If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Aged 16-25? Share your experience of using the discussion boards and receive a £25 voucher! Take part via text-chat, video or phone. Click here to find out more and to take part.
Options
Comments
I am pointing out what BeckyBoo's oppinion was according to her thread and how it was incorrect to logically deduce what Kermit did. I was not stating my personal oppinion in any way. An implies statement is part of prepositional logic which is what I was illustrating with that example in a crude way so as to prove adequetely that BeckyBoo had not said it was OK to do anything legal by saying she didn't agree with doing something that was illegal.
Your point would be valid if you'd actually deigned to understand what I said. I'll try again.
Your and BeckyBoo's argument has been that because something is illegal it is morally unacceptable behaviour, as if legality is the defining nature of morality. Therefore, because you have defined morally acceptable behaviour solely by the legality of that behaviour, the converse argument is that any action that is legal is morally acceptable.
Again, I'll ask about homosexual sex, and the illegality of that until recently. Because it was illegal gays shouldn't have had sex, is that correct?
Oh, and stop trying to be condescending. I suspect that my mathematics is at least a match for yours, tbh.
*ahem*
See the bit in brackets.
I severly doubt your maths is at least a match for mine to be entirely honest. You are making an assumption in providing the converse argument. For your benefit I will now state the truth table of an implies statement
1 0 Result
T T T
T F F
F F T
F T T
as you can see from this table if mine and Becky's argument isn't fulfilled (i.e. something being legal then cause two can be either true or false and the statement will hold true. In case you haven't understood this means that when something is legal then it can either be moral or immoral and the implies statement will still be logically correct. Do you understand now?
It doesn't indirectly say anything about my personal oppinion. That would be incredibly stupid due to the fact I wasn't 16 when I first had sex. It is a purely logical argument using the implies statement for which the truth table is given above. It in no way implies what I think at all.
I don't see how you think it directly or indirectly applies to you.
I'll keep it simpler for you this time. If you base a moral decision solely on the legality of the situation, then you are stating that legality and morals are directly linked. i.e. you are saying that illegal = immoral, and therefore, by definition, legal = moral. If you wish to argue that morals and legality are NOT linked, then feel free, but that's been the entire basis of your argument so far.
And I note that you still haven't stated that you agree that gay people shouldn't have sex where it is outlawed, because "the law is there for a reason". I wonder why that might be...
I don't get that truth table. I need explanations, you see. By the way, by keeping this argument going, with the above information, you are calling yourself immoral. Yay you.
Because you are indirectly calling me immoral for having underage sex with somebody I loved. Thanks for that.
Of course gay people can have sex if they so choose thats why as a democracy the law was changed. You have as yet not replied as to what you want the law changing to.
I really don't think you are following at all what I am saying Franki.
It implies immoral? Don't think so, either you are using the law to "prove" immorality or you aren't.
I said that the law was arbritrary, not strictly incorrect. There needs to be an age limit, so why not set it at 16? It makes no difference, as its abritrary.
Though for the record, I think the Dutch law makes much more sense, and is something that would be very good in this country.
No, she is getting what you're saying. You and BeckyBoo are arguing that, because of a random and abritrary law, sex below the age of 16 is immoral. And guess what Franki did, eh?
Anyway, bored now.
Page 5: this is what I said
Just to clarify my view on this subject.
Plus I spoke to Franki off the boards to explain what I meant. For the record Kermit she hadn't quite got the point I was getting at.
Just to let you know, having sex from a very young age like yourself increases the risk of cervical cancer. There are a lot of people (young girls in particular) who think themselves to be mature and enter decisions with the right knowledge and experience, when in fact they don't have that knowledge and experience. You've gone from cream of the crop - a private girls boarding school in malvern rated in the top ten, down to part timing and you're still only doing your GCSEs.
One of the reasons the age limits are there is because in a lot of cases it's not sensible having serious boyfriends at 14. I know at 14 I hadn't had any relationships, apart from those ones at primary school where you kiss behind the bushes
There comes a time in everybody's life where they look at themselves and think 'am I proud of myself'. I hope you will hold high standards for yourself and if you are not proud of yourself you will change your behaviours and attitudes, because even though you will always insist you know better, they are not healthy.
learn english
nuff said
Not really, there wasn't that much wrong with the English he was using.
Agreed, you've jsut proved that everyone who says people under 16 don't understand enough to have sex right.
Unless you had some accident such as contreception faliure in which case I apoligise.
If it was a case that there WAS no contreception... then yes it is a problem.
Meaning what exactly. Look at time I posted I had just got in from an 8 hour shift at work I dont believe the English is that bad.
"look at the time i posted"
and erm i work 8/9 hour shifts and have about 5 hours of sleep a night as well, and i still manage fine
The Dutch age of consent is lower.
The Dutch have much fewer teenage pregnancies.
Erm.
Bomberman, I am fully aware of what implies means, though thank you for your input. Maybe when I do a mathematics A'Level again I shall be able to improve my excellent grade with your information.
Sadly you weren't implying anything, you and BeckyBoo were saying that BECAUSE the law is there THEREFORE underage sex shouldn't be done. There's no implication there, it's a DIRECT CAUSAL LINK. I'm still obviously not keeping this simple enough.
The law is there.
Because the law is there underage sex is wrong. No other arguments have been put forward, except the existence of the law.
Therefore it follows that without this law, the reason for the "wrongness" of underage sex disappears.
Therefore it follows that if something is legal then it is not wrong.
Is that simple enough this time?
http://vbulletin.thesite.org.uk/showthread.php?t=83350
I would thank you though if your post in this thread could include things such as capital letters at the start of sentances and you use apostrophes where appropriate before you correct my English.
Kermit that is an implies statement. Theres nothing more that I can say than that and as you only have A-Level maths this is probably why you cannot grasp this simple concept.
No, that does not follow at all. Which I think is what Bomberman may be trying to say. Maybe.
No it doesn't, the logic for saying that it does is incorrect.
You cannot present that
If A then B
Not A
Therefore, Not B
as an argument, because it's logically flawed, and that is essentially what was being said.
I think that confusion has come in as to what exactly was being argued, because kermit and bm were talking about the relationship between the law and moral wrongness and you have just talked about the relationship between the law and legality, which is kinda obvious.
Assuming though that that was just a slip of wording, I agree that noone has put forward any other arguments, but that still doesn't mean that you can say that because one thing is not true another thing becomes untrue.
No it's not. Read what I said again.
That statement is true yes, but that's not what was being said before, and not what I was saying.
Well, that's your point, it's not the one that I was discussing.
Still, ho-hum.