Do Materialists Believe Rape is Wrong?

_{Barry Arrington

February 25, 2012

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I have a question for our materialist friends. Let’s imagine a group of chimpanzees. Say one of the male chimps approaches one of the female chimps and makes chimp signals that he wants to have sexual relations with her, but for whatever reason she’s not interested and refuses. Is it morally wrong for the male chimp to force the female chimp to have sex with him against her will?

If you answer “no it is not morally wrong,” imagine further a group of humans. On the materialist view, a human is just a jumped up hairless ape. Is it morally wrong for a human male to force a human female to have sex with him against her will? If you answer “yes, it is morally wrong,” I certainly agree with you. But please explain why on the materialist view it is not wrong for a hairy ape to force a female to have sex with him, but it is wrong for a hairless ape to force a female to have sex with him.

Comments

"Again, the question is: Why do materialist have different moral expectations for chimps than they do for humans when, on their premises, chimps and humans are pretty much the same thing? Care to take a shot at that?" Materialists have different moral expectations for chimps than for humans because materialists base their moral expectations on something other than materialism. Chimps and humans are "pretty much the same," as you say. But they are not exactly the same. Their brains work differently. Their societies work differently. Their tools and technologies are different in number, power, and scope. Their sense of self and species-identity lead to different behaviors and natural attitudes. Since materialism is amoral, as I think we all agree, and cannot be the basis of sustained communal living, then materialists must base their moral expectations on something else. I can't speak for all materialists or for anyone but myself, but I think it is broadly true that materialists base their moral expectations on learned and reasoned ideas of human-specific "good" in human-dominated societies.LarTanner_{February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

Inunison at 17, and others “Rape reduced female reproductive success throughout human evolutionary history because it interfered with their ability to choose their offspring’s father. Because women’s interests are thwarted by rape, so too are the interests of their significant others—that is, of people in general.” – Thornhill and Palmer In other words, for the materialist there is "morally wrong (on materialistic evolutionary grounds)," but not wicked, an abomination or blasphemy. All these notions require a person who is offended by wickedness, abomination or blasphemy. If all that person is is human, or even a collectivity of humans, than it's all relative. And thus, we get ThoughtSpark's moral philosophy at 19: "The whole concept of morals is a purely social construct, not something a creator has instilled into us. We created morals because we are social animals, and having an agreed upon code of conduct is the only way for us to survive as a group. There are no absolutes. But there are some things that should not be done for simple practical reasons." So when someone steals ThoughtSpark's car or rapes his/her friend, it isn't wicked behavior, it's social behavior that for group survival, our society has deemed inconvenient. How convenient. I hope feminists aren't largely buying into this. Those who are have no reason to be morally outraged at anything. But other societies view these and other moral issues differently. And it isn't just societies of the past, like the Nazis. And it isn't just "societies" outside the US. They are right here in our own back yard. In a recent case in Pennsylvania, a man in a peaceful atheist demonstration on Halloween last year - dressed as a zombie Mohammed, was physically attacked by an offended immigrant Muslim man. The judge in the case was sympathetic to Muslims, having lived for years in Muslim countries. Since he was offended by the atheist's behavior, he dismissed the charges of physical violence the police brought against the Muslim man. http://jonathanturley.org/2012/02/24/pennsylvania-judge-throws-out-charge-for-harassing-atheist-while-calling-the-victim-a-doofus/ Of course the ruling is a violation of the 1st amendment to the constitution, and atheists and theists alike should be outraged; but the larger issue here in light of what we're discussing is what I mentioned as collective morality. We here in the US have determined for reasons having to do with human rights and free speech, that we don't have the right not to be offended. While on moral grounds, the Muslim man had every right to be outraged by the demonstration, to demonstrate such outrage peacefully, and I would probably be outraged too, if I was a Muslim; but he did not have the right (according to US law) to demonstrate his outrage with a violent act. His culture's different laws in that regard should not have been a consideration. Our law is not based in competing moral collectives, but in 3 basic notions of human rights; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, rights endowed on us by our Creator. If that should change, then individual complaints of offense would be legally legitimate, and I could press charges against a neighbor who offends me for any reason. Atheists and materialists should be "thankful" that their right to peacefully protest and offend is guaranteed not by a materialist notion of law, not by consensus, not by might, not by the state, but law by these 3 basic notions of human rights; which are decidedly anti-materialistic. You will notice of course that there's a difference between law and morality (although law has at its base, morality). Morality requires a person offended; while law does not care about offense unless such offense deters life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; as such, civil law is limited. So the materialists who think that theists in any way want a theocracy are mistaken. Theists want a society that honors and upholds civil law for all those deemed human (including the unborn, BTW). Right now we have a conflict between competing cultures in the US regarding morality. If we're to accept that morality is relative to culture, then the Sharia law (which isn't exactly law, but an enforced moral code) enthusiasts should have every right to exercise and enforce it in their chosen communities, like Dearborn Michigan (for example). However; if we accept the principles in our Declaration of Independence regarding basic human rights, and in our Constitution regarding free speech, relative morality should not enter into the equation; only civil law should. I don't know too many materialists who would object to this when they really think about it. There's a lot of issues there, but they are all interrelated.CannuckianYankee_{February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

Morality is not objective but merely an arbitrary choice agreed upon and nothing more.
And if? As it is agreed upon, most will follow the moral guidelines, and those who don't will face consequences.DiEb_{February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT}

Again, the question is: Why do materialist have different moral expectations for chimps than they do for humans when, on their premises, chimps and humans are pretty much the same thing? Care to take a shot at that?
Again, I refer you to an earlier answer:
That seems to be obvious: a chimp doesn’t understand the concepts mentioned above – like a small child (which has no difference in genes!). But a child may (and should be) educated to learn the consequences of its behavior. Would you argue that a six year old child which kills a man while playing with a shotgun should be treated like an adult?
DiEb_{February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

Dieb insists that, “materialists do act as if what they say they believe is true.” Assertions are not arguments Dieb, and your assertion flies in the face of everything we know. Materialists say they believe there can be no ultimate foundation for ethics. Morality is not objective but merely an arbitrary choice agreed upon and nothing more. Given his materialist premises, Richard Dawkins is absolutely correct when he says: “there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” Yet in his everyday life Richard Dawkins is, I am certain, a rather nice guy who almost certainly lives by the Golden Rule. In other words, he, like most materialists, lives his everyday life as if his philosophical commitments were false. Oh, and by the way, you still have not answered the question in the OP. Barry Arrington_{February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT}

No indeed, Dieb, I would not. In other words, I am glad materialists rarely act as if what they say they believe is true
No, materialists do act as if what they say they believe is true. They just don't follow you misinterpretations of their philosophy.DiEb_{February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

Dieb says she would not want to live in a world in which everyone takes what they want when they want it. She writes: “Imagine the world in which everyone follows the rule take whatever you want when you want it. Would you like to live in it?” No indeed, Dieb, I would not. In other words, I am glad materialists rarely act as if what they say they believe is true. Instead, the vast majority of them coast along on the ethical system bestowed upon them by the Christian tradition while at the same time furiously chopping away at the root of that system. Ironic, huh? Still, you have yet to answer the question. The fact that you personally would find it distasteful to live in a world in which everyone acted as if objective moral norms do not exist is not an answer, because we do not, in fact, live in such a world. Again, the question is: Why do materialist have different moral expectations for chimps than they do for humans when, on their premises, chimps and humans are pretty much the same thing? Care to take a shot at that?Barry Arrington_{February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT}

"I made comments that meant to broaden the perspective of the issue being discussed." UD Editor: No, you have no good answer to the question posed by the OP. So instead you made a trollish attempt to hijack the thread and change the subject. If you want to participate, you are more than welcome. However, you must participate in good faith. Aleta_{February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT}

I am not sure what moral precept is violated when I compare humans to animals. If I were to say that Mike LaFontaine is a courageous as a lion and as wise as an owl, I assume you would be pleased.
But, those are metaphors, not genetic similarities.
If you are a materialist you should read up a little.
I am not, but thanks for asking.
Finally, you say that humans are not constrained by their genes in the same way as monkeys. Well, no, not on materialist grounds. Materialists argue that humans are constrained by their genes in precisely the same way monkeys are. So you lost me there.
Chill, dude. I am agreeing with you.Mike LaFontaine_{February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

inunison, at 54. I am not allowed to present my views here, so please don't bother addressing my post. UD Editor: Not true. Anytime you want to address the question posed by the OP in good faith, your participation will be welcomed. On the other hand, your trollish attempts to hijack the thread, avoid the question, and change the subject will be resisted.Aleta_{February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

What an absurd discussion. Next. UD Editor: I take it from this response that you are utterly stymied by the question posed by the OP and the best you can do is a kind of second grade level “neener neener neener” response. OK; a non-response like that is a very telling response indeed.elpresidente_{February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT}

Aleta, You failed to make proper distinctions; objective vs subjective is not the same as absolute vs relative. Theist claims not that he/she can make better moral judgments but that there is something called Absolute Moral Law and that all people, at all times, in all places have moral obligations to it. You are also missing the point theists make that yes, materialist can deny existence of Law Giver and still have and in practice exhibit obligation to this moral standard. So your post is a straw-man because theist does not claim that materialist is morally inferior or lacking moral judgement. Exactly opposite is true. Now in case you do deny existence of Absolute Moral Law, I have a question for you. Do you consider any action in our human predicament to be absolutely wrong and holds absolutely wrong for all people, at all times and in all places?inunison_{February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT}

In #52 I meant: "At LEAST when I was ..." Thank God I came to my senses before I did anything irrevocable!William J Murray_{February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

At last when I was a materialist atheist, I accepted and embraced the necessary sociopathic conclusion. I don't know why these guys are even trying to argue that you can get meaningful morality out of evo-mat premises. Who cares? There aren't any necessary ramifications to such subjective moralities anyway. Why bother?William J Murray_{February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT}

The obvious answer to this argument is another question: “Why should the male care about whether it will hurt the female?” He wants what he wants. If Will Provine is right and there is no objective basis for morality, is he not perfectly rational when he reasons that when people tell him to suppress his desires they are merely expressing their subjective opinion which are in no way superior to his subjective opinion that gratifying his desire is a good thing even if it hurts another person? That is a rhetorical question by the way, lest anyone believe I am in doubt about the answer.
may I refer to my earlier answer:
Indeed, the Golden Rule is only a part of the Categorical Imperative. Imagine the world in which everyone follows the rule take whatever you want when you want it. Would you like to live in it? I don’t think that you’ll find central heating in such a world, let alone message boards and blogs. So such a rule should not become a universal law.
DiEb_{February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT}

Mike LaFontaine writes: “At the most basic level, it is wrong to compare humans with other animals. People are not apes. They have the unique capacity to interact with each other and consciously change their environment. Humans are not constrained by their genes in the same way as monkeys.” I am not sure what moral precept is violated when I compare humans to animals. If I were to say that Mike LaFontaine is a courageous as a lion and as wise as an owl, I assume you would be pleased. If you are a materialist you should read up a little. Materialists are constantly howling with delight when studies come out saying that chimps and humans share 98% of their genes. “People are not apes” you say, but it seems to me that the whole point of the materialist howling is to suggest that people are indeed nothing more than jumped up hairless apes. What then accounts for the existence of moral agency in humans but not chimps? You say it is our ability to “interact with each other.” How odd. Chimps interact with each other every day, so that is no difference at all. You then say the distinction is based on humans’ ability to “consciously change their environment.” Come again? Before I can respond to that you’ll need to tell me why a human’s ability to change his environment imbues him with moral agency. In other words, what is it about the ability to manipulate the environment suddenly makes some things right and other things wrong. The answer eludes me; it certainly is not obvious. Finally, you say that humans are not constrained by their genes in the same way as monkeys. Well, no, not on materialist grounds. Materialists argue that humans are constrained by their genes in precisely the same way monkeys are. So you lost me there.Barry Arrington_{February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

Since you have deleted my post, and thus won't allow any discussion that veers from the path that you dictate, I will withdraw my participation. UD Editor: Since you refused to participate in good faith, your absence will be unlamented.Aleta_{February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

Aleta, All beliefs are subjectively held. In the case of any particular belief, one either assumes they reference an objectively existent commodity, or they do not. Even the idea of an external world is an assumption that cannot be proven, because all experience is, ultimately, subjective. In order to make rational sense of the world and function, we assume many fundamental things, such as "I exist" and "others exist" and "I am not the same thing as the others". When we face the question of "how ought I behave?", we can assume that the question references a subjective commodity, or an objective one. There are ramifications to each premise. If the "good" that the question "How ought i behave?" is subjective, then any "good" can be used as the basis for answering that question. I might consider it good to make everyone else subject to my wishes, or I think it is good to kill off everyone who disagrees with me. Thus, the axiomatic premise that "good" is subjective can justify any behavior. So, why bother worrying about it at all? If, however, the "good" refers to an objective commodity, then "How ought I behave?" cannot be answered by just any old subjective good. If one makes this axiomatic assumption, then they find themselves obligated to find out how they ought to behave and change their behavior accordingly, because not all behavior can be justified; only that which services the objective good can be justified. Also: if "the good" is accepted as a subjective commodity, then we can expect no necessary consequences to immoral behavior, because "the good" is not taken as an objective commodity that will cause necessary effects in relation to behavior. If "the good" is accepted as an objective commodity that actually exists, then we also have a basis for the expectation that there are necessary consequences to moral and immoral behavior - much like there are consequences to our behavior concerning gravity. What does it mean for a moral subjectivist to behave "morally"? Why even bother calling one's behavior "moral"? Why worry about it in the first place? One might as well worry about what flavor of ice cream they like, or that other people like. Further, without the assumption of an objective good as basis for morality, what form can an argument about "what is moral" take? For the subjectivist, it might as well be an argument about what flavor of ice cream is "better"; there's no argeed objective foundation for a logical argument, so all one can have is a rhetorical argument, much like trying to influence someone to like your ice cream more than soemone else's. How does one then make the case that, say, burning suspected witches is wrong? Or that rounding up the Jews and gassing them is wrong? Wrong by what standard? The moral relativist cannot offer a standard of good that doesn't pass the "who says?" test because it doesn't even claim to have a premise of an objective good. What will the moral subjectivist appeal to in order to change a moral view of society around them? They cannot appeal to "the community", or consensus; if they argue for humanism of some sort, who decides what is best for humanity, and why should anyone else agree to humanism in the first place? Only by the assumption that morality refers to an objective good can one offer any logical argument that gets beyond the "ice cream flavor" mark. Only then can moral arguments become rational and not rhetorical. The point about objective-vs-subjective based morality isn't that "the good" can be proven to be objective or subjective; it isn't even that we hold all experience and beliefs subjectively; the point is that regardless of if morality actually refers to a subjective or an objective good, we must argue, act, exist and live as if it refers to an objective good, and as if there are necessary consequences, or we'd all be practicing sociopaths, unconcerned that some other culture or group is burning witches, mutilating the genitals of children, sterilizing those with low IQs, gassing Jews or subjugating women. We'd only be concerned with our own standing in the eyes of our particular community and whatever benefits or penalties they might arbitrarily dish out for various aspects of our behavior - which is exactly what sociopaths are concerned with: not that something is intrinsically wrong, but rather what the ramifications are if they get caught.William J Murray_{February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

LarTanner writes: “I don’t think it’s a surprise to anyone that materialism is not a basis for morality. The surprising thing is that people seem to think materialism’s amorality is surprising.” No argument here Lar.Barry Arrington_{February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

Now the other side is showing up. It just took a little prodding. Thanks for all of your responses people. DiEb says she has the answer and that it is obvious no less! The chimp just doesn’t understand the consequences of his actions. I dispute that. It seems to me that the chimp understands very well the consequences of his actions – he gets sexual gratification at the expense of an unwilling female. But that is just a quibble. I will address the true core of her answer. She says it isn’t the 2% difference in genes that makes a difference; it is the difference in cognitive ability and for that reason humans understand the consequences of their actions and for that reason they are morally culpable when they do something they know will have adverse consequences. The first question is what consequence are we talking about? It seems obvious that the “consequence” in question is hurting the female. In other words the male should know that his actions will degrade, dishonor and humiliate the female and for that reason he should not do it. Thus, at its core, this is an argument from the human capacity for empathy. The obvious answer to this argument is another question: “Why should the male care about whether it will hurt the female?” He wants what he wants. If Will Provine is right and there is no objective basis for morality, is he not perfectly rational when he reasons that when people tell him to suppress his desires they are merely expressing their subjective opinion which are in no way superior to his subjective opinion that gratifying his desire is a good thing even if it hurts another person? That is a rhetorical question by the way, lest anyone believe I am in doubt about the answer.Barry Arrington_{February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT}

UD Editors: Aleta now says she refuses to answer the question and wants to change the subject, but, of course, we already knew that. Aleta_{February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

Aleta has weighed in. Alas and alack, however, she too wants to dodge the question and change the subject. At least we have her attention now. So, Aleta, I will assume that you hold two views: (1) you do not favor putting chimp rapists in jail or heaping moral scorn on them; and (2) you do favor punishment and the heaping of moral scorn on human rapists. Please explain for us what there is about the 2% difference in genes between chimps and humans that accounts for the difference between view (1) and view (2).Barry Arrington_{February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

Faded Glory writes: “personhood is conferred on members of our species but doesn't extend to other species.” That is exactly right Faded. And it looks like you are getting close to the general vicinity of an answer to the OP’s question, but you have not yet answered it. Yes, we recognize the “personhood” of human females and for that reason we consider it immoral to rape them. The question for the hundredth time is: Why does a materialist recognize the personhood of a human female and not a chimp female? What in that 2% difference in genes accounts for the difference in treatment??????Barry Arrington_{February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT}

The question posed in Barry's OP is an example of the old canard that materialists have no valid justification for their moral beliefs, but that theists do because they base their moral beliefs on an objective morality grounded in God. I say that materialists and theists have exactly the same basis for their morality. The difference is that theists believe that an objective morality validates their moral beliefs. However, that belief in an objective morality is itself a subjective belief: just believing that there is an objective morality does not make it so. There is no objective evidence that this objective morality exists. The belief in an objective morality may serve as guide for helping people follow the moral codes that our nature and our societies have developed, but a materialist can reach exactly the same beliefs without needing a belief in an external source of that morality. Believing in God does not give one a special weight of authority to one's moral positions, or special insight into what is moral and what is not. Many religions throughout history have claimed that many different things drew their authority from a connection to divine beings. I don't see any evidence that any of those divine beings have ever existed, and therefore I don't accept the argument that theists have any different, or better, claim to make moral judgments than I do.Aleta_{February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT}

At the most basic level, it is wrong to compare humans with other animals. People are not apes. They have the unique capacity to interact with each other and consciously change their environment. Humans are not constrained by their genes in the same way as monkeys.Mike LaFontaine_{February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

Barry, Claim was made (by some materialists) that there is no connection between what is biological or naturally selected and what is morally right or wrong. Couple that with another one, that right and wrong in the moral sense derive from humans’ pursuing their interests and one can (I guess) have intellectual foundation for moral life without affirming the Absolute. Relativism in its purest form.inunison_{February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

"Is it morally wrong for the male chimp to force the female chimp to have sex with him against her will?" I'll say "yes" because if I believed one animal was harming another and it was in my power to stop it or to prevent it beforehand, I would do so. Thus it is "morally wrong" from my perspective. Whether it is morally wrong from the perspective of the chimp, and whether another chimp has a "will" to be violated--or even a sense to think it has a will--is something I don't know. I don't think it's a surprise to anyone that materialism is not a basis for morality. The surprising thing is that people seem to think materialism's amorality is surprising. You might want a follow-up question: Since you do not base your moral values on materialism, on what do you base them?LarTanner_{February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

I did answer the question and to make it easier for you to spot it I will remove the bits that seem to distract you: Materialists in general, as do most people fortunately, consider human rape to be wrong. The reason human rape is considered wrong ... is that the right of a person to rule over their own body has been extended to all humans including women. If that isn't clear enough, I can point out that personhood is conferred on members of our species but doesn't extend to other species. UD Editors: another attempt to change the subject deleted. I answered your question, Barry, so how about you answer mine? fGfaded_Glory_{February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT}

That’s the spirit Died! Good for you.
Thanks, Darry!
Sadly, you are arguing at cross purposes with yourself. You assert Kant’s categorical imperative (in the original German no less; that certainly makes it sound more impressive). Then you advance a utilitarian consequentialist argument. The problem with this approach is that Kant developed the categorical imperative precisely in opposition to consquentialist arguments.
Kant's chided the utilitarians for being subjective, he had no problem with a consequentialist argument - as you may find out when you read the whole wiki-article.
So your utilitarian argument (i.e., it threatens society) fails to establish any sort of grounding for morality. Certainly it does not explain why we treat humans differently from apes. Finally, it assumes its conclusion. When you say rape “threatens” society that is just another way of saying rape is wrong, which is the very question to be determined in the first place.
Following the Categorical Imperative allows us to build a complex society, based on devision of labor. Acting against it is wrong.
This ,[i.e. the Categorical Imperative] is not quite the same as the Golden Rule, but it is pretty much the same concept. Certainly I agree that it is an excellent rule for moral behavior. Yet you have given me absolutely no reason, on materialist grounds, to follow it. Why should I follow the Golden Rule instead of the rule that says take whatever you want when you want it?
Indeed, the Golden Rule is only a part of the Categorical Imperative. Imagine the world in which everyone follows the rule take whatever you want when you want it. Would you like to live in it? I don't think that you'll find central heating in such a world, let alone message boards and blogs. So such a rule should not become a universal law.
And grounding us once again in the OP, you have not yet addressed the question of why a human should consider himself bound by the Golden Rule when we expect no such thing of a chimp. Please, please tell me Died; why does the 2% difference in genes make any moral difference at all, much less all the difference in the world?
That seems to be obvious: a chimp doesn't understand the concepts mentioned above - like a small child (which has no difference in genes!). But a child may (and should be) educated to learn the consequences of its behavior. Would you argue that a six year old child which kills a man while playing with a shotgun should be treated like an adult?DiEb_{February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

faded_Glory, "bite and switch" does not fare well here. This post is not about methods of Biblical Hermenautics. Furthermore Barry did not form an argument, nonsensical or otherwise, he is asking a relatively simple question. Try again...or not.inunison_{February 27, 2012
February
02
Feb
27
27
2012
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply