What's wrong with Harry Potter?

[Daidalos]

I suppose this is Dawkins' point too.  But what if the same idea was applied to science?  If we apply the Kuhnian view of science that it is really just a series of shifting paradigms, then we must also accept that our current scientific paradigms are arbitrary and ultimately value-based judgments about how the world works.  In that case, should we also wait to teach children science until they can properly decide for themselves what is proper science? 

Perhaps the better way to tackle the issue would be to teach the child to think critically and evaluate things objectively, rather than pound facts and figures into its mind. Teach the arguments, the reasoning behind the arguments, the assumptions inherent to the reasoning, and the justfications for those assumptions, and so on. It is more a way of seeing things and thinking of things that needs to be addressed.

I would not be so quick to suggest an equality between the "paradigms" of science, and whatever religious sentiment a parent tries to teach its child, an equality which my sleep-deprived brain seems to find implicit to your post. My contention would be that they are different things, and while science to a degree is arbitrary (all human endeavours are), pretty much all scientists would agree that there is a qualitative and quantitative progress to scientific inquiry. While theories and hypothesis shift to accomodate the new data, we are gradually improving our knowledge, measured against the objective yardstick of reality. In a sense, the modern theories are "better" (the repressed postmodernist inside of me cringes as I write that word) than the old ones. Therefore, we should not be afraid to teach our children the current scientific findings, but we should also stress that much of science is transitory, as we learn more of the world and incorporate it into our theories; indeed, we should not be afraid of that change but should embrace it.

[Daidalos]

No, the moral dimension hasn't changed, we just extended our definition of what constitutes a "child" well past the point when fertility has already fully developed. Technically, pedophilia applies only to sexual interest towards prepubescent children, which is unnatural and deviant.

If you object to that which is "unnatural", you would have to reject all of society. Sexual intercourse for the sake of pleasure, not procreation, would have to be considered deviant, as it wastes energy better spent elsewhere.

I don't buy the argument that something in essence can be wrong. I consider paedophilia to be morally repugnant, yes, but not due to some transcendent reason such as the notion that it somehow would be against "human nature". In my mind, such a position devalues the real, tangible harms that victims of paedophilia suffer. They suffer not because of something as ill-defined as a "transgression against nature or morality", but because they have been violated, and because they did not have the capacity to give consent or understand what they were getting into. Those are real issues, and I think the hypothetical stands. If a child somehow were able to give consent, and if the child was mature enough, it would not be morally wrong for it to engage in sexual activity with an adult.

I still consider it unlikely, by the way, that a child would be able to give consent. If you have anything more palpable than semantics to object to what I've said, I'd be happy to see it.

[Catison]

Perhaps the better way to tackle the issue would be to teach the child to think critically and evaluate things objectively, rather than pound facts and figures into its mind. Teach the arguments, the reasoning behind the arguments, the assumptions inherent to the reasoning, and the justfications for those assumptions, and so on. It is more a way of seeing things and thinking of things that needs to be addressed.

Yes, a magnificent idea that I fully embrace.

I would not be so quick to suggest an equality between the "paradigms" of science, and whatever religious sentiment a parent tries to teach its child, an equality which my sleep-deprived brain seems to find implicit to your post. My contention would be that they are different things, and while science to a degree is arbitrary (all human endeavours are), pretty much all scientists would agree that there is a qualitative and quantitative progress to scientific inquiry. While theories and hypothesis shift to accomodate the new data, we are gradually improving our knowledge, measured against the objective yardstick of reality. In a sense, the modern theories are "better" (the repressed postmodernist inside of me cringes as I write that word) than the old ones. Therefore, we should not be afraid to teach our children the current scientific findings, but we should also stress that much of science is transitory, as we learn more of the world and incorporate it into our theories; indeed, we should not be afraid of that change but should embrace it.

Ahh, but better compared to what?  Science, as you say, is a human endeavor, but so is every measuring stick we can use to judge it.  Science, for all its glory, utterly fails to provide the objectivity needed to judge itself right. This was Kuhn's point, that there is no way to judge which paradigms are better or that we are, in reality, getting closer to any Truth.  If we are, how do we know this objective Truth exists?  Only some nonhuman entity could provide such a thing, but that is exactly what Dawkins is arguing is irrational.  This begs the question, how can we teach anything if we must be sure it is absolutely right first?

[Daidalos]

Ahh, but better compared to what?  Science, as you say, is a human endeavor, but so is every measuring stick we can use to judge it.  Science, for all its glory, utterly fails to provide the objectivity needed to judge itself right. This was Kuhn's point, that there is no way to judge which paradigms are better or that we are, in reality, getting closer to any Truth.  If we are, how do we know this objective Truth exists?  Only some nonhuman entity could provide such a thing, but that is exactly what Dawkins is arguing is irrational.  This begs the question, how can we teach anything if we must be sure it is absolutely right first?

I think your post illuminates an important point which Dawkins seems to forget. Rationality cannot possibly serve as a justification for itself, and neither can science. It is inescapable that some assumptions will have to stand unjustified, perhaps that there is objective reality that we can measure and ultimately can come to understand (to some degree). Otherwise, we are left with the sorry state of things where nothing can be known, where all scientific findings are incidental. All we can do as scientists is to strive to find models that better explain the data, to find consilience between differents sets of evidence, and make qualified inferences from our observations. Let the philosophers sort out the metaphysics of it all.

In the end, for all of this to make sense, from a metaphysical if not scientific perspective, we need to make some unverifiable assumptions. It's not elegant, but who said everything had to be so?

[Catison]

Let the philosophers sort out the metaphysics of it all.

It's not elegant, but who said everything had to be so?

But that is not what Dawkins is suggesting.  He is basically saying he is right and everyone should then do as he says because he is.

[Daidalos]

But that is not what Dawkins is suggesting.  He is basically saying he is right and everyone should then do as he says because he is.

I didn't say I agreed with Dawkins on everything.

[Florestan]

Oh, are you going to give me nothing more substantive than the evanescent "human nature" argument? Really, what does that even mean? I would have to reiterate, is there anything else than consent that is the issue? Of course, if your answer is "human nature", I would have to ask for a bit more detail.

Ok. Let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that, as you clearly imply, the sole base of morality is "consent".

I draw your attention to the following instances.

(a) A real case

The cannibalism case in Germany a few years ago, in which the victim gave full consent to being mutilated and eaten. According to your theory of "consent-based morality" the perpetrator is innocent.

(b) A scenario

A boy, 14 years old, comes home after school and the following dialogue with his father takes place:

" - Daddy, today I took part part in a pride parade and I performed fellatio on a very cool guy."
" - What? Are you out of your minds? Why on earth did you mingle with those people in the first place? Tell me quickly what the guy was looking like so I can report to the police!"
" - Daddy, are you nuts? I and he acted as educated and responsible citizens!"
" - What the f#$^k do you mean by that?"
" - Dad, cool down and listen.
"Have we been taught at school that it is only too normal that some people are attracted towards the same sex? Yes, we have.
"Have we been taught at school that sex is all about fun and pleasure, as long as it is consensual and no one is hurt in the process? Yes, we have.
"Have we been taught at school various normal sexual practices, oral sex being one among many? Yes, we have.
"Have we been taught at school that pride parades are celebrating diversity and there's nothing wrong with people expressing their feelings? Yes, we have.
"Have we been taught at school that if you feel good about something, you can do it? Yes, we have.
"Have we been taught at school that we have the right to make up our own mind, based on facts and choice among different viewpoints? Yes, we have.
"That's exactly what I did: I thought the whole thing through. Based on what I learned in school, I took part in that parade. And when one guy proposed that I perform fellatio on him, I made up my own mind and, again based on my education, I decided to give it a try. He did not force me to do it, no one was hurt, we both had fun and pleasure, and I made up my own mind.
"Then again, I acted as an educated and responsible citizen --- why are you that angry? Besides, why are you being so judgmental?"

Do you think this is not going to happen? Dream on, delude yourself. I am as sure the day will come when this will be customary just as I am sure that tomorrow the sun will rise to the East. My only consolation is that I will not live long enough to witness it.

There is an iron law of history, that of unintended consequences: a social system, once set in motion, will not stop until its full logical consequences have been exhausted.

Martin Luther, with his "Sola Scriptura", was hailed as a champion of the liberty of conscience; he "liberated" people from the "tyranny" of the "mind-closing", "greedy" Roman Catholic Church --- and the full logical consequence of his "reformation" is the Bible Belt, that is, the very embodiment of closed-mindedness and greed.

The contemporary "liberals" --- the mistreatment of this term in the US is in itself very telling; Edmund Burke, Alexis de Tocqueville, Lord Acton or Benjamin Constant would roll in their graves if they knew what they were associated with --- are hailed as champions of diversity, open-mindedness, freedom and civilization; the full logical consequences of their theories is uniformity, conformity, tyranny and barbarity.

(c) The revival of the long-ago forgotten and forbiden slavery.

In the ancient times, apart from forced slavery, there was a consensual and lawful form of slavery: anyone who contracted a debt agreed and consented that, would he not be able to pay his debt in due time, he'd be enslaved by the creditor.

This fact, corroborated with your statement that

in the past, children have married and had offspring of their own at a much earlier age. Society didn't seem to have problems with the issue then.

only enforces my firm and unshakable conviction that "progress", its misleading name notwithstanding, is about nothing else and nothing less than completely undoing the two-thousand-year slow, but real,  progress towards civilization, and turning the clock back to primitivism and barbarism.

Dixi et salvavi animam meam.

[Daidalos]

Ok. Let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that, as you clearly imply, the sole base of morality is "consent".

I think you have quite profoundly misread my posts. I've not stated that the sole basis of morality is consent, I believe I've only talked about consent as it pertains to sexual practices. I've argued that a minor cannot be expected to give informed consent to engage in a sexual act with an adult, and therefore paedophilia is not moral. The same would apply to zoophilia, where the animal cannot give consent. This stands in stark contrast to homosexuality, where it's possible for two consenting adults engage in the practice.

I draw your attention to the following instances.

(a) A real case

The cannibalism case in Germany a few years ago, in which the victim gave full consent to being mutilated and eaten. According to your theory of "consent-based morality" the perpetrator is innocent.

Utterly irrelevant, since I never claimed consent was the sole basis for morality.

(b) A scenario

A boy, 14 years old, comes home after school and the following dialogue with his father takes place:

" - Daddy, today I took part part in a pride parade and I performed fellatio on a very cool guy."
" - What? Are you out of your minds? Why on earth did you mingle with those people in the first place? Tell me quickly what the guy was looking like so I can report to the police!"
" - Daddy, are you nuts? I and he acted as educated and responsible citizens!"
" - What the f#$^k do you mean by that?"
" - Dad, cool down and listen.
"Have we been taught at school that it is only too normal that some people are attracted towards the same sex? Yes, we have.
"Have we been taught at school that sex is all about fun and pleasure, as long as it is consensual and no one is hurt in the process? Yes, we have.
"Have we been taught at school various normal sexual practices, oral sex being one among many? Yes, we have.
"Have we been taught at school that pride parades are celebrating diversity and there's nothing wrong with people expressing their feelings? Yes, we have.
"Have we been taught at school that if you feel good about something, you can do it? Yes, we have.
"Have we been taught at school that we have the right to make up our own mind, based on facts and choice among different viewpoints? Yes, we have.
"That's exactly what I did: I thought the whole thing through. Based on what I learned in school, I took part in that parade. And when one guy proposed that I perform fellatio on him, I made up my own mind and, again based on my education, I decided to give it a try. He did not force me to do it, no one was hurt, we both had fun and pleasure, and I made up my own mind.
"Then again, I acted as an educated and responsible citizen --- why are you that angry? Besides, why are you being so judgmental?"

Do you think this is not going to happen? Dream on, delude yourself. I am as sure the day will come when this will be customary just as I am sure that tomorrow the sun will rise to the East. My only consolation is that I will not live long enough to witness it.

You're quite an alarmist, aren't you? The question actually still boils down to the notion of informed consent. Since I'm not a psychologist, I can't state with certainty whether that particular 14-year old had the capacity to understand the act in which he engaged, or whether he truly could give informed consent.

So, I will state my position again. Any individual, regardless of his or her own age, capable of giving informed consent, and possessing the requisite maturity to understand what he or she is getting into, should be free to engage in sexual acts with a similarly consenting partner, without legal repercussion for either individual.

Now, there are number of important considerations here. First, my contention would be that minors are not equipped to give informed consent, which means they do not fulfill the criteria delineated in the preceding paragraph. Since it would be impractical to evaluate each individual to establish whether or not they are capable of giving consent, it is reasonable to set an age when an individual can engage in sexual acts legally. Note, the issue of consent does not disappear even after you fulfil the age requirement; I believe it is considered rape if you have sex with a severely mentally retarded person (someone similarly unable to give consent).

Now, if we are to return to your hypothetical. Say that we have this 14-year old. He's educated, he's bright, and he seems capable of giving informed consent (according to your description). The boy was not harmed in the act (again, according to your description). I would surmise that you would still regard this act as completely immoral on the part of the other man with whom the boy engaged in sexual activities. Now, for discussion purposes only, I will grant that everything that the boy said was true: consent, check; maturity, check; no harm done, check. With these things in mind, will you be so kind as to answer this question: would you consider the act just as reprehensible if the boy was 16? Or, 18?

Before you answer the question, consider the pre-conditions. The boy gave consent, and he was not harmed, in addition to the rest of the things on the list. What would have changed, morality-wise, if the boy was older, but still possessed the same level of maturity as this hypothetical 14-year old seems to possess? What I want from you, and what you thus far have failed to provide, is something tangible (besides consent) that justifies the illegality of paedophilia. For me, consent is more than enough of a justification, but you have invoked nothing more than some nebulous argument from "human nature". Your scenario does not address this issue at all. What factor, besides that "it is just wrong", plays into the moral dimensions of paedophilia?

The rest of your post I don't quite know how to respond to.

Edit: Emphasis

[Norbeone]

If you object to that which is "unnatural", you would have to reject all of society. Sexual intercourse for the sake of pleasure, not procreation, would have to be considered deviant, as it wastes energy better spent elsewhere.

I don't buy the argument that something in essence can be wrong. I consider paedophilia to be morally repugnant, yes, but not due to some transcendent reason such as the notion that it somehow would be against "human nature". In my mind, such a position devalues the real, tangible harms that victims of paedophilia suffer. They suffer not because of something as ill-defined as a "transgression against nature or morality", but because they have been violated, and because they did not have the capacity to give consent or understand what they were getting into. Those are real issues, and I think the hypothetical stands. If a child somehow were able to give consent, and if the child was mature enough, it would not be morally wrong for it to engage in sexual activity with an adult.

I still consider it unlikely, by the way, that a child would be able to give consent. If you have anything more palpable than semantics to object to what I've said, I'd be happy to see it.

An excellent post.   


EDIT - it is indeed very unfortunate that your post has become subject to 'quite profound' misunderstandings.

[Haffner]

It's just my opinion, but the Harry Potter stories could only be harmful to the adults whom consider them harmful. They're harmless entertaiment.

[Harry]

It's just my opinion, but the Harry Potter stories could only be harmful to the adults whom consider them harmful. They're harmless entertaiment.

O, dear yes, I tried to say that several pages back, but would anyone listen........no, of course not, its only Harry sayin it!

[Haffner]

O, dear yes, I tried to say that several pages back, but would anyone listen........no, of course not, its only Harry sayin it!

It's the same for me. I don't mind .

[Florestan]

It's just my opinion, but the Harry Potter stories could only be harmful to the adults whom consider them harmful. They're harmless entertaiment.

O, dear yes, I tried to say that several pages back, but would anyone listen........no, of course not, its only Harry sayin it!

It's the same for me. I don't mind .

Hey, wait... is this thread about Harry Potter? 

[Florestan]

Now, for discussion purposes only, I will grant that everything that the boy said was true: consent, check; maturity, check; no harm done, check. With these things in mind, will you be so kind as to answer this question: would you consider the act just as reprehensible if the boy was 16? Or, 18?

Yes.

For me, consent is more than enough of a justification, but you have invoked nothing more than some nebulous argument from "human nature". Your scenario does not address this issue at all. What factor, besides that "it is just wrong", plays into the moral dimensions of paedophilia?

Time to address the "nebulous" --- but oh so compelling! --- human nature.

The very fact that you repeteadly (and correctly) maintained that a child is not able to give informed consent is an oblique acceptance from your part that something in the very nature of the child hinders her/him from consenting.

Now, the limitations imposed by the human nature on a child in respect to the sex are manifold.

First and foremost, physical limitations. The sexual organs of a child are underdeveloped and this fact of nature makes the child completely unfit for healthy sexual intercourse. To put it bluntly, the vagina of a ten-year old girl cannot acommodate the erect penis of an adult without her being subjected to atrocious pain.

Second, psychological and intellectual limitations. Do I need to elaborate on these, or are they self-evident?

That was in respect to the child. In respect to the paedophile and her / his psychopathological side I refer you to any psychiatrist.

The rest of your post I don't quite know how to respond to.

Don't worry, you don't have to. I wrote it in an admittedly provocative manner. Although I stand by the basic ideas, some rhetorical figures are exagerated.

[Daidalos]

Now, for discussion purposes only, I will grant that everything that the boy said was true: consent, check; maturity, check; no harm done, check. With these things in mind, will you be so kind as to answer this question: would you consider the act just as reprehensible if the boy was 16? Or, 18?

Yes.

Even when the boy is 18? I thought we were discussing the immorality of paedophilia, when the boy is 18 that is no longer an issue, from a legal stand-point. Why even bring this up in this discussion if you find the scenario reprehensible, no matter the boy's age?

Time to address the "nebulous" --- but oh so compelling! --- human nature.

The very fact that you repeteadly (and correctly) maintained that a child is not able to give informed consent is an oblique acceptance from your part that something in the very nature of the child hinders her/him from consenting.

Now, the limitations imposed by the human nature on a child in respect to the sex are manifold.

First and foremost, physical limitations. The sexual organs of a child are underdeveloped and this fact of nature makes the child completely unfit for healthy sexual intercourse. To put it bluntly, the vagina of a ten-year old girl cannot acommodate the erect penis of an adult without her being subjected to atrocious pain.

Yes, that is no doubt a valid point. Of course, up to a certain age, physical limitations are important factors., that's a given. However, I don't know at what age generally this doesn't become an issue. A ten-year old, as you say, is far too young, from a purely physical perspective, to engage in sexual activity. However, is the same true for a 15 or a 16 year old?

I think our dispute if not over the children who are too young to physically have sex, since on that point I agree with you: consent is not the only issue then. Our dispute is over that inverval where the child is developed enough to have sex, but from a legal point of view an adult still cannot have sex with  it. The question becomes, in that interval, is there anythings else than consent that matters? I continue discussion exactly what I mean with consent, below.

Second, psychological and intellectual limitations. Do I need to elaborate on these, or are they self-evident?

Actually, I consider this issue intervowen with the notion of consent. As you no doubt know, anyone can be fooled into agreeing to a certain course of action. But that is not necessarily informed consent. For me, a prerequisite for consent is maturity, or a certain level of psychological development. You cannot give informed consent if you don't alrealy possess the required psychological maturity. Consent is not simply saying "yes, I want to have sex with you", it requires a certain competence that the ordinary 14 year old does not possess.

To state it as succinctly as I am able: an ability to give consent to sex presupposes a requisite level of psychological and intellectual maturity.

Consider the scenario where a man drugs a woman, making her more open and suggestible. If the man proceeds to have sexual relations with her, he can be prosecuted for rape, the reason being that the woman could not give informed consent. (I sure hope I'm not saying something utterly stupid, from a legal standpoint; any lawyers here?). In the same way that the drugged woman is incapable of consenting to sex, the minor is similarly incapable, whether or not the minor actually expresses a willingness to engage in sexual activity or not.

[Joe_Campbell]

Yet some women, no matter what their age, still claim they were fooled.


just a bit of humour, folks

[mozartsneighbor]

Ok. Let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that, as you clearly imply, the sole base of morality is "consent".

(b) A scenario

A boy, 14 years old, comes home after school and the following dialogue with his father takes place:

" - Daddy, today I took part part in a pride parade and I performed fellatio on a very cool guy."
" - What? Are you out of your minds? Why on earth did you mingle with those people in the first place? Tell me quickly what the guy was looking like so I can report to the police!"
" - Daddy, are you nuts? I and he acted as educated and responsible citizens!"
" - What the f#$^k do you mean by that?"
" - Dad, cool down and listen.
"Have we been taught at school that it is only too normal that some people are attracted towards the same sex? Yes, we have.
"Have we been taught at school that sex is all about fun and pleasure, as long as it is consensual and no one is hurt in the process? Yes, we have.
"Have we been taught at school various normal sexual practices, oral sex being one among many? Yes, we have.
"Have we been taught at school that pride parades are celebrating diversity and there's nothing wrong with people expressing their feelings? Yes, we have.
"Have we been taught at school that if you feel good about something, you can do it? Yes, we have.
"Have we been taught at school that we have the right to make up our own mind, based on facts and choice among different viewpoints? Yes, we have.
"That's exactly what I did: I thought the whole thing through. Based on what I learned in school, I took part in that parade. And when one guy proposed that I perform fellatio on him, I made up my own mind and, again based on my education, I decided to give it a try. He did not force me to do it, no one was hurt, we both had fun and pleasure, and I made up my own mind.
"Then again, I acted as an educated and responsible citizen --- why are you that angry? Besides, why are you being so judgmental?"

Do you think this is not going to happen? Dream on, delude yourself. I am as sure the day will come when this will be customary just as I am sure that tomorrow the sun will rise to the East. My only consolation is that I will not live long enough to witness it.

There is an iron law of history, that of unintended consequences: a social system, once set in motion, will not stop until its full logical consequences have been exhausted.

Martin Luther, with his "Sola Scriptura", was hailed as a champion of the liberty of conscience; he "liberated" people from the "tyranny" of the "mind-closing", "greedy" Roman Catholic Church --- and the full logical consequence of his "reformation" is the Bible Belt, that is, the very embodiment of closed-mindedness and greed.

The contemporary "liberals" --- the mistreatment of this term in the US is in itself very telling; Edmund Burke, Alexis de Tocqueville, Lord Acton or Benjamin Constant would roll in their graves if they knew what they were associated with --- are hailed as champions of diversity, open-mindedness, freedom and civilization; the full logical consequences of their theories is uniformity, conformity, tyranny and barbarity.

(c) The revival of the long-ago forgotten and forbiden slavery.

In the ancient times, apart from forced slavery, there was a consensual and lawful form of slavery: anyone who contracted a debt agreed and consented that, would he not be able to pay his debt in due time, he'd be enslaved by the creditor.

This fact, corroborated with your statement that

only enforces my firm and unshakable conviction that "progress", its misleading name notwithstanding, is about nothing else and nothing less than completely undoing the two-thousand-year slow, but real,  progress towards civilization, and turning the clock back to primitivism and barbarism.

Dixi et salvavi animam meam.

As Daidalos said, it is a bit difficult to know what to respond to this, except that you might benefit from discussing that with these guys: http://www.ynhh.com/ynhph/ynhph.html

[Florestan]

As Daidalos said, it is a bit difficult to know what to respond to this, except that you might benefit from discussing that with these guys: http://www.ynhh.com/ynhph/ynhph.html

I'm glad you could find help in your distress. They seem to have done a very good job since you feel so grateful as to recommend them to others.

[Florestan]

Even when the boy is 18? I thought we were discussing the immorality of paedophilia, when the boy is 18 that is no longer an issue, from a legal stand-point. Why even bring this up in this discussion if you find the scenario reprehensible, no matter the boy's age?

From the way you formulated the whole paragraph I understood your question as refering to the other guy's behaviour, not the boy's.

If that is the case, I find the conduct of an adult homosexual proposing sexual intercourse to a boy of 18 without being sure the boy is himself homosexual morally reprehensible. Actually, I find casual sex between two partners who, except the very instance, will never see each other again morally reprehensible, no matter if they are heterosexual or homosexual.

If you were refering to the boy's behaviour when 18 years old, my answer is that I find his conduct irresponsible, its legality notwithstanding.

A ten-year old, as you say, is far too young, from a purely physical perspective, to engage in sexual activity. However, is the same true for a 15 or a 16 year old?

I think you anwered your own question by stating:

an ability to give consent to sex presupposes a requisite level of psychological and intellectual maturity.

I agree. Now, do you think that a 15- or 16-year old teenager, boy or girl, possess this level? Or even an 18-year old one?

What I think is that some of them might possess it, but, broadly speaking, the majority of them don't.

May I ask you another question? In my scenario the boy explained that he has been taught at school a few things. Do you agree to those things being taught in schools?

[Daidalos]

From the way you formulated the whole paragraph I understood your question as refering to the other guy's behaviour, not the boy's.

I think in general there has been a misunderstanding, on both our parts. I don't particularly care, at the moment, to discuss whether or not certain deviant (however you wish to define that) sexual acts are moral; what concerns me is the age of the participants. What I was trying to probe was whether the age of the boy in your scenario really was a factor, or if you'd regard the act as reprehensible no matter what. Your reply seemed to indicate that you found the situation inherenty immoral, which I would say sidetracks this discussion. You see, that brings us far, far away from a conversation regarding paedophilia, which was the initial issue (save Harry Potter, and indoctrination, of course).

If that is the case, I find the conduct of an adult homosexual proposing sexual intercourse to a boy of 18 without being sure the boy is himself homosexual morally reprehensible.

So, is there a point where the age of the "boy" ceases to be an issue? At 20, 25, 30? What if the "adult" is 18 years old?

Actually, I find casual sex between two partners who, except the very instance, will never see each other again morally reprehensible, no matter if they are heterosexual or homosexual.

I'm not certain I'd call it immoral. I'd settle for irresponsible.

If you were refering to the boy's behaviour when 18 years old, my answer is that I find his conduct irresponsible, its legality notwithstanding.

Agreed.

I think you anwered your own question by stating:

I agree. Now, do you think that a 15- or 16-year old teenager, boy or girl, possess this level? Or even an 18-year old one?

I don't know if they possess this level. As you say, it varies between individuals, the older the person, the more likely he or she has reached that level.

What I think is that some of them might possess it, but, broadly speaking, the majority of them don't.

May I ask you another question? In my scenario the boy explained that he has been taught at school a few things. Do you agree to those things being taught in schools?

Alright, let's check the list.

"Have we been taught at school that it is only too normal that some people are attracted towards the same sex? Yes, we have.

This one, I have no problem with being discussed in school. It is frequent in human populations that people are attracted to their own sex.

I guess the answer really depends on if you equate frequency with normalcy. Also, it depends on your view on what the percentage needs to be for something to be regarded as "normal."

"Have we been taught at school that sex is all about fun and pleasure, as long as it is consensual and no one is hurt in the process? Yes, we have.

All about fun and pleasure, really? Is that taught?

Regardless, I have nothing against it, per se. If the sex is consensual, and no one is hurt in the process, it is not immoral. It might be irresponsible, but that varies from case to case.

"Have we been taught at school various normal sexual practices, oral sex being one among many? Yes, we have.

Can't say I have anything against this one either.

"Have we been taught at school that pride parades are celebrating diversity and there's nothing wrong with people expressing their feelings? Yes, we have.

I don't know what you've been taught in sex-ed, but I haven't been taught this. Nevertheless, I don't see anything wrong with it if people wish to parade, even though I have no particular inclination to participate.

"Have we been taught at school that if you feel good about something, you can do it? Yes, we have.

This one, however, I would have to object to. I don't seriously think this is being taught, but if it is, it's clearly irresponsible on the part of the school. People need to learn to reign in their emotions, at times; doing whatever you feel good about at a particular time is a recipe for disaster.

"Have we been taught at school that we have the right to make up our own mind, based on facts and choice among different viewpoints? Yes, we have.

Of course I'd have to agree with this one. However, it is the school's responsibility to ensure that the facts are genuine, and the viewpoints thoroughly discussed.