Logicboy03:





The point I was making s that anything legal is a moral issue. The laws of the land reflect what the leaders of the society feel to be right.


You can talk nonsense all you like but that doesnt change the facts

Then you made an error in the original statement. If moral issues were what you were talking about you should have used the term. Of course, the OT laws, Jim Crow and Saudi Arabia's law against apostasy are felt to be right, agreed ?

Uyi Iredia: @ logicboy

Point 1: Dead men can't and don't give consent.

Point 2: Living people give consent with wills on what should
be done to their dead bodies.

Point 3: A living person can use a will (assuming no laws precluding
necrophilia) to allow necrophilia to be performed on one's
body.

Put bias and emotion aside for a moments. Do you agree that the 3 points above are correct ?

Consent has a different meaning when it comes to sex or laws regarding sex.


Consent regarding sex has nothing to do with wills.


You saw that you were wrong but as soon as Deepsight came, you felt that you had solid backing.



Please, dont talk about bias when you are the one that doesnt want to agree that you are wrong

Uyi Iredia:

Then you made an error in the original statement. If moral issues were what you were talking about you should have used the term. Of course, the OT laws, Jim Crow and Saudi Arabia's law against apostasy are felt to be right, agreed ?

Yawn.........They are moral issues. Nothing to be debated here

Logicboy03:


Consent has a different meaning when it comes to sex or laws regarding sex.


Consent regarding sex has nothing to do with wills.


You saw that you were wrong but as soon as Deepsight came, you felt that you had solid backing.



Please, dont talk about bias when you are the one that doesnt want to agree that you are wrong

What is it about consent that applies to sex (or laws on it) which precludes necrophilia being consented to via wills ? This is what your argument rests on.

Uyi Iredia:

What is it about consent that applies to sex (or laws on it) which precludes necrophilia being consented to via wills ? This is what your argument rests on.

Wills do not apply to consent/sex

Logicboy, making very things simple; wills are the intentions and desires of the deceased, and especially at the death of the testator, become sacred.

As long as the will does not violate any law or custom, it is a perfect form of consent. And the testator can dispose his property and his body as he wishes. The gravest issues are dealt with via wills.

Kay 17: Logicboy, making very things simple; wills are the intentions and desires of the deceased, and especially at the death of the testator, become sacred.

As long as the will does not violate any law or custom, it is a perfect form of consent. And the testator can dispose his property and his body as he wishes. The gravest issues are dealt with via wills.

And if the will violates the principled of the laws behind se.x and consent? Do you see how you set the criteria for your statement to be non-applicable?

Logicboy03:


Wills do not apply to consent/sex

I know that is what you say. I'm asking why it doesn't apply. As in, a reason.

Uyi Iredia:

I know that is what you say. I'm asking why it doesn't apply. As in, a reason.

Se.xual consent is instantaneous. Wills deal with advanced decisions by a property owner.

Logicboy03:


Se.xual consent is instantaneous. Wills deal with advanced decisions by a property owner.

Is research on sex not part of the medical practice?

Logicboy03:


Se.xual consent is instantaneous. Wills deal with advanced decisions by a property owner.

What about pre-planned $€x ? People have told of how they planned for sex days, weeks or months before. Does the consent still hold over that time lag ?

Uyi Iredia:

What about pre-planned $€x ? People have told of how they planned for sex days, weeks or months before. Does the consent still hold over that time lag ?

Consent can be withdrawn a second before s€x. That. Is the defining point. If a girl wants to fawk u but she passes out some seconds before fawks....it is r.ape.

Logicboy03:

Consent can be withdrawn a second before s€x. That. Is the defining point. If a girl wants to fawk u but she passes out some seconds before fawks....it is r.ape.

This is a straw-man. The question is whether consent to sex can be held for an extended period. In fact, I think you want to shift scope so I'll ask again.

Why must consent to necrophilia via wills be IGNORED when it isn't in any other cases, more so since consent to give materials can be changed ?

@logicboy

Consent to sex can be given at an advanced stage, yet be withdrawn at the point prior to intercourse. That I believe is a luxury unaffordable by a deceased. However prior to giving his consent via a will, the deceased is aware of the limitations and finality of his decision. And as a result still a consent.

Uyi Iredia:

This is a straw-man. The question is whether consent to sex can be held for an extended period. In fact, I think you want to shift scope so I'll ask again.

Why must consent to necrophilia via wills be IGNORED when it isn't in any other cases, more so since consent to give materials can be changed ?

Straw man?

What is the cognitive difference between a dead person and a person that is passed out? You have se.x with a passed out girl and she can file for ra.pe as even if she agreed before she slept, as long as you didnt start se.x before she passed out.


Consent is between two consenting adults. A will is one persons demands to another regarding transfer/duties of property.


A dead man has no chance to change his mind at the last minute. Simple and short.

Kay 17: @logicboy

Consent to sex can be given at an advanced stage, yet be withdrawn at the point prior to intercourse. That I believe is a luxury unaffordable by a deceased. However prior to giving his consent via a will, the deceased is aware of the limitations and finality of his decision. And as a result still a consent.

The same argument can be used for a defendant accused for rap.ing a girl after she passed out because she gave consent while awake, and it will fail!!!!!


Being aware of the finality/limitations of the decision of a will doesnt change the fact that he/she can change his mind.

That ability to change one's mind is crucial to consent. A drugged (roofied) girl can not give consent. Why? She cant say no to s.ex from a perp.

Logicboy03:


Straw man?

What is the cognitive difference between a dead person and a person that is passed out? You have se.x with a passed out girl and she can file for ra.pe as even if she agreed before she slept, as long as you didnt start se.x before she passed out.


Consent is between two consenting adults. A will is one persons demands to another regarding transfer/duties of property.


A dead man has no chance to change his mind at the last minute. Simple and short.

So dead bodies can be transferred and what can be done to them via wills agreed ?

Uyi Iredia:

So dead bodies can be transferred and what can be done to them via wills agreed ?

Yawn

Logicboy's quote

That ability to change one's mind is crucial to consent

Consent is the prequisite for consensual sex, and your quote above also affirms that the ability to change one's mind is EXTERNAL to consent. It is an extra and remotely relevant.

As to your drugged girl example, if she expressly consents to sex while being drugged, that wouldn't be rape. But the peculiar thing with sex is that; the people involved don't sign letters or agreement with detailed conditions and all, rather it is one of conduct, if a male has to force his way through in order to penetrate his partner or female, the reluctance by the partner is deemed non consensual.

In fact, it is irrelevant as to whether or not you can withdraw your consent to an agreement, in fact you bound not to without liability. Sex is seen as an object of an agreement.

Kay 17: Logicboy's quote



Consent is the prequisite for consensual sex, and your quote above also affirms that the ability to change one's mind is EXTERNAL to consent. It is an extra and remotely relevant.

As to your drugged girl example, if she expressly consents to sex while being drugged, that wouldn't be rape. But the peculiar thing with sex is that; the people involved don't sign letters or agreement with detailed conditions and all, rather it is one of conduct, if a male has to force his way through in order to penetrate his partner or female, the reluctance by the partner is deemed non consensual.

In fact, it is irrelevant as to whether or not you can withdraw your consent to an agreement, in fact you bound not to without liability. Sex is seen as an object of an agreement.

Erm, before I give a reply.....are you erm...active on the Maclatunji issue?


So, whats the point, Kay? The fact is that a will is not consent as regards to sex.

Do you think consent can be expressed in a will at all?!

I know nothing about the maclatunji issue.

Kay 17: Do you think consent can be expressed in a will at all?!

I know nothing about the maclatunji issue.

Bury your head in sand.

^Oh no. You bury your head in sand so I'll cut to the quick.

Consent can be given to actions on a body through wills. You know this, you know that necroph*lia and pedophil*a can involve consent but this is deemed BY YOU as immoral & illegal. In truth, there may be no clause in the Nigerian law precluding necrophilia. Of course as all reasons for immorality, the reason would presume immorality. Now I ask a tough question in this thread, why can't a necrophili*c who apparently enjoys the act be supported, the same way gays are ? Simple, because it is deemed wrong. If one deems it moral, then a legal backing can be systemically drawn the same way it is being done for gays.

This issue which bugs Karen CAN be stretched to the likes of pedophiles, be$tials and those in inc€st. People like you when shoved with this issue either question my moral stance on such and use it when shown to agree with what is widely-held (immoral, as is usually the case) to FRAUDULENTLY dismiss the question of why one sexual behaviour takes precedence over others as heterosexuals did for homos. Unfortunately, it won't because there is a possibility that humanity will be asking unpalatable questions about sexual relationships deemed immoral on a deeply emotional level. The reason people like me point to stuff like polygamy, polyandry, ince$t etc to the dislike of opponents is this: to point out the fact that people have moral boundaries which they arbitrate and dislike it being impugned. It is inevitable and you wouldn't expect everyone to agree with a certain aspect of your personality despite efforts to the contrary. It is very likely that wrt to other issues you at least could show the phobia you ascribe to them.

Now to the KOKO. I've said that our morality spings from our intellect: no intellect, no morality. Morals (the ability to know and arbiter good and bad) is absolute. Our application of this ability (morals) is relative. We know that we deemed certain things bad, then do it or try to justify given a context: consider killing in robbery and in criminal executions. We also know that some things we said were good (eg our faith) is very bad. Your arbitration of a thing as good or bad is just that and is is subjective/relative. In fact, laws (whether divined from a deity eg secular, Christian, Muslim, Hinduist), etiquettes and widely held norms are many examples of how people deem arbiter a thing and are based on people agreeing to what has been deemed to be moral. What you call objective (or Christians call absolute morals) are simply widely-held beliefs preserved over time. People seem to dislike this fact, curiously, including atheists. But, KNOW THIS, no matter how we meander in our morals our intellect and the ability to arbiter good or bad is what remains constant (or absolute) till death. This is why I say the ability to KNOW good or bad is absolute.

Uyi Iredia: ^Oh no. You bury your head in sand so I'll cut to the quick.

Consent can be given to actions on a body through wills. You know this, you know that necroph*lia and pedophil*a can involve consent but this is deemed BY YOU as immoral & illegal. In truth, there may be no clause in the Nigerian law precluding necrophilia. Of course as all reasons for immorality, the reason would presume immorality. Now I ask a tough question in this thread, why can't a necrophili*c who apparently enjoys the act be supported, the same way gays are ? Simple, because it is deemed wrong. If one deems it moral, then a legal backing can be systemically drawn the same way it is being done for gays.

This issue which bugs Karen CAN be stretched to the likes of pedophiles, be$tials and those in inc€st. People like you when shoved with this issue either question my moral stance on such and use it when shown to agree with what is widely-held (immoral, as is usually the case) to FRAUDULENTLY dismiss the question of why one sexual behaviour takes precedence over others as heterosexuals did for homos. Unfortunately, it won't because there is a possibility that humanity will be asking unpalatable questions about sexual relationships deemed immoral on a deeply emotional level. The reason people like me point to stuff like polygamy, polyandry, ince$t etc to the dislike of opponents is this: to point out the fact that people have moral boundaries which they arbitrate and dislike it being impugned. It is inevitable and you wouldn't expect everyone to agree with a certain aspect of your personality despite efforts to the contrary. It is very likely that wrt to other issues you at least could show the phobia you ascribe to them.

Now to the KOKO. I've said that our morality spings from our intellect: no intellect, no morality. Morals (the ability to know and arbiter good and bad) is absolute. Our application of this ability (morals) is relative. We know that we deemed certain things bad, then do it or try to justify given a context: consider killing in robbery and in criminal executions. We also know that some things we said were good (eg our faith) is very bad. Your arbitration of a thing as good or bad is just that and is is subjective/relative. In fact, laws (whether divined from a deity eg secular, Christian, Muslim, Hinduist), etiquettes and widely held norms are many examples of how people deem arbiter a thing and are based on people agreeing to what has been deemed to be moral. What you call objective (or Christians call absolute morals) are simply widely-held beliefs preserved over time. People seem to dislike this fact, curiously, including atheists. But, KNOW THIS, no matter how we meander in our morals our intellect and the ability to arbiter good or bad is what remains constant (or absolute) till death. This is why I say the ability to KNOW good or bad is absolute.

Yawn......contradictions left and right

Yet you don't point one out. SMH at logicboyism.

Uyi Iredia: Yet you don't point one out. SMH at logicboyism.

You overestimate your intelligence. When someone shows you that you are clearly wrong, you simply repeat your talking points.


First lets deal with your contradictions
-there are absolute morals but our application of morality is subjective.
-absolute morals is somehow the same with objective morals


Second, lets review your FOOLISH statements

a) there is no difference between the justification of homosexuality and bestiality and necrophilai-
-Foolish Iredia, have you ever justified heterosexuality in the first place? CANT YOU SEE THAT YOU FALL FOR YOUR OWN COMPLAINT THAT WHAT MANY PEOPLE SEE TO BE MORAL IS JUST WHAT THEIR SOCIETY/RELIGION HAS AGREED OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME AND THAT ONE SE.XUALITY IS GIVEN UNNECESSARY PREFERENCE OVER THE OTHER? WHY IS HETEROSEXUALITY GIVEN PREFERENCE?

-The fact remains that a dead person can not give consent. You and your bunch of foolish supporters confuse se.xual consent with normal consent. Two gay or heterosexual people who are adults and alive can give consent. Animals, minors and dead people cant. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL


b) Necrophilia and pedophilia can involve consent.
-So a 6 year old girl can give consent abi? A dead man can give consent?



This is my last comment here

^^ Spiritless atheism. No valid consistent ground to prop your cherrypicked morality.

Logicboy03:


You overestimate your intelligence. When someone shows you that you are clearly wrong, you simply repeat your talking points.

I repeat when I note someone misunderstands it intently or mistakenly. In this case you are being wilfully stubborn.

Logicboy03: First lets deal with your contradictions
-there are absolute morals but our application of morality is subjective.
-absolute morals is somehow the same with objective morals

• No. I said Morals are absolute. That's DIFFERENT from saying there are absolute morals. I also wrote the definition of morals (should be morality_my mistake) I was working with: the ABILITY to choose good or bad. That's what is absolute and the application of this ability (our choice of good or bad) is subjective/relative.

• Oh ! You want me to write absolute morals all through. Sorry I didn't. I wrote the two as the same thing hoping ypu'll be sensible enough to infer this moreso when I used the words 'subjective/relative'.

Logicboy's claims of my contradictions refuted.

Logicboy03: Second, lets review your FOOLISH statements

Yeah, yeah. We always hear how bad foolish is but it manages to crop up everyday. Saying foolish stuff mighn't be so bad after all.

Logicboy03: a) there is no difference between the justification of homosexuality and bestiality and necrophilai-
-Foolish Iredia, have you ever justified heterosexuality in the first place? CANT YOU SEE THAT YOU FALL FOR YOUR OWN COMPLAINT THAT WHAT MANY PEOPLE SEE TO BE MORAL IS JUST WHAT THEIR SOCIETY/RELIGION HAS AGREED OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME AND THAT ONE SE.XUALITY IS GIVEN UNNECESSARY PREFERENCE OVER THE OTHER? WHY IS HETEROSEXUALITY GIVEN PREFERENCE?

I have. I also know what I use to justify my $€xuality can be co-opted by others. Pleasure is one and the n€crophiliac in the OP states that as her justification. It's role in relationship (preferably in the marital context) is another and pro-creation is much desired.
BTW you did not read well. Here's what I wrote before: 'What you call objective (or Christians call absolute morals) are simply widely-held beliefs preserved over time. I made it bold and underlined it and you are repeating what I know, apparently since you were blind to it.

Why is heterosexuality given preference ? Easy. Because we choose such. It is MUCH safe to presume it was the default state of things (for an obvious reason) before homo$€xuality came around.

Now why do you deny consent to p€dos, n€cros and 'inc€sters' and why would you condemn (supposing you would) them ? The moment you answer this you will think twice before calling people homophobic and think twice before lampooning people who deem gay immoral.

Logicboy03: -The fact remains that a dead person can not give consent. You and your bunch of foolish supporters confuse se.xual consent with normal consent. Two gay or heterosexual people who are adults and alive can give consent. Animals, minors and dead people cant. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL

Presumably gays can give normal consent while $€xual consent can't shouldn't be given to n€cros, p€dos and inc€sts. Why ? Keep in mind gays could do (but aren't known for) the sexual deviances mentioned.

Logicboy03: b) Necrophilia and pedophilia can involve consent.
-So a 6 year old girl can give consent abi? A dead man can give consent?

Yes they can. The 6 year old has the brains to, the dead man can do it via wills written while alive. Or couldn't you accept and refuse things at 6 ? Were you that dense ? I hope not.

Logicboy03: This is my last comment here

Get your a$$ back here as stop playing the scaredy cat.