|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is Bestiality Wrong? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 447 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
Can you prove that bestiality would not ever cause a disease to be threatening to the human population, or be a threat to anyone?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 447 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
What does disease have to do with immorality? Nothing, and everything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 447 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 447 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 447 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 447 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 447 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
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: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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024