Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-22-2019 12:24 PM
29 online now:
dwise1, JonF, ooh-child, PaulK, ringo, Stile, Tangle, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (9 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,053 Year: 5,090/19,786 Month: 1,212/873 Week: 108/460 Day: 50/58 Hour: 3/11


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
7891011
12
Author Topic:   Is Bestiality Wrong?
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 166 of 170 (416596)
08-16-2007 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Stile
08-14-2007 9:20 AM


Nothing wrong with a check-up
I didn't bother to offer a direct response to your hypothetical question because all hypotheticals about 'what the professional might say' were addressed in my statement. I said I would not hesitate to take a teen in my care to see a professional at my own expense. My respect for the opinion of a professional psychologist is thus a matter of record.

Beyond that it is useless to speculate about particulars--to play the game of 'What if the professional says this? What if that?' The game cannot be played realistically in the abstract because human behaviour is complex. In real life a professional won't venture an opinion without first gathering data. Who is the teen? Who are the teen's parents, siblings, and friends? What are those relationships like? What is the teen's history? What other behaviours are in the picture? And what part of the world are we in while all this happening, anyway?

These things, and more, enter the picture in real life.

In contrast to this, you pose a comically limited pair of choices. Either the psychologist will declare the client 'all clear' or 'insane.'

This cartoonish choice is not realistic. Human behaviour is complex, as I said. People do what they do for a variety of reasons. Context is everything. Psychology professionals know this better than anyone.

You earlier rushed to a conclusion, since retracted, that bestiality should be viewed as analogous to consensual sex between human adults. You retracted this statement when your attention was called to some obvious differences. Bestiality, unlike human sex between consenting adults, involves sex with a creature that (1) operates at a nonverbal level of intelligence, (2) has no rights under law, (3) is bought and sold as property, and (4) cannot (by definition) offer human companionship.

After making your retraction, though, you showed no interest in the implications of these differences. But they are not trivial. They establish that bestiality proceeds from fundamentally different premises than sex between consenting human adults.

What is the biggest difference, besides the obvious one of species?

Many observers would say power.

On this basis an intelligent observer might reasonably ask whether power issues are involved in the case of a teen that seeks sex with Great Danes.

If this proves to be the case, it might be useful to ask how those issues came to be linked with sex in the life of the teen and to ask what other behaviours, if any, might spring from the same issues.

Your posts give no evidence that you have considered any of this or that you wish to. But many people would find the linkage of sex with disproportionate power relationships on the part of an active teen to be... well, at least worth exploring.

Some of those people, as it happens, are experts in the field of psychology.

I don't see how finding animals sexually attractive jumps from "one more thing some people like different then others" right into "we better question their sanity".

It is you who are making jumps--by insisting a jump is necessary.

You insist that we assume a minor in our care to be 'normal' or 'crazy' before daring to get an opinion from someone who knows more about these things than we do.

This attitude is neither necessary nor helpful.

I say let's acknowledge the complexity of human behaviour and admit our limitations. Let's jump to no conclusions at all. Let's ask.

I think that questioning someone's sanity should be based on their sanity, not on their personal preferences.

Irrational. To demand that someone be demonstrably insane before 'questioning' their psychological health is like demanding that water be at a rolling boil before we ask whether the water is hot. By that stage no question exists.

Besides the flawed argument, though, you display some common prejudices and misunderstandings about psychological health. This is obvious in the cartoonish choice you assumed earlier between 'perfectly normal' and 'clinically insane.' It is even more obvious in the stigma you attach to the idea of seeing a professional in the first place.

You do not say why you attach this stigma. You simply do it, and assume others do. To see a professional is to wear a label, or at least an indictment, of 'insane'--a label that in your view clearly carries some shame.

The irrationality of your position is apparent at once if we apply it to the subject of physical health.

When your neighbours take their 10-year-old to a dentist for a checkup, you don't upbraid them for their inability to 'accept' their child. You don't insist that, unless the child's teeth are falling out, no need exists for them to question the child's dental health. You don't characterize the decision of whether to see the dentist as demanding an a priori diagnosis on the part of the parents that the child is either cavity-free or dying of throat cancer. You don't attach shame to the child or the family on the basis of the visit. If the dentist decides the child needs braces, you don't assume the child has been diagnosed with a terminal illness.

You don't do any of these things. On the contrary: you view your neighbours actions as responsible and caring. You view the visit as a good idea even if the child's teeth turn out to be fine. You know it's never a bad idea to get a check-up.

Just as physical health is not a cartoonish either-or proposition between perfect health and dying, psychological health is not a matter of perfect health and 'insanity.' I do not share the prejudices you ask me to assume.

I think counseling is a good idea for everybody. If I were actually a parent to teens, God forbid, they would be seeing counselors on a regular basis anyway because I would arrange it. As far as my resources allowed, I'd arrange regular visits with a family counselor for the whole clan.

It's never a bad idea to get a check-up. If anything unusual comes up, we look at it. If nothing is wrong, great. It's still time and money well spent.

____

Edited by Archer Opterix, : clarity.

Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.

Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.


Archer

All species are transitional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Stile, posted 08-14-2007 9:20 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Stile, posted 08-17-2007 2:06 PM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3433
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 167 of 170 (416725)
08-17-2007 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Archer Opteryx
08-16-2007 10:08 PM


Let's stick to talking about the issue
I'm just going to skip all your junk about me "being this" or "never considering that". I'm here to talk about issues, not reduce a debate to a grade-school, mud-slinging arguement.

Let's look for issues in your long Message 166:

Archer Opterix writes:

Stile writes:

I think that questioning someone's sanity should be based on their sanity, not on their personal preferences.


Irrational.

Um... it's irrational to question someone's sanity by observing... their sanity??

You go on to say:

To demand that someone be demonstrably insane before 'questioning' their psychological health is like demanding that water be at a rolling boil before we ask whether the water is hot. By that stage no question exists.

And I completey agree with this. Because, as you seem to do a lot, you're assuming I'm saying something I've clearly stated otherwise on. "Questioning someone's sanity based on their sanity" does not mean "demand someone be demonstrably insane before questioning their psychological health." Why would you think the two are even comparable?

All it means is that there should be at least some indication that someone is crazy before anyone starts assuming they need to see a psychologist. That is, some indication beyond "they like one thing I personally dislike."

But I see where the problem is. I'm trying to talk about bestiality in general, you're trying to talk about bestiality with a minor in your care.

As with anything with a minor in someone's care, the situation is different. I see nothing socially wrong with you bringing a minor in your care to see a psychologist everyday, or just when they show signs of bestiality, or just when you see they like anything else you don't like. As far as I'm concerned, you should be able to raise your kids the way you best see fit. And I agree that seeing a psychologist isn't abusing them in anyway, and can very much help them (in a multitude of areas), and should never be deemed "a bad idea". However, this doesn't stop the fact that teens are socially crazy, and their peers are most likely going to place that label of "something's wrong" on them. But this would go on a case-to-case basis as well.

All I'm saying is that it's not right for you to attempt to force a stranger to see a psychologist for the simple reason that the stranger likes something you happen to dislike.

If nothing is wrong, great. It's still time and money well spent.

Excellent. I think we agree, then. Bestiality should be considered socially acceptable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-16-2007 10:08 PM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

    
BusyBee
Junior Member (Idle past 2827 days)
Posts: 1
From: USA
Joined: 04-26-2011


Message 168 of 170 (613627)
04-26-2011 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Taz
08-08-2007 9:05 PM


Re: Rat is right
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.

How could this possibly be an educated statement, as a pathogen adapted to human species is still ADAPTED? Therefore, any pathogen could end up being adapted to the human species. So if a pathogen is adapted from a separate species to fit the human species, you have then cancelled your argument out. Every illness starts somewhere, and I wouldn't say somewhere is within the human species.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Taz, posted 08-08-2007 9:05 PM Taz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-26-2011 1:54 PM BusyBee has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 169 of 170 (613635)
04-26-2011 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by BusyBee
04-26-2011 12:54 PM


Re: Rat is right
Wwlcome to EvC, BB.

BusyBee writes:

How could this possibly be an educated statement, as a pathogen adapted to human species is still ADAPTED? Therefore, any pathogen could end up being adapted to the human species.

As the quote says:

quote:
We both agree that there are risks from both contacts with animal and contacts with other humans.

So you're not disagreeing there.

BusyBee writes:

So if a pathogen is adapted from a separate species to fit the human species, you have then cancelled your argument out. Every illness starts somewhere, and I wouldn't say somewhere is within the human species.

No, the claim is:

quote:
the risk for contracting a killer disease from another person is more likely than contracting a killer disease from an animal

If a disease, adapted to another animal, has to further adapt to affect humans, then I too would say that it is less likely to contract than one that is already adapted to humans.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by BusyBee, posted 04-26-2011 12:54 PM BusyBee has not yet responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2813
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 170 of 170 (613769)
04-27-2011 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
08-06-2007 2:36 PM


What do others of a non-absolutist moral disposition think?

Given that the *akhem* "Designer" put the "entertainment park" in the middle of a sewage system i think he is down for anything


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 08-06-2007 2:36 PM Straggler has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
7891011
12
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019