I am 18 and he's 45

Actually, I compared someone's 45 year-old son to a piece of meat.

I don't know if that matters to EhBeth or DrewDad though.

excellent

Please stop feeding the in-crowd trolls, Leadfoot. It isn't good for the logical discussion here.

They haven't even attempted to address the real issue here.

I'm trying to figure out if that means me or Max is 'in-crowd'.

And I already addressed the real issue. I just don't like repeating myself ad nauseum

Leadfoot,

Sorry, I thought it was clear. I am saying that DrewDad and EhBeth are in the in-crowd. I hate to break it to you Leadfoot, neither you or I qualify for the in-crowd (and you should take that as a compliment, you think your for yourself). EhBeth interpreted your last post as confirmation that you agreed with her... I was just joshing a bit.

Then you're wrong about that, too.

I am curious. If cussing someone out for an argument they didn't make doesn't meet the definition of a straw man, then what does?

This is the definition I found. I think it is a pretty good definition of what you and EhBeth are doing when you started cussing (and right before you ironically stated that you wanted to be with people "who respect others").



What definition do you use for the Straw Man fallacy? (I bet it still fits what you and EhBeth are doing).

Partly my fault, I misread the punctuation.

I am curious what caused you to fly off the handle and start cussing, DrewDad.

This post is about a young woman (18 years old) who is deciding whether to choose any type of relationship with a 45 year old man. This post is about what this young woman should choose, and what choices she has. We all agreed that it probably wasn't a good idea in this case. I questioned some of the posts, particularly Punkey's that I thought was overstating the point about what a young woman (as an adult) should or shouldn't do based on societal expectations.

It is the idea of challenging the societal expectations that interests me about this thread, the fact that young women aren't supposed to pursue relationships that society doesn't deem acceptable. We judge women much more harshly than men and consider women in much greater need of protection from their own choices. I think this is an interesting topic. If anyone would like to engage with me on this topic in an reasonable way, I would interesting in discussing and exploring it.

Our little kerfuffle seemed to start when I stated that a relationship between two consenting adults was a good relationship. You stated that there were other people involved that could be hurt particularly when the potential relationship was married to someone else. These are both reasonable positions to take.

I responded with a metaphor of our Young Woman as a restaurant customer who chose to eat a good steak. And pointed that that even if other people had possible valid reasons for her not to eat steak, that she could still enjoy the steak as a good stake. In this metaphor I specifically stated that I might choose not to enjoy something, even if it would be enjoyable, if I knew that other people might be hurt... but I played out the metaphor to make the point that these were two separate issues.

And yes... in this metaphor I compared the man to a piece of meat which may have been a little crude. But I was intentionally playing with social stereotypes, and this amuses me.

I don't know at what point you lost it DrewDad, or what specifically caused you to start cussing. I suspect that it might have been that I took marital infidelity too lightly for you (which is another interesting topic that could be discussed intelligently) or that I am challenging social convention (which is something you and I have clashed about before).

I am arguing in favor of the freedom of young women (as adults) to enter consensual sexual relationships that make them happy in spite of societal pressure for them to act a certain way. There are interesting issues here to discuss, if someone wants to engage intelligently.

Societal expectations is a most interesting subject.
The specific thing that troubles drew dad is the violation of society's sanctity of marriage. I have often challenged the basis of that 'sanctity' on both secular and religious grounds.

Can anyone give me a logical reason why a good relationship (sexual or otherwise) outside of marriage is inherently wrong? Note that this is a completely different question than 'is it wrong to desert a partner that you have responsibilities to'.

As to the religious objections to those relationships, I don't really see any prohibitions there either. Adultery's literal meaning is to degrade something. If a relationship outside of marriage does not do that then I do not see a problem. Why does society make rules that define something that enhances one's life and harms no one to be degrading or inherently wrong?

In both cases, it looks like it is only insecurity and fear that prompted it.

as long as it's something the couple has agreed to in advance of the extra-marital relationship starting, it's hard to argue against (IMNSHO)

There are marital vows that are between a man and a wife. It is easy to argue that a married man who has sex with a single woman (without the agreement of his spouse) is breaking his promise and is acting immorally.

But is the single woman acting immorally? I would argue not. Any agreement (sacred or not) between the man and his wife don't concern her and she isn't bound by them. Especially in the 21st century, there is a wide range of beliefs about what marriage means.

I do not believe it is reasonable to hold a young single woman responsible for pursuing a relationship with a man in a marriage. The young woman isn't breaking a vow, and any vow being broken is part of a relationship that she isn't a part of and that doesn't concern her. If the wife is angry, the anger should be directed at her husband... the person who is actually breaking the vow he made.

The vows are problematic but they too are the product of societal expectations that we have been taught and expected to follow. It probably requires a complete re-thinking from the start to make any sense of societies' rules. What if we were taught from the start that outside relationships were normal? (That might even be the case in som societies, IDK)

I do have a hard time with Max's lack of responsibility by the unmarried party. but that might be my own societal conditioning. I in that position would want to know that I'm not harming the other party. Of course if it were not for all these societal rules I wouldn't have to worry about anyone having those hangups.

I do wonder how religious people deal with the idea that societies rules of marriage will no longer apply in heaven. JC himself said there is no marriage there. He did not say there would be no relationships.

You stated your belief, and provided an analogy.

I formed an opinion of your character.

That's not a strawman. I'm not discussing the merits of your "argument."

I find your stated beliefs to be reprehensible.

You misstated my belief. And then you cussed me out. That is what makes it a strawman argument.

Yes, it is true you "formed an opinion of my character". This is exactly why it is a strawman argument, you are basing your argument (and your cussing) on your opinion of "my character" rather on what I am actually saying. You are responding based on personal prejudice rather than on reason.

That is how strawman arguments work.

What is really happening here is what Erikson referred to as "Identity Foreclosure". You have developed a strong sense of how good people should think. You attack anyone who questions that or deviates from that.

But your attacks are personal. And instead of listening to me explain my beliefs (which I am happy to patiently explain) you are inventing what you think I believe based on prejudice on "my character".

If you would like to try a rational discussion... where both of us listen to each other's point of view, find common ground, and outline differences... that might be more interesting.

It seems like you just want to make accusations and personal attacks.

You're welcome to believe what you wish.


I've heard everything I care to, thanks.

DrewDad wants to argue with me about what my beliefs are. That's a little funny.

This thread is interesting from a sociological perspective. I am working on a longer post on this topic, but the ideas are interesting so I will start now.

What DrewDad is doing is what sociologists call "social control". Rather than responding to what I am actually saying, he is using "shaming" to try to shut out my opinions. This is why instead of responding rationally to the points I am actually making, he is using personal attacks on points I haven't made. Instead of discussion about ideas and facts, he wants to make this about "my character" (something that is not only irrelevant, but impossible to determine over a discussion forum).

It is a little funny that DrewDad is trying to use shaming as social control on a public message forum. Shaming works when people are part of a shared social groups with a vested interest. If I care about what people think about me... particularly if there are social consequences (i.e. being excluded from social events or hurt in my job)... then this should of shaming behavior can have real leverage.

Of course, on a public message forum there is no such consequences. This is one the advantage of this type of forum. We can express and defend our ideas with reason without worrying about social consequences.

The attempts at social control persist on Able2Know. We see DrewDad's cussing, EhBeth's emphatic disapproval, name-calling and public announcements that people are being ignored. Without real social consequences, these normal levers to push people into conformity don't work. I don't understand since I don't see why why people still behave this way.

DrewDad and EhBeth (two people on this thread) seem to think very much alike along with a group of several members. You see conformity in how they think and what they express. Does this suggest that they do have some social investment in the social group? I wonder how this functions (from a sociological perspective). If EhBeth expressed her disdain at something that DrewDad expressed, would it function as effective social pressure? Would it change how he thought?

I am planning on writing a post speculating about the specific reasons that DrewDad seems to be threatened by the ideas on this thread, but that will be later...

Yes, people will react to what you say. If you say something repulsive, then those reactions will be negative.

What you call "social control" is actually just people being people.

Exhibit positive traits, and people will respond positively. Exhibit traits people don't like, and people will let you know.



But let's turn it into a treatise on how "society is trying to control you."


(Gee, that really sounds kinda like Hawkeye.)

You are getting ahead of yourself. You are part of a social subgroup. You don't represent society at large. This is not a treatise on society as a whole, I get along just fine with society at large.

I am commenting on how you (and EhBeth) are using shaming behavior and personal attacks to shut out (rather than respond to) ideas that you find threatening. What I object to here is the social pressure of one group to shut down dissent on this discussion group. You are not using reason or discussion, you are using personal attacks (and you admit as much when you tell me that this is about your opinion of my character).



I love this quote. First of all it is the definition of conformity. Secondly you are using the word "people" to refer to you and EhBeth. A standard tactic in social bullying is the "everyone is against you" tactic. You aren't taking responsibility for you own opinion, rather you are claiming that this is something more than your own reaction (or the reaction of your social subgroup).

Of course, in a diverse public forum this isn't a reasonable tactic.

Somehow my ideas are threatening to your worldview, and instead of having a dialog you decided to make personal attacks. The fact that you find my ideas "repulsive" says more about you than anything else.

You have yet to explain how one of my actual beliefs (as opposed to your opinion on what my beliefs are) is "repulsive". We could start there... but if you want to know what my beliefs actually are, maybe you should ask me first if you understand them correctly. I have a very good understanding of what my own beliefs are and would be happy to help you understand them if you will listen... rather than interrupt with personal attacks.

I really couldn't care less.