Many things are illegal but can still be discussed. And thanks for making my point. Some topics of morality that some might just call differences of opinion are not open for discussion.
2 Likes
They would almost certainly be banned. At least one has happened before. We could point to clear reasons why those things are immoral, and I’m pretty sure we would agree on all of them. Do you think that no people would disagree? We may not care to discuss it with them, in other words, we would find them to be immoral, but they may well have such an opinion. Is it written in stone somewhere that those things are wrong? How can we establish agreement on these moral questions besides through mutual discussion?
Your other example of Hitler made for one of the shortest threads of all time when someone asked “Was Hitler a good guy?” it was @tempogain (as I recall) who put it in temp and locked the thread with the two letter answer “No”.
Ha, was there? I can’t recall that one. I do recall flaming stuff that verged into holocaust denial.
1 Like
Lol yeah and I am not advocating for open discussion of these topics. I understand how that would be pandemonium and the website would get locked down or brought down pretty quick.
But, it is a fact that some topics of morality are not open for discussion in almost any society.
Maybe, there’s not much reason to discuss those indeed. But, there are clear reasons for that, in those cases.
That’s not the same as saying morality is not open to discussion though. Note the author of that article says “trans right aren’t a political issue at all. They’re a moral one. That’s why we need to get rid of the word “debate”.” The implication is as @BiggusDickus described, I believe. It’s not saying that “some acts are so terrible (for reasons that we could clearly state if we had to bother) that their morality is beyond discussion.”
I would argue that all morality is a matter of opinion. Is there really good or evil? Right or wrong? Even if all human beings were biologically predisposed to “feel” something is right (or wrong) somehow from their DNA, that does not make it universally applicable. Would an alien or all-powerful being agree also?
I do not really believe there is anything that all humans from a fundamental biological level must agree on. Whatever abhorrent idea we can envision, out there, somebody supports it.
So I think I agree with @BiggusDickus ’ point, if I did not misunderstand him.
2 Likes
I could see this technology being used to catfish dudes who think their online date is a biological woman.
Strictly speaking it’s only pedophilic acts which are illegal, not the sexual liking of children itself (in other words there’s no “thought crime”).
I think it’s a great example of taboo in society: the official consensus is that being a pedophile is bad and reprehensible (regardless of whether you act on your impulses, most people would say), while all the signs (from porn varieties to the popularity of TikTok) pointing at a large portion of the population having pedophile sexual desires.
2 Likes
Yeah it would seem that a person probably could not help having such feelings if they do. Acting on them is the problem, not doing so is obviously virtuous.
Large? A subset certainly.
It would be a big red flag when you met your date though 
1 Like
Debate surrounding the legal age of consent seems to me to be a discussion that enters into pedophilia.
I can’t think of any moral issue that could be completely separate from debate in some form.
1 Like
You’re already a judgmental bigot, I’m afraid. The new term is “minor-attracted persons”, and their life choices must be respected.
2 Likes
Huh. Too black for CNN?
I think the comment was OK. BTW, is CTG the online podcast place for black folks to speak their truth?
Cross, author of Say It Louder! Black Voters, White Narratives & Saving Our Democracy has leveraged her platform to attract Black viewers, particularly Black female viewers. As a breakout media and political analyst, she is known for her often controversial comments that call attention to the issues that riddle the Black community.
Cross claimed in an August remark that the minority community feels left out of conversations about the economy, per Fox News.
“A part of the challenges I have in the mainstream media, and you hear things like, ‘Oh, the economy is doing better.’ And for many of us, the economy is not the stock market. It ain’t doing better for us,” Cross said.
Surely they could ask at age ten?
I seem to recall a ten-year-old getting pregnant before.
1 Like
“WTF do you think?” lol
We are not allowed to think anymore. We just ask the questions we are told to ask.
2 Likes
“uh, not as far as I know”
If you haven’t read the article, one of the commentors think the main problem with the poster is that it is confusing.
Ms O’Malley also accused the poster’s authors of wrongly implying men can get pregnant as part of their desire to use gender-neutral language.
‘It is also factually inaccurate because males have internal reproductive organs e.g. vas deferens, prostate and urethra,’ she said.
As parts of the male reproductive system, like the prostate, are internal organs they technically meet the criteria of those who can become pregnant according to the poster.
Are they actually worried that some men might think they can get pregnant?
It’s like a person who deliberately walked into quicksand and has to write a book about how to get out of it.