If children were completely unaffected (both now and in the future) by a pedophile molesting them, are the actions of the pedophile, including but not limited to licking, touching, kissing, penetrating still morally wrong?
Please refrain from the use of ad hominem. I see it quite frequently on these boards.
Just go away
I think the point of a hypothetical is that it's possible. This is not.
What a weird fucking question.
I guess if there's no victim, there's no problem.
Keep in mind that I think in terms of Jefferson's natural rights.
Yes, because doing any of the above is not a natural action towards children.
This is not even worth discussing, since it's totally unrealistic.
Under no circumstances should child molestation be right. Even if the kid doesnt think it's wrong, its still a fucking kid that doesnt know any better.
This response contains naturalistic fallacy, and moralistic fallacy.
Just because something is unnatural is not grounds to label it as immoral, and vice versa.
You should know that.
Ok, please explain how it's a naturalistic fallacy.
I'm calling for this troll job to be banned from these boards. His first 12 posts are nothing else but about pedophilia. Don't feed the troll.
More kitty porn!!
You attempt to prove a claim about ethics by appealing to a definition of the term "good" in terms of one or more natural properties. You claim that what is natural is inherently good or right, and that what is unnatural is bad or wrong.
You love this, don't you Ted?