Pagan Harpoon said:When someone here says that another culture is abhorrent, I think it can be assumed that they mean that it is seen as abhorrent by their own culture. If you say something like "That doesn't mean they're abhorrent, just different." Then the whole concept of morality and related ideas lose all meaning, as there is obviously no a priori, universal morality.
Pagan Harpoon said:Unless you want to adopt some utilitarian scale on which different cultural takes on morality can be graded, the idea of one culture being "better" than another does not even make any sense unless it is done from the viewpoint of a particular culture. If you attack the ability of people to say that a foreign culture is bad because it permits actions that we see as immoral, then you attack the ability of people to make any moral judgements about anything and then this whole area falls apart. A serial killer has a different mini-cultural sphere built up around himself, so he is not subject to my morality, so I cannot judge him?
Galteeth said:A slight caveat: Cultural differences are a factor in determining the motivations of people, and ignorance can be a mitigating factor. For example, I worked with a Nigerian immigrant who told me he was going to "stalk" some girl he wanted to marry. I was confused, but I eventually understood that what we call stalking would be considered sincere and honorable courtship in his culture (apparently to prove that his affection was real and not just for a brief sexual encounter). I explained to him that it didn't work that way in America, but clearly, he was not in the same category as a "stalker" in a western culture.
TheStatutoryApe said:Many children who are sexually abused will preform the same sorts of abuse on other children.
The question is what would you think of them ideasrule?ideasrule said:And if that person refuses to change his behaviour after you told him this, what would you think of him?
Galteeth said:Moral relativism is the same as no morality.
cristo said:Statutory rape is defined as sexual activity with someone under the age of consent (16). Sexual activity with a female under 13 is a more serious charge (aimed at protecting children-- a maximum sentence of life imprisonment can be issued, as opposed to 14 years for statutory rape >16), and one for which there is no defence of consent.
Char. Limit said:So is sexual activity with a male under 13 all right in Britain?
ideasrule said:And if that person refuses to change his behaviour after you told him this, what would you think of him?
martharon said:My god this is very astonishing just can't take in the news . today s kids have changed a lot i don't know what particular reason behind it. what do they know at this age? really shocking..
Char. Limit said:Not all of today's kids. I'm 17, male, and have never raped anyone. This is quite the anomaly, though. I'm surprised it could happen at all.
TheStatutoryApe said:Many of us are pretty sheltered from the ugly reality of life. It is not all that uncommon. I've met at least a couple of people who had participated in consensual sexual activity around the age of 10. At least one of them was sexually abused as a child and never told anyone about it (at that time of course).
Char. Limit said:Yes, well, the anomaly I was talking about was rape at ten, not just sex at ten. Still, you raise a valid point: Many people have (consensual) sex at (what I would consider) a young age. It astonishes me, but I may just be sheltered, as you (I believe) imply.
But don't worry. I'm a self-proclaimed cynic, so I believe that the entire reality of life is irredeemably ugly as it is.
Side note: The Wii that I'm typing on doesn't recognize the word "consensual", yet it does recognize the pseudo-word "wpa2-psk". Just an observation.
Char. Limit said:Not all of today's kids. I'm 17, male, and have never raped anyone. This is quite the anomaly, though. I'm surprised it could happen at all.