Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 156 (8101 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-28-2014 2:27 PM
190 online now:
Dr Adequate, DrJones*, edge, JonF, kjsimons, NoNukes, ooh-child, PaulK (8 members, 182 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: yudi
Upcoming Birthdays: MFFJM2
Post Volume:
Total: 733,391 Year: 19,232/28,606 Month: 2,503/2,305 Week: 145/563 Day: 72/73 Hour: 3/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
12Next
Author Topic:   Is Bestiality Wrong?
anastasia
Member (Idle past 2331 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 91 of 170 (415322)
08-09-2007 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Stile
08-09-2007 10:15 AM


Re: Equal Treatment
Stile writes:

I agree. I got a little carried away with my terminology. Although, if you read the whole post, I wasn't trying to imply that the two are exactly the same. I just mean they should be treated equally in terms of responibility, safety concerns and respect.

Well, there is another clue. An animal lower on the food chain should not be used for mating purposes, unless humans have some weird unstinct to play act before they consume their prey. I don't see that we do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Stile, posted 08-09-2007 10:15 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Stile, posted 08-09-2007 2:09 PM anastasia has responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 2336
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 92 of 170 (415327)
08-09-2007 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by anastasia
08-09-2007 1:52 PM


What's the objection?
anastasia writes:

An animal lower on the food chain should not be used for mating purposes.

Let's change "mating purposes" to "sexual pleasure purposes", I think that's what you mean anyway? Unless you're trying to say some people have sex with animals in order to create a child?

But still, why not?

Just because an animal is lower on the food chain doesn't mean we must eat it.

And even if it is an animal we eat, it doesn't mean we must eat them all.

If I have 6 cows, what's wrong with slaughtering 5 and engaging the last one in sexual experiences?

Or even, what's wrong with engaging in a sexual experience with an animal and still killing it later for food?

It doesn't even have to be hypocritical if the frame of mind is "while this animal is here, we may as well have some mutual fun together..."

Again, I just see this reason as "having sex with an animal and then eating it later is weird... ew." In which case, I don't see it as much of a reason to take seriously.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by anastasia, posted 08-09-2007 1:52 PM anastasia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by anastasia, posted 08-09-2007 2:48 PM Stile has responded

    
Taz
Member
Posts: 5040
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 93 of 170 (415331)
08-09-2007 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by riVeRraT
08-09-2007 10:21 AM


Re: Rat is right
riverrat writes:

I asked it, because I really didn't know the answer, not because it was based on prejudice, of I am some all knowing eye of the universe.


Sure, you jest. Here is what you said again.

quote:
Can you prove that bestiality would not ever cause a disease to be threatening to the human population, or be a threat to anyone?


The "would not ever" part tells me it is a loaded question. First of all, Straggler never claimed in the first post, the one you responded to, that beastiality would never ever introduce a new disease into the human population. Secondly, the answer to your question is obvious. It's so obvious that I can't believe you didn't already know the answer. So, the only other option is you just threw it out there for your amusement.

If you are not prejudice, then why mention homosexuality?

Because not too long ago people like you defined homosexuality as a mental illness. Well, a lot of people still do define it that way.

What I'm trying to do is to get you guys to take one step further. We've convinced you that the Native Americans shouldn't be enslaved. Now, we have to convince you that the Africans shouldn't be enslaved either. I wish I could just say that no person should be enslaved, but you guys aren't at that level of moral sophistication yet.


Disclaimer:

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by riVeRraT, posted 08-09-2007 10:21 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by riVeRraT, posted 08-10-2007 12:16 AM Taz has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member
Posts: 5040
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 94 of 170 (415333)
08-09-2007 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by riVeRraT
08-09-2007 10:31 AM


Re: Rat is right
riverrat writes:

The question is, is bestiality wrong, by this, he means morally wrong if I am not mistaken. Not whether bestiality should be legal or not.


And I already addressed this portion of the debate also. You should stop quote mining me.

Many of the things people do with sex, such as anal sex, and sex without protection, and anything else that might promote passing along pathogens, people already find morally wrong.

Vaginal sex also has the potential to pass along dangerous pathogens. Is that wrong, too?

So again it comes down to, where do we get our morals from.
If it isn't law, and it isn't science, then where is ti from?

It came from god. Happy?

Ok, you get a memo from god that says beastiality is wrong and I'll stop arguing.

I know people get morals from the bible, but for non-believers, does that make them moralless?

Another loaded question.

Aren't morals subjective anyway?

Not in my book. If you've missed this, I already said many times that I'm a moral absolutist.

Obviously passing along disease of any sort should be considered wrong.

And I already addressed this, but for some reason you just ignored it. All forms of physical contacts have the potential to pass along diseases that we'd rather not have.

Shouldn't we be trying to avoid that, or is infection control in hospitals just a joke?

Ok, let's make it a law forbidding all forms of sexual activity, including vaginal sex. How will people reproduce? They go to a lab and get invitro. Happy?

If you agree, and say that passing along disease should not be a goal of ours, then your comparison to people passing along pathogens is useless, and void.

What on Earth are you talking about? How is it useless? Getting a disease from having sex with a goat is a lot less likely than getting a disease from having sex with a sexually promiscuous person. It takes just the right mutations for a pathogen to cross species, but the ones that already exist in humans can continue to be passed on among humans. If disease is truely your concern, we should make it mandatory for everyone to reproduce through a lab rather than sex.

If our own freedom is killing us, then are we really free?

Ok, since the rate of infection of AIDS is right now highest among straight black women who are getting them from straight black men, who in turn are getting them from other black women, we should ban black people from having sex.

I just can't believe you really believe your own argument, seeing how obviously flawed it is. If disease really is your concern, why not address the mainstream sexual behaviors? Why target minority groups? What's your agenda? Just tell us directly.


Disclaimer:

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by riVeRraT, posted 08-09-2007 10:31 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-09-2007 6:49 PM Taz has not yet responded
 Message 103 by riVeRraT, posted 08-10-2007 12:28 AM Taz has not yet responded

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 2331 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 95 of 170 (415338)
08-09-2007 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Stile
08-09-2007 2:09 PM


Re: What's the objection?
Stile writes:

Again, I just see this reason as "having sex with an animal and then eating it later is weird... ew." In which case, I don't see it as much of a reason to take seriously.

It's weird, and I told you I will stubborn this one out. Since I am convinced that sexual pleasure is only an impetus for procreation, and that it should not be an end in itself, I have no problem justifying the weirdness on a rational basis.

Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Stile, posted 08-09-2007 2:09 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Taz, posted 08-09-2007 3:13 PM anastasia has responded
 Message 98 by Stile, posted 08-09-2007 3:18 PM anastasia has responded

    
Taz
Member
Posts: 5040
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 96 of 170 (415342)
08-09-2007 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Archer Opteryx
08-09-2007 12:25 AM


Re: What could be more rational?
Archer, I really enjoyed reading your little story there. Very clever storyline and some twists. But notice that the only person that hailed it as a good comparison with what we are talking about is someone that not many posts ago admitted that she was going to be stubborn about this.

I think your comparison is flawed for several reasons. We are currently talking about people's private lives, specifically private sex lives. Noone here is advocating beastiality out in the open for all to see. That would be an indication of mental illness.

Furthermore, at least where I work, even though there isn't much of a dress code, everyone is expected, both professionally and socially, to not be too... liberal when it comes to clothing. For example, just because our dress code is relaxed doesn't mean Nancy can come in with one of her breasts hanging out. Dick's dick shouldn't be in the sun light either.

Is there something wrong with Bob wanting to wear his underwear on the outside inside out in the privacy of his home? I think you would agree that no there is nothing wrong with that. I go around in my underwear at home all the time. Is there something wrong with Bob wanting to wear his underwear on the outside inside out at work? I don't think there's anyone here who would disagree with you that yes there is something wrong with Bob's mental state.

But that's not to say we should haul him straight to the nuthouse right away. I'd talk to Bob first to see if he is aware of this act. I'd ask him why he wanted to display this seemingly rebellious act. I'd ask him to consider how the rest of us are feeling toward his choice of clothing. I'd ask him many questions before deciding what to do next.

While in college, my friend and I had a bet to see who could go around outside the longest barefooted. And this was in Febuary. So, I proceeded to go to all my classes barefooted. People gave me really weird stares while I was running through the snow filled walkways. Some people had some concerns and approached me about this and I explained to them what was going on. According to you, I should have been put in a straight jacket without a chance to explain myself.

So, no, I don't think your analogy really matches up with what we are talking about here. If anything, it looks more like an emotive argument dressed in clever and humorous wordings.

Again, I really enjoyed reading that story.


Disclaimer:

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-09-2007 12:25 AM Archer Opteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-09-2007 4:08 PM Taz has not yet responded
 Message 118 by Straggler, posted 08-11-2007 12:06 PM Taz has responded

  
Taz
Member
Posts: 5040
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 97 of 170 (415343)
08-09-2007 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by anastasia
08-09-2007 2:48 PM


Re: What's the objection?
anastasia writes:

It's weird, and I told you I will stubborn this one out.


Throwing out anything that you can cook up to support what you already admitted is something you're going to be stubborn about no matter what isn't going to be helpful, especially your cause on the matter.


Disclaimer:

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by anastasia, posted 08-09-2007 2:48 PM anastasia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by anastasia, posted 08-10-2007 11:25 AM Taz has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 2336
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 98 of 170 (415344)
08-09-2007 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by anastasia
08-09-2007 2:48 PM


A rational statement, but made off an irrational basis
anastasia writes:

It's weird, and I told you I will stubborn this one out.

Being stubborn is not being rational.

Since I am convinced that sexual pleasure is only an impetus for procreation, and that it should not be an end in itself, I have no problem justifying the weirdness on a rational basis.

I agree completely that you have no problem justifying the weirdness to yourself.

But that does not place it on "a rational basis". If it was rational, you could explain it to me, and I would understand. If it was rational, you wouldn't be stubborn about it. If it was rational, the reason would have more substance than "It's weird".

Wait, I see where we're getting confused.

Since I am convinced that sexual pleasure is only an impetus for procreation, and that it should not be an end in itself, I have no problem justifying the weirdness on a rational basis.

Yes, this statement is logically correct, and rational, my apologies.

The problem lies here:

Since I am convinced that sexual pleasure is only an impetus for procreation, and that it should not be an end in itself...

This is irrational. You've made a rational conclusion, but on an irrational basis.

I agree that you are convinced that sexual pleasure is only an impetus for procreation. However, that statement is personal. It is based on your own feelings about sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure can be for procreation, it can also be for pleasure. I had sexual pleasure just for pleasure the other day, even.

I think we should be clear here:

I have absolutely no problem with anastasia saying bestiality is wrong for anastasia.

What I have a problem with is anastasia saying bestiality is wrong for anyone else, and her only basis for saying so is "it's wrong for anastasia".

If you aren't trying to say that bestiality is wrong for others. Than we really have nothing to discuss. If you do say that... what gives you the right to tell other people how to live their lives where no one else is affected? You know you don't have the right to tell me if I can wear green shoes or blue shoes. So why do you think you have the right to tell me I can't have sex with a cow? In both scenarios, no other people are affected.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by anastasia, posted 08-09-2007 2:48 PM anastasia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by anastasia, posted 08-10-2007 11:37 AM Stile has responded

    
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3293
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 99 of 170 (415345)
08-09-2007 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Taz
08-08-2007 11:36 PM


Re: Rat is right
Taz writes:

Nobody is saying we should ignore the less likely threat.

I'm glad to hear you say so. In Msg 68 of this thread you declared:

quote:
It doesn't make any sense to ban beastiality when having physical and sexual contact with people from more-often-than-not infested regions of the world like Africa is still A-OK.

That seems pretty clear.

By substantiation, if you mean scientific studies on this then I have none. Having said that, just look at the history of severe epidemics and pandemics. Almost all, if not all, were caused by diseases in humans that have been around since forever.

"Severe epidemics and pandemics" generally occur when a pathogen is introduced to a population previously unexposed. The Eurasian plague epidemics, the devestation of Native American populations, and the great flu pandemics of the early 20th century are good examples, and all of these involved our careless interaction with other species: the plague came via stowaway rats and fleas, smallpox via too close living with domesticated animals, and the mutated flu virus from close contact between domesticated fowl and wild fowl as well as too-close living with the domesticated fowl.

I didn't miss your point. I even said earlier that yes the human diseases are probably from other species. What I was getting at was that smallpox crossed species into our own regardless of beastiality or not. If anything, blame it on the lack of hygiene back than rather than beastiality.

I think you are still missing the point. First, you do not know what role past bestiality has played in the interspecies transmission of pathogens. The jokes are all about sheep (Why do Scots wear kilts? The sound of zippers startles the sheep.), but do you suppose no herder ever took a fancy to a comely young heifer? Camel and cow pox are candidate ancestor species to our smallpox, and the transmissiom came about via close contact--just how close is unknown. :)

But the larger point is that I cited such cases previously to establish how common and dangerous interspecies transmission can be.

A pathogen that has been ravaging a population is expected to have evolved enough to get through the weaker immune systems, as was demonstrated by the various plagues that wiped out the population of the precolonized Americas.

Actually, over time the more virulent strains of pathogens in human populations tend to be replaced by less virulent strains, since the rapid killing of the host is not in the evolutionary interest of the pathogen. Accounts of early European syphillis, for example, suggest that a far more rapidly lethal form was first transmitted and later supplanted by a more indolent one.

Records suggest Spanish sailors who transmitted smallpox to the Americas survived the disease because of its long history in Europe, and the human adaptation to it: that is why the explorers survived the long voyage despite their infection. The lack of adaptation to the pathogen in American populations made its introduction to the Americas particularly tragic. The disease carrier who does not himself succumb to the disease is a tremendous threat.

Similarly, the frightening and rapidly lethal Ebola has so far had only local outbreaks because infected persons bleed out dramatically and have little time to carry the pathogen to other locales. In this case, a more indolent pathogen would be much more dangerous.

Nice creationist tactic, Taz, inserting the inflammatory "just" into my statement via paraphrase. As to your wife, I suppose that depends on your wife.

What creo tactic? You were the one that brought up the point that technically speaking humans are animal, too.

Yes, I noted in passing that we are a species of animal. You in reply suggested by paraphrase that I had said "just" an animal, then went on to wonder whether I would characterize your relations with your wife as bestiality.

Creationists generally react in a similar fashion to the idea that people are animals--evolved, instinctual, etc., and emotionally load the discussion by insisting that we are not "just" animals and then raising the stakes further by suggesting personal offense. So, Taz--that is the creo tactic I cited; perhaps you reinvented the wheel; if so, my apologies for suggesting you borrowed the tactic from creos.

Your argument is getting eerily familiar to the anti-sodomy crowd. The argument goes like this. Since AIDS is more easily transmitted through anal sex, it ought to be banned. Rather than encouraging precautions like using condoms and whatnot, they want to ban it outright. You really think people will stop having sex with animal after it's banned?

Eerily familar? I'm not sure what that means, exactly. For the record, I am defintely in the pro-sodomy camp. I don't think people will stop killing each other because murder is banned, but I see no reason to lift the laws against it. I do thank you for the amusing suggestion that I am a homophobe, however.

The examples you presented, like the pox virus, had nothing to do with cow herders getting it on with their cows. This is like blaming the AIDS epidemic in Africa on homosexuality even though it has nothing to do with it.

It actually isn't like that at all. I have pointed out several times that there is a general category of public health risk to which the public health risks of bestiality can be assigned. The history of interspecies transmission shows that the threat is real; bestiality is an avenue of interspecies tranmission. That obvious conclusion is a far cry from blaming all human pathogens on bestiality.

The most likely avenue of interspecies transfer of HIV (though not the only one possible) was the butchering of game meat, monkeys and chimps, probably--which, by the way, is banned in most areas of Africa. It continues, in part, due to the dietary needs and threat-ignorance of those who do it. Education and dietary assistance are the best ways to counter this, but that is no reason to lift a prohibition which exists for good reasons.

And, yes, indeed, most researchers think the primary means of HIV transmission among human populations in Africa was and is heterosexual, with some speculation that the vaginal injuries done to young girls by early marriage/rape/prostitution and by the wounds of vaginal mutilation promoted that heterosexual spread.

Also, as noted above, you have no idea of the exact avenue by which the smallpox virus, or any other pathogen, made it into our species.

If it came by the most likely route of keeping the cow in the house at night (once common in Europe), the general need for caution about our interactions with other species is clear, an area of caution which subsumes bestiality. Can there be any doubt that direct exposure to bodily fluids is even more likely to facilitate such transmissions?

Finally, there are a number of ways to measure risk. I agree that the transmission of an existing human pathogen to one human group by another is more likely than the transmission of a novel pathogen from another species to ours.

However, most of our major pathogens now already have global reach; thousands of years of human evolution and intermingling have granted some degree of resistance to most pathogens in most populations, and the same period of evolution among pathogens has tended to replace virulent strains with less virulent ones. But the global-village, rapid-transit nature of our present world makes novel pathogens more dangerous than ever.

Human-to-human contagion is certainly more probable; the consequences of a new, highly virulent pathogen are certainly more dangerous. To continue our driver theme, a fender-bender is far more likely, but a T-bone by a drunk driver is far more dangerous, so we both educate drivers about the risks of driving under the influence and prohibit the behavior by law.


Real things always push back.
-William James

Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Taz, posted 08-08-2007 11:36 PM Taz has not yet responded

    
Archer Opteryx
Member
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 100 of 170 (415347)
08-09-2007 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Taz
08-09-2007 3:09 PM


Re: What could be more rational?
Taz:
I don't think your analogy really matches up with what we are talking about here. If anything, it looks more like an emotive argument dressed in clever and humorous wordings.

I'm genuinely glad you enjoyed the story, Taz. And I'm always happy to read the opinion of Warner Brothers cartoon characters I meet on message boards.

I would still call a professional for the teenager.

___

Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.


Archer

All species are transitional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Taz, posted 08-09-2007 3:09 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member (Idle past 549 days)
Posts: 5140
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 101 of 170 (415370)
08-09-2007 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Taz
08-09-2007 2:34 PM


Re: Rat is right
you get a memo from god that says beastiality is wrong and I'll stop arguing.

Quick question: Would you condone your son, daughter, or wife having sex with animals? If not, why? If yes, why?

I think what we tend to do is look at morality from an objective, far off stance, which, in and of itself is not a terrible thing to do. But when you place the proponent in a personal situation, you tend to see those supposed amoralities becoming more and more relevant to them.


"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Taz, posted 08-09-2007 2:34 PM Taz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Mr Jack, posted 08-10-2007 6:34 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
riVeRraT
Member
Posts: 5606
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 102 of 170 (415403)
08-10-2007 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Taz
08-09-2007 2:22 PM


Re: Rat is right
The "would not ever" part tells me it is a loaded question. First of all, Straggler never claimed in the first post, the one you responded to, that beastiality would never ever introduce a new disease into the human population.

I didn't say a new disease, go back and read.

Secondly, the answer to your question is obvious. It's so obvious that I can't believe you didn't already know the answer.

It's so obvious, you didn't get it right.

We've convinced you that the Native Americans shouldn't be enslaved.

You've convinced me?

Watch it buddy, you don't know your ass from your head.

I wish I could just say that no person should be enslaved, but you guys aren't at that level of moral sophistication yet.

Listen Mr. high and mighty, if I wanted to hear an asshole talk, I would have farted.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Taz, posted 08-09-2007 2:22 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
riVeRraT
Member
Posts: 5606
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 103 of 170 (415409)
08-10-2007 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Taz
08-09-2007 2:34 PM


Re: Rat is right
Vaginal sex also has the potential to pass along dangerous pathogens. Is that wrong, too?

Yes it is when you know that the pathogens are there, such as someone who already knows they have an STD.

It came from god. Happy?

Ok, you get a memo from god that says beastiality is wrong and I'll stop arguing.

I haven't said whether it was wrong or right yet.

Not in my book. If you've missed this, I already said many times that I'm a moral absolutist.

And you derive your morals from what?

And I already addressed this, but for some reason you just ignored it. All forms of physical contacts have the potential to pass along diseases that we'd rather not have.

It's about accessing the risk, and determining if the risk is worth it. Not whether the chance exists or not.

Ok, let's make it a law forbidding all forms of sexual activity, including vaginal sex. How will people reproduce? They go to a lab and get invitro. Happy?

Ever here of safe sex? IT's a multi billion dollar ad campaign.

Getting a disease from having sex with a goat is a lot less likely than getting a disease from having sex with a sexually promiscuous person.

Neither of which I find morally correct. Even though it happens.

If disease is truely your concern, we should make it mandatory for everyone to reproduce through a lab rather than sex.

That is just not necessary.

Ok, since the rate of infection of AIDS is right now highest among straight black women who are getting them from straight black men, who in turn are getting them from other black women, we should ban black people from having sex.

Those people need not be banned. They are taking care of themselves.

Tell me you think it is morally correct for a black man knowingly have sex with a black woman, when he has AIDS?

I just can't believe you really believe your own argument, seeing how obviously flawed it is. If disease really is your concern, why not address the mainstream sexual behaviors? Why target minority groups? What's your agenda? Just tell us directly.

I don't have an argument, I asked a question. My agenda exists only in your imagination.

But I was thinking today, and I will pose another question. Straggler asked why it is wrong, I am asking why it is right.

Why would bestiality be right?

Because you feel so? Can we just start doing whatever we feel? Just because we want to? Does that make it right?

Morals are subjective Taz.

quote:
According to moral absolutists, morals are inherent in the laws of the universe,
from wikipedia.

Your going to tell me that your puny little mind somehow knows the moral standard of the universe? Give me a fuckin break.
What a joke.

You are way to high on that pedestal. You should just go back to being Christian. At least you would have an excuse.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Taz, posted 08-09-2007 2:34 PM Taz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by AdminNem, posted 08-10-2007 1:08 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
AdminNem
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 170 (415420)
08-10-2007 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by riVeRraT
08-10-2007 12:28 AM


Slow it down
Your going to tell me that your puny little mind somehow knows the moral standard of the universe? Give me a fuckin break.
What a joke.

Rat, I do not know what is going with you lately in your personal life, but you're attitude is becoming increasingly hostile, which, to my knowledge, used to be very uncharacteristic of you.

I am aware of the objections made by others, and am also aware that you feel slandered much of the time. Whether or not such accusations against you are true or not is inconsequential.

If truth ultimately prevails, then their accusations are unfounded. But at this point in time, I see you dowsing fuel on your own fire.

You must refrain from using ad hominem, not only for your own benefit, but for the forum as well.

This is an official warning. Please heed it.

Edited by AdminNem, : typo


Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics

    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:

  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum

    See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

  • Thou shalt not have any other Mods before Me


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 103 by riVeRraT, posted 08-10-2007 12:28 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded

      
    Mr Jack
    Member (Idle past 303 days)
    Posts: 3475
    From: Leicester, England
    Joined: 07-14-2003


    Message 105 of 170 (415449)
    08-10-2007 6:34 AM
    Reply to: Message 101 by Hyroglyphx
    08-09-2007 6:49 PM


    Re: Rat is right
    I think what we tend to do is look at morality from an objective, far off stance, which, in and of itself is not a terrible thing to do. But when you place the proponent in a personal situation, you tend to see those supposed amoralities becoming more and more relevant to them.

    No, what you see is your own ingrained prejudices, and those of those around you brought to the fore.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 101 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-09-2007 6:49 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 108 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-10-2007 11:59 AM Mr Jack has responded

      
    Prev1
    ...
    56
    7
    89
    ...
    12Next
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014