Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Alright, I’ll give it to you in a formal, structured way.
Premise 1: Based on what we know about human nature in general, if a man old enough to be a girl’s father or grandfather had access to her while she was still a child, this would almost certainly not pass without leaving negative effects on her, in the long run if not in the short term.
Premise 2: Human nature is generally the same for us and for Muhammad’s people.
Conclusion: A marriage between a girl Aisha’s age and a man Muhammad’s age would be harmful even in Muhammad’s time.
You’d have to be stubborn to dispute Premise 1 or Premise 2.
So you concluded that makes it normal? Are you talking about a literal child, or about a teenager with some femininity?
Pedophilia in the medical sense refers to prepubescent children. Adolescents or those between childhood and adolescence have other terms.
Anyway, the same justifications could be applied in Sparta. The boy there wasn’t forced into homosexuality; these were intimate relationships that were common and supposedly strengthened the bond between teacher and student.So would you say it wouldn’t harm the boy, not even in the long run? No direct or indirect harm?
The same way you don’t know about the boy in similar conditions.
I think you assume human nature is very fluid and everything depends on society, so you don’t see that there’s a fixed “core.”
If you admitted there’s a fixed element, you’d expect that what harms a girl today would also harm her back then, despite cultural differences, because human nature is the same.What’s your evidence that consensual homosexuality with a boy in a society that accepts it is harmful?
You’d say, based on what we know about human nature in general, we can be almost certain it would negatively affect the boy, even if not immediately then in his psychological development.
That’s an inferential argument based on general human nature, not on direct observation.
