Then thing is, in buisness we don't hire people en mass, there are only so many jobs to give, that's why it's nessesary to discriminate and be selective.

With law, you have to adhere the law of equallity, the morals line, the ethics ..etc. Buisnesses are not bound nor shall adhere such rules and guidelines, I don't know why you make such poor comparison.

Emil does seem to have a good point of view and you yourself seem to be a business person. When you hire do you screen for aptitude or any other mental abilities? Would this be discriminating if you did? Does this logic only apply to business?:detective:

But ..if the person does have qualifications that will justify a poor personal character, his qualifications may outweigh his poor character to a certain degree. Skilled people are hard to find, after all.

Then thing is, in buisness we don't hire people en mass, there are only so many jobs to give, that's why it's nessesary to discriminate and be selective.

With law, you have to adhere the law of equallity, the morals line, the ethics ..etc. Buisnesses are not bound nor shall adhere such rules and guidelines, I don't know why you make such poor comparison.

What I was trying to to say was that not everyone has the same exact neurobiological makeup nor the same psychological makeup therefore they should be treated differently in a court of law or society as well.

Example a 26 year old male and a 16 year old girl engaged in consensaul sex.
I do believe that it should be taught as morally wrong thing to do but who is to say that the psychological make up of the 26 year old male is any better than the 16 year old girl. Should a test be taken on the psychological make up on the people being acused of a crime to determine that they meet our expectations of comprehension?:detective:

I don't quite catch this "makeup"-anology, everybody is equal for the law, and that's the only what I see it. I interpet it as from the most humblest of bum in the ally, sipping alcohol, to the mightiest of leaders, they shall all have the same fair treatmen from the law, that in benefit as punishment.

You are emotional as slack on the rules, because it's a subject that you can relate to, that the subject "love" appeals to you, maybe not in the specific matter, but as a whole.

The thing is, maybe it's ok for that specific case, but it will affect other people, if you don't punish that case, other will think it's ok, because the law looks away for such encounters.

There are countries where the laws are lean, but the people does not accept such law from a moral standpoint.

We are all [confirmation bias]:detective: and if we can see this it can some times help but not always. I do believe that Socrates may have been the first to see this but then again I can always be wrong:)

? you lost me! :Not-Impressed:

I do apologize for the poor comparison I should have used more clarification. [This is only my opinion and is not 100% fact] I do think that you are being logical to be discriminative and selective in what you are doing as it is for a good cause.

Being discrimative and selective is not always evil some times it is good. What I was trying to to say was that not everyone has the same exact neurobiological makeup nor the same psychological makeup therefore they should be treated differently in a court of law or society as well.

Example a 26 year old male and a 16 year old girl engaged in consensaul sex.
I do believe that it should be taught as morally wrong thing to do but who is to say that the psychological make up of the 26 year old male is any better than the 16 year old girl. Should a test be taken on the psychological make up on the people being acused of a crime to determine that they meet our expectations of comprehension?:detective:

Example a 26 year old male and a 16 year old girl engaged in consensaul sex.
I do believe that it should be taught as morally wrong thing to do. . . .

What's the age of consent in Florida?

Florida

The age of consent in Florida is 18, but close in age exemptions exist. By law, the exception permits a person 23 years of age or younger to engage in legal sexual activity with a minor aged 16 or 17.
794.05 Unlawful sexual activity with certain minors.-- (1) A person 24 years of age or older who engages in sexual activity with a person 16 or 17 years of age commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. As used in this section, "sexual activity" means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another; however, sexual activity does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose Florida code, Title XLVI, Chapter 794

Why is have sex with underage girls wrong?snuff porn ? women being tortured?

[INDENT]Snuff porn includes executing someone as part of the actual filming/formulating of that type of pornography. Since this involves killing a human being, I'd hope there's no need to explain why that might be wrong.
[/INDENT]

Now whats a murder to do with porn?........ am i the one who is crazy, or has the world gone crazy beyond redemption?????

Having sex with underage people is unethical because it carries with it likely results which can damage minds where they're not prepared psychologically for sexual expression. Through sexual activity with adults, young minds are usually traumatized and end up developing various behavioral and neurological dysfunctions including post traumatic stress disorder, depression, substance abuse and much more (here's a basic summary of the phenomena (link) - despite being Wiki, I think it still provides a generally accurate overview).

Snuff porn includes executing someone as part of the actual filming/formulating of that type of pornography. Since this involves killing a human being, I'd hope there's no need to explain why that might be wrong.

Women being Tortured: Torture is unethical because it involves purposefully inflicting pain on someone. No living thing that can feel pain should be exposed to any pain unless such is absolutely unavoidable. Based on the idea of mutual coexistence and reciprocity; we can exist together only with the spoken or unspoken agreement that what I inflict on you isn't something I'd be OK with inflicting on myself.

[INDENT]Women being Tortured: Torture is unethical because it involves purposefully inflicting pain on someone. No living thing that can feel pain should be exposed to any pain unless such is absolutely unavoidable. Based on the idea of mutual coexistence and reciprocity; we can exist together only with the spoken or unspoken agreement that what I inflict on you isn't something I'd be OK with inflicting on myself.
[/INDENT] Thanks

As for snuff films, as Khethil said, it depicts the murder of a human, so it's clear why this is wrong. Or have I made a major error, and muder is ok?

I think not. :whistling: