It's sometimes difficult to see the problems when they don't affect you directly. I would say if you aren't denying that historically people have been the target of systemic repression in some way, you're not being harmful. But the issue falls upon those who do actually deny that it exists. As for the cis white male part, these are the people who have been "the powers that be" for a long time in American history, and it's no secret how it became that way. And that's why I believe diversifying is extremely important.

Right you are, Ken.

Yeah, reading through, I'm seeing that this person is holding a position they can't demonstrate to be true and choosing to convolute the conversation. Might be best to just use your time in a more productive manner.

I would argue that is an observation and not a rule. There isn't anyenforceable factor at play.

One big issue here is that you must presuppose a god, then work backwards, only to arrive at post-hoc inferences, based on whatever position you hold for your specific god.

Yeah, I'm sure different variations could be used to defend entirely different points, and that's a big issue. I'm really interested in comparing the writings that were removed when the current "edition", if you will, was canonized and if we know how it was determined what would be included.

Definitely. I think it is important to know if/that they were changed over time, especially when speaking with a Christian about the validity of the texts being the actual "word of god" as it's often stated.

Thanks so much. I'll take a look.

It's my opinion that religion doesn't even belong on the document. Completely irrelevant. Race is a tricky one, because it is almost entirely social and it doesn't matter for any actual purpose unless you're doing some type of demographic study or poll on it. Ethnicity/nationality is usually more important and held to a higher degree of relevance to the individual, so in that sense I would think those to be more in line with "important" I suppose.

Well, the example given is the student asking for the teacher to support them, so I don't think ethics really comes into this situation, with regards to objectification. So you've taken it from "Is this ethical?" To "Is objectivification ethical?" when I don't believe it must be necessarily objectification.

Someone can choose that line of work without there being objectification.

If humans advance enough in say... 1000 years, move to other planets, there by evolving and changing the definition of "human" altogether, then they would probably look at us in 2020 as a late stage of "early humans."

I believe the bible is irrelevant. However...for the sake of boredom, yeah, I would argue that sky daddy punished them for simply disobeying his commandment. I assume it wouldn't have mattered what the commandment was, it would have been the same outcome, since god knew they would disobey and that he would punish them that way. The bigger question here is: Why did god create them, or anyone for that matter, if he already knew the outcome?

I'm not disagreeing that there is an issue with that in society. I don't think that one particularly applies here, however. I think the actual ethical dilemma is the student-teacher power dynamic. If she wants to be objectified, that's her thing and she gets to do that. But if he, as her teacher, engages in that way, there is an imbalance of power and that could have rather dire consequences.

Your title and the content look like 2 different questions/issues. I don't believe prostitution is unethical. I'm not sure what you mean by "virtual sex" but I don't believe any cam girl stuff is unethical. If you're both consenting adults, do whatever you like. Being your student shouldn't really matter, unless it becomes an interference in the classroom.