I've recently encountered two groups of (I kid in part) neo-Scholastics. The first group thinks that, if you define "sexuality" to have a moral component, you can remove any social problems which may arise from immoral aspects of sexuality (under the dictionary definition). The
-
-
1/Maybe, in part. I think the problem is just that people expect defining words to substitute for argument. The fact XYZ may be "political" does not carry any moral heft. The idea that something immoral is not "sexuality" says nothing about why it's immoral. IMO, people are
-
2/ducking the "center of mass" of the arguments they wish to engage in through the specious means of encoding their values in (non-standard) definitions.
-
what do they actually want to say? what do they expect to do after they've said it?
-
I can't speak for everyone. Re: the "pedophilia is not sexuality" people, I presume they want to say pedophilia is bad and should be punished and other forms of sexuality, which don't involve questionable or absent consent, are good and should not be punished. I'm fine with that.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.