Was Ancient Greek Education a Rape institution?

May 2015
304
villa of Lucullus
I sometimes wonder if people like you even read my posts. To wit; it was already explained that the practice of homosexuality from a young age was out in the open and widely accepted in Ancient Greece, whereas the abuse of children by the clergy was covert and covered up from the general public (and even most of the church). The situations are completely different.
I am addressing the completely different question of whether we have the right to judge these people and whether the societal differences excuse is plausible. I don't think its at all clear that the Catholic priests who abused children thought that what they were doing was wrong. These are men whose deeds were known by others in the church yet suffered no consequences. Given they suffered no negative backlash for their actions I'm skeptical they were necessarily aware that what they were doing was wrong.
 

Caesarmagnus

Ad Honorem
Jan 2015
3,650
Australia
I am addressing the completely different question of whether we have the right to judge these people and whether the societal differences excuse is plausible. I don't think its at all clear that the Catholic priests who abused children thought that what they were doing was wrong. These are men whose deeds were known by others in the church yet suffered no consequences. Given they suffered no negative backlash for their actions I'm skeptical they were necessarily aware that what they were doing was wrong.
Only someone totally unfamiliar with the events that took place could hold that view. It was called a cover up because, like, it was covered up. You don't need to seek forgiveness from fellow priests if you don't think you did anything wrong. I don't know if English isn't your first language, or you just aren't familiar with these events, but wow.
 

dreamregent

Ad Honorem
Feb 2013
4,373
Coastal Florida
From skimming your post the only point I derived from it was "it shares some characteristics with [insert different thing here]". Ok. A goat shares some characteristics with a horse. They both have four legs, hair and eat grass. They're not remotely the same though, just as homosexuality in ancient Greece wasn't the same as abuse by the clergy.
Let's identify this for what it is: a straw man.

You apparently don't want to discuss the morality of it, but the morality of it is intertwined with understanding why it happened, so what's left to discuss?
Sure, but the why of it is immaterial to my analysis.

It doesn't matter whether it was harmful or not, the question in a comparison between the two is whether society thought it was harmful.
Then your entire line of reasoning is also a red herring, at least as far as it's a response to me. The well-being of the children involved is really the only thing I've spoken to. My analysis applies just as well regardless of whether anyone intended or recognized potential harms caused by treating young boys in such a callous manner.

It's the same as asking if doctors in medieval times who bled patients were the same as Nazi scientists who gassed people. Well, no, because the medieval doctors thought they were curing their patients, and that different mindset colours every aspect of the behavior. It's the same reason the mental component distinguishes crimes today (e.g. you intended to kill someone it's murder, you intended to hurt someone and accidentally killed them it's manslaughter, you were defending yourself and it's self-defence up to a point, you pressed a button on a wall and unknowingly blew up a universe somewhere and it's a cosmic joke).
Again, I never questioned the intentions of these people. In fact, I doubt the adults knew enough to even consider potential psychological harms resulting from mentally immature children being desexualized and treated as objects of prurient gratification. And considering that the adults had been emasculated in the same way as children and indoctrinated to believe the integrity of their own adult masculinity was predicated upon them using the next generation of boys in like manner, it's not hard to see what kept the cycle going. It was like a perpetual motion machine feeding upon itself.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2018
1,209
Adelaide south Australia
OOPs, did fit again. Tried to reason with an apologist. Such people are immune to facts or reason. A complete waste of time; there is no common ground.

bored now,.
 

dreamregent

Ad Honorem
Feb 2013
4,373
Coastal Florida
OOPs, did fit again. Tried to reason with an apologist. Such people are immune to facts or reason. A complete waste of time; there is no common ground.

bored now,.
I get the impression you're talking to me as I was the last person to respond to you. While you may disagree with my analysis, the position I've articulated is both sound and coherent. And as for the term apologist, the meaning is relative, depending on the particular definition one wants to use as there is significant lexical variation. You're certainly free to limit your examination of the topic to parroting historical moral justifications but, in my opinion, the apologies in this case are positions like yours which treat past societies like sacred cows whose actions shall not be questioned merely on the grounds elements of these societies rationalized their own actions to themselves.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bedb

Caesarmagnus

Ad Honorem
Jan 2015
3,650
Australia
Let's identify this for what it is: a straw man.



Sure, but the why of it is immaterial to my analysis.



Then your entire line of reasoning is also a red herring, at least as far as it's a response to me. The well-being of the children involved is really the only thing I've spoken to. My analysis applies just as well regardless of whether anyone intended or recognized potential harms caused by treating young boys in such a callous manner.



Again, I never questioned the intentions of these people. In fact, I doubt the adults knew enough to even consider potential psychological harms resulting from mentally immature children being desexualized and treated as objects of prurient gratification. And considering that the adults had been emasculated in the same way as children and indoctrinated to believe the integrity of their own adult masculinity was predicated upon them using the next generation of boys in like manner, it's not hard to see what kept the cycle going. It was like a perpetual motion machine feeding upon itself.
So do you think Slavery was a bad idea too? Just trying to learn from you man. Can you tell me what the "correct" age of consent is too, just so I know for future reference. Again, the relevance of this to a history forum is lost on me, but you keep posting so I may as well ask.
 

dreamregent

Ad Honorem
Feb 2013
4,373
Coastal Florida
So do you think Slavery was a bad idea too? Just trying to learn from you man.
You tell me. Moral declarations are your bag, not mine. If you're going to be logically consistent, I assume you'll have to conclude that we can't criticize slavery either. Proponents of slavery in the Americas frequently asserted slaves were "improved" by the institution so I guess we must believe them since they rationalized the institution to themselves as a benefit to the slaves. Or is there some cut-off date which dictates when we are allowed to criticize historical actions of past societies based on probable harms that resulted from them? Since slavery in the Americas occurred as recently as the 19th century, are we free to criticize?

Can you tell me what the "correct" age of consent is too, just so I know for future reference. Again, the relevance of this to a history forum is lost on me, but you keep posting so I may as well ask.
Condescension is really not a good look. If you're incapable of avoiding fallacious reasoning and fashioning a sound and coherent response to the person you've engaged in debate, it's probably better to say nothing at all.
 

Caesarmagnus

Ad Honorem
Jan 2015
3,650
Australia
Your points aren't relevant to history as far as I can see. You should go find a psychology forum and spam walls of text at the posters there for their opinions.
 

dreamregent

Ad Honorem
Feb 2013
4,373
Coastal Florida
Your points aren't relevant to history as far as I can see.
lol... Speaking of myopic... History includes the set of all past events, even ones you'd rather not consider.

You should go find a psychology forum and spam walls of text at the posters there for their opinions.
I didn't ask for your fallacious opinion. You gave it of your own volition.
 
Last edited:

Caesarmagnus

Ad Honorem
Jan 2015
3,650
Australia
You don't want to discuss it as a historical event though. You've said you want us to avoid all of the historical context it occurred in, and not discuss it as a matter of morality either. Rather, you want us to consider in a vacuum whether "young boys being groomed at an early age is good for them". That's a question of psychology, not history. Any historical element it connects to has been removed by you as irrelevant to your question. It would be like posting on here asking "where do you stand on the science of Einstein's work towards a unified theory... it happened during the history of the world, so this forum seemed like the logical place to discuss it" (it isn't, a science forum is the place to go).