Jump to content

National, Religion, Membership, Oath and Law


Hawkwin

Recommended Posts

I simply asked a question about where you draw a line, where there is no compromise.  I drew a conclusion from your line of debate that you draw no lines and only rely on the populous at large to decide what lines are drawn.  If that's as far as you want to take it, that's fine.  I really have no comprehension of this line of thought so I don't know what else to say. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hesitantly, I will step into the fray but just for a moment to provide potential illumination to how those two concepts (murder, pedophilia) are part of a societal compromise.

For the first, murder is often defined as "unlawful killing", or "unjustified killing", in either case the societal compromise are the details and circumstances which make the distinction between justified/unjustified. The codification of those distinctions are what make it legal or not. Thus the definition of exactly what constitutes "murder" as opposed to justifiable (or legal) taking of life.

For the second, the social compromise is also codified as the age of consent as an arbitrary age decided upon by the common culture of the time. 

For sure there are instances and circumstances in which few (if any) would disagree that the conduct is murder/pedo which are so far beyond "the line". But the approaching and crossing the "line" is a construct of societal compromise. At least that is how I see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...