[eudamoniac]

Yes, thank you for restating part of my comment. If you'd care to engage with the substance of the rest of the point please feel free at any time. This isn't Reddit where you get to just write an istophobe aspersion and collect the upvotes.

[malfist]

Sorry, I don't think there is value in debating the morality of an unambiguously immoral action. There's no value to give it weight, the whole premise is flawed.

[eudamoniac]

Well I'm glad you/we are more enlightened than the hundred billion previous humans who all had complex moral reasoning facilities but failed spectacularly to use them. I guess Aristotle and Plato and Aquinas were just idiots who couldn't see the unambiguous, objectively correct moral standards that you know of intrinsically.

Edit: serves me right for phone posting; I have you muted on the desktop with an extension, seemingly for good reason

[malfist]

Really? Aquinas? A priest sworn to celibacy is supposed to be agreeing with you that adults having sex with 13 year old children is acceptable?

[eudamoniac]

Yes. https://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.XP_Q58_A5.html

Twelve, actually. This was a completely normal opinion at the time, and also the law. You seem uninterested in engaging in any form of discussion, so that will be all from me.

[malfist]

That says nothing about morality. Only legality.