Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-24-2019 2:10 AM
28 online now:
Dredge, dwise1, Heathen, PaulK, Pressie (5 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,135 Year: 5,172/19,786 Month: 1,294/873 Week: 190/460 Day: 6/29 Hour: 0/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
12Next
Author Topic:   Is Bestiality Wrong?
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 1077 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 76 of 170 (415248)
08-08-2007 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Taz
08-08-2007 9:05 PM


Re: Rat is right
Taz writes:

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.

I noticed.

Okay, from here on I'll ignore the irrelevant crap about Rat.

Moving on:

Taz writes:

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.

Your reading is poor: squint at the screen, and you will note that my analogy did not compare sober drivers to drunk drivers. Once more, slowly: a relative difference between threats does not mean a less likely threat should be ignored. Having said that, please substantiate your assertion that a novel pathogen against which human populations have no defense is more likely to occur via human-to-human contact than interspecies transmission. You both misunderstand my argument and are wrong about your own.

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.

Yet again: Reason does not identify a primary threat and dismiss all others.

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

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.

Actually, you said:

quote:
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.

As I pointed out, smallpox moved to our species from domesticated animals--indeed, the first clue toward a smallpox vaccine was the fact that folks who had experienced the much milder cow pox tended to survive later infections with smallpox.

You are again making the same two errors: one, that human populations are more at threat from extant pathogens, to which they have some resistance, than they are from novel ones; two, even if there is a greater and lesser threat, we must choose between policies that remedy only one and not both.

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.

See above.

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 68 by Taz, posted 08-08-2007 9:05 PM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Taz, posted 08-08-2007 11:36 PM Omnivorous has responded

    
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 77 of 170 (415251)
08-08-2007 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Omnivorous
08-08-2007 10:33 PM


Re: Rat is right
Content deleted.

Edited by Chiroptera, : Didn't further the conversation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Omnivorous, posted 08-08-2007 10:33 PM Omnivorous has not yet responded

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 4062 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 78 of 170 (415252)
08-08-2007 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Straggler
08-08-2007 7:18 PM


Re: Why is Bestiality Disgusting?
Straggler writes:

As I have explained a few time I am finding it hard to reconcile my feelings about the subject with my rational conclusions.

That's a good clue about morality. Some things you just feel in your gut. It might be instinct, it may be the voice of God or conscience, who knows.

I don't believe bestiality is appropriate behaviour for any self-respecting or kind person. End of story. ana is being stubborn this time. :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Straggler, posted 08-08-2007 7:18 PM Straggler has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Chiroptera, posted 08-08-2007 11:28 PM anastasia has not yet responded

    
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 79 of 170 (415253)
08-08-2007 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by anastasia
08-08-2007 11:25 PM


Re: Why is Bestiality Disgusting?
That's a good clue about morality. Some things you just feel in your gut.

Heh. That's pretty much what it comes down to, isn't it?


I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders
This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by anastasia, posted 08-08-2007 11:25 PM anastasia has not yet responded

  
Answers in Gene Simmons
Junior Member (Idle past 4183 days)
Posts: 8
Joined: 08-08-2007


Message 80 of 170 (415255)
08-08-2007 11:31 PM


purpledawn writes:


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?

Well, obviously, I could have been more specific. I too, would prefer that laws be based on sound reasoning. However, I am left wondering what might the limits of such reasoning be? Apparently, one can eat a salad with chopped eggs and vinaigrette dressing. But arrange those same ingredients in some other way and you have the dreaded mayonnaise. I would agree with him that it is not a well thought out decision but rather a gut reaction.

Yet another combination of the same ingredients plus a few others would make Caesar dressing which does not seem to me to be very like the other stuff that he mentioned such as sour cream and yogurt. However, it does have anchovies in it and in that he expressed a distaste for eating animals, I would not be surprised that he would also stay away from that. However, there could be a very different rationale for not eating animals that has followed some line of reasoning. Perhaps not a line that a confirmed carnivore such as myself would buy into but a line of reasoning nonetheless. Not “Eeww, white and creamy”.

But enough on food.

Mr Jack writes:

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.

That is a very good point. Different cultures have vastly different ideas of what is morally repugnant. Today, most people regard cannibalism as reprehensible but in other places and other times, it has been part of religious rites. Or take the warrior culture in the islands of the South Pacific. On some of those islands, the older religious rite for boys becoming men involved them receiving the warrior spirit from their fathers through oral sex.

When I first read of that, I was firmly grossed out but on reflection, it becomes apparent that such rituals were a part of their culture for quite a long time before they were forcibly X-tianized. Which was more wrong (and morally wrong while we are at it), to do what they had been doing for so long or to force them to adopt a new way of life because us European types were stuck up about such matters?

However, since the topic is specifically bestiality, let me ask what if any moral implications would arise if, it was done as a group activity under the guise of religion? Some new group arises and claims bestiality as a sacrament. Shall we condemn them for not being just like us? Shall we shrug our shoulders because it is what they do? Would there be a difference of perspective? Perhaps the high priest of the group claims it as a rite of the group but condemns the farmer who puts a sheep's back legs in his boots?


  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1401 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 81 of 170 (415256)
08-08-2007 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Omnivorous
08-08-2007 10:54 PM


Re: Rat is right
Omnivorous writes:

a relative difference between threats does not mean a less likely threat should be ignored.


Nobody is saying we should ignore the less likely threat. What I am suggesting is we treat it like we treat the human to human diseases: we urge people to take precautions, we urge them to refrain from promiscuity whenever possible, we urge them to use the various devices/contraptions/inventions like condoms and whatnot to decrease the chances of infection.

I think while you are pointing out that I misunderstood your argument you yourself have done the same thing.

Having said that, please substantiate your assertion that a novel pathogen against which human populations have no defense is more likely to occur via human-to-human contact than interspecies transmission.

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.

Let me turn this around and ask you this. Can you substantiate that having sex with a goat has more chances of you catching a killer bug than having sex with an African prostitute?

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.

As I pointed out, smallpox moved to our species from domesticated animals--indeed, the first clue toward a smallpox vaccine was the fact that folks who had experienced the much milder cow pox tended to survive later infections with smallpox.

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.

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?

one, that human populations are more at threat from extant pathogens, to which they have some resistance

How is this an error? 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.

two, even if there is a greater and lesser threat, we must choose between policies that remedy only one and not both.

Huh? All I'm saying is rather than choosing the policy that would ban the act outright, why not encourage the various precautions to lessen the likelihood of animal to human transfer of diseases?

See above.

Ok, forget what I said before. How does deeming it morally wrong or legally outlawed going to make it better? You are essentially making the same argument as the crowd that wanted to ban anal sex.

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.


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 76 by Omnivorous, posted 08-08-2007 10:54 PM Omnivorous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Doddy, posted 08-09-2007 9:02 AM Taz has not yet responded
 Message 89 by riVeRraT, posted 08-09-2007 10:31 AM Taz has responded
 Message 99 by Omnivorous, posted 08-09-2007 3:24 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 82 of 170 (415261)
08-09-2007 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Straggler
08-08-2007 7:23 PM


Re: What could be more rational?
Archer where exactly do you stand on this issue?

Pardon the length. You asked. ;)

1. Amoral Morality

First, I'm not much interested in 'morality.' I rarely find it productive, or even interesting, to get into rulings (rule manufacture) the way so many discussions here seem to ask us to do. I find it much more useful in life to ask what is healthy or unhealthy, appropriate or inappropriate, fair or unfair, realistic or unrealistic. In relationships I ask what contracts exist between people and whether those contracts are being met. Funny thing is, I find that when I ask these questions instead, the 'moral' issues tend to tidy themselves up rather well by the end of the day.

Second, I'm fine with knowledge that reaches me by means other than reason. If a conviction springs from intuition or emotion or sensation rather than reason (more often, in tandem with it), it's still information. These are functions of mind that yield valid ways of knowing. You still have to test them against each other. All forms of knowledge have limits. Sometimes reason needs some time to catch up to what the intuition senses at once. Sometimes emotions have to catch up to sensation, and so on.

Life is jazz. You have to think with your heart and feel with your brain. You do your best.

Let me walk you through a scenario. The 'you' in this story is not you personally, or anyone else here. I'm just asking you, the reader, to view events through the eyes of one character.

2. One Day at the Office

You work in an office. You get on the elevator one Monday, the door closes, the elevator starts rising. You notice your colleague Bob standing next to you. Bob is wearing a crisp grey suit and a white shirt and a blue tie, with black wingtip shoes.

Bob is also wearing his underwear on the outside. It's inside-out. It's dirty.

Your first reaction is "WTF?!" You want to get away from this guy. This is wrong. It's disgusting. It's crazy.

But you can't, for the moment. So, between floors 3 and 9, you get to think a little longer. You start to question your first reaction.

You ask if it is really rational for you to have such an intense aversion to Bob's choice of wardrobe. After all, no one is being hurt by this. Isn't it just a matter of taste? Doesn't society shape what we view as 'normal' and what we view as 'abnormal' in the workplace? Aren't many of society's rules arbitrary, and don't they change? And what about the problems that occur when people accept society's traditions blindly? Isn't that what you were doing in your first reaction? Isn't Bob's choice about how to wear his underwear no different, really, than the choice you made this morning about how to wear your hair?

By the time you get to floor 7, you feel rather ashamed of your first reaction. Bob is doing you a favour, really. By standing next to you with his underwear on the outside, he is giving you a chance to grow out of your little box of prejudices. He is giving you a chance to transform your beliefs and widen your circle of acceptance. He is giving you the invitation, and the challenge, to accept him without judging him.

By the time you step out on the ninth floor, this is a challenge you feel ready to meet.

As you take your seat at your desk your thoughts turn to the health risks of Bob's choice... but you catch yourself. Truth to tell, your own collar isn't that clean today, either. Anyway, you have no plans to sit in the same chair Bob uses--and how would even that be different than the risks you take every time you use a public restroom? And it's not as if the air in this building is so great. You allow yourself to breathe that crud in and out of your lungs for hours at a stretch. Who are you to raise health issues now? No, you decide, you will not blow health concerns out of proportion to justify your irrational prejudice against Bob's wardrobe. You will overcome your initial reaction. You will accept Bob as he is.

Bob walks around the floor, talking to co-workers. They notice the underwear, of course, and when he leaves the area they talk. Some are instantly disgusted, some laugh, but as they talk to you and to each other they begin to see things in a new light.

One of your colleagues, Dave, works on a volunteer basis at an AIDs hospice. This guy knows a few things about the challenge of overcoming prejudice. He doesn't want to be like some of the people he has seen, struggling to muster even a hug for suffering sons and daughters. He wants to be inclusive. He refuses to judge Bob for being different. He accepts Bob for how he is.

Another of your colleagues, Sarah, is a born-again. She searched her NIV Bible this morning and assures everyone that no commandment exists against wearing your underwear on the outside. Bob is morally in the clear. In the absence of a "Thus saith the Lord" on the subject she will not judge. We are all God's children.

The mailroom guy thinks the situation is weird, but has trouble explaining why. He delivers the mail in a hurry and heads back downstairs.

Another of your colleagues, Darci, is a Pentecostal. She thinks Bob has a gift. He is giving all of you a sign: though we all have our dirty linen, one day our garments will be made white as snow. His underwear is a living testimony, to be received with humility and thanksgiving.

Bob continues to walk around the floor. People smile, talk with him, inwardly monitor their sense of revulsion and congratulate themselves if they feel it fading. All is well.

Except for one thing.

This is crazy.

Showing up to work wearing underwear on the outside is crazy. It is a cry for help.

And no one is helping.

Your first reaction was sound. You sensed something wasn't right. You thought 'This is crazy.' You couldn't produce, on the spot, a list of itemized reasons for this response. But no matter. The thing to have done, as soon as you got off the elevator, was pull Bob aside and help him contact a professional psychologist--then see that he ran, not walked, to his appointment.

It didn't happen because everyone around Bob ignored the information their first reactions gave them. They decided they weren't entitled to the reaction. Each of them kidded themselves that they knew everything they needed to know about human behaviour. They assumed any problems to be in their own minds and not in Bob's. No one considered that, because of lack of training, they might be in over their heads with the whole situation and that it might be a good idea to call an expert.

And that trained professional could tell you plenty. She could tell you about the research that has been done on Bob's problem, about the frequency of inside-out clothing as a distress signal among the mentally disturbed, about the name given to his disorder in the DSM, and about the effectiveness of some new meds. She can tell you all the reasons you couldn't think of why your first reaction was a sound one. That professional can do more for Bob in 8 minutes than you and all his co-workers did for him in 8 hours. And why not? It's her field of expertise, not yours. All you had to do was get him there.

Bob's problem--and it was always a problem--never had anything to do with making Dave a better liberal or Sarah a better evangelical or you a more non-judgemental person. It was not a moral test. Bob needed prompt, capable, professional help. What he got was... naive.

Which brings us to the topic.

3. What If

If I'm the father of a teenager, and I learn the teenager is having sex with a Great Dane, I'm not wasting a second pondering moral questions and my own capacity for acceptance.

I'm calling a professional and we're going to find out what's going on. Pronto.

____

Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair, clarity.

Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.

Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.


Archer

All species are transitional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Straggler, posted 08-08-2007 7:23 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by anastasia, posted 08-09-2007 2:38 AM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded
 Message 86 by Stile, posted 08-09-2007 10:07 AM Archer Opteryx has responded
 Message 96 by Taz, posted 08-09-2007 3:09 PM Archer Opteryx has responded
 Message 116 by Straggler, posted 08-10-2007 8:30 PM Archer Opteryx has responded

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 4062 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 83 of 170 (415270)
08-09-2007 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Archer Opteryx
08-09-2007 12:25 AM


Re: What could be more rational?
Excellent! Bravo!

Great post, Archer.

It is a very thin line indeed.

On many occasions, I have been fooled by appearances. If your Bob had worn clean underwear to work, on the outside albeit, he may have done so with the intent of making a statement. People do things like that at parties, or in bands, or in protest of 'normalcy'. If you are prejudice, you may miss the point, and skip the lesson.

Prejudice can be a dangerous thing. Complacency is just as bad. I have learned great things from the homeless, from the drunken old timers, from the begrudged wives and mothers. I have felt great kinship with their humanity, but sure knowledge that I must not become comfortable in their shoes.

Look at public nudity: immoral by Christain standards and generally illegal in the US. I am not repulsed in the least by display of nudity in other cultures. In my culture however, it is such an unusual thing, a thing that relativists don't go about doing, which atheists don't go about doing, which any 'normal' person doesn't go about doing, that it is foolish not to question a person's motives or, ultimately, their sanity. If a person is completely oblivious to their surrounding 'norm', it speaks of a bigger problem.

It is true that we may find no rational basis for despising a behaviour. It is true that sometimes genius behaves in irrational ways...er, non standard ways. The artist can see through the convention at times, and be called an eccentric. The serial killer may do the same, and be called insane. Very often it is not ultimately about morality, but social etiquette, and to wantonly disobey etiquette is to walk a very thin line.

Your post was way too good for my petty remarks. I can only say that I firmly believe that committed man and woman were intended to have sexual relations, and this is the only rationale I need have in the matter. It is of no consequence whether man or woman or chicken gets hurt, ill, or annoyed. It is of no consequence whether or not society deems bestiality acceptable. It is better to examine what we believe than to spend time rationalizing what we don't understand. IOW I should question whether my belief in consentual, procreative relations is 'right' and reasonable, and only then hold another behaviour up to that standard. If the standard is flawed, the conclusions will be flawed. I believe the standard for morality as we know it IS flawed, but that is another subject.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-09-2007 12:25 AM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

    
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 214 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 84 of 170 (415281)
08-09-2007 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Straggler
08-08-2007 7:27 PM


Re: Why is Bestiality Disgusting?
Er, no. Not my bag baby.

I have seen bestial pornography though; I can't say that it disgusted me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Straggler, posted 08-08-2007 7:27 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 4019 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 85 of 170 (415292)
08-09-2007 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Taz
08-08-2007 11:36 PM


Re: Rat is right
Tazmanian Devil writes:

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?

Kissing is a great way to spread Epstein-Barr virus (HHV-4), so we should ban that too!

Reductio ad absurdum.

You have to weigh up the positives with the negatives. Just because it carries risks doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed.


Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!

We seek contributors with a knowledge of Intelligent design to expand and review our page on this topic.

Registration not needed for editing most pages (the ID page is an exception), but you can register here!


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

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3437
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 86 of 170 (415295)
08-09-2007 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Archer Opteryx
08-09-2007 12:25 AM


Where is the actual objection?
Archer Opterix writes:

If I was the father of a teenager, and it came to my attention that this teenager was having sex with a Great Dane, I would not waste a second trying to judge the matter morally or pondering my ability to be 'accepting.'

I would call a professional and we would find out what's going on. Pronto.

And what if the professional's opinion was simply that nothing was going on, nothing was wrong, and your teenager only enjoyed having sex with a Great Dane?

Basically, I don't see how your story follows the situation. Lots of things seem "abnormal". Yes, some are from crazy folk. But plenty are not. That's the whole problem, isn't it? Figuring out if bestiality is a part of "crazy folk" or just something some people do differently than others.

I admit, though, that I did not word my statement well before.

Archer Opterix writes:

Stile writes:

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?

Yes, there are obvious differences. Is there any specific one that makes you worry? I mean, most of the responses to these differences are "yeah, that is different, so what?"

What I meant by "treat it the same as human-human sex" was to use these same guidelines:

Don't force yourself on another.
If your human partner tells you to stop, or uses body-language to imply they want you to stop, then you should stop.
If your animal partner yelps in pain, or uses body-language to imply they want you to stop, then you should stop.

Sex is serious.
Fun isn't the only thing involved in sex. There are STDs and mental consequences to be aware of. You need to be informed and make an intelligent decision about protection before engaging in acts of a sexual nature. This applies to both humans and animals.

This is what I meant by "treated equally", treated equally along the lines of levels of respect and concern.

Of course there are differences, one's with a human, and the other's with an animal for starters :)

But the question still remains, do you actually have a reason why someone shouldn't have sex with an animal? Other than "I don't personally approve", anyway.

I really am asking the question. If you can show that negative results cannot be avoided when having sex with an animal, I'll need to have a great big think about the issue. It's just, well, no one's ever mentioned one to me before.


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 112 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-10-2007 1:40 PM Stile has responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3437
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 87 of 170 (415298)
08-09-2007 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Dr Jack
08-08-2007 7:18 PM


Equal Treatment
Mr Jack writes:

Stile writes:

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.

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.

The same way sex between humans should not endager other people, and should not cause undue levels of harm to the human you're having sex with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Dr Jack, posted 08-08-2007 7:18 PM Dr Jack has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by anastasia, posted 08-09-2007 1:52 PM Stile has responded

    
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 29 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 88 of 170 (415299)
08-09-2007 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Taz
08-08-2007 9:05 PM


Re: Rat is right
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.

LOL, yea I planned it. I knew this is exactly what would happen. HAHA.
You give me more credit than I deserve.

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.

Way to put Omni down. What I asked was a real question to spark an angle of the debate. 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.
Your inability to read into these things really hinders you from getting along with people. Then you top it off with insults, not only to me, but to omni, and anyone else who would disagree with you.

What Omni did was enlighten us why it makes sense to consider the disease aspect of it, and how that aspect relates to our morals. I got it. You dismissed it, without backing up why.

Prejudice to rat? Of course not.

Surely you jest.

If you are not prejudice, then why mention homosexuality?

You are not fooling anyone.

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.

We are not talking about passing on a disease, we are talking about creating one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Taz, posted 08-08-2007 9:05 PM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Taz, posted 08-09-2007 2:22 PM riVeRraT has responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 29 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 89 of 170 (415301)
08-09-2007 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Taz
08-08-2007 11:36 PM


Re: Rat is right
Nobody is saying we should ignore the less likely threat. What I am suggesting is we treat it like we treat the human to human diseases: we urge people to take precautions, we urge them to refrain from promiscuity whenever possible, we urge them to use the various devices/contraptions/inventions like condoms and whatnot to decrease the chances of infection.

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.

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.

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?

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

Aren't morals subjective anyway?

Obviously passing along disease of any sort should be considered wrong. Shouldn't we be trying to avoid that, or is infection control in hospitals just a joke? 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.

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

Edited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Taz, posted 08-08-2007 11:36 PM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Chiroptera, posted 08-09-2007 1:06 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded
 Message 94 by Taz, posted 08-09-2007 2:34 PM riVeRraT has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 90 of 170 (415316)
08-09-2007 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by riVeRraT
08-09-2007 10:31 AM


Re: Rat is right
So again it comes down to, where do we get our morals from.

anastasia already told you:

quote:
That's a good clue about morality. Some things you just feel in your gut.

Aren't morals subjective anyway?

Pretty much.


I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders
This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by riVeRraT, posted 08-09-2007 10:31 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
12Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019