|
I think the Bible is a good source for moral guidance but I know I'm in the minority on that so I want to gain some consensus and understanding on some topics of sexual ethics without appealing to religion or sin First , is it immoral / should it be illegal for employees to have sexual relationships with their bosses? Argument: because this type of relationship entails an inherent power imbalance, coercion is too likely and true consent is unacheivable . Your thoughts?
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 12:45 |
|
|
Nice you posted the answer to your question good work
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
I'm just posting a starting argument to get the discussion going
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
I don't know, what does the Bible have to say about it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
scrubs season six posted:I don't know, what does the Bible have to say about it? No you're doing th thread wrong!!
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
i think having sex with your boss leads to beastiality which is good IMO
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
Consent is overrated, imo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
i mean who cares?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
I like when that dude in the bible kills all those kids because they called him bald head. Good moral guidance there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
Leon Einstein posted:I like when that dude in the bible kills all those kids because they called him bald head. Good moral guidance there. very poor reasoning for an einstein
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
dad gay. so what posted:i mean who cares? If we can't agree on the rules of consent people will be marrying robots and jellyfish in no time!!! But seriously though I'm trying to get a consistent understanding of secular logic on this since these days both challenging sexual norms and affirming safe rules of consent are Hot Topics
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:If we can't agree on the rules of consent people will be marrying robots and jellyfish in no time!!! and then what?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:If we can't agree on the rules of consent people will be marrying robots and jellyfish in no time!!! let meknow what you come up with but my guess is that there can be no consensus since we are all sovereign citizens with our own laws
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
dad gay. so what posted:i think having sex with your boss leads to beastiality which is good IMO bosstiality
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
my robotic jellyfish wife (common law) says it's immoral and wrong to have carnal relations with a supervisor but she's old fashioned
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
dad gay. so what posted:let meknow what you come up with but my guess is that there can be no consensus since we are all sovereign citizens with our own laws dgsw when you drive down the highway are you "traveling"? are you your own corporation with the weird capital letters and poo poo? "Dee Gee Ess Double-you, Inc." also the morality of the Bible shouldn't matter since it was made for a bunch of folks living in the desert 3000 years ago
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
You should probably post this same thread like 6 more times 
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
That Robot posted:dgsw when you drive down the highway are you "traveling"? are you your own corporation with the weird capital letters and poo poo? aren't we all just wanderers in a desert though? think about it
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
monogamy is good for society and should be encouraged
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
Consent is a grey area op, not black and white, and therefore is derived from alien morality instead of from Malcolm X.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
it is normal for a 914 year old to have sex with a 14 year old
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
According to the bible God gets to knock up whoever he wants to without even asking. So what's good for the goose is good for the gander, I suppose. Lord Frankenstyle fucked around with this message at 16:00 on Nov 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 15:51
|
|
|
If it ain't immoral it's sure as poo poo stupid
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
It is a very stupid and unprofessional thing to do OP but not really immoral assuming both parties are consenting adults. New thread topic: is it immoral / should it be illegal for Lot's daughters to rape him when he's passed out drunk and then claim god told them to?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
The Bible seems pretty down with slavery, I'm not sure how great it is as a source for moral guidance
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
So from the people actually addressing the thread topic the consensus seems to be that it is unprofessional but not immoral nor should it be illegal despite the inherent power dynamics being problematic. As long as they consent it's cool I guess Next question: should parents be allowed to legally have sex with their children when they reach the age of consent? Certainly this seems icky and gross to the majority of people but to be fair so did homosexuality to most people for thousands of years The arguments for this are the rxact same as the previous question
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:So from the people actually addressing the thread topic the consensus seems to be that it is unprofessional but not immoral nor should it be illegal despite the inherent power dynamics being problematic. Why are you looking for approval to diddle kids?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:So from the people actually addressing the thread topic the consensus seems to be that it is unprofessional but not immoral nor should it be illegal despite the inherent power dynamics being problematic. Oh I see you get us all into a debate so you can justify loving your child. Just like in the bibble.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
Anyone dismisses this as conservative slippery slope nonsense please remember Canada the nation and a liberal paradise legalized beastiality
Commie NedFlanders fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Nov 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
Well in the bible It was just Noah and his family after the flood, so we're already all a little bit from Alabama.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:Anyone dismisses this as conservative slippery slope nonsense please remember this the nation and a liberal paradise legalized beastiality please get help before you hurt someone
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
satanic splash-back posted:Why are you looking for approval to diddle kids? Oh it's quite the opposite my Friend I fear the ruling secular liberal ideology requires a logic which inevitably leads to the justification of incest, beastiality, and pedophilia. From where we are we are just a few iron clad legal arguments away from these perversions being legal. So tell me, logically, doesn't the arguments from the first question and the conclusion of the first question naturally lead to the second horrible conclusion ?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:First , is it immoral / should it be illegal for employees to have sexual relationships with their bosses? It's a Bad Idea, but you can't make a moral judgment about it without making assumptions about the people involved. These relationships rely heavily on the ability to keep work roles and relationship roles separate and it's true that a lot of people just can't do that (and not even in the sense that "nobody is perfect"--many people can't even begin to pretend to be impartial.) But it's a really arbitrary line to draw and if you're going to throw these relationships into the sacrificial fire of "true consent is unachievable" then you need to be prepared to judge and/or outlaw a whole host of other relationships. People don't need clear cut external power differentials like an employer/employee relationship in order to bumblefuck their way into unbalanced relationships; any time you have a one-sided relationship of dependence (financial, physical, or even emotional) there is potential for abuse.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:So tell me, logically, doesn't the arguments from the first question and the conclusion of the first question naturally lead to the second horrible conclusion ? Maybe if you're using Jared Fogle math.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
Quote-Unquote posted:please get help before you hurt someone The only people who might get hurt by me are liberals and their feelings when I point out the flaws in their ideology Frankenstyle posted:Maybe if you're using Jared Fogle math. I'm simply using secular liberal logic and taking it to the next logical step. if it's so obviously wrong explain to me for your rational arguments
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
You seem to think liberals want to gently caress their kids and are going to make a push for it to be legal. Wtf Weirdos that diddle children aren't waiting for logic to give them the go ahead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:So tell me, logically, doesn't the arguments from the first question and the conclusion of the first question naturally lead to the second horrible conclusion ? If we accept the opposite argument and conclusion, the logical conclusion would be that all relationships are unbalanced, consent is impossible, and nobody should be in romantic relationships. It's either no sex for anyone or 24/7 incestuous child dog rape orgy, these are the only possible outcomes and there is no sustainable position in the middle
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
It entirely depends on how hot they are.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
Sadly there are many Fogels out there who would love to change the Longs and I fear that by embracing secular Liberal logic we are in advertently giving them the tools to do itStraight White Shark posted:If we accept the opposite argument and conclusion, the logical conclusion would be that all relationships are unbalanced, consent is impossible, and nobody should be in romantic relationships. It's either no sex for anyone or 24/7 incestuous child dog rape orgy, these are the only possible outcomes and there is no sustainable position in the middle Then that would simply prove liberal logic is dangerous and leads to tenable conclusions I'm in favor of monogamous marriage and sex within that context
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 12:45 |
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:I'm simply using secular liberal logic and taking it to the next logical step. My words are entirely made from letters found in the Bible, and therefore carry the same weight as the inspired Word of God. And God says "Nope" unto you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 16:38
|
|