United We Stand - uwsboard.com

You give the left an inch..........Nolan rejoices!

This book provides a philosophical analysis of adult–child sex and pedophilia. This sex intuitively strikes many people as sick, disgusting, and wrong. The problem is that it is not clear whether these judgments are justified and whether they are aesthetic or moral. By analogy, many people find it disgusting to view images of obese people having sex, but it is hard to see what is morally undesirable about such sex: here the judgment is aesthetic.

https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781498504461/P ... -Analysis#

HokieHam wrote:You give the left an inch..........Nolan rejoices!

This book provides a philosophical analysis of adult–child sex and pedophilia. This sex intuitively strikes many people as sick, disgusting, and wrong. The problem is that it is not clear whether these judgments are justified and whether they are aesthetic or moral. By analogy, many people find it disgusting to view images of obese people having sex, but it is hard to see what is morally undesirable about such sex: here the judgment is aesthetic.

Clicky here ☺

Help a brother out.

Major Kong wrote:

HokieHam wrote:You give the left an inch..........Nolan rejoices!

This book provides a philosophical analysis of adult–child sex and pedophilia. This sex intuitively strikes many people as sick, disgusting, and wrong. The problem is that it is not clear whether these judgments are justified and whether they are aesthetic or moral. By analogy, many people find it disgusting to view images of obese people having sex, but it is hard to see what is morally undesirable about such sex: here the judgment is aesthetic.

Clicky here ☺

Help a brother out.

Arguing for pedophilia, using aesthetics? LOL. WTH?

How do you blame this author's work on the left? He's also written against affirmative action, against diversity policies in his school, in defense of torture, and about how conservatives are being shut out of academia... by the left. And he also wrote a critique of Ta-Nehisi Coates writings on Black Lives Matter. This guy is clearly your hero.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

Uprising wrote:How do you blame this author's work on the left? He's also written against affirmative action, against diversity policies in his school, in defense of torture, and about how conservatives are being shut out of academia... by the left. And he also wrote a critique of Ta-Nehisi Coates writings on Black Lives Matter. This guy is clearly your hero.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

I don't see how your question is relevant. The result is what matters, not the motivation. FWIW - this prof seems to get off on being a contrarian.

USN_Hokie wrote:

Uprising wrote:How do you blame this author's work on the left? He's also written against affirmative action, against diversity policies in his school, in defense of torture, and about how conservatives are being shut out of academia... by the left. And he also wrote a critique of Ta-Nehisi Coates writings on Black Lives Matter. This guy is clearly your hero.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

I don't see how your question is relevant. The result is what matters, not the motivation. FWIW - this prof seems to get off on being a contrarian.

Yup.

HokieHam wrote:You give the left an inch..........Nolan rejoices!

This book provides a philosophical analysis of adult–child sex and pedophilia. This sex intuitively strikes many people as sick, disgusting, and wrong. The problem is that it is not clear whether these judgments are justified and whether they are aesthetic or moral. By analogy, many people find it disgusting to view images of obese people having sex, but it is hard to see what is morally undesirable about such sex: here the judgment is aesthetic.

https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781498504461/P ... -Analysis#

west virginians rejoice!!, they have ignored ages for years anyways

Awwww......here's another heartwarming story for Nolan to revel in.....

The slippery slope is turning into a slip and slide!

'We ended up kissing and kissing led to other things': Mother, 36, and son, 19, who fell in love when they met last year after she gave him up for adoption as a baby, say they'll go to JAIL to defend their relationship

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z4H2KMZCEY
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -love.html

Are those prison-tatt teardrops under her eye!?

USN_Hokie wrote:

Uprising wrote:How do you blame this author's work on the left? He's also written against affirmative action, against diversity policies in his school, in defense of torture, and about how conservatives are being shut out of academia... by the left. And he also wrote a critique of Ta-Nehisi Coates writings on Black Lives Matter. This guy is clearly your hero.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

I don't see how your question is relevant. The result is what matters, not the motivation.

When someone assigns blame, as Ham did to the left, for the actions of another, they are blaming the ideology for motivating the behavior. So perhaps you should have directed this comment at the OP.

However, I doubt you'd be saying this if his views aligned largely with the left...
Not to mention that it is the left that has consistently been pushing for stricter definitions of consent, often times to the resistance of the right. And that there are many religious right groups and individuals pushing for lower age of consent, often times to the resistance of the left. But because "the left" thinks two adults with penises should be allowed to have consensual sex, it's "the left's" fault if someone, who seems to align largely with the right, questions whether pedophilia is immoral.

USN_Hokie wrote:FWIW - this prof seems to get off on being a contrarian.

That's pretty much the point of engaging in philosophical argument.

Uprising wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

Uprising wrote:How do you blame this author's work on the left? He's also written against affirmative action, against diversity policies in his school, in defense of torture, and about how conservatives are being shut out of academia... by the left. And he also wrote a critique of Ta-Nehisi Coates writings on Black Lives Matter. This guy is clearly your hero.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

I don't see how your question is relevant. The result is what matters, not the motivation.

When someone assigns blame, as Ham did to the left, for the actions of another, they are blaming the ideology for motivating the behavior. So perhaps you should have directed this comment at the OP.

However, I doubt you'd be saying this if his views aligned largely with the left...
Not to mention that it is the left that has consistently been pushing for stricter definitions of consent, often times to the resistance of the right. And that there are many religious right groups and individuals pushing for lower age of consent, often times to the resistance of the left. But because "the left" thinks two adults with penises should be allowed to have consensual sex, it's "the left's" fault if someone, who seems to align largely with the right, questions whether pedophilia is immoral.

USN_Hokie wrote:FWIW - this prof seems to get off on being a contrarian.

That's pretty much the point of engaging in philosophical argument.

It was the left that was pushing for the redefinition of "marriage".....now the nuts will come out of the woodwork, as has been clearly proven, and with the use of lawyers and leftist judges......other barriers will fall.
If all "love" is equal, you should be celebrating the mother son relationship.....the pedophile who just loves his neighbors child.....the same sex thruple.....polygamy. Make it all legal. Hell, move to Canada if you want to pork your pet......it'll be legal here soon as well.

HokieHam wrote:

Uprising wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

Uprising wrote:How do you blame this author's work on the left? He's also written against affirmative action, against diversity policies in his school, in defense of torture, and about how conservatives are being shut out of academia... by the left. And he also wrote a critique of Ta-Nehisi Coates writings on Black Lives Matter. This guy is clearly your hero.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

I don't see how your question is relevant. The result is what matters, not the motivation.

When someone assigns blame, as Ham did to the left, for the actions of another, they are blaming the ideology for motivating the behavior. So perhaps you should have directed this comment at the OP.

However, I doubt you'd be saying this if his views aligned largely with the left...
Not to mention that it is the left that has consistently been pushing for stricter definitions of consent, often times to the resistance of the right. And that there are many religious right groups and individuals pushing for lower age of consent, often times to the resistance of the left. But because "the left" thinks two adults with penises should be allowed to have consensual sex, it's "the left's" fault if someone, who seems to align largely with the right, questions whether pedophilia is immoral.

USN_Hokie wrote:FWIW - this prof seems to get off on being a contrarian.

That's pretty much the point of engaging in philosophical argument.

It was the left that was pushing for the redefinition of "marriage".....now the nuts will come out of the woodwork, as has been clearly proven, and with the use of lawyers and leftist judges......other barriers will fall.
If all "love" is equal, you should be celebrating the mother son relationship.....the pedophile who just loves his neighbors child.....the same sex thruple.....polygamy. Make it all legal. Hell, move to Canada if you want to pork your pet......it'll be legal here soon as well.

Yep. This is a clear cut part of the left's sexual liberty and atheist movement.

HokieHam wrote:

Uprising wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

Uprising wrote:How do you blame this author's work on the left? He's also written against affirmative action, against diversity policies in his school, in defense of torture, and about how conservatives are being shut out of academia... by the left. And he also wrote a critique of Ta-Nehisi Coates writings on Black Lives Matter. This guy is clearly your hero.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

I don't see how your question is relevant. The result is what matters, not the motivation.

When someone assigns blame, as Ham did to the left, for the actions of another, they are blaming the ideology for motivating the behavior. So perhaps you should have directed this comment at the OP.

However, I doubt you'd be saying this if his views aligned largely with the left...
Not to mention that it is the left that has consistently been pushing for stricter definitions of consent, often times to the resistance of the right. And that there are many religious right groups and individuals pushing for lower age of consent, often times to the resistance of the left. But because "the left" thinks two adults with penises should be allowed to have consensual sex, it's "the left's" fault if someone, who seems to align largely with the right, questions whether pedophilia is immoral.

USN_Hokie wrote:FWIW - this prof seems to get off on being a contrarian.

That's pretty much the point of engaging in philosophical argument.

It was the left that was pushing for the redefinition of "marriage".....now the nuts will come out of the woodwork, as has been clearly proven, and with the use of lawyers and leftist judges......other barriers will fall.
If all "love" is equal, you should be celebrating the mother son relationship.....the pedophile who just loves his neighbors child.....the same sex thruple.....polygamy. Make it all legal. Hell, move to Canada if you want to pork your pet......it'll be legal here soon as well.

Don't you think the entire planet was populated through righteous incest? That it was all in your god's plan, right? That is, after he committed the greatest genocide ever, if you are to be believed, he left one family to repopulate the planet.

Then there is this:

Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

There was no need for a "redefinition" of marriage. No one had to look further than your god who had condoned all those things, well, with the exception of homosexuality. Funny, isn't it?

Uprising wrote:

HokieHam wrote:

Uprising wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

Uprising wrote:How do you blame this author's work on the left? He's also written against affirmative action, against diversity policies in his school, in defense of torture, and about how conservatives are being shut out of academia... by the left. And he also wrote a critique of Ta-Nehisi Coates writings on Black Lives Matter. This guy is clearly your hero.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

I don't see how your question is relevant. The result is what matters, not the motivation.

When someone assigns blame, as Ham did to the left, for the actions of another, they are blaming the ideology for motivating the behavior. So perhaps you should have directed this comment at the OP.

However, I doubt you'd be saying this if his views aligned largely with the left...
Not to mention that it is the left that has consistently been pushing for stricter definitions of consent, often times to the resistance of the right. And that there are many religious right groups and individuals pushing for lower age of consent, often times to the resistance of the left. But because "the left" thinks two adults with penises should be allowed to have consensual sex, it's "the left's" fault if someone, who seems to align largely with the right, questions whether pedophilia is immoral.

USN_Hokie wrote:FWIW - this prof seems to get off on being a contrarian.

That's pretty much the point of engaging in philosophical argument.

It was the left that was pushing for the redefinition of "marriage".....now the nuts will come out of the woodwork, as has been clearly proven, and with the use of lawyers and leftist judges......other barriers will fall.
If all "love" is equal, you should be celebrating the mother son relationship.....the pedophile who just loves his neighbors child.....the same sex thruple.....polygamy. Make it all legal. Hell, move to Canada if you want to pork your pet......it'll be legal here soon as well.

Don't you think the entire planet was populated through righteous incest? That it was all in your god's plan, right? That is, after he committed the greatest genocide ever, if you are to be believed, he left one family to repopulate the planet.

Then there is this:

Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

There was no need for a "redefinition" of marriage. No one had to look further than your god who had condoned all those things, well, with the exception of homosexuality. Funny, isn't it?

You could have just conceded the point since that's what you effectively did.

Uprising wrote:

HokieHam wrote:

Uprising wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

Uprising wrote:How do you blame this author's work on the left? He's also written against affirmative action, against diversity policies in his school, in defense of torture, and about how conservatives are being shut out of academia... by the left. And he also wrote a critique of Ta-Nehisi Coates writings on Black Lives Matter. This guy is clearly your hero.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

I don't see how your question is relevant. The result is what matters, not the motivation.

When someone assigns blame, as Ham did to the left, for the actions of another, they are blaming the ideology for motivating the behavior. So perhaps you should have directed this comment at the OP.

However, I doubt you'd be saying this if his views aligned largely with the left...
Not to mention that it is the left that has consistently been pushing for stricter definitions of consent, often times to the resistance of the right. And that there are many religious right groups and individuals pushing for lower age of consent, often times to the resistance of the left. But because "the left" thinks two adults with penises should be allowed to have consensual sex, it's "the left's" fault if someone, who seems to align largely with the right, questions whether pedophilia is immoral.

USN_Hokie wrote:FWIW - this prof seems to get off on being a contrarian.

That's pretty much the point of engaging in philosophical argument.

It was the left that was pushing for the redefinition of "marriage".....now the nuts will come out of the woodwork, as has been clearly proven, and with the use of lawyers and leftist judges......other barriers will fall.
If all "love" is equal, you should be celebrating the mother son relationship.....the pedophile who just loves his neighbors child.....the same sex thruple.....polygamy. Make it all legal. Hell, move to Canada if you want to pork your pet......it'll be legal here soon as well.

Don't you think the entire planet was populated through righteous incest? That it was all in your god's plan, right? That is, after he committed the greatest genocide ever, if you are to be believed, he left one family to repopulate the planet.

Then there is this:

Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

There was no need for a "redefinition" of marriage. No one had to look further than your god who had condoned all those things, well, with the exception of homosexuality. Funny, isn't it?

And in this post, Uprising makes Ham's argument.

USN_Hokie wrote:

Uprising wrote:

HokieHam wrote:

Uprising wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

Uprising wrote:How do you blame this author's work on the left? He's also written against affirmative action, against diversity policies in his school, in defense of torture, and about how conservatives are being shut out of academia... by the left. And he also wrote a critique of Ta-Nehisi Coates writings on Black Lives Matter. This guy is clearly your hero.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

I don't see how your question is relevant. The result is what matters, not the motivation.

When someone assigns blame, as Ham did to the left, for the actions of another, they are blaming the ideology for motivating the behavior. So perhaps you should have directed this comment at the OP.

However, I doubt you'd be saying this if his views aligned largely with the left...
Not to mention that it is the left that has consistently been pushing for stricter definitions of consent, often times to the resistance of the right. And that there are many religious right groups and individuals pushing for lower age of consent, often times to the resistance of the left. But because "the left" thinks two adults with penises should be allowed to have consensual sex, it's "the left's" fault if someone, who seems to align largely with the right, questions whether pedophilia is immoral.

USN_Hokie wrote:FWIW - this prof seems to get off on being a contrarian.

That's pretty much the point of engaging in philosophical argument.

It was the left that was pushing for the redefinition of "marriage".....now the nuts will come out of the woodwork, as has been clearly proven, and with the use of lawyers and leftist judges......other barriers will fall.
If all "love" is equal, you should be celebrating the mother son relationship.....the pedophile who just loves his neighbors child.....the same sex thruple.....polygamy. Make it all legal. Hell, move to Canada if you want to pork your pet......it'll be legal here soon as well.

Don't you think the entire planet was populated through righteous incest? That it was all in your god's plan, right? That is, after he committed the greatest genocide ever, if you are to be believed, he left one family to repopulate the planet.

Then there is this:

Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

There was no need for a "redefinition" of marriage. No one had to look further than your god who had condoned all those things, well, with the exception of homosexuality. Funny, isn't it?

And in this post, Uprising makes Ham's argument.

I was going to respond to his attack on religion, but I'll just revel in the victory......

USN_Hokie wrote:

Uprising wrote:

HokieHam wrote:

Uprising wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

Uprising wrote:How do you blame this author's work on the left? He's also written against affirmative action, against diversity policies in his school, in defense of torture, and about how conservatives are being shut out of academia... by the left. And he also wrote a critique of Ta-Nehisi Coates writings on Black Lives Matter. This guy is clearly your hero.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

I don't see how your question is relevant. The result is what matters, not the motivation.

When someone assigns blame, as Ham did to the left, for the actions of another, they are blaming the ideology for motivating the behavior. So perhaps you should have directed this comment at the OP.

However, I doubt you'd be saying this if his views aligned largely with the left...
Not to mention that it is the left that has consistently been pushing for stricter definitions of consent, often times to the resistance of the right. And that there are many religious right groups and individuals pushing for lower age of consent, often times to the resistance of the left. But because "the left" thinks two adults with penises should be allowed to have consensual sex, it's "the left's" fault if someone, who seems to align largely with the right, questions whether pedophilia is immoral.

USN_Hokie wrote:FWIW - this prof seems to get off on being a contrarian.

That's pretty much the point of engaging in philosophical argument.

It was the left that was pushing for the redefinition of "marriage".....now the nuts will come out of the woodwork, as has been clearly proven, and with the use of lawyers and leftist judges......other barriers will fall.
If all "love" is equal, you should be celebrating the mother son relationship.....the pedophile who just loves his neighbors child.....the same sex thruple.....polygamy. Make it all legal. Hell, move to Canada if you want to pork your pet......it'll be legal here soon as well.

Don't you think the entire planet was populated through righteous incest? That it was all in your god's plan, right? That is, after he committed the greatest genocide ever, if you are to be believed, he left one family to repopulate the planet.

Then there is this:

Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

There was no need for a "redefinition" of marriage. No one had to look further than your god who had condoned all those things, well, with the exception of homosexuality. Funny, isn't it?

And in this post, Uprising makes Ham's argument.

LOL...
Pointing out that his religion, which he claims is the source of what is eternally moral, has condoned pedophilia and incest (but not homosexually) since it's inception, is making his argument that homosexually is a slippery slope to pedophilia and incest?
Good stuff.

HokieHam wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

Uprising wrote:

HokieHam wrote:

Uprising wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote: I don't see how your question is relevant. The result is what matters, not the motivation.

When someone assigns blame, as Ham did to the left, for the actions of another, they are blaming the ideology for motivating the behavior. So perhaps you should have directed this comment at the OP.

However, I doubt you'd be saying this if his views aligned largely with the left...
Not to mention that it is the left that has consistently been pushing for stricter definitions of consent, often times to the resistance of the right. And that there are many religious right groups and individuals pushing for lower age of consent, often times to the resistance of the left. But because "the left" thinks two adults with penises should be allowed to have consensual sex, it's "the left's" fault if someone, who seems to align largely with the right, questions whether pedophilia is immoral.

USN_Hokie wrote:FWIW - this prof seems to get off on being a contrarian.

That's pretty much the point of engaging in philosophical argument.

It was the left that was pushing for the redefinition of "marriage".....now the nuts will come out of the woodwork, as has been clearly proven, and with the use of lawyers and leftist judges......other barriers will fall.
If all "love" is equal, you should be celebrating the mother son relationship.....the pedophile who just loves his neighbors child.....the same sex thruple.....polygamy. Make it all legal. Hell, move to Canada if you want to pork your pet......it'll be legal here soon as well.

Don't you think the entire planet was populated through righteous incest? That it was all in your god's plan, right? That is, after he committed the greatest genocide ever, if you are to be believed, he left one family to repopulate the planet.

Then there is this:

Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

There was no need for a "redefinition" of marriage. No one had to look further than your god who had condoned all those things, well, with the exception of homosexuality. Funny, isn't it?

And in this post, Uprising makes Ham's argument.

I was going to respond to his attack on religion, but I'll just revel in the victory...... [emoji38] [emoji38]

Please do give it a try. I can't wait to see your excuses for why it is immoral now but wasn't then.
"Context! You are taking it all out of context!"
Is that what you were going to go with?

Uprising wrote: LOL...
Pointing out that his religion, which he claims is the source of what is eternally moral, has condoned pedophilia and incest (but not homosexually) since it's inception, is making his argument that homosexually is a slippery slope to pedophilia and incest?
Good stuff.

You're turning yourself in knots, but go ahead and indulge me - how does that passage endorse incest/pedophilia?

USN_Hokie wrote:

Uprising wrote: LOL...
Pointing out that his religion, which he claims is the source of what is eternally moral, has condoned pedophilia and incest (but not homosexually) since it's inception, is making his argument that homosexually is a slippery slope to pedophilia and incest?
Good stuff.

You're turning yourself in knots, but go ahead and indulge me - how does that passage endorse incest/pedophilia?

"save for yourselves every girl ["women children" in KJV] who has never slept with a man"
What do you think they save them for?

I have never seen Uprising ever come remotely close to accurate or appropriate biblical interpretation.

That said, am I the only one that sees irony in his taking this topic up with Hokie Ham?

RiverguyVT wrote:I have never seen Uprising ever come remotely close to accurate or appropriate biblical interpretation.

That said, am I the only one that sees irony in his taking this topic up with Hokie Ham?

It's ironic coming from the guy who critiques Islam in much the same way but gets all uppity when someone treats his religion likewise.

RiverguyVT wrote:I have never seen Uprising ever come remotely close to accurate or appropriate biblical interpretation.

That said, am I the only one that sees irony in his taking this topic up with Hokie Ham?

You have a good point. No wonder he hates God with that ignorant and silly view of him.

awesome guy wrote:

RiverguyVT wrote:I have never seen Uprising ever come remotely close to accurate or appropriate biblical interpretation.

That said, am I the only one that sees irony in his taking this topic up with Hokie Ham?

You have a good point. No wonder he hates God with that ignorant and silly view of him.

With your great understanding of your inerrant book, then you should be able to explain why it was OK for Noah's family to have incestuous relationships but not these folks from NM... It is clear that is what your god wanted because he did murder every other living person. So if your god wanted it, it must be moral. That's how your morality works, amirite?