[Victoribus Spolia]

I did not ask a question. I made a statement.

My bad, I mistook pompous presumption with the interrogative mood. Sometimes I set my standards too high in giving people the benefit of the doubt.

But this is the problem with your morality: rape is fine, and people are worth less than eggs.

Yeah, i'm sure if we accept your undoubtedly leftist definition of rape where you can't even look at a woman without her express verbal permission, then you're right: i'm pro-rape

Besides, you said they were embryos and not mere eggs, so yes, if I had to choose between hundreds of children v. one person, I would save the hundreds of children. If you wouldn't, that is just fucked up and that is the problem with your morality: It is indicative of a nihilistic ethic of death and represents why the west is in decline.

[Pants-of-dog]

My bad, I mistook pompous presumption with the interrogative mood. Sometimes I set my standards too high in giving people the benefit of the doubt.

You spend a lot of time thinking about and writing these little petty insults.

Yeah, i'm sure if we accept your undoubtedly leftist definition of rape where you can't even look at a woman without her express verbal permission, then you're right: i'm pro-rape

Feel free to laugh at that strawman.

Back on topic, your argument supports a man's right to rape his wife during ovulation.

Now suppose a man tried to impregnate an ovulating woman who was not his wife, and she doesn't consent. Is she still guilty of murder if she doesn't let him rape her?

Besides, you said they were embryos and not mere eggs, so yes, if I had to choose between hundreds of children v. one person, I would save the hundreds of children. If you wouldn't, that is just fucked up and that is the problem with your morality: It is indicative of a nihilistic ethic of death and represents why the west is in decline.

If you wish to believe that saving your wife's life (i.e. what I would do in that scenario) is a nihilistic ethic of death, go ahead.

Also, you previously argued that Latinos such as I are not part of the west.

[Victoribus Spolia]

You spend a lot of time thinking about and writing these little petty insults.

No, it really takes no time at all. When it comes to you my friend, its almost a reflex.

Feel free to laugh at that strawman.

Back on topic, your argument supports a man's right to rape his wife during ovulation.

Well, if your awe-inspiring powers of discernment have prevented you from seeing the obvious satire and hyperbole in that description, then I can see how you would have concluded it as an attempted straw-man.

Regarding the topic at hand: I suppose that depends on how you define rape? (See: here's your opportunity to dispell any suspicion of your holding to a counter-intuitive definition of that crime).

Now suppose a man tried to impregnate an ovulating woman who was not his wife, and she doesn't consent. Is she still guilty of murder if she doesn't let him rape her?

I actually addressed a similar issue in my response to Boycey: If strict monogamy is not followed, regardless of consent, is disrupts the universal sex ratio of 1:1 thus creating a net increase in potential-person destroying, not a net decrease. So, I would say for a man to have sex with women other than his wife is automatically immoral.

If you wish to believe that saving your wife's life (i.e. what I would do in that scenario) is a nihilistic ethic of death, go ahead.

Will do.

Also, you previously argued that Latinos such as I are not part of the west.

And you argued that they should be because they had much in common

Obviously poor moral judgments could be one such commonality.

[Pants-of-dog]

Regarding the topic at hand: I suppose that depends on how you define rape? (See: here's your opportunity to dispell any suspicion of your holding to a counter-intuitive definition of that crime).

We are discussing procreative sex. Thus, we are obviously discussing penetrative intercourse between a man and a woman. Thus, doing this without consent is how we are defining rape in this thread.

I actually addressed a similar issue in my response to Boycey: If strict monogamy is not followed, regardless of consent, is disrupts the universal sex ratio of 1:1 thus creating a net increase in potential-person destroying, not a net decrease. So, I would say for a man to have sex with women other than his wife is automatically immoral.

That does not answer my question. His immoral act of having sex with another woman is only pertinent if we are discussing his behaviour.

I asked if she was being immoral and was guilty of murder if she refused to be raped.

After you answer that question, we can look at his morality.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Thus, doing this without consent is how we are defining rape in this thread.

What do you mean by: "without consent."

I asked if she was being immoral and was guilty of murder if she refused to be raped.

No, because she can conceive by other means with her own husband/different man etc, there is no reason to let herself be raped in the this context by someone else's husband.

Likewise, his actions are relevant to both of them. A married man who attempts to procreate with other women other than his own wife increases, rather than decreases, the destruction of potential children, thus his actions are immoral if such is immoral. Likewise, if she consents to be raped (oxymoron?); she would be complicit in his act that ultimately increases the destruction of potential life.

The reason is, as I said, because the universal sex ratio is 1:1.

Here was my response to Boycey explaining this:

Hope this helps explain the position.

3. Your Argument in Sum: "Blowing Your Load In Your Wife's Mouth Is Potential Person Destroying Because, Even if Your Wife Were Not Fertile At The Time, There Are Other Women Who Are Fertile and Your Closing Off of The Circumstances With The Social Institution of Marriage is Arbitrary."

[Quick Note]: I am going to give you the benefit-of-the-doubt, that this is your actual argument, for if it is, it might be the first valid point that addresses something that is not preemptively addressed in the OP. I hope so, because it would mean you are the first one to levy an argument that actually needed to be addressed by my position that was not done so preemptively. Which would be fucking fantastic (finally someone has made a worthy challenge!!!)

My Response In Two Parts, Following An Introductory Preface:

Preface:

If this is, in fact, your argument, it points out that the narrowing of the context of circumstantial actualization to include social constraints (such as marriage) is arbitrary. This challenges one of the assumptions of the OP in a way its preemptive clarifications and definitions cannot sufficiently answer. Which is still fine (meaning that even if your objection were valid it would not affect the actual syllogism), as an argument is meant only to make a claim based on careful reasoning and not necessarily to include in it a possible defense to every possible objection, only to be sufficiently clear as to prevent objections that stem from misunderstanding or poor definitions (which so far, all such objections on this thread until now have been insubstantial and based solely on ignorance of syllogistic logic, not reading the argument through, or emotional appeals).

So, why is it an appropriate assumption to constrain the circumstance of actualization in the context of marriage? Could not a potential life still arise when one's wife was on the rag given that their are (presumably) other women who would be fertile outside the context of your marriage that could conceive an actual person with you? Thus, if you blow your load in your wife's mouth when she is pregnant or on the rag, would not that still be potential person destroying as you could have conceived with women other than your wife?

Here is why the social constraint of marriage is applicable as a condition of circumstantial actualization:

3A. Given that this argument is designed to be a starting point in discussing matters pertaining to ethics, it would seem that you are pointing out that a person who believes potential person destroying is murder would never be able to constrain himself to marriage (the implicit assertion of your argument), and thus must conceive with multiple women to the best of his ability to prevent potential-person-destroying and therefore actual-person-destroying.

HOWEVER, if this is the case, then by conceiving with multiple women, lets say, at a man-woman sex ratio of 1-4 on average, there would be a corresponding case of other men who would not be able to conceive with women at all and be forced to destroy potential-persons via masturbation, deviant sexuality, or prolonged and forced abstinence. This is because, the human sex ratio is, all-things-being-equal, universally: 1:1. Violating strict monogamy; therefore, increases, and does not decrease, potential person destroying and should be avoided if such is morally wrong.

3B. The biological and social constraints in my circumstances are not contradictory, for if we allow conceiving with multiple women, the overall destruction of potential persons is increased, not decreased, as the biological sex ratio of 1:1 is displaced.

Thus, strict monogamy, guarantees the least amount of willful potential-person destroying; whereas, polygamy and polyamory necessarily increase the amount of potential person-destroying.

This implies; therefore, that blowing my load in my wife's mouth when she cannot conceive is not potential person destroying because the alternative of procreating with multiple women would necessitate potential-person-destroying in some other men by upsetting the sex-ratio for copulation of 1:1. Thus, rationally, monogamy is as much of a biological as it is social constraint of the logical implications of intentionally anti-procreative sexuality. Thus, for reason of argument, it is rationally acceptable to say that when my wife is unable to conceive no potential person, logically, exists at that time, functionally it does not, for conceiving with other women is neither practically nor logically a viable alternative as it does not in reality actualize life overall, but overall decreases the actualization of life because by creating a disruption of the human sex ration, such actions are De Facto a net destroying of life.

Thus, if every man has his own wife, all things being equal, the least amount of potential-person-destroying is guaranteed, and potentially none so long as the social constraint of the circumstances of actualization are accepted.

Thus, the limiting of the circumstances of actualization to times of fertility in a monogamous marriage in the OP is entirely justified, and blowing my load in my wife's mouth while she is on the rag is permissible under my moral system, for I am working to maximize the most potential life possible in Net Terms.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, because she can conceive by other means with her own husband/different man etc, there is no reason to let herself be raped in the this context by someone else's husband.

Let us assume she is unmarried or her husband is away.

It is weird and interesting that she commits murder if she does not let herself be raped by her husband, but it is not murder if she does not let herself be raped by a stranger.

Are they not potential people outside of matrimony? Does marriage change how logic and biology work?

Likewise, his actions are relevant to both of them. A married man who attempts to procreate with other women other than his own wife increases, rather than decreases, the destruction of potential children, thus his actions are immoral if such is immoral. Likewise, if she consents to be raped (oxymoron?); she would be complicit in his act that ultimately increases the destruction of potential life.

The reason is, as I said, because the universal sex ratio is 1:1.

Here was my response to Boycey explaining this:

Hope this helps explain the position.

3. Your Argument in Sum: "Blowing Your Load In Your Wife's Mouth Is Potential Person Destroying Because, Even if Your Wife Were Not Fertile At The Time, There Are Other Women Who Are Fertile and Your Closing Off of The Circumstances With The Social Institution of Marriage is Arbitrary."

[Quick Note]: I am going to give you the benefit-of-the-doubt, that this is your actual argument, for if it is, it might be the first valid point that addresses something that is not preemptively addressed in the OP. I hope so, because it would mean you are the first one to levy an argument that actually needed to be addressed by my position that was not done so preemptively. Which would be fucking fantastic (finally someone has made a worthy challenge!!!)

My Response In Two Parts, Following An Introductory Preface:

Preface:

If this is, in fact, your argument, it points out that the narrowing of the context of circumstantial actualization to include social constraints (such as marriage) is arbitrary. This challenges one of the assumptions of the OP in a way its preemptive clarifications and definitions cannot sufficiently answer. Which is still fine (meaning that even if your objection were valid it would not affect the actual syllogism), as an argument is meant only to make a claim based on careful reasoning and not necessarily to include in it a possible defense to every possible objection, only to be sufficiently clear as to prevent objections that stem from misunderstanding or poor definitions (which so far, all such objections on this thread until now have been insubstantial and based solely on ignorance of syllogistic logic, not reading the argument through, or emotional appeals).

So, why is it an appropriate assumption to constrain the circumstance of actualization in the context of marriage? Could not a potential life still arise when one's wife was on the rag given that their are (presumably) other women who would be fertile outside the context of your marriage that could conceive an actual person with you? Thus, if you blow your load in your wife's mouth when she is pregnant or on the rag, would not that still be potential person destroying as you could have conceived with women other than your wife?

Here is why the social constraint of marriage is applicable as a condition of circumstantial actualization:

3A. Given that this argument is designed to be a starting point in discussing matters pertaining to ethics, it would seem that you are pointing out that a person who believes potential person destroying is murder would never be able to constrain himself to marriage (the implicit assertion of your argument), and thus must conceive with multiple women to the best of his ability to prevent potential-person-destroying and therefore actual-person-destroying.

HOWEVER, if this is the case, then by conceiving with multiple women, lets say, at a man-woman sex ratio of 1-4 on average, there would be a corresponding case of other men who would not be able to conceive with women at all and be forced to destroy potential-persons via masturbation, deviant sexuality, or prolonged and forced abstinence. This is because, the human sex ratio is, all-things-being-equal, universally: 1:1. Violating strict monogamy; therefore, increases, and does not decrease, potential person destroying and should be avoided if such is morally wrong.

3B. The biological and social constraints in my circumstances are not contradictory, for if we allow conceiving with multiple women, the overall destruction of potential persons is increased, not decreased, as the biological sex ratio of 1:1 is displaced.

Thus, strict monogamy, guarantees the least amount of willful potential-person destroying; whereas, polygamy and polyamory necessarily increase the amount of potential person-destroying.

This implies; therefore, that blowing my load in my wife's mouth when she cannot conceive is not potential person destroying because the alternative of procreating with multiple women would necessitate potential-person-destroying in some other men by upsetting the sex-ratio for copulation of 1:1. Thus, rationally, monogamy is as much of a biological as it is social constraint of the logical implications of intentionally anti-procreative sexuality. Thus, for reason of argument, it is rationally acceptable to say that when my wife is unable to conceive no potential person, logically, exists at that time, functionally it does not, for conceiving with other women is neither practically nor logically a viable alternative as it does not in reality actualize life overall, but overall decreases the actualization of life because by creating a disruption of the human sex ration, such actions are De Facto a net destroying of life.

Thus, if every man has his own wife, all things being equal, the least amount of potential-person-destroying is guaranteed, and potentially none so long as the social constraint of the circumstances of actualization are accepted.

Thus, the limiting of the circumstances of actualization to times of fertility in a monogamous marriage in the OP is entirely justified, and blowing my load in my wife's mouth while she is on the rag is permissible under my moral system, for I am working to maximize the most potential life possible in Net Terms.

Let us assume he is also not married or his wife is away.

After all, these are just special and weird situations that do not change the fact that they are avoiding that sexual.contact that would reault in people, all things being equal.

[Hindsite]

You can't ruin the Truth. Praise The Lord.

You Can't Handle the Truth

[ingliz]

Matthew 19:28

I can quote Luke in support of my argument.

[A]s my Father appointed a kingdom for me, so do I appoint for you that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you (Gr.—humas, plural—“you all”), that he might sift you (Gr.—plural again) like wheat, but I have prayed for you (Gr.—sou, singular—Peter alone) that your faith (Gr.—singular again) may not fail; and when you (Gr.—singular) have turned again, strengthen your brethren.

Luke 22:29-32

And John.

“I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me—

John 10:14

And I have other sheep that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, and one shepherd

John 10:16

Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”

He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”

John 21:16

Jesus the shepherd in John 10:14 commands Peter to be the shepherd of John 10:16 to shepherd the entire people of God.

How many of the sheep belong to Jesus?

All of them.

How many of his sheep did Jesus give to St. Peter to shepherd?

All of them.

[Victoribus Spolia]

It is weird and interesting that she commits murder if she does not let herself be raped by her husband, but it is not murder if she does not let herself be raped by a stranger.

Are they not potential people outside of matrimony? Does marriage change how logic and biology work?

After all, these are just special and weird situations that do not change the fact that they are avoiding that sexual.contact that would reault in people, all things being equal.

The social circumstance of marriage, which was actually mentioned in the OP, if followed in strict monogamous form, and followed at a universal level, would have serious biological implications, so there is a relationship between the two.

Once again, the non-practice of contraception would only maximize the actualization of life if strict monogamy were followed, for only such, could guarantee the universal sex ratio (a mystery of science) of 1:1. Polygamy and polyamory, cause more anti-procreative sex if followed, and married men having affairs or raping other women amount to the same logical consequence as polygamy and polyamory as far as the sex ratio is concerned. As is explained in the section quoted.

Let us assume she is unmarried

Let us assume he is also not married

Hmmmm, I think this the same situation as with abortion and is a silly example when you think about it. You are creating an oxymoronic concept of "consenting to rape," What the fuck does that even mean? Rape is not necessary to actualize potential life, but if it happens (as terrible as that is), i do not think the woman should abort (morally speaking); however, for single men and single women, monogomous marriage, early in life, is essential so that the legal actualization of life, contractually upheld, will be efficiently maximized both by maintaining the sex ratio and by the stable social institution that typically guarantees safety and provision for actualized offspring.

Rape is impulsive and gives no security or provision, it can be refused, because no single woman is obligated to mate with that particular man in order to guarantee life, as she is single (the same goes for him). Refusing him is not a refusal of life, because she could consent to the other guys she met at the party, etc.

I can quote Luke in support of my argument.

[A]s my Father appointed a kingdom for me, so do I appoint for you that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you (Gr.—humas, plural—“you all”), that he might sift you (Gr.—plural again) like wheat, but I have prayed for you (Gr.—sou, singular—Peter alone) that your faith (Gr.—singular again) may not fail; and when you (Gr.—singular) have turned again, strengthen your brethren.

Luke 22:29-32

And John.

“I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me—

John 10:14

And I have other sheep that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, and one shepherd

John 10:16

Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”

He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”

John 21:16

Jesus the shepherd in John 10:14 commands Peter to be the shepherd of John 10:16 to shepherd the entire people of God.

How many of the sheep belong to Jesus?

All of them.

How many of his sheep did Jesus give to St. Peter to shepherd?

All of them.

1. How do these texts prove papal infallibility and unique, absolute, and universal authority exclusively to the Bishop of Rome? And Not Just Primacy, As I Fully Support?

2. If all the sheep were given to St. Peter alone, were the other Bishoprics that did not acknowledge absolute authority in the pope, necessarily outside of Christ?

3. If St. Peter was given primacy by Christ, which I have no problem with, and the linear successors deny the faith by heresy, how can they still be said to be executing the office of Christ given the words you quoted: "but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren."

4. Also, how does it follow that if Christ asks Peter to watch His sheep, that now St. Peter replaces Christ as the one Shepherd?

5. You never answered the other objections made to your textual usage, or the historical examples.

[ingliz]

papal infallibility and unique, absolute, and universal authority

"When the Spirit of truth comes He will guide you to all truth"

John 16:13

"Whoever listens to you, listens to me"

Luke 10:16

"whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Matthew 16:19

"Roma locuta; causa finita est"

Augustine

outside of Christ?

No

Protestants are Christians, according to both Trent and Vatican II.

As they are still brothers in Christ due to their valid baptisms, which is the entrance rite into the Church and Body of Christ, "it is most important that our separated brethren be led back to the unity of the Church and that non-Catholics be convinced of and delivered from their errors*".


* Pope Pius XI, Encyclical, Rerum Ecclesiae; On Catholic Missions, 8 February 1926

how does it follow that ...

Note: The Greek word for "tend," poimanao, means "to rule." The same Greek word is used in Matt 2:6, Rev 2:27, 12:5, and 19:15, where it is applied to Jesus himself.

[Pants-of-dog]

The social circumstance of marriage, which was actually mentioned in the OP, if followed in strict monogamous form, and followed at a universal level, would have serious biological implications, so there is a relationship between the two.

Once again, the non-practice of contraception would only maximize the actualization of life if strict monogamy were followed, for only such, could guarantee the universal sex ratio (a mystery of science) of 1:1. Polygamy and polyamory, cause more anti-procreative sex if followed, and married men having affairs or raping other women amount to the same logical consequence as polygamy and polyamory as far as the sex ratio is concerned. As is explained in the section quoted.

I disagree.

I think that procreative sex leads to people being fertilised even if they are not married.

Hmmmm, I think this the same situation as with abortion and is a silly example when you think about it. You are creating an oxymoronic concept of "consenting to rape," What the fuck does that even mean? Rape is not necessary to actualize potential life, but if it happens (as terrible as that is), i do not think the woman should abort (morally speaking); however, for single men and single women, monogomous marriage, early in life, is essential so that the legal actualization of life, contractually upheld, will be efficiently maximized both by maintaining the sex ratio and by the stable social institution that typically guarantees safety and provision for actualized offspring.

Rape is impulsive and gives no security or provision, it can be refused, because no single woman is obligated to mate with that particular man in order to guarantee life, as she is single (the same goes for him). Refusing him is not a refusal of life, because she could consent to the other guys she met at the party, etc.

But she would be obligated to mate with a man if she was ovulating, or she would be murdering someone.

And if she does not want to mate with any guys, should she be forced to in order to save the life of the imaginary person?

Also, what if a woman does not want to marry? She could be murdering dozens of imaginary people. Should she be forced to marry?

[jessupjonesjnr87]

Post conception contraception is murder.

Sperm and eggs are not people, but when they combine to make a human is when the murder happens.

It's a very straight forward argument. Life starts after conception. Taking human life is murder. The question is not whether it is murder or not, the question is whether you think murder in this circumstance is ethical.

Personally I dont.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I think that procreative sex leads to people being fertilised even if they are not married.

How does my quote imply otherwise, that is not the point I am making, my point is that polyamory creates a net increase in potential person destroying.

But she would be obligated to mate with a man if she was ovulating, or she would be murdering someone.

And if she does not want to mate with any guys, should she be forced to in order to save the life of the imaginary person?

Also, what if a woman does not want to marry? She could be murdering dozens of imaginary people. Should she be forced to marry?

Actually, as I argue in the OP, ovulation is passive, not active, so the potential person destroying occurs when the man misuses his seed when conception was theoretically possible, a woman can therefore only be complicit in such acts by refusing sexual relations when they were possible.

I believe the age of marriage should be dramatically lowered for these reasons. I also believe in arranged marriage to help guarantee such outcomes for the exact reasons you cite. Ultimately, I believe as a societal principle, every man should have his own wife and every woman should have her own husband; as a general rule. This guarantees the least amount of potential person destroying at the societal level.

So should young women all be compelled to marry. Yes.

The exceptions I give for abortion are the same I would give for marriage/procreation.

[Pants-of-dog]

How does my quote imply otherwise, that is not the point I am making, my point is that polyamory creates a net increase in potential person destroying.

I disagree.

More opportunities for pregnancy will increase the number of pregnancies, all things being equal.

Actually, as I argue in the OP, ovulation is passive, not active, so the potential person destroying occurs when the man misuses his seed when conception was theoretically possible, a woman can therefore only be complicit in such acts by refusing sexual relations when they were possible.

Your religious belief giving sperm and eggs different qualities based on traditional notions of masculine and feminine is noted, but is neither logical nor biological.

I believe the age of marriage should be dramatically lowered for these reasons. I also believe in arranged marriage to help guarantee such outcomes for the exact reasons you cite. Ultimately, I believe as a societal principle, every man should have his own wife and every woman should have her own husband; as a general rule. This guarantees the least amount of potential person destroying at the societal level.

So should young women all be compelled to marry. Yes.

The exceptions I give for abortion are the same I would give for marriage/procreation.

Because I do not want to see you banned from PoFo, we should stop here.

This is inexorably leading to a discussion where you defend marrying off 13 year old girls to older men regardless of consent. This is close enough to pedophilia that you will have to deal with negative consequences from the moderators and admin.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I disagree.

More opportunities for pregnancy will increase the number of pregnancies, all things being equal.

Your disagreement, which is not an argument, is noted.

If all of the women are impregnated by only a few men (lets say a ratio of 1:4), the men who do not have immediate access to these females, are in a constant state of potential person destroying either through their abstinence when some of these women were theoretically impregnable by them and not merely the one male that possesses them, or anytime they masturbate or engage in alternative sexual practices (i.e. homosexuality, bestiality, etc).

Thus, a disruption of the universal sex ration of 1:1, that can only be guarantee through monogamous marriage or its equivalent, causes a net increase in potential person-destroying as it displaces more males from being able to secure mates that could otherwise be impregnated by them.

Your religious belief giving sperm and eggs different qualities based on traditional notions of masculine and feminine is noted, but is neither logical nor biological.

The imputation of traditional motivations in this distinction falls under the fallacy of presumption, in a response made earlier in the thread to Ingliz I explained the logic of the distinction. Therefore it is a logical distinction.

Because I do not want to see you banned from PoFo, we should stop here.

This is inexorably leading to a discussion where you defend marrying off 13 year old girls to older men regardless of consent. This is close enough to pedophilia that you will have to deal with negative consequences from the moderators and admin.

Hopefully that is an overreaction, I am not advocating anyone to break the current laws, nor am I defending pedophilia where adults sexually molest children. I am merely discussing what the legal age for marriage should be between sexually mature human beings. Different countries and different religions have different definitions of this and it is a worthy topic.

If you are uncomfortable with this topic, I am willing to end the conversation here. I have read the forum rules where it discusses "pedophilia" and I do not think this conversation is at any red-lines, but I am willing to have a moderator review it.

[Pants-of-dog]

Your disagreement, which is not an argument, is noted.

If all of the women are impregnated by only a few men (lets say a ratio of 1:4), the men who do not have immediate access to these females, are in a constant state of potential person destroying either through their abstinence when some of these women were theoretically impregnable by them and not merely the one male that possesses them, or anytime they masturbate or engage in alternative sexual practices (i.e. homosexuality, bestiality, etc).

Thus, a disruption of the universal sex ration of 1:1, that can only be guarantee through monogamous marriage or its equivalent, causes a net increase in potential person-destroying as it displaces more males from being able to secure mates that could otherwise be impregnated by them.

This has nothing to do with the scenario I described.

The imputation of traditional motivations in this distinction falls under the fallacy of presumption, in a response made earlier in the thread to Ingliz I explained the logic of the distinction. Therefore it is a logical distinction.

So women cannot be responsible for murder by destroying potential people?

Hopefully that is an overreaction, I am not advocating anyone to break the current laws, nor am I defending pedophilia where adults sexually molest children. I am merely discussing what the legal age for marriage should be between sexually mature human beings. Different countries and different religions have different definitions of this and it is a worthy topic.

If you are uncomfortable with this topic, I am willing to end the conversation here. I have read the forum rules where it discusses "pedophilia" and I do not think this conversation is at any red-lines, but I am willing to have a moderator review it.

Should girls be forced to marry as soon as they start menstruating? Yes or no?

Edit: I just saw your thread where you asked the mods about it. I will drop this if that is what they decide is best.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Edit: I just saw your thread where you asked the mods about it. I will drop this if that is what they decide is best.

Yeah, TIG thinks we should drop it as precaution, not because he feels we have actually crossed any lines, He acknowledges all of this as hypothetical and theoretical, but there were legal issues with PoFo in the past and thinks we should leave it be.

It was good fun though, thanks for the enjoyable debate. Godspeed.

I will be crossing swords with you in the future.

[Pants-of-dog]

Have a good one.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Have a good one.

You Too

[Kaiserschmarrn]

If we deliberately prevent conception of the last male and female specimen of an endangered species, have we not actively destroyed the species?

Should conservation efforts not include eggs of endangered birds because they are just eggs?