Oh, so you're ok asking loaded questions but prefer to not answer them? How do you know what's Google and what's scholastic knowledge? Are you claiming mind-reading as one of your many 'carny' attributes?
The smartest thing you said in your response was "nor do i know". That would seem to be a theme, as opposed to "I thought clearly", something which is evidently beyond your capability.
Again, i'll try to use simple words in trying to retrieve a cogent answer from you....why is applying the morality of forcing one's penis into a 9 year old 1406 years ago, morally different from forcing your penis into a 9 year old today? Again, is there something about a 9 year old then that makes them developmentally more capable of receiving a male penis at that age?
If you could answer the question, that'd be great.
And you're right, you have no idea what my education level, nor does it matter, since it bears no real relevance to the defence of your own position in this discussion.
Oh, well, actually you did by agreeing with me about the years in question
1406 years ago would have made Aisha, the girl and 6 year old in question.....well, 6 years old.
I realize math isn't your strong suit, but i assumed basic arithmetic wasn't beyond your superior intellect.
I'd like to thank you for toning down the big words in your post, sentences like "Were their cognitive development more advanced that the cognitive capabilities of today's adolescent?" are challenging indeed!
My appreciation ends there, though! Are you trying to goad me into defending rape, or something? I can't quite tell.
And speaking of challenging...
why is applying the morality of forcing one's penis into a 9 year old 1406 years ago, morally different from ( b )
forcing your penis into a 9 year old today? Again, ( c)
is there something about a 9 year old then that makes them developmentally more capable of receiving a male penis at that age?"
It's kind of ironic that you'd offer up a "simplified" version of your complex thoughts by typing up such a convoluted question. To attempt an answer... you're asking for a difference, right? Well, technically, point (a) is simply the application of morality, whereas point ( b ) is a physical act and considered rape. You're asking me to compare the application of morality with the act of forcing sex? As for question ( c ), you can keep asking it, I'm not dumb enough to even attempt to answer.
Your other (original) question, even for me to seriously consider, implies that I have an understanding of "the morality of forcing one's penis into a 9 year old 1400 years ago" -- which I don't. So is your follow-up question then "why should an act be examined under a different moral lens, depending on the year in which the act was committed?" If so, then I'd just dismiss the conversation entirely by saying that applying morality to history is pointless, period. Unless, of course, you're religious or philosophically warped enough to believe in absolutism, suggesting that morality transcends time (I'm now repeating myself), in which case you could easily engage in this discussion. I'm not, so I won't.
As a side: Thank you for specifying the gender from which the penis comes, by the way. When people don't specify "male penis" I tend to wonder which gender's penis they're referring to.
Regardless of what your dumb question may have been aiming for, my entire point was that I can't apply moral judgment to an act committed 1400 years ago, because my moral judgments are based on what I understand as being good and bad in a modern sense.
Nowhere did I say a 6, 9, 10, or even 14 year old has the developmental ability to cast judgment on sexual partnership. However, what I did say was that even having the morality conversation is problematic due to fallacious pitfalls, as the conversation inherently requires (or at least encourages) a form of presentism. Especially in my case, because I don't have the slightest clue about what societal norms (philosophical or sociological) were,1400 years ago, and I couldn't care less to even google them and pretend to know. Therefore objectivity is entirely impossible. Other posters in this thread were very, very, very obviously incapable of using any objectivity as well (as displayed by the comments of puberty, ice cream, etc.). The post to which I was responding to originally was also guilty of presentism.
And no, I didn't say anything about a 6 year old child making rational decisions, I said "yup" to the approximation of year you supplied. That "yup" doesn't have anything to do with logic or reasoning, just an agreement on a date. What I did say was that in England, just a few hundred years ago, children regularly had educations that would have been nothing like the education a similarly aged child would experience today (i.e. studying Classics before the age of 13), and that the legal marrying age was probably around 12 or 13, which--I know for a fact--was regularly disregarded for cultural reasons which are beyond my place to cast judgment on, without falling into fallacy zone.
Edited by GLASSJAW, 19 August 2012 - 03:32 AM.