Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Bestiality Wrong?
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 46 of 170 (415115)
08-08-2007 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Stile
08-08-2007 10:10 AM


Re: Rationality doesn't go on vacation
Rationally I agree with everything you say.
If we move along to "you continue to be absolutely fucking ashamed, shocked and devastated" year after year while your daughter continues a wonderfully productive life that happens to include loving and having sex with animals... then such a thing would be wrong, yes.
But I cannot help but think that I would continue to feel pretty darn negative about the the whole situation. Rightly or wrongly and even allowing for some softening due to familiarity.
But, well, I abide by this principle:
"Every being should be given equal respect with regards to their rights to life and pursuit of happiness".
Absolutely. I could not agree more. I have stated the same sort of principle in other morality related threads and arguments many times.
Which is why I find myself unable to reconcile that which I know to be rationally right with that which I feel to be wrong.
Really do you honestly think you would be OK with it if it were your children? Are you able to override your emotional response with rationality so completely?
The reason I started this thread was to explore the best example I can think of where my own rational moral arguments seem completely at odds with my instinctive beliefs. I am asking the question because I am interested in others opinions not because I am out to prove any particular activity as either moral or immoral.
In short, I get all your rational arguments and agree with them but am still not sure I could apply them in practice.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Stile, posted 08-08-2007 10:10 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Stile, posted 08-08-2007 11:12 AM Straggler has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 47 of 170 (415118)
08-08-2007 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Straggler
08-08-2007 10:34 AM


Learning with time
Straggler writes:
Really do you honestly think you would be OK with it if it were your children? Are you able to override your emotional response with rationality so completely?
Do I know I'd be "fine" with it? No, I must admit that I do not know I'd be okay with it. However, I am optimistic that I would eventually get there.
Basically, I'd fall back on the old "time heals all wounds" deal. I have changed my emotional response to things because of rationality before. This gives me reason to believe I'm capable of it for other things.
One of the larger experiences I've personally had:
My girlfriend is 8-and-a-half years younger than I am. I had a real problem with this at first. Now, over 2 years later, it's hardly more than a passing thought. And the thought is more of a "this age difference exists" thought, no negative tones are involved anymore. Most of the time it doesn't enter my mind. She was mature and life-experienced before I even started seeing her. I knew that. Her maturity level and personality haven't significantly changed over the time I've been with her. I can only conclude that it's just not really that big a deal. Which is what I suspected in the first place.
This doesn't mean I condone pedophelia in anyway. But it does mean I don't find age-difference to be much of a factor for finding the person you love.
One of the medium experiences:
I was a bit of an over-protective older brother to my sister. I didn't like any of the boyfriends she had, and I didn't keep my feelings hidden. She still got married. I knew (even before she was married) that she'd been with this one fellow for quite a while, that she's a smart, careful girl, and that he was a pretty good guy anyway. I still didn't like him. I've hung out with him a bit more since then, and now we're good friends. He hasn't changed, my sister hasn't changed. I can only conclude that I've overcome my initial reaction and become okay with it.
One of the smaller experiences:
I hate racing stripes on road-vehicles. Originally I couldn't understand how anyone could possibly choose to have such a ridiculously ugly addition placed on their vehicle of choice. I now understand how different people like different things. I'm now perfectly fine with other people placing racing-stripes on their vehicles. However, it doesn't stop me from making fun of them, or continuting to hate it
From my own experiences, the steps are something like this:
1. New experience is accompanied by a negative reaction.
2. Rationality tells me that the negative reaction is incorrect.
3. Negative reaction persists.
4. I force myself to think about, focus on, and physically experience the situation while attempting to mentally resist the negative reaction.
5. Negative reaction persists.
6. Continually, intentionally repeat step 4.
7. Negative reaction becomes reduced.
8. Continually, intentionally repeat step 4.
9. Negative reaction disappears.
Steps 1 to 4 can be in a relatively short time period. And steps 4 to 9 can take a much longer time.
I've never had this system fail to balance my mental state when my emotions grate against my rationality.
I have every reason to believe I'd be able to eventually adjust to my own child being invloved with bestiality.
I do admit that having my child involved with bestiality would be a larger disparity between my emotions and rationality to overcome than I've ever experienced. And this is why I can't "honestly say I'd be okay" with the situation. Yet I do not see any reason why I'd fail, unless I gave up. I don't see how I could give up on my child.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Straggler, posted 08-08-2007 10:34 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Straggler, posted 08-08-2007 11:49 AM Stile has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 48 of 170 (415128)
08-08-2007 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Stile
08-08-2007 11:12 AM


Re: Learning with time
I don't see how I could give up on my child.
That ultimately would be the driving force for change.
But I suspect that any such change would be made regardless of whether or not I could morally rationalise the action in question or not.
But I do agree with your overrall assessment and reasoning.
Fortunately (well hopefully) this is not an issue I am likely to face...........

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Stile, posted 08-08-2007 11:12 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Stile, posted 08-08-2007 12:31 PM Straggler has replied

  
Answers in Gene Simmons
Junior Member (Idle past 6073 days)
Posts: 8
Joined: 08-08-2007


Message 49 of 170 (415133)
08-08-2007 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Jaderis
08-07-2007 3:04 AM


Won't eat certain foods?
I am a vegetarian and I only consume free-range/humane dairy products/eggs. Incidentally, I am a vegetarian for similar reasons to why I object to bestiality, not for health reasons and I advocate for more humane treatment of animals.
So you eat eggs. And I don't think that I am going too far out on a limb to think that you also have no problems with oil and vinegar either, right?
Yet if eggs, oil and vinegar are combined in just the right way, you can make mayonnaise and that you will not eat? Not that I really care one way or the other, bit it is an interesting point of notice.
Edited by Answers in Gene Simmons, : No reason given.
Edited by Answers in Gene Simmons, : Because I am new here and can't figure out the codes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Jaderis, posted 08-07-2007 3:04 AM Jaderis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Chiroptera, posted 08-08-2007 12:16 PM Answers in Gene Simmons has not replied
 Message 54 by purpledawn, posted 08-08-2007 1:56 PM Answers in Gene Simmons has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 170 (415135)
08-08-2007 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Answers in Gene Simmons
08-08-2007 12:10 PM


Re: Won't eat certain foods?
Not that I really care one way or the other, bit it is an interesting point of notice.
It's also not on topic. But I'm mostly responding to mention that I think your handle is pretty good. (Also, I missed Jaderis' post the first time around, and so I'm grateful that you brought it to my attention.)

I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Answers in Gene Simmons, posted 08-08-2007 12:10 PM Answers in Gene Simmons has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 51 of 170 (415136)
08-08-2007 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Straggler
08-08-2007 9:27 AM


Re: Morally
I don't consider bestiality to have any special moral status; it is simply a matter of animal welfare and public health.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Straggler, posted 08-08-2007 9:27 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 52 of 170 (415138)
08-08-2007 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Straggler
08-08-2007 11:49 AM


What are we capable of?
Straggler writes:
Fortunately (well hopefully) this is not an issue I am likely to face...........
Personally, I welcome the challenge of testing my humanity. And by humanity, I mean my ability to accept others for who they are, and to reserve judgement for those who deserve such. Not that I would wish the social anger someone involved in bestiality would receive upon anyone, especially my own child. But I'm not afraid of putting my best against such a battle.
Straggler writes:
Stile writes:
I don't see how I could give up on my child.
That ultimately would be the driving force for change.
Yes. What if this wasn't there, though? Would we be able to adjust to a good friend being involved with bestiality? An indifferent neighbour? A stranger in a country on the other side of the world? Is it moral for us to wait until the situation is rammed down our throats before we begin an attempt to restructure our thought processes?
This is not meant as an insult, simply a thought-exercise I know I have a lot of maturing and learning to go through on many different subjects.
But, I find such learning and maturing to be a source of wonder in life. Instead of trying to avoid it, I try to search it out. That is, I like to think about what I'd do in these "tough" situations as much as I can. What I should do, what I would do, and what I can do in order to bring the two as close together as possible. It's amazing what people can become accostomed to (not always a good thing...) But, if we can use this ability-to-adjust for things we know are right, shouldn't we do that? Or, at least, attempt to learn how?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Straggler, posted 08-08-2007 11:49 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Straggler, posted 08-08-2007 1:04 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 53 of 170 (415146)
08-08-2007 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Stile
08-08-2007 12:31 PM


Re: What are we capable of?
That is, I like to think about what I'd do in these "tough" situations as much as I can. What I should do, what I would do, and what I can do in order to bring the two as close together as possible.
Yep, me too. That is why I asked the original question.
Yes. What if this wasn't there, though? Would we be able to adjust to a good friend being involved with bestiality? An indifferent neighbour? A stranger in a country on the other side of the world?
I wouldn't need to persecute anyone so the more distant they are from my life frankly the more indifferent I would be to begin with. It is only the closer associations such as children and other family that would actually test my rational conclusions to any meaningful extent.
Personally, I welcome the challenge of testing my humanity.
Well I think you are braver than me in that respect

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Stile, posted 08-08-2007 12:31 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 54 of 170 (415156)
08-08-2007 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Answers in Gene Simmons
08-08-2007 12:10 PM


Re: Won't eat certain foods?
From what he wrote, rejecting mayo is not due to his vegetarian choice, but because of the texture of the food; which is not unusual.
jaderis writes:
For example, I am physically disgusted by most milky or creamy food stuffs (i.e. mayonaise, cream cheese, cottage cheese, sour cream, whipped cream, yogurt - it's a texture thing mostly)
His point in Message 12 being that laws should be based on reason and not personal disgust.
What point are you trying to make with your observation that concerns the topic?

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Answers in Gene Simmons, posted 08-08-2007 12:10 PM Answers in Gene Simmons has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 55 of 170 (415176)
08-08-2007 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Straggler
08-08-2007 9:39 AM


Re: Lines of Acceptability
Straggler writes:
How rational is rational?
How educated is educated? I know it when I see it.
If my little son turned out to be gay I really do not think I would have a significant personal difficulty with it.
If my little (hypothetical, as only the one sprog so far) daughter turned out to have a major thing for goats and horses I would be absolutely fucking ashamed, shocked and devastated.
I have met gay men that were sent to christian camps by their parents. I have also met gay men that were thrown out of the house by their morally superior christian parents at very young age.
Think about what you are saying. You are essentially saying something like "I have no problem with American Indians, but them niggers I can shoot all day and not get tired."
If our decisions should be ultimately rational would my reaction be....wrong?
I wouldn't say wrong. I'd say your reaction would be closer to human nature than a rational reaction.
It took human civilization 6 thousand years to figure out that nobody likes to be someone else's slave. Not a century ago, one of the most advance civilization on Earth committed horrific crimes against humanity without so much as a protest by its citizens.
The fact is irrational reactions that are based purely on feelings are more natural than the rational ones. But you have to remember that just because a reaction is closer to your nature doesn't mean it is the best one to make. If you pull on a dog's tail, its natural reaction would be to jerk its head around and bite whatever that's pulling on its tail. Trust me, I know. It takes the dog extra efforts to not react in that way.
A child who grows up without having morally developed role models will very likely have an underdeveloped conscience. This happened to me before I forced myself to develop a sense of conscience.
So, whether you would react irrationally or rationally to your daughter pursuing happiness through having sex with goats and horses is entirely your choice. You can either control your emotion, which is probably the strongest driving force in our lives, or let it control you. Just remember that too many tragedies have happened in history because people decided to let their emotional and irrational side take over. Your choice.
How would you react in the same situation and how would you reconcile any differences with your rational side and your emotional side?
I don't know. But I'm not sure when it comes to it I would be capable of making a decision I would not regret later on. This is why we don't let people seek out vengence against murderers and rapists. I'm pretty sure if it happens to me, I'd be very emotional about it. But I have already told my wife to hit me on the head with a baseball bat if I ever lose control or let my emotion take over.
******************************************************************
I guess I should explain my background on this issue with emotion versus rational thought. I grew up in christian fundamentalist family with a father figure that almost never controled himself. I remember being struck at when I was little for spilling water on the table. I remember being beaten to almost unconsciousness everytime I did something wrong. I remember seeing my brothers and sisters get beaten for really minor things, like spilling a little water on the dinner table.
The thing that really struck me when I was old enough was that I began to observe the same emotional reactions in my brothers and sisters. The personality trait that had made my father an abuser had been passed onto my brothers and sisters. What really scared me was when I noticed that I was also reacting purely with emotion and rage at really minor things, like girlfriend showing up 10 minutes late for a movie. The question I began to ask myself was when the hell would this cycle stop?
Reacting with pure emotion IS part of human nature. It takes effort to try to think it through and not react as severely. Sure, it would piss you off to know your daughter likes to have sex with goats and horses. The question is will you control your emotion or let it control you?

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 43 by Straggler, posted 08-08-2007 9:39 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Stile, posted 08-08-2007 5:20 PM Taz has replied
 Message 60 by Straggler, posted 08-08-2007 6:57 PM Taz has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 56 of 170 (415187)
08-08-2007 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Taz
08-08-2007 4:01 PM


Dealing with our own problems
Tazmanian Devil writes:
The question is will you control your emotion or let it control you?
I really like this train of thought.
It doesn't practically matter if "I feel good inside" and do the right thing, or "I hate myself when I do this" and still do the right thing. Either way, we're doing the right thing.
With bestiality, the rational thing is to not treat it any differently than human-human sex.
If we feel "just fine" about this, then there's no problem.
If we feel "disgusted" about this, we have two options:
1. Deal with the disgust internally, and accept others for who they are.
(no practical difference between this and feeling "just fine", we still treat bestiality the same tolerant way)
2. Deal with the disgust externally, and let others deal with our disgust.
Personally, I choose option #1 over #2 because I feel that my disgust is my problem, and no one else deserves me being all hateful towards them just because that's my natural reaction. I do feel that some people deserve me being all hateful towards them, but that's when I have a rational reason, such as they're abusing people or animals.
Oh, as an aside, I'd just like to point out that I agree with Mr. Jack's last point. I don't really feel that bestiality is morally good. It's simply not morally bad, just as human-human sex isn't really morally good but just not immoral.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Taz, posted 08-08-2007 4:01 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Taz, posted 08-08-2007 5:44 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied
 Message 58 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-08-2007 6:04 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied
 Message 63 by Dr Jack, posted 08-08-2007 7:18 PM Stile has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 57 of 170 (415190)
08-08-2007 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Stile
08-08-2007 5:20 PM


Re: Dealing with our own problems
Stile writes:
It's simply not morally bad, just as human-human sex isn't really morally good but just not immoral.
This is something that I keep having to remind religious folks. Not every issue is a moral issue. Someone else's private sex life isn't a moral issue anymore than whether I chose to go to the bathroom before or after breakfast.

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 56 by Stile, posted 08-08-2007 5:20 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 58 of 170 (415194)
08-08-2007 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Stile
08-08-2007 5:20 PM


What could be more rational?
Stile:
With bestiality, the rational thing is to not treat it any differently than human-human sex.
Very rational indeed. Anyone can see it's no different than any garden variety human-to-human sex with a partner

--who operates at a nonverbal level of intelligence
--can be bought, owned and sold like furniture
--whose environment, including contact with other members of its species, can be completely controlled by you
--whose patterns you can predict based on your species' accumulated research
--who lacks any similar access to knowledge about you
--who lacks any knowledge that you have the research knowledge
--who depends on you completely for feeding and care
--who is incapable, by definition, of providing genuine human companionship.
Really. What rational person would entertain a doubt?
___

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Stile, posted 08-08-2007 5:20 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Straggler, posted 08-08-2007 7:23 PM Archer Opteryx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 170 (415198)
08-08-2007 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Straggler
08-08-2007 9:22 AM


Re: Respecting your wishes
Just lets avoid any... justified comparisons to consenting humans. No need for that debate all over again.
Fair enough.
I would say that Anastasia has already touched on it quite well in another thread, followed up by Taz in, I believe, message 3.
In moral terms, the argument seems to be on the end of the animal rather than the human-- i.e., that its immoral to put an animal through that because it cannot consent.
But as Ana and Taz already aggrandized, we don't get animals consent to slaughter them either, or make them our pets (slaves), or milk them etc. One could make a much larger argument in defense of hardline veganism, which posits that milk is rape, and meat is murder.
That inevitably brings the moral question inward towards humans. That's not to say that you couldn't make a moral argument in defense of the animal, but I find it somewhat silly if we did given that we kill and eat them.
So then, is it morally wrong for us to engage in sexual relations with animals? We all somehow have this innate sense that its not merely taboo, but reprehensible as well. Why is this?
Since I have been asked not invoke the Bible, one has to find a satisfying argument on why it would be considered immoral. Without invoking the Bible or God, there seems to be no real reason that I can come up with. I know the argument spawns from a perspective of nature, and that God's perfect will would have us follow His plan through. But aside from that, I see no other reason.
Anyone else have any satisfying answers?

"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 41 by Straggler, posted 08-08-2007 9:22 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Straggler, posted 08-08-2007 7:18 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 72 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-08-2007 10:02 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 60 of 170 (415204)
08-08-2007 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Taz
08-08-2007 4:01 PM


Re: Lines of Acceptability
Good post.
I have already had a similar discussion with Stiles and concluded that, out of love for my daughter, I would deal with the situation and learn to live with it.
But I have little doubt that those negative feelings would remain.
Your post is a good response to the conflict involved in dealing with any extreme situation where rational acceptance is required in the face of a very opposite intense natural emotional reaction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Taz, posted 08-08-2007 4:01 PM Taz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024