Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Bestiality Wrong?
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 61 of 170 (415207)
08-08-2007 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Chiroptera
08-08-2007 12:43 AM


Re: Rat is right
I agree that public health and social risk management are mediated by many nonrational factors. That's undeniable.
However, the topic under discussion was bestiality, and whether there is any reason to think it morally wrong. Of course, we have not carefully defined just what morality might be, but any discussion of law, morality, public health policy, etc., can be sidetracked by asking, "Oh yeah, what about X?" In moral debate, perhaps isolation of cases is as important as the isolation of variable factors in experimentation.
Consistency may or may not be the hobgoblin of little minds, but demanding perfect consistency is definitely the derailment devil of moral/public policy debate.
Personally, I find Chicken McNuggets a crime against humanity, but that's a question for another thread.
Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.
Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.

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 31 by Chiroptera, posted 08-08-2007 12:43 AM Chiroptera has not replied

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


Message 62 of 170 (415208)
08-08-2007 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Hyroglyphx
08-08-2007 6:29 PM


Why is Bestiality Disgusting?
Anyone else have any satisfying answers?
The general consensus amongst the majority of relatavists here (myself included) seems to be that bestiality should NOT be considered immoral by any rational standard.
As I have explained a few time I am finding it hard to reconcile my feelings about the subject with my rational conclusions.
So personally I am not sure I do have any satisfying answers.
Others (Taz, Stiles etc.) seem much more consistent in their approach than me.
We all somehow have this innate sense that its not merely taboo, but reprehensible as well. Why is this?
This is a good question.
Despite the general consensus that rationally speaking there is no reason to object to bestiality we also all profess to finding the act totally disgusting.
Why is bestiality so universally condemned as disgusting?
Even if we decide not to base our rational conclusions on our feelings of disgust the question as to why bestiality is considered so disgusting is worth asking.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-08-2007 6:29 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Dr Jack, posted 08-08-2007 7:22 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 73 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-08-2007 10:19 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 78 by anastasia, posted 08-08-2007 11:25 PM Straggler has not replied

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


Message 63 of 170 (415209)
08-08-2007 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Stile
08-08-2007 5:20 PM


Re: Dealing with our own problems
With bestiality, the rational thing is to not treat it any differently than human-human sex.
I disagree, for similar reasons to Archer Optrix.
Instead, I'd argue, the rational thing to do is not treat it any differently than any other use of animals by humans - it should not endager other people, and it should not cause undue levels of harm to the animal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Stile, posted 08-08-2007 5:20 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Stile, posted 08-09-2007 10:15 AM Dr Jack has not replied

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


Message 64 of 170 (415210)
08-08-2007 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Straggler
08-08-2007 7:18 PM


Re: Why is Bestiality Disgusting?
Er... I don't find bestiality disgusting.
Historically, it's also not considered disgusting - more than a few religious ceremonies or rituals have involved human-animal sexual contact.
However, we all hail from a broadly similar society, which itself springs from the medieval traditions of the Catholic Church - a church that was always big on sexual repression. The revulsion of bestiality, like that of many other sexual practices, lies in these historical routes more than inate nature of humanity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Straggler, posted 08-08-2007 7:18 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Straggler, posted 08-08-2007 7:27 PM Dr Jack has replied

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


Message 65 of 170 (415211)
08-08-2007 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Archer Opteryx
08-08-2007 6:04 PM


Re: What could be more rational?
Archer where exactly do you stand on this issue?
Is it morally wrong?
If so, why exactly?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-08-2007 6:04 PM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-08-2007 9:49 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 82 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-09-2007 12:25 AM Straggler has replied

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


Message 66 of 170 (415212)
08-08-2007 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Dr Jack
08-08-2007 7:22 PM


Re: Why is Bestiality Disgusting?
Er... I don't find bestiality disgusting.
I have to ask......
Are you speaking from experience?
Have you partaken.......?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Dr Jack, posted 08-08-2007 7:22 PM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Dr Jack, posted 08-09-2007 6:02 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 67 of 170 (415216)
08-08-2007 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Taz
08-08-2007 1:58 AM


Re: Rat is right
Taz writes:
Rat's question-argument was based on his prejudice. Does anyone here actually want to stand up and say that you believe Rat thought this through thoroughly before giving us that single sentence argument?
Now, onto your (real) argument.
If we are just jousting for some sort of arena primacy, then, sure, it makes sense to take an opponent's argument in its most trivial sense.
But if we are using debate to sort out some version of truth, then it makes more sense to take those arguments in their strongest form.
Your dismissal of Rat's comments as prejudice displays your own.
Taz writes:
It doesn't require an interspecies disease to cause another pandemic.
No, and it doesn't require a drunken driver to kill innocent bystanders--a drunken pilot can do as well or better. So we shouldn't mandate drivers' sobriety? Further, we have extensive laws concerning travel and innoculations, as well as quarantines, when necessary. The basis in law for proscriptions of liberty based on public health concerns is well established.
Taz writes:
I don't think it's fair that you are only mentioning the cultural taboos regarding person to animal contact when there are an even greater amount of cultural taboos regarding person to person contact.
Not fair? What an odd notion: we are discussing the most intimate of contacts with animal species, so my focus seems appropriate to me. On the other hand, persons are, after all, animals.
The role of disease in the decimation of New World native populations is a subject of research that I have followed closely for decades. The lethal threats that exist at contact points between two different groups of creatures--whether the same species or not--support my argument, not yours.
Taz writes:
The most notable pandemics in history have always been the works of pathogens that had been plaguing man kind since the beginning of time. Compared to smallpox or the guinea worm disease, SARS was just a walk in the park.
Nice rhetoric, but irrelevant and wrong: nothing has been plaguing us since the beginning of time, since we weren't there and neither were pathogens.
Pathogens do not arise in the human species, whole and complete like Satan's daughter from his forehead. They invariably require the vectors and reservoirs of other species. By the way, I believe I mentioned the pox pathogens--which came to us via domesticated animals.
Taz writes:
But there are good, rational arguments against bestiality, quite aside from such feelings.
I beg to differ.
I beg you to do better at it. I have asserted a rational, public health reason for any society to proscribe bestiality and supported it with factual material. You have merely dismissed it.
I value human sexual freedom a great deal, but it is not an absolute value--we can and do prohibit and criminalize HIV-infected people from intercourse with unknowing partners because there is an overriding public health interest. The same principles can be reasonably applied to bestiality.

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 32 by Taz, posted 08-08-2007 1:58 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Taz, posted 08-08-2007 9:05 PM Omnivorous has replied
 Message 69 by Chiroptera, posted 08-08-2007 9:21 PM Omnivorous has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 68 of 170 (415227)
08-08-2007 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Omnivorous
08-08-2007 7:40 PM


Re: Rat is right
Omni writes:
But if we are using debate to sort out some version of truth, then it makes more sense to take those arguments in their strongest form.
I don't agree. Rat's approach is nothing more than a childish attempt at getting the rest of us riled up and then sit back and watch other, more informed people that happen to remotely agree with what he implied make the argument for him.
How often do we see the hit and run cases that look something like "evolution has been disproved again and again and again... creation has been proved again and again and again"? Almost in all of these cases, the person usually disappears and then the argument is left to the regular creationists to sort it out with the rest of us.
No, when I see an approach like that single sentence argument (as if he's some wise old man that could reveal the secrets of the cosmos with a single sentence), I don't see why I have to waste my time with the person, especially when he hasn't made any real argument since.
Your dismissal of Rat's comments as prejudice displays your own.
I don't deny prejudice here. But prejudice to what? Prejudice to rat? Of course not. Prejudice to the way he's threw out a knee jerk reaction to bait someone like to you make the argument for him? Sure.
No, and it doesn't require a drunken driver to kill innocent bystanders--a drunken pilot can do as well or better. So we shouldn't mandate drivers' sobriety? Further, we have extensive laws concerning travel and innoculations, as well as quarantines, when necessary. The basis in law for proscriptions of liberty based on public health concerns is well established.
You are commiting a very fatal flaw in your logic.
A drunken driver has a hell of a lot more chance at killing someone than a non-drunken driver. On the other hand, there's more of a chance for a killer disease to get passed from one population of humans to another than there is for one to cross from one species to another. You're analogy is faulty.
The role of disease in the decimation of New World native populations is a subject of research that I have followed closely for decades. The lethal threats that exist at contact points between two different groups of creatures--whether the same species or not--support my argument, not yours.
How so?
Beastiality is defined as a sexual contact between a human and an animal (I'm using the social definition of the word animal... if you want I'll start using technical terms for the sake of argument). A person to person sexual contact is NOT beastiality, unless you want to make the argument that people are also animal, which would be changing your entire line of argument.
The fact remains. It is more likely for a pathogen already adapted to human physilogy to cause the next epidemic or pandemic than it is for a pathogen that have been adapted to another species.
You want to really get on people's backs for public health? Make laws forbidding US citizens from having sex or make physical contact with people from other regions of the world. That is a much more rational choice than banning beatiality all together.
On the other hand, persons are, after all, animals.
I was going to ignore this statement, but what the heck. So, according to you, since we are just animal, I am committing beastiality everytime I have sex with my wife?
Nice rhetoric, but irrelevant and wrong: nothing has been plaguing us since the beginning of time, since we weren't there and neither were pathogens.
(1) "Beginning of time" in this particular use is a reference to the beginning of human civilization. "Beginning of time" that you are thinking of is a scientific term used in physics to describe the beginning of the universe. But notice that we are talking about beastiality in the social sense, not physics. The main focus isn't even about the biology of the matter. The main question here is should it be morally and legally acceptable. Should have read what I wrote in context of the issue
(2)Going back to the "beginning of time" thing, the guinea worm disease plagued the ancient egyptians, ancient greeks, ancient etc. and there are even records of them. Again, social convention of "beginning of time" here, not the nerdy reference.
Pathogens do not arise in the human species, whole and complete like Satan's daughter from his forehead. They invariably require the vectors and reservoirs of other species. By the way, I believe I mentioned the pox pathogens--which came to us via domesticated animals.
And I didn't say they arise in human species. I said they were adapted to the human species.
We both agree that there are risks from both contacts with animal and contacts with other humans. What I am trying to tell you is that the risk for contracting a killer disease from another person is more likely than contracting a killer disease from an animal since there are already a myriad of pathogens already adapted to human species. On the other hand, getting some form of mutated animal adapted pathogen that now could cross into the human species is a much less likely scenario.
I beg you to do better at it. I have asserted a rational, public health reason for any society to proscribe bestiality and supported it with factual material. You have merely dismissed it.
Oh no, don't get me wrong. I fully recognize the the public health potential that could come from beastiality. What I am trying to point out is that the risk for contracting human adapted pathogen from an animal is a lot less likely than contracting a human adapted pathogen from another person. 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.
I value human sexual freedom a great deal, but it is not an absolute value--we can and do prohibit and criminalize HIV-infected people from intercourse with unknowing partners because there is an overriding public health interest. The same principles can be reasonably applied to bestiality.
Ok, then let's cuff the goat that knowingly gave little Ashley her rashes.

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 67 by Omnivorous, posted 08-08-2007 7:40 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Omnivorous, posted 08-08-2007 10:54 PM Taz has replied
 Message 88 by riVeRraT, posted 08-09-2007 10:21 AM Taz has replied
 Message 168 by BusyBee, posted 04-26-2011 12:54 PM Taz has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 170 (415234)
08-08-2007 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Omnivorous
08-08-2007 7:40 PM


Re: Rat is right
I have asserted a rational, public health reason for any society to proscribe bestiality and supported it with factual material. You have merely dismissed it.
Sure. You also dismissed rational, public health reasons for prohibiting animal husbandry in general. In fact, you seemed quite indignant that such a comparison could be made, so indignant you make barely rational comments on sobriety laws and speed limits.
1918-1919. 40 million people dead.
Small pox. SARS. Bird flu. And epidemiologists who study this sort of thing are even more scared than global climatologists.
We have a rational, public health reasons to prohibit animal husbandry. Obviously there is a lot more going on here than rational concerns about public health.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Omnivorous, posted 08-08-2007 7:40 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Omnivorous, posted 08-08-2007 10:33 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 70 of 170 (415235)
08-08-2007 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Straggler
08-08-2007 7:23 PM


Re: What could be more rational?
I'm flattered by your curiosity, Straggler.
I'm getting to your question.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Straggler, posted 08-08-2007 7:23 PM Straggler has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 71 of 170 (415236)
08-08-2007 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Taz
08-08-2007 1:58 AM


Re: Rat is right
Rat's question-argument was based on his prejudice. Does anyone here actually want to stand up and say that you believe Rat thought this through thoroughly before giving us that single sentence argument?
Well first off, you still haven't done what I asked, and that is to take what I say at face value. It was not a question argument.
So I will question argue with you again, where do we get our morals from?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Taz, posted 08-08-2007 1:58 AM Taz has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 72 of 170 (415237)
08-08-2007 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Hyroglyphx
08-08-2007 6:29 PM


Re: rationality, morality
NJ:
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.
It isn't really correct to say the moral argument so far is 'on the end of the animal.'
Your word 'immoral' describes which party? The human, yes?
Human morality is the only morality that has ever been under discussion.
But just so it's clear: my Message 58, posted just before this observation of yours, did not address morals. Some points could well have had moral implications for some readers. But the subject was reason.
Stile had said it was rational to view bestiality the same way we would view a human sexual relationships. He was careful, too, to distinguish this perceived 'rationality' from moral approval.
I challenged his statement by showing that it is not very rational at all to assume equivalence. The activities proceed on very different bases. If we saw a human coupling operating on the same bases a bestial coupling does, we would find the arrangement very strange indeed.
Someone could still make a case that bestiality is 'rational.' But that case has to be made on grounds other than an assumed analogy with human sex. The social structures are different. The analogy is flawed.
___
Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : clarity.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-08-2007 6:29 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-08-2007 10:27 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 170 (415239)
08-08-2007 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Straggler
08-08-2007 7:18 PM


Re: Why is Bestiality Disgusting?
he general consensus amongst the majority of relatavists here (myself included) seems to be that bestiality should NOT be considered immoral by any rational standard.
But intrinsic, nonetheless?
So personally I am not sure I do have any satisfying answers.
Without invoking God with argument from nature, I see no other justification on my end to find one either.

"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 62 by Straggler, posted 08-08-2007 7:18 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 170 (415242)
08-08-2007 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Archer Opteryx
08-08-2007 10:02 PM


Re: rationality, morality
quote:
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.
Mistaken assessment. It isn't really correct to say the moral argument so far is 'on the end of the animal.'
Your word 'immoral' describes which party?
I would wholeheartedly agree if it weren't for the fact that in a previous thread, the sentiment expressed on what precisely makes it immoral is the fact that animals cannot give consent-- which invariably places emphasis back on the animals rights, not the human(s) perpetrating the act.
The human, yes? Animals bear no moral responsibility.
I would agree that animals are not bestowed with any sort of moral code. If this be the case, that the alleged moral crime is on the part of the human, what makes it so? And if there is no set moral standard concerning it, why then are our feelings about the perversity of it so pervasive?

"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 72 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-08-2007 10:02 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 75 of 170 (415245)
08-08-2007 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Chiroptera
08-08-2007 9:21 PM


Re: Rat is right
Chiroptera writes:
I have asserted a rational, public health reason for any society to proscribe bestiality and supported it with factual material. You have merely dismissed it.
Sure. You also dismissed rational, public health reasons for prohibiting animal husbandry in general.
You seem quite exercised--what reasons did you assert that I dismissed? Please quote from your own post to demonstrate this.
In fact, you seemed quite indignant that such a comparison could be made, so indignant you make barely rational comments on sobriety laws and speed limits.
Barely rational? You are frothing.
Quote me in context, then demonstrate the "barely rational" nature of my remarks. I demonstrated by analogy that one poorly regulated threat to public health and safety does not vitiate concerns about another.
We have a rational, public health reasons to prohibit animal husbandry.
The disease transmissions about which I spoke concerned either past practices where domesticated animals literally lived with humans or open air meat markets that mixed live, dead, domestic and game animals.
Obviously there is a lot more going on here than rational concerns about public health.
Indeed--you have yet to engage rationally anything I have said.

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 69 by Chiroptera, posted 08-08-2007 9:21 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Chiroptera, posted 08-08-2007 11:21 PM Omnivorous 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