Local Dad Shocked By Sex Charges Against Him (gave daughter condoms)

clickondetroit.com ^

[Aquinasfan]

I don't know.

Truly? Objectively?

If you want to maintain your agnosticism regarding objective truth, then you'd have to respond, "I don't know that either," and so on to infinity. But an infinite regress can never be actually completed, so in effect, no statement is ever completed and, therefore, no statement is actually made.

The only way to "refute" (actually, to avoid) the idea of objective truth is to remain silent (as Aristotle said).

You can't escape truth because God is Truth, eternal Truth.

[stuartcr]

No, I really don't have to respond the way you say.

[Aquinasfan]

No, I really don't have to respond the way you say.

Explain why.

The reason why most people object to the idea of objective truth is because they recognize that they would have to recognize an objective moral law, a law which conflicts with certain behaviors, usually sexual sins.

[fortunecookie]

Let's not forget that she could probably get all the contraceptive help she needed free and confidentially at school without her parents ever knowing. Her parents would have to approve in writing if they wanted her to have access to tylenol. But contraception? That's private. If it were done confidentially at school, people would applaud the girl's responsibility. Which is just another way of freeing our teens from the pesky problem of parental interference influence. Nanny state wins either way. (But dad should think carefully about the 18 yr old boyfriend at her age.)

[stuartcr]

If you will explain what you mean by God is the eternal truth, I will try to answer better.

[Ann Archy]

......but never consented to him having sex with his daughter.

Hey Numbnut dad...the condoms ARE the consent....idiot.

[Ann Archy]

Pills are consent also...what kind of parents get their daughters birth control pills?? LOUSY ONES.

[Lady Eileen]

bttt

[zook]

For some parents, allowing a daughter access to birth control may be the only realistic way to prevent pregnancy; for example, in cases where they find out that their, oh, let's say 16 year old daughter is already sexually active.

[Ann Archy]

They haven't given her a good foundation...a religious foundation and probably haven't set a good example.....probably talked about sexual escapades in front of their kids. Also probably haven't prayed either.

[Aquinasfan]

If you will explain what you mean by God is the eternal truth, I will try to answer better.

God is Being, Good, True, Beautiful and One. These are the five transcendentals, convertible terms which mean the same thing (God). They are simply different ways in which aspects of His nature are apprehended by us.

I thought you were objecting to my criticism of your universal skepticism, specifically, the problem of an infinite regress of skeptical statements. I'd like to know how you think this problem can be overcome.

[keats5]

This whole discussion is just sad. We've lost our way as a culture.

First of all, fathers should protect their daughters. That includes doing all in their power to encourage their virginity. Believe me, as a young girl, I looked long and far for those in my circle to give me a reason to remain a virgin. It seemed like everyone, including the older generation, considered me backward if I was pure after the age of 15. Girls need to know they're still normal if they remain virgins. This starts with the father's clearly stated expectations.

Second, there is never a "proper age" for anyone to screw your own 15 year old daughter.

Third, the schools shouldn't be giving out condoms. Although this is being done, we all know it's wrong. Using that as an excuse for parents to give their kids birth control is also wrong.

Fourth, young people should never have sex in church graveyards. Leave the poor old dead people alone.

[stuartcr]

How do you know that God is all the things you mention?

In which thread did I say I objected to anything you said?

[Ignatz]

Personally, I believe, as are most if not all moral viewpoints, that they are morally relative...not objective moral evils. Translation: "I can't even demonstrate self-judgement".

[stuartcr]

To be more accurate, you really should say...My translation

[stuartcr]

Clarification is needed...You say that since no statement is ever completed, no statement is ever made....please explain what my words were? The statement was made, and the knowledge that I do not know, exists...please show that it doesn't.

[Aquinasfan]

How do you know that God is all the things you mention?

Being does not belong essentially to any compound substance, like man. At the most fundamental level, man is a composition of essence (what he is) and existence (whether he exists). All existing things participate in being, but being does not properly belong to any of them. Being itself transcends all categories. This Being that transcends all categories is God. Only in God are essence (what a thing is) and existence one.

Being is a unity. Truth, Goodness and Beauty transcend all categories and are therefore different manifestations of Being.

In which thread did I say I objected to anything you said?

Here:

No, I really don't have to respond the way you say.

You can look up the context if you feel like it.

[Aquinasfan]

Clarification is needed...You say that since no statement is ever completed, no statement is ever made....please explain what my words were? The statement was made, and the knowledge that I do not know, exists...please show that it doesn't.

You: "I do not know whether truth exists."

Me: "Is that statement objectively true? In reality, do you know or not?"

If you answer that in reality (i.e. objective truth) you do not know whether truth exists, you're making a truth claim, and you've contradicted yourself.

(That in fact is what you do: "and the knowledge that I do not know, exists.")

If you answer: "I don't know" again, then I ask again, ""Is that statement objectively true? In reality, do you know or not?," etc., ad infinitum.

In this case no statement would be finished so no statement would be made.

[stuartcr]

What you say sounds very nice, but please prove it. The website proves nothing.

That was not an objection to what you said, it was a refusal to give you the answer the way I believe you wanted it.

I don't believe that logic, as we know it, can be applied to these kinds of topics. You cannot logically prove there is a God, you cannot logically define Him, neither can I...yet we both believe in God. It just comes down to faith. You happen to have accepted things that have been written over the years, and you accept them as truth...I don't, because they were written by men like you and me..men with no proof. You can put all sorts of words and quotes in your threads, but it just comes down to a belief that can't be proven or disproven.

I have to stick with my original..."I don't know'

[stuartcr]

Why then do you continue to ask?