By your logic, any child under the age of 13 has no sexual desires which can encompass another individual. Moreover, if two individuals under the age of 13 engage in coital activities, then they are therefore abusing(?) each other.
I will let you restructure your entire position as it is decidedly erroneous as it is nonsensical.
[Y]our stance that rape is ok as long as the rapist thinks it is ok makes no sense.
That is subjective relativism for you. Such a subjective concept as morality allows for seemingly outlandish moral views - which, of course, you can oppose (hence subjective); however, no moral views are objectively true. This debate was rendered philosophical when the creator questioned why a thing can be wrong. You absence of understanding of complex philosophy does not render my opinions as being irrespective to the debate.
You trying to claim that since some mental illness leads to loss of autonomy and since our actions are controlled by our thoughts that all mental illness can be treated as a loss of autonomy is bullshit.
"Autonomy is a concept found in moral, political, and bioethical philosophy. Within these contexts, it is the capacity of a rational individual to make an informed, un-coerced decision." (Wikipedia)
If a person has a mental condition which strongly impels one to engage in or with some thing, and they decide or act on that urge, that can be considered a coerced action (coercion by virtue of a predetermined cognition, which, in this case, is pedophilia). Some persons with pedophilia can have a loss of autonomy, it merely depends on their self-discipline--which having the ability to do so is partially genetically predetermined.
You backtracking on that point is the capitulation.
Capitulate is a verb not a noun, i.e., there is no such thing as a "capitulation". Rather you should have stated that me backtracking is capitulating.
Depending on the context, suicide can be either of the given sides, or neither of the given sides.
\
Context = C
\
C(1): Person X is depressed about their impending job loss; they believe that they will be of no support to their wife and children; they choose suicide as their method of exile. What person X does not see is how being completely absent in his families' life will make things monumentally worse than a temporary job loss. This person had a problem.
\
C(2): Person Y feels that they are invisible; they have no friends, or a family that cares; they do multiple things to elicit attention from those they deem matter, but none of what they do is successful; they then commit suicide to demonstrate a point: that they, too, exist. This can be construed as attention seeking.
\
C(3): Person Z feels as though there is no purpose of living, as they have fulfilled their life's duties; this person has a philosophy which is: the only purpose of living is to fulfill one's self-constructed duties; person Z has fulfilled their self-constructed duties; and therefore decides to end their life. This was a rationalized suicide based on a subjective existentialist worldview and hence is neither a problem nor attention seeking.
Govern - control, influence, or regulate (a person, action, or course of events).
Pedophilia can influence your beliefs, which, in turn, influences your actions. If a pedophile believes that sex with a child is not wrong, and they have the opportunity to have sex with a child, and they have sex with that child, then it would be their condition which influenced their beliefs, which led to their unlawful act. However, one can reasonably argue that if they did not have pedophilia, then they would not have had influential motive to have sex with that child.
---
Here, I will affix the rest argument, which you just lazily evaded:
It is ridiculous to claim that there is something special about mental illness that allows you to avoid morality.
A person with a mental illness can and should be exempt from certain moral clauses since their actions were derived from their being mentally ill; someone without a mental illness committing the same acts with the thrill of knowing that that which they are doing is immoral should be morally adjudicated differently.
- "According to DSM-IV, a mental disorder is a psychological syndrome or pattern which is associated with distress (e.g. via a painful symptom), disability (impairment in one or more important areas of functioning), increased risk of death, or causes a significant loss of autonomy; however it excludes normal responses such as grief from loss of a loved one, and also excludes deviant behavior for political, religious, or societal reasons not arising from a dysfunction in the individual."
I am talking about social morality that governs everyone in the community.
I believe you mean 'social mores' (?); unless you are referring to morality in terms of cultural relativism?
Individual morality (what you are discussing) does not eliminate social morality.
Depending on your philosophical views, and it also depends on the society. For example, the 'social morality' of certain cultures (e.g. the Sambia Tribe) permits (and even encourages) sexual relations with young children. You may consider that immoral, but that is your subjective view.
Having a different philosophy does not mean you are exempt from morality.
It can be, especially since the concept of morality is a multivariant philosophy in itself.
Pedophiles know that sex with children is bad because it is against the law.
Aside from pedophiles, not all people generally believe that law is the objective standard for good and bad--not even the legal system adheres to such a notion, hence the purpose of repeals, amendments, et cetera.
Feeling that it should not be against the law doesn't mean they don't know it is wrong.
Again, the Law is not an objective standard for 'right and wrong'. In some states sodomy is still illegal, but do you think that when couples engage in oral sex they believe they are doing something wrong? Of course not, it is an archaic law which is not seriously enforced.
Pedophelia implies sexual interactions in which one party is not sexually mature, and thus lacks an understanding of the implications of the interaction. That's why we say children can't give consent, and why pedophelic actions are considered rape.
My point is that even when the child ages past the pedophilic threshold, which is, by legal definition, 12, he or she is still considered unable to consent by virtue of their sexual maturity. My example merely illustrated the nonsensical consequences entailed by that logical framework.
Morality governs our actions.
And so do certain mental illnesses.
It is ridiculous to claim that there is something special about mental illness that allows you to avoid morality.
A person with a mental illness can and should be exempt from certain moral clauses since their actions were derived from their being mentally ill; someone without a mental illness committing the same acts with the thrill of knowing that that which they are doing is immoral should be morally adjudicated differently.
- "According to DSM-IV, a mental disorder is a psychological syndrome or pattern which is associated with distress (e.g. via a painful symptom), disability (impairment in one or more important areas of functioning), increased risk of death, or causes a significant loss of autonomy; however it excludes normal responses such as grief from loss of a loved one, and also excludes deviant behavior for political, religious, or societal reasons not arising from a dysfunction in the individual." (Source)
I am talking about social morality that governs everyone in the community.
I believe you mean 'social mores' (?); unless you are referring to morality in terms of cultural relativism?
Individual morality (what you are discussing) does not eliminate social morality.
Depending on your philosophical views, and it also depends on the society. For example, the 'social morality' of certain cultures (e.g. the Sambia Tribe) permits (and even encourages) sexual relations with young children. You may consider that immoral, but that is your subjective view.
Having a different philosophy does not mean you are exempt from morality.
It can be, especially since the concept of morality is a multivariant philosophy in itself.
Pedophiles know that sex with children is bad because it is against the law.
Aside from pedophiles, not all people generally believe that law is the objective standard for good and bad--not even the legal system adheres to such a notion, hence the purpose of repeals, amendments, et cetera.
Feeling that it should not be against the law doesn't mean they don't know it is wrong.
Again, the Law is not an objective standard for 'right and wrong'. In some states sodomy is still illegal, but do you think that when couples engage in oral sex they believe they are doing something wrong? Of course not, it is an archaic law which is not seriously enforced.
Mental illnesses affect your thoughts, which, in turn, affect your actions. Moreover, not all pedophiles know right from wrong: their view may be that having sex with prepubescent persons is not an immoral act. It is not uncommon for people to construct a justification for a perspective which they have and cannot control.
It is common to find a pedophile who believes that they have mutual feelings with the child, and hence their sexual acts are not done with malicious or exploitative intent. Sometimes, there is no sex involved, or sex is not the end-goal: they have simply fallen in (inappropriate) love with a child just as two legal adults would.
Basically, pedophiles may know the law, but to suggest that all pedophiles hold the same philosophy as the majority (i.e., sex with a child being wrong) is a gross overgeneralization and is manifestly false.
So, someone compulsively committing a wrongful act, based solely on a condition which compelled them to do such act, and a condition which they cannot control, is immoral?
So a schizophrenic person killing someone who they believe is going to eradicate the entire nation, thus making the act a self-percieved heroic act, is immoral?
Unless it is a newfound practice to classify mentally ill persons as 'wrongdoers', then, no, pedophilia is not wrong, nor is it right. Mental illnesses are independent of any moral scope; thus, those whose actions resulted from their illness are exempt from wrongdoing.
Pedophilic acts committed by a non-pedophile may be deemed immoral, but that is tangential to the topic, which claims pedophilia as being wrong.
Pedophilia is an illness inherent in our biology, in that it is not an artificially constructed fetish, nor can it be cured (there is, however, some evidence that brain surgery may be solution, but, since scientists are not allowed to invasively experiment on human subjects, such a cure exists only in theory).
A species can't survive if it is helping all the other species. A species that helps other species instead of itself would not survive.
The very fact that humans manage to do this renders this entire evolutionary assertion false. Further, if humans did not help other species, in some cases, it would have adverse intraspecific consequences.
Tigers are responsible for maintaining ecosystems through predation. If they were eliminated or overly reduced, it would cause an ecosystemic imbalance, which will directly impact humans.
Humans are doing the exact inverse as we have drastically, if not wholly, reduced (or, perhaps, eluded) our natural predators; consequently, our numbers have increased to an unsustainable rate, and in so doing, we are diminishing earth's resources to such a degree that we are looking elsewhere for more, and we are directly contributing to earth's detriment by virtue of climate change and pollution.
I have no use for tigers whatsoever. So I won't have more or less use for them depending on the quantity.
I believe it is your understandable anthropocentric ideology which fallaciously misassigns utility to a species for which you erroneously find no use.
---
Retorts notwithstanding, the debate is premised on quantifying value, not realism. It is presumptuous to say that someone would find any more utility of a baby that is not theirs than they would of three tiger cubs.
I am assuming you are speaking of intergroup collaboration--basically, two groups designed to work together cannot be in conflict with one another and collaborate at the same time.
Collaboration - the action of working with someone to produce or create something.
Conflict - an incompatibility between two or more opinions, principles, or interests.
The simplest answer is that conflict may arise while collaborating, but while there is conflict collaboration will be temporarily suspended.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by the title. In one interpretation, I can spot a logical incompatibility; in another, I can see how conflict may be necessary in collaborating.
Your entire argument is premised on the idea that this baby will be essential in saving the human race and some other nonhuman animals from mass extinction....
I suppose one of those tigers may grow up and save an engineer who is nearly finished with solution for climate change....
Notwithstanding, you are falsely equating privilege with protection; and further falsely suggesting that this (protection) is currently practiced.
Privilege - a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people.
If I am not mistaken, it is a lawful right to kill nonhuman animals for human pleasure (sport, clothes, food) and not the inverse. If I am not mistaken, humans are advantaged as you suggested when you implied that the one baby would be saved over the three cubs. If I am not mistaken, humans have lawful immunity in terms of cannibalism, viz., being hunted or raised to be slaughtered and sold on the food market for human consumption, and home destruction.
Commercialized captivity is indistinguishable from prison (it is worse, actually, as these animals are not bound to the anthropogenic justice system of adjudicating guilt or innocence; and hence to imprison them is unjust, conceivably immoral, and denies them the right to a fair life, which could be granted).
Note: The reason I use "granted" is that, typically, life is irrevocably unfair; however, in this context, which is animal imprisonment, the unfairness is intentionally placed on innocent beings. Typical unfairness is something which just happens as a part of life (e.g. child cancer); extracting animals from their natural environment, or preserving them in an environment which is not fruitful to their overall welfare (especially their psychological health), pursuant to the given criteria, is atypical unfairness.
Who cares if some of his businesses went out of business. Most businessmen will go through bankrupcy while they CREATE JOBS!
It matters not if the businessman created jobs when they are fired soon after. Moreover, most businessmen do not 'go through' bankruptcy while creating jobs, rather it is possible that after they have created jobs, they may, due to some unforeknown financial circumstances, have to declare bankruptcy.
I would agree with the title only if her voters are cognizant of the criminality of her actions, which I do not believe that they are.
A taxi driver is not an accomplice if he or she unwittingly picks up an individual who just committed a crime and 'gets them away' from the scene.
Liberals have nothing to do with my point, which was: Republicans do not wholly practice the concept of "self-reliance and paying ones own way" since at least the two previously mentioned corporate institutions--entities in which most republicans occupy--rely on or utilize taxpayer and governmental endowments.
"Republicans believe in ... self-reliance and paying ones(sic) own way [...]"
So, for example, bank and oil corporations--most of which are run or invested in by republicans--do not rely on or use subsidies?
Requiring public or/and governmental assistance negates your self-reliance assertion entirely.
(Note: I am overgeneralizing since your implicit, unqualified statement, "Republicans believe [...]" overgeneralized.)
