Debate Guide: It's wrong because it's illegal - Revision history

Jim Burton at 16:00, 10 April 2025

2025-04-10T16:00:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:00, 10 April 2025
Line 2:		Line 2:
	<blockquote><font color="green">'''''Adult-minor sex is wrong, period! <u>Most societies rightly condemn and criminalize it</u>, so how can it be OK?'''''</font></blockquote>		<blockquote><font color="green">'''''Adult-minor sex is wrong, period! <u>Most societies rightly condemn and criminalize it</u>, so how can it be OK?'''''</font></blockquote>

	~~Nothing is wrong just because it's illegal, and besides,~~ [[Age of Consent\|~~ages~~ of consent]] are ~~highly~~ variable geographically ~~and~~ over time. ~~This is because law~~ is an evolving system of codified moral standards, which vary according to the place on earth, time in history, and ~~on whether~~ or not ~~laws are used. Laws~~, ~~being written before the act~~ and ~~involving nothing~~ more ~~than subjective judgments, have no ethical authority over~~ the ~~rightness of any practice~~. ~~One example that demonstrates this is [[Wikipedia:Miscegenation\|miscegnation]], but lets instead cover gay sex:~~		[[Age of Consent\|Ages of consent]], as has already been acknowledged, are variable geographically, but also over time. Law is an evolving system of codified moral standards which vary according to the place on earth, time in history, and may be ''enforced'' to a greater or lesser degree. Recency in legal trends is not evidence of moral authority, nor efficacy, and different laws may be more or less appropriate for the societies they are designed to govern.

	According to your opponent's very basic legalistic morality, gay sex has gone from being 'wrong' to 'more/totally acceptable' in a number of recent societies, as the laws changed and were eventually equalized. Gay sex would also be wrong in some ~~present societies~~ that outlaw it, but not elsewhere! If the circular reasoning of "illegal = wrong = illegal" was a vaild argument, all forms of deregulation would automatically be immoral and irresponsible. There would be no acceptable reason for the legalization of any human behavior; i.e. we would all be living in an authoritarian dictatorship by the time a few governments had been given the chance to outlaw their freedoms and vices of choice.		Laws, being written before the act and involving nothing more than subjective judgments, ''thus'' have no ethical authority over the rightness of any practice. One example that demonstrates this is [[Wikipedia:Miscegenation\|miscegnation]], but lets instead cover gay sex:

			According to your opponent's very basic legalistic morality, gay sex has gone from being 'wrong' to 'more/totally acceptable' in a number of recent societies, as the laws changed and were eventually equalized. Gay sex would also be wrong in some regions of the world that tend to outlaw it, but not elsewhere! If the circular reasoning of "illegal = wrong = illegal" was a vaild argument, all forms of deregulation would automatically be immoral and irresponsible. There would be no acceptable reason for the legalization of any human behavior; i.e. we would all be living in an authoritarian dictatorship by the time a few governments had been given the chance to outlaw their freedoms and vices of choice.

	==Fallacies and cognitive distortions covered==		==Fallacies and cognitive distortions covered==

The Admins at 21:37, 9 April 2024

2024-04-09T21:37:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:37, 9 April 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[File:Authority Appeal.png\|thumb\|Appeal to authority]]		[[File:Authority Appeal.png\|thumb\|Appeal to authority]]
	<blockquote><font color="green">'''''Adult-minor sex is wrong, period! <u>Most societies rightly condemn it</u>, so how can it be OK?'''''</font></blockquote>		<blockquote><font color="green">'''''Adult-minor sex is wrong, period! <u>Most societies rightly condemn and criminalize it</u>, so how can it be OK?'''''</font></blockquote>

	Nothing is wrong just because it's illegal, and besides, [[Age of Consent\|ages of consent]] are highly variable geographically and over time. This is because law is an evolving system of codified moral standards, which vary according to the place on earth, time in history, and on whether or not laws are used. Laws, being written before the act and involving nothing more than subjective judgments, have no ethical authority over the rightness of any practice. One example that demonstrates this is [[Wikipedia:Miscegenation\|miscegnation]], but lets instead cover gay sex:		Nothing is wrong just because it's illegal, and besides, [[Age of Consent\|ages of consent]] are highly variable geographically and over time. This is because law is an evolving system of codified moral standards, which vary according to the place on earth, time in history, and on whether or not laws are used. Laws, being written before the act and involving nothing more than subjective judgments, have no ethical authority over the rightness of any practice. One example that demonstrates this is [[Wikipedia:Miscegenation\|miscegnation]], but lets instead cover gay sex:

The Admins at 20:01, 7 April 2024

2024-04-07T20:01:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:01, 7 April 2024
Line 4:		Line 4:
	Nothing is wrong just because it's illegal, and besides, [[Age of Consent\|ages of consent]] are highly variable geographically and over time. This is because law is an evolving system of codified moral standards, which vary according to the place on earth, time in history, and on whether or not laws are used. Laws, being written before the act and involving nothing more than subjective judgments, have no ethical authority over the rightness of any practice. One example that demonstrates this is [[Wikipedia:Miscegenation\|miscegnation]], but lets instead cover gay sex:		Nothing is wrong just because it's illegal, and besides, [[Age of Consent\|ages of consent]] are highly variable geographically and over time. This is because law is an evolving system of codified moral standards, which vary according to the place on earth, time in history, and on whether or not laws are used. Laws, being written before the act and involving nothing more than subjective judgments, have no ethical authority over the rightness of any practice. One example that demonstrates this is [[Wikipedia:Miscegenation\|miscegnation]], but lets instead cover gay sex:

	According to your very basic legalistic morality, gay sex has gone from being 'wrong' to 'more/totally acceptable' in a number of recent societies, as the laws changed and were eventually equalized. Gay sex would also be wrong in some present societies that outlaw it, but not elsewhere! If the circular reasoning of "illegal = wrong = illegal" was a vaild argument, all forms of deregulation would automatically be immoral and irresponsible. There would be no acceptable reason for the legalization of any human behavior; i.e. we would all be living in an authoritarian dictatorship by the time a few governments had been given the chance to outlaw their freedoms and vices of choice.		According to your opponent's very basic legalistic morality, gay sex has gone from being 'wrong' to 'more/totally acceptable' in a number of recent societies, as the laws changed and were eventually equalized. Gay sex would also be wrong in some present societies that outlaw it, but not elsewhere! If the circular reasoning of "illegal = wrong = illegal" was a vaild argument, all forms of deregulation would automatically be immoral and irresponsible. There would be no acceptable reason for the legalization of any human behavior; i.e. we would all be living in an authoritarian dictatorship by the time a few governments had been given the chance to outlaw their freedoms and vices of choice.

	==Fallacies and cognitive distortions covered==		==Fallacies and cognitive distortions covered==

The Admins at 19:59, 7 April 2024

2024-04-07T19:59:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:59, 7 April 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[File:Authority Appeal.png\|thumb\|Appeal to authority]]		[[File:Authority Appeal.png\|thumb\|Appeal to authority]]
	<blockquote><font color="green">'''''Adult-minor sex is wrong, period~~. Because~~ it~~'s illegal~~/~~outlawed in most societies.~~'''''</font></blockquote>		<blockquote><font color="green">'''''Adult-minor sex is wrong, period! <u>Most societies rightly condemn it</u>, so how can it be OK?'''''</font></blockquote>
	Nothing is wrong just because it's illegal. ~~Law~~ is ~~a flexible~~ system of moral ~~judgments~~, which vary according to the place on earth ~~and the~~ time in history. Laws, being written before the act and involving nothing more than subjective judgments, have no ethical authority over the rightness of any practice. One example that demonstrates this is [[Wikipedia:Miscegenation\|miscegnation]], but lets instead cover gay sex:
			Nothing is wrong just because it's illegal, and besides, [[Age of Consent\|ages of consent]] are highly variable geographically and over time. This is because law is an evolving system of codified moral standards, which vary according to the place on earth, time in history, and on whether or not laws are used. Laws, being written before the act and involving nothing more than subjective judgments, have no ethical authority over the rightness of any practice. One example that demonstrates this is [[Wikipedia:Miscegenation\|miscegnation]], but lets instead cover gay sex:

	According to your very basic legalistic morality, gay sex has gone from being 'wrong' to 'more/totally acceptable' in a number of recent societies, as the laws changed and were eventually equalized. Gay sex would also be wrong in some present societies that outlaw it, but not elsewhere! If the circular reasoning of "illegal = wrong = illegal" was a vaild argument, all forms of deregulation would automatically be immoral and irresponsible. There would be no acceptable reason for the legalization of any human behavior; i.e. we would all be living in an authoritarian dictatorship by the time a few governments had been given the chance to outlaw their freedoms and vices of choice.		According to your very basic legalistic morality, gay sex has gone from being 'wrong' to 'more/totally acceptable' in a number of recent societies, as the laws changed and were eventually equalized. Gay sex would also be wrong in some present societies that outlaw it, but not elsewhere! If the circular reasoning of "illegal = wrong = illegal" was a vaild argument, all forms of deregulation would automatically be immoral and irresponsible. There would be no acceptable reason for the legalization of any human behavior; i.e. we would all be living in an authoritarian dictatorship by the time a few governments had been given the chance to outlaw their freedoms and vices of choice.

The Admins: /* See also */

2024-04-03T16:59:41Z

The Admins at 16:58, 3 April 2024

2024-04-03T16:58:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:58, 3 April 2024
Line 3:		Line 3:
	Nothing is wrong just because it's illegal. Law is a flexible system of moral judgments, which vary according to the place on earth and the time in history. Laws, being written before the act and involving nothing more than subjective judgments, have no ethical authority over the rightness of any practice. One example that demonstrates this is [[Wikipedia:Miscegenation\|miscegnation]], but lets instead cover gay sex:		Nothing is wrong just because it's illegal. Law is a flexible system of moral judgments, which vary according to the place on earth and the time in history. Laws, being written before the act and involving nothing more than subjective judgments, have no ethical authority over the rightness of any practice. One example that demonstrates this is [[Wikipedia:Miscegenation\|miscegnation]], but lets instead cover gay sex:

	According to your very basic legalistic morality, gay sex has gone from being 'wrong' to 'more/totally acceptable' in a number of recent societies, as the laws changed and were eventually equalized. Gay sex would also be wrong in some present societies that outlaw it, but not elsewhere! If the circular reasoning of "illegal = wrong = illegal" was a vaild argument, all forms of deregulation would automatically be immoral/irresponsible~~, and there~~ would be no acceptable reason for the ~~legalisation~~ of any human behavior. We would be living in a dictatorship ~~after~~ a few ~~generations~~.		According to your very basic legalistic morality, gay sex has gone from being 'wrong' to 'more/totally acceptable' in a number of recent societies, as the laws changed and were eventually equalized. Gay sex would also be wrong in some present societies that outlaw it, but not elsewhere! If the circular reasoning of "illegal = wrong = illegal" was a vaild argument, all forms of deregulation would automatically be immoral and irresponsible. There would be no acceptable reason for the legalization of any human behavior; i.e. we would all be living in an authoritarian dictatorship by the time a few governments had been given the chance to outlaw their freedoms and vices of choice.

	==Fallacies and cognitive distortions covered==		==Fallacies and cognitive distortions covered==

The Admins at 13:52, 1 August 2022

2022-08-01T13:52:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:52, 1 August 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[File:Authority Appeal.png\|thumb\|Appeal to authority]]		[[File:Authority Appeal.png\|thumb\|Appeal to authority]]
	:''"Adult-minor sex is wrong, period. Because it's illegal/outlawed in most societies."''		<blockquote><font color="green">'''''Adult-minor sex is wrong, period. Because it's illegal/outlawed in most societies.'''''</font></blockquote>
	<hr>
	Nothing is wrong just because it's illegal. Law is a flexible system of moral judgments, which vary according to the place on earth and the time in history. Laws, being written before the act and involving nothing more than subjective judgments, have no ethical authority over the rightness of any practice. One example that demonstrates this is [[Wikipedia:Miscegenation\|miscegnation]], but lets instead cover gay sex:		Nothing is wrong just because it's illegal. Law is a flexible system of moral judgments, which vary according to the place on earth and the time in history. Laws, being written before the act and involving nothing more than subjective judgments, have no ethical authority over the rightness of any practice. One example that demonstrates this is [[Wikipedia:Miscegenation\|miscegnation]], but lets instead cover gay sex:

The Admins: /* Fallacies and cognitive distortions covered */

2022-06-13T21:34:08Z

Fallacies and cognitive distortions covered

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:34, 13 June 2022
Line 13:		Line 13:
	*Circulus in probando fallacy: The ''reasoning behind'' this argument is a fallacious circular ("We know it is wrong because it was made illegal because it's wrong").		*Circulus in probando fallacy: The ''reasoning behind'' this argument is a fallacious circular ("We know it is wrong because it was made illegal because it's wrong").
	*Cognitive distortion: [[Wikipedia:Cognitive_distortion\|Musturbation.]]		*Cognitive distortion: [[Wikipedia:Cognitive_distortion\|Musturbation.]]

			==See also==

			Wikipedia:

			*[[Wikipedia:Is–ought problem\|Is–ought problem]] - Proponents of this argument may also show a general inability to distinguish is from ought statements.

	[[Category:Debate]][[Category:Debating Points: Sociological]][[Category:Debating Points: Adult-Minor sex]]		[[Category:Debate]][[Category:Debating Points: Sociological]][[Category:Debating Points: Adult-Minor sex]]

The Admins: /* Fallacies and cognitive distortions covered */

2022-06-13T20:48:56Z

Fallacies and cognitive distortions covered

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:48, 13 June 2022
Line 12:		Line 12:
	*Appeal to authority.		*Appeal to authority.
	*Circulus in probando fallacy: The ''reasoning behind'' this argument is a fallacious circular ("We know it is wrong because it was made illegal because it's wrong").		*Circulus in probando fallacy: The ''reasoning behind'' this argument is a fallacious circular ("We know it is wrong because it was made illegal because it's wrong").
	*Cognitive distortion: [~~http~~:~~//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/~~Cognitive_distortion Musturbation.]		*Cognitive distortion: [[Wikipedia:Cognitive_distortion\|Musturbation.]]

	[[Category:Debate]][[Category:Debating Points: Sociological]][[Category:Debating Points: Adult-Minor sex]]		[[Category:Debate]][[Category:Debating Points: Sociological]][[Category:Debating Points: Adult-Minor sex]]

The Admins at 20:48, 13 June 2022

2022-06-13T20:48:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:48, 13 June 2022
Line 2:		Line 2:
	:''"Adult-minor sex is wrong, period. Because it's illegal/outlawed in most societies."''		:''"Adult-minor sex is wrong, period. Because it's illegal/outlawed in most societies."''
	<hr>		<hr>
	Nothing is wrong just because it's illegal. Law is a flexible system of moral judgments, which vary according to the place on earth and the time in history. Laws, being written before the act and involving nothing more than subjective judgments, have no ethical authority over the rightness of any practice. One example that demonstrates this is [~~https~~:~~//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/~~Miscegenation miscegnation], but lets instead cover gay sex:		Nothing is wrong just because it's illegal. Law is a flexible system of moral judgments, which vary according to the place on earth and the time in history. Laws, being written before the act and involving nothing more than subjective judgments, have no ethical authority over the rightness of any practice. One example that demonstrates this is [[Wikipedia:Miscegenation\|miscegnation]], but lets instead cover gay sex:

	According to your very basic legalistic morality, gay sex has gone from being 'wrong' to 'more/totally acceptable' in a number of recent societies, as the laws changed and were eventually equalized. Gay sex would also be wrong in some present societies that outlaw it, but not elsewhere! If the circular reasoning of "illegal = wrong = illegal" was a vaild argument, all forms of deregulation would automatically be immoral/irresponsible, and there would be no acceptable reason for the legalisation of any human behavior. We would be living in a dictatorship after a few generations.		According to your very basic legalistic morality, gay sex has gone from being 'wrong' to 'more/totally acceptable' in a number of recent societies, as the laws changed and were eventually equalized. Gay sex would also be wrong in some present societies that outlaw it, but not elsewhere! If the circular reasoning of "illegal = wrong = illegal" was a vaild argument, all forms of deregulation would automatically be immoral/irresponsible, and there would be no acceptable reason for the legalisation of any human behavior. We would be living in a dictatorship after a few generations.
Line 8:		Line 8:
	==Fallacies and cognitive distortions covered==		==Fallacies and cognitive distortions covered==

	See [[Debate Guide: Logical fallacies and intergenerational sexuality]].		See also, [[Debate Guide: Logical fallacies and intergenerational sexuality\|our dedicated article]]:

	*Appeal to authority.		*Appeal to authority.

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:59, 3 April 2024
Line 17:		Line 17:
	Wikipedia:		Wikipedia:

	*[[Wikipedia:Is–ought problem\|Is–ought problem]] - Proponents of this argument ~~may also~~ show a general inability to distinguish is from ought statements.		*[[Wikipedia:Is–ought problem\|Is–ought problem]] - Proponents of this argument show a general inability to distinguish is from ought statements.

	[[Category:Debate]][[Category:Debating Points: Sociological]][[Category:Debating Points: Adult-Minor sex]]		[[Category:Debate]][[Category:Debating Points: Sociological]][[Category:Debating Points: Adult-Minor sex]]