rationalskepticism.org

PensivePenny wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:

PensivePenny wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:imo Fallible and Thomas Eshuis, you're paedophilia enablers, both of you. You say they think paedophilia is deeply wrong, yet they do it anyway. They need be disabused of this notion. You should be sanctioned by the board admin.

My emphasis above. Do you know what an enabler is? An enabler "authorizes" one with some ability. Assuming that ability is pedophilia, you are in essence giving them the control to decide their actions. How the hell do you square that with your belief that we have no control over our actions? No one can enable anyone if you believe man has no control over his actions. Selective determinism? Wishy washy determinism? Pick a side... you can't play for both teams.

They are behaving unethically imo. Providing an environmental influence which says "it's ok to be a paedophile". They didn't decide this course of action; they are merely misguided. or do you take issue with the word misguided perchance?

It isn't the "misguided" with which I take exception... it's the "unethically" which doesn't seem to fit. I mean, I won't argue ethics here, but I don't see how ethics fits into the whole "we are robots" world view. How do robots acquire ethics? How do they know right from wrong? And then, choose to be something different than what they are. I just think you're being disingenuous with this whole "we have no control" thing. It's fine when it applies to you but apparently it doesn't apply to others whom YOU'VE DECIDED doesn't meet your expectations of "good."