary today...
OK.
Finally a reasonable argument for cutting and running from Iraq. Our services are needed elsewhere.
Given that fact I don't see how the government can say "you can have sex when you're 14, but don't video tape it until you're a few years older." It only makes sense to say that whatever the age of consent is, that's when you can make porn.Petretei said Monday that the proposal had taken into account the age in Hungary — 14 — at which consensual sexual relations are allowed.
When the moral order based upon a common religious belief breaks down in a society all they are left with is moral relativism anyway.
You can have sex at 14 legally in this country as well, as long as your partner is within specific age guidelines which vary from state to state. Dirty old men ought not be allowed to watch tapes of such encounters.
Bigot much?
That is the problem with moral relativism... it is degradative by nature.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 02-21-2007 at 05:25 PM.
Why shouldn't dirty old men be allowed to watch such encounters? Why can't someone watch a video of a perfectly legal act if they want to, and the people on the video don't mind?
what does that mean?Bigot much?
That is the problem with moral relativism... is is degradative by nature.
I don't follow what you're saying. I was wondering why you called me a bigot. Is there another source of morality other than religion and MR?
Martyrs get virgins, God took a virgin, degradation started from the beginning, apparently. Religion teaches to take them young and innocent.
Well it looks like it's settled. If there are no good arguments from religion or human reason then adolescent porn is clearly a fundamental human right.
Except, you're a dumbass. The legal age for military and porn is 18, so there goes your notre dumb logic.
dude i was watching tyra banks show a couple nights ago and they had this pale ass brunette: 18, fresh, well, visually fresh, and she was talking about how she did porno as a living for almost a year, pure anal and gangbangs up to 12 guys, all holes
she was 18 i saidddd
Stuff like this can seem disgustingly odd and immoral or not, it depends on which region you live in in the world; we are all so seperated in terms of our practices, customs, habits, and beliefs. Most of our differences stem from diverse geography. plate tectonics.
As an American though, it makes me say
^That's moral relativism - saying that actions and customs are okay in one part of the world but not in another. It's basically an eithical system based on popular vote. If you believe in MR then you can't believe that there are things that are universally right and universally wrong.
Last edited by BradLohaus; 02-21-2007 at 12:27 AM.
I am for moral relvatism except for one thing: a general, world encompassing moral rule in which definitive regional/social bounderies are set--keeping radical beliefs , terrorism within them.
I see what you're saying - live and let live when it comes to countries defining their ethical code. I certainly wouldn't want the U.S. invading a country because they allow 14 year olds to be in porn, or another country invading us because we allow 18 year olds to be in porn.
But is allowing 14 year olds to participate in porn fundamentally wrong or not? You can argue that it is fundamentally right (as in "a right"), or fundamentally wrong, or you can take the moral relativist position, which is that it isn't even a question because there are no fundamental rights and wrongs, so it is up to a vote of the people or legislature of the region. But it is one of the 3.
What I meant by that is that if you are saying that something is fundamentally right or wrong then I can't see how you can say that either way unless you break it down to, "because God says so". That phrase works well for a moral code as long as a solid majority in a governed region believes it. But as soon as that phrase is rejected as insufficient, then morality is basically created by voting, either by the population or its law making representatives.When the moral order based upon a common religious belief breaks down in a society all they are left with is moral relativism anyway.
Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_ethics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_care
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practical_ethics
These are the only real ethics, for they are based on reason alone and not human biases and cultural niches.
I doubt any person can separate "reason" from their biases and cultural niches.These are the only real ethics, for they are based on reason alone and not human biases and cultural niches
Also, I didn't expect someone to offer ideas such as utilitarianism and Peter Singer's thoughts as serious moral codes.
Moral codes that are accepted on human reason are still accepted by voting, because each individaul votes on his own reasoning. If only John Stuart Mill thought that utilitarianism was reasonable than no one would care much about it. It took a number of people believing it was reasonable (and I don't know how, because it makes slavery ethical under certain cir stances) to make it relavent, which is nothing more than saying, "utilitarianism (or any of those links) is a good ethical system because X number of us people believe it for ________ reasons."
That is why religion based morality is superior to so-called "reason" based morality. Religion based morality offers fundamental truths as the underlying concept of morality, therefor it is unchanging no matter how many believe in it. "Reason" based morality is nothing more than a better sounding word for voting because it changes with people's opinions.
Religion based morality would in fact say that something is right or wrong, reasonable or unreasonable, no matter how many believe in it, because reason and "right and wrong" come from God. "Reason" based morality can't say this because it attempts to create morality without God, i.e the creator of morality. Without God there can be no fundamental "rights", because there is no fundamental "reason". And I didn't come up with this.
Note that they didn't say, "We can tell this is true because of reason." or "We took a vote and decided that..." Those statements don't hold much water. Instead they basically said, "It's obvious that God has given mankind a moral code that our current government isn't following." It's also self-evident why the DOI is held in a higher regard than utilitarianism or any of the other so-called "reason" based codes above.
Last edited by BradLohaus; 02-21-2007 at 04:19 AM.
The inherent decay of moral relativism is the primary reason why a belief in absolute truth for mankind is necessary.
GOD is absolute TRUTH.
Thus... and I've stated this on other threads before... any search for TRUTH should always lead to GOD. However, when we juxtapose our own desires above GOD's and lean on our own wisdom we will usually end up walking down a path that opposes GOD's will for our lives.
The key language here is "to be made and kept for personal use." I would assume this still prohibits the sale or distribution of the videos.
So along the lines of what BradLohaus is saying... If you have an issue with this, it's more likely the age of consent that you have a problem with, not the legalization of making a video.
What is the "inherent decay" of moral relativism?
And, in searching for truth in anything, why are we led to God?
You can't just say stuff like that without giving a reason.
age of consent is the problem. but standards change, as cultures change. america has been lowering its standards for what is considered to be explicit/exploitative since the early 19th century. There is potential for us to not look at this as disgusting, as we do now, 10, 20, or 30 years from now.
Just look at how most of the countries in the middle east look at our culture.
Last edited by Ronaldo McDonald; 02-21-2007 at 06:20 PM.
Decay = progressively gets worse.
Inherent because man's nature is selfish.
We are led to GOD because he placed an innate desire within us the day we were created - an inner yearning to find completeness in HIM. Some find HIM and establish the spiritual connection we were meant to have with GOD - the rest reject HIM and fail to find true peace.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 02-21-2007 at 06:31 PM.
"The rest reject HIM and fail to find true peace".
That is just an opinion.
And, who created God?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
