[deleted]

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 3 2018, 5:27 am by DavidJCobb.

However, there may not be anything to hide. BeDazed was saying this essentially; psychopaths may not emulate the normal human response. They are the exception to the rule, I would say, but still worthy of consideration. Whereas a normal human might feel guilty about bashing a baby's brain into little pieces, a psychopath might look on it the same way he/she looks on breaking a vase, or some other inanimate object. When asked whether he or she killed someone, there might be no subconscious material to hide, having never been present at all, an hence no twitch of the eye or anything.

I think BeDazed was trying simply to refute your claim that all people are born with some sense of morality though. In general I would agree, though that may be a product of the social system and not necessarily an innate genetic feature. Or it could be, who knows? But there are certainly exceptions, like psychopaths.

Ah, but I noted that the eye thing, for example, can also reveal if someone's remembering an image or imagining one. Like, if they glance in this direction, they're remembering, but if they glance in that direction, then they're imagining and therefore lying. Or something like that. Tells don't necessarily reveal emotion -- some can directly reveal a person's neurological processes, including even a guiltless lie.

They made a good point, as have you.

I felt this needed to revived based off a little discussion I had with Ultimo.
He said I shouldn't be telling things related to my sexual life and I asked why. Seriously, is there really a rational argument that can prove that I shouldn't be saying such things? I am basing my thoughts off the fact that 'Morality' isn't something we all have when we get born. In fact, I believe Morality is part of the culture and who says culture says society. Thus, the morality directly comes from the living in society. I myself always thought that morality was something truly irrational and that despite the fact that it makes our society works well, there shouldn't be such cases about things like telling anyone you just made love to a girl while a certain song was playing or that you jacked off reading some story. I consider such acts as normal and they really shouldn't be censored at all. Sex is part of our lives and, as I believe, we are all animals before being humans.
I do think that when we drink alcohol, there is some kind of pure state of being that comes from us, our 'animal' part. This part doesn't have any moral restriction and really just do what he really wants. I also believe that anything we have done while drunk, we never really regret it because it was truly what you wanted at this time. So let's say you cheat no your wife that night (when you drank too much), I think we can say that you've always wanted to cheat on her, even thought when fully conscientious you always wanted to be true to her.

This all may be a bit confused, I haven't read myself again and it was really just a threw-off of something that came in my head.
To be more in-context, could someone answer this: In what way would showing sexual content to a child would affect him? I always thought that a baby raised through a nudist family would just be even more comfortable in society and with anything relate to the love. And same thing with seeing vaginas or penis on the screen. Why the hell should that perturb children?

EDIT: http://www.staredit.net/?p=shoutbox&view=687

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Jan 7 2010, 9:21 pm by payne. Reason: Fixed typo.

I think that only applies to individuals who have no sense of self-awareness, at least in my opinion. Because as a person, I am never forced to be held responsible for my actions, I accept the responsibility of what I've done and what I am doing..Of course, this only came about through many life experiences.


Alcohol poisons the mind and makes you act irrationally..In my opinion, there is no 'pure state of being' that comes from ingesting Alcohol, but more-so a state of dehydrating your body, poisoning your brain which results in losing cognitive abilities and destroying your brain slowly over prolonged Alcohol use/abuse. Its not about 'moral restriction' in that scenario, but more about how you've lost your ability to think clearly, due to poisoning yourself with Ethanol. I do agree with you on the cheating on your wife thing because anyone who is going to want to do it, will. But I feel it only happens while under the effects of Ethanol, because Ethanol destroys your cognitive abilities..So I wouldn't think of it as Alcohol helping you do what you want, but helping destroy your cognitive abilities of the brain to make it so you can't think as clearly and think of the consequences of your action/s. Of course, these are simply my opinions backed by facts about Ethanol and the fact that I have a high dislike for Alcohol cause it tastes like crap.

Well, children minds are like sponges. They soak up any and everything. I don't think that showing pornography to a child is a good thing. I am not apposed to teaching children about the human body though, through ways such as nudity. Its just some things aren't meant for children..Such as pornography and sexuality/lust. I don't think its wise to let children watch pornography because its an industry meant to make money off of sexual exploitation of attention whores (no pun intended) and to give a rise to creating sexual stimulation...Something children shouldn't be worrying about at such a young age.

In my honest opinion, Societies Morals were created to scare religious folk into following them, or being damned to hell for eternity... Personal Morals can often give insight to ones character.

For example: I think its perfectly fine to experiment/partake in the ingestion of certain substances that have been placed on this earth. Others find that 'immoral' and 'wrong', based off of their own personal perceptions and understanding of things. If someone who is highly religious tells me I'm a 'bad person' or that I'm 'doing something wrong' because I like to partake in the expansion of my consciousness and that expansion so happens to go against their Morals they learned from Religion (which in turn, they have adopted as their own personal morals), I usually shrug what they're saying off, and continue on with my expansion; therefore, my personal moral could be deemed 'bad' in the eyes of another based from their subjective perception.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that in my opinion, Morality is subjective perceptions of the individual gained through personal experience and brought on by the environment they were brought up in. I don't find anything wrong or 'immoral' about Gangbang Bukakkes but other people do so..

This began as an answer to one of your questions, but I think it got too far off topic to really be considered an answer. Instead I'll ask my own question and answer it.
When should someone be punished for doing something immoral? (Immoral being the key, as who defines immorality?)

NEVER.
This is not to say punishment should never be enacted. On the contrary, the punishment is no longer stayed on the grounds of immorality. However, when there is no act to be punished, there is no reason to punish. Thus immoral acts are willed only by those who are able to do so. Conclusively, the punishment by the strongest body, unaccountable for it's actions, becomes near absolute.

Obviously this indicates that there must be some form of judgment on actions.

ALWAYS.
This is to say that people are always held accountable for any immoral action, resulting in punishment. This raises the question of who judges such acts as immoral, as the force acting as a punisher must also be held accountable for it's actions. Thus every act must be judged by a farther test of immorality, resulting in some action that must again be judged. At some point there will exist either one judge that acts without repercussion, or a standstill. As the number of judging entities is finite, such a standstill would require a sequence of judging bodies to be cyclic. Such a setup could be utilized by any one body to act in the same manner as the NEVER scenario, where any individual or group could justify it's actions ad infinitum.

Obviously this means that not everything should not be a judge for everything else.

ACCORDING TO ORDERS
In our society (america), we have simply enacted a barrier against those who have abilities to judge others. In most cases it is the infallible laws that are unable to be questioned and therefor judged. These come in many shapes, from laws, to terms, to traditions, to daddy and mommy said no talking back. However each level of judgment inevitably leads to those which cannot be changed. This still does not mean that an individual will be able to truly see their actions as faulty, and may in fact make the system of judgment seem inhumane at times, as it is uncompassionate towards any ideals held by any individual or group.

Obviously this means either 1: the unquestionable rules are perfect (which is never the case), or 2: there's nothing we can do to stop some faults in such a system.

INDIVIDUALLY
The solution, as I see it, is one where the individual must weigh their own actions, after receiving information about the entirety of the consequences. Only they may be able to correctly judge themselves, and it is only through their own judgment that they will be able to learn from immoral acts. If any one entity punishes another without that individuals agreement, than the punishment will not convince the punished of morality. Granted it is often through punishment that some receive the full weight of their actions consequence, but this not an intrinsic component of punishment.

Most might see this as resulting only in the NEVER scenario, but this is only the case when the individual does not attempt to comprehend the results of their actions, judging themselves with bias. Some may argue that no one can rid an individual of such bias; however, if that is the case, what good is punishment? An individual does not change until it can understand what is wrong.
The problem lies in getting people to think. Sadly, one of the most widely used ways to ensure that an individual thinks about their actions at the moment is to take away all other stimuli. There are other ways to make people think about their actions.

@payne: How does exposing children to sexual content harm them? Apparently it counts as sex abuse. (The linked source, currently #89, is from a US governmental organization.)

Teh wiki also says:
I know a dude who was allowed to watch porn as a kid. They show symptom #2, and from what they've told me (and no, I didn't ask -- the guy loves telling me things I don't want to know) they've had a very difficult time suppressing that.

But would such behaviour happen if it wasn't considered as bad to show sexual content to children?
I mean, they do re-victimize and blabla, but only because they feel bad about what happened. If it was an usual thing, I seriously do not think that there would be such harms.
Moreover, the only fact that the act is not repeated helps the children thinking what he did was wrong, though if it wasn't prohibited, maybe it'd become part of their daily events...

A good example to illustrate this would be nudists: if you raise your child being yourself, nude all the time, and letting the child wear clothe whenever he wants, he would be comfortable with the situation. Though if you do not raise him like that and one day, he sees you naked or I-do-not-know-what, he'd become shy/ashamed of having scene such a 'tabou'.

(I'm not sure what I've said makes sense, tell me if it doesn't).

[deleted]

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 3 2018, 5:35 am by DavidJCobb.

You forgot one supposition: I am saying that, for the purpose of my thoughts, any immoral act has to be considered as moral by everyone.
I never said raping a children was good and wasn't harmful, though I do believe children can actually like the act and find it funny/amusing, why not, if done with respect? (Severe thoughts here, sorry for choking minds >.<)
Now, considering my supposition, think again of your example about the hardcore picture: if the child would then exhibit in the street with subjective postures or I-do-not-know-what, as long as it is accepted by the society, it wouldn't harm anybody.

To break down my point, you'd need to prove me that in absolute terms, sexual content taken independently of any moral consideration and shown to a child is harmful for their development.
I hope you understood me on that last point.

I think payne may be experiencing some difficulty with the language barrier here, so I'll attempt to clarify what he's saying, (and tell me if I'm wrong payne).

His main point is that the psychological damage due to pornographic images and other forms of sexual abuse is due to the fact the child perceives them as bad because society has dictated them to be bad, and not necessarily because there is any inherent evil within the actual image. His reasoning is, that if everyone were raised in some sort of porn society where no one considered porn to be bad, then it would not be abusive to show children pornographic images, since the abuse stems from the perception of the image as bad, or harmful, as dictated by society (their parents, teachers, religious figures, ect).

As for having sex with children, there can be harmful physical side effects and their bodies are not developed yet to be able to properly engage in it, so that's definitely bad.

[deleted]

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 3 2018, 5:40 am by DavidJCobb.

That's perfect.
Thank you very much. (Was I showing -that much- of language difficulties?)
And David, on that last one, I'm not really sure I understood your point. Mind reformulating or something? :S

[deleted]

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 3 2018, 5:40 am by DavidJCobb.

Is this based on Wikipedia's statement or another source?
If the former, then there is the matter of the fact that different forms of sexual abuse likely carry different symptoms - assuming that the entire list of each applies to the entire list of the other seems to be overly simplistic, and so far as I saw, Wikipedia does not state that those two (that form of sexual abuse, and that symptom) relate.
Not necessarily - cigarette addiction and drunkenness, while generally considered distasteful, are also generally socially acceptable to some degree and are, respectively, a compulsion and a loss of cognitive normality.
Based on limited evidence - due to circumstances, these simply could not be properly tested at any reasonable material cost. (and of course, many would argue the moral cost even higher than the material)
(Of course, on the other hand, if there is a recorded chemical or hormonal abnormality in victims of child sexual abuse, it can be inferred, which I would consider to be sufficient basis to make judgment).
Source?
While I wouldn't be surprised if this were genuinely true, I would also be inclined to question it, if lacking good evidence - if, as a psychologist or otherwise, you believed that to be false, how willing would you be to risk highly tarnishing whatever reputation you may have (and thence your career) to say so?

As to the topic on a whole - I don't believe there is any single, hard dividing line of age/maturity at which people suddenly fully "understand" the "wrongness" of something they may be doing, be it vandalism, sex, drugs or whatever. There are numerous factors to one's understanding of anything, and a very wide spectrum of understanding. There are too many consequences to any action for anyone to be fully, perfectly aware of its significance.
Thus, I believe that as age increases, emphasis should gradually shift to punitive response from educational, the particulars of which (how quickly does it shift) should vary based on circumstances, the particular crime, etc. to another. I believe rehabilitory correction is, of course, the ideal, when possible, if not always the most cost- or time-effective.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Mar 12 2010, 11:55 pm by EzDay281.

I've heard about children masturbating themselves around the age of 3 years old... it obviously is a sexual act and they obviously like it. Why wouldn't they be able to appreciate a sexual act coming from someone else ?

How do you link "consent" and "fun" ?
You can appreciate something you do not understand.
If you do not know that drugs are bad for your brain (or even if you know it), you can still appreciate it.

The quote was from Wikipedia. Everything else is from what multiple people that I know have experienced. I'll admit that my evidence is quite limited.

---

And I'm not referring to whether a compulsion is acceptable, I'm referring to whether or not it is desired by those who have it. My arguement is that most people are bothered on some level by their compulsions. The fact that the specific compulsion I'm describing is activated via "bipolar-like switching" implies that the compulsion, when it arises, comes very suddenly, without even the illusion of choice. (Unlike cigarettes or drinking, where the illusion of choice is both possible and common.)

---

As for chemical/horomonal/developmental damage, it's been shown that traumatic stress including that caused by child sexual abuse can lead to actual brain damage. [Wikipedia]

---

Regarding my PTSD statement, here's a quote from Wikipedia. I should note that I had it wrong; I was confusing the mentioned defense mechanism (isolation) for a comment earlier in the article, about how child sexual abuse can lead to PTSD and to dissociative symptoms. Neverless, my point still stands:
Another passage from Wikipedia. [direct link]
(When the article says that the study was critized, it's referring to the study's conclusion that "child sexual abuse does not always cause pervasive harm". The fact "that some college students reported such encounters as positive experiences" was proven through their survey.)

---

And as for your comment on consent... I would say that if something is harmful enough, and if the risks are not understood, then a person isn't fit to consent to it. Would you let an insane man consent to a dangerous activity that he cannot understand, with little to no benefit?

It could be argued that child sexual abuse does far more mental and psychological damage than drugs ever could. Does pot give you PTSD, possible sexual compulsions, and severe emotional, developmental, and neurological trauma -- all at once? I think not. So I would say that children are unfit to consent to sex or drugs, but of the two, they're least capable of consenting to sex. At most a child can functionally understand sexual activity, but they cannot possibly understand, handle, or cope with the related hormonal/emotional/physical/psychological experiences. That, combined with the very-well-proven harm that child sexual abuse causes, IMO proves that children cannot possibly validly consent to sex.

(If anything in this post is unclear, oddly worded, or inarticulately argued, it's because I'm writing at midnight. LMK and I'll explain things during the daytime, when I can think clearer.)

I think what makes all your argumentation so wrong to my eyes is the fact that you forgot my main point:
I do believe all these researches on real, though I am claiming that they are all based off an axiom (considering rape as an immoral act).
Going deeper in my argument, I'd affirm that if it was generally accepted that such sexual behaviours are right, the children would never get any psychological harm. This last statement thus imply the fact that, in my opinion, it is the global acceptance of the immorality of the act that induces harm to the children's mind. (Completely off-subject: Vrael, these commas surrounding 'in my opinion' seems to be optional, am I right?)
I think we could extrapolate my arguments to one simple fact: it is frequently said that if ever a parent sees his child masturbating, it must not make him feel ashamed about it.
... I do not even think I must go on with this (mostly because I am lazy and because it is nearly 2AM), I hope you get the relation between this and the rest of my argumentation.

EDIT: Re-reading your post highlighted your third statement. All I want to add to my argumentation is the fact that I do believe stress causes brain damages, but does the sexual act causes stress ?

[deleted]

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 3 2018, 5:38 am by DavidJCobb.

I think you just proved your point.