If humans and animals are related, is bestiality wrong?

mythrys
Theist
Posts: 35
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
If humans and animals are related, is bestiality wrong?

Now, I'm not trying to be unkind, because I love you all, but you atheists must believe bestiality is ok because humans are animals according to you. Horses + burros = donkey, so what about human + monkey?


dave805
dave805's picture
Posts: 82
Joined: 2007-12-27
User is offlineOffline
mythrys wrote: Now, I'm

mythrys wrote:
Now, I'm not trying to be unkind, because I love you all, but you atheists must believe bestiality is ok because humans are animals according to you. Horses + burros = donkey, so what about human + monkey?

In short .. No it is not wrong.. It is illegal in most states and countries .. (Washington State just outlawed it last year)

In the way you are asking it .. No It is not wrong .. In the concept of what is law it is.

I am surprised.. At some of the people here.. Especially atheists.

In the long run ANYTHING is ok because their is no god. What then you ask stops people from just doing whatever the hell they want? Its called the law.. The law is society's agreed upon rules on what morals they will and will not enforce. 

  Crudly put.. People have been fucking animals sense the begining of time. If someone wants to fuck a sheep pig etc that is up to them. I personaly would never fuck any other animal other then the female animal of my spiecies. 

 So.... Do i personaly feel that bestiality is wrong...For someone who wants to do it.. No...  I personally wouldn't do it though. Does that give me the right to tell someone else they can not do it ? No it doesn't 

Let me explain my position a little further..

1. I do not believe in the existance of any God.

2. I do not believe we have the right to tell ANYONE what they can and can not do. As long as their actions do not effect others in a negitive way.

You see.. The bible.. Religion etc .. Is all about control.. Control over people.. Both their minds and bodes..  

I am all for laws that protect people.. Like Laws against speeding .. Laws against murder and rape .. But i am against laws that dictate to others what they can and can not do to themselves. IE.. Abortion.. Anti sex laws (anal sex.. oral.. Are still against the law in some states and countries in the world)

It seems simple to me.. The only way to have and keep a ordered society is to have laws.  Morals are in the most part a set of laws. Some people follow them .. Some don't 

The majority of common morals are laws in most countries in the world. Those who break the common law / Common morals that are against the law are thrown in prision or fined etc ..

So.. Under COMMON law and COMMON morality (The majority) Bestiality is against the law and against morality.. Both of wich can be argued to be the same thing.

 

 

In short .. Based on the fact that no god exists no bestiality is not wrong..

Based on common morality and common law it is......

 

I still wouldn't fuck a "Animal"  

 

 

 


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
mythrys wrote: Now, I'm

mythrys wrote:
Now, I'm not trying to be unkind, because I love you all, but you atheists must believe bestiality is ok because humans are animals according to you. Horses + burros = donkey, so what about human + monkey?

By this logic, since it is indisputable that adult humans and newborn humans are both animals (much more closely related than horses and burros or humans and monkeys) , everyone, atheist and theist alike, should agree that sex with infants is okay.    

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
dave805 wrote: In the long

dave805 wrote:

In the long run ANYTHING is ok because their is no god. What then you ask stops people from just doing whatever the hell they want? Its called the law.. The law is society's agreed upon rules on what morals they will and will not enforce.

Most often I think the problem with this kind of discussion is how we view terms like right and wrong. To a great degree I am a moral relativist in that I do not believe there is a universal right or wrong. Right and wrong have only the value that we give them. In what we would consider civilized society there is a basic agreement that hurting other humans is wrong. There are about a billion reasons why this guidline should be discarded but it is still the basic rule.

Our social contract comes from our experiences as a society. This contract changes (over time) as our technology and philosophy matures or degrades. There is no set contract for any society in my opinion as it is a very fluid idea. 

At least in the society I have grown up in we extend the rule of not hurting each other to animals. Granted, as pointed out by previous posters, this rule is VERY flexible due to our diet and clothing industries. One gentleman brought these items into question which I would agree is an important point.

But to the original question of raping animals... man some of you guys are twisted. No there is not a universal law that makes anything objectively right or wrong. The society I live in is becoming more enlightened (in some areas) as it grows. One of those areas is the treatment of animals. Thankfully most of us agree that harming animals for no reason other than our personal gratification is "wrong".

No, my invisible friend in the clouds didn't tell me that. He also didn't tell anyone else that unless I have missed my mark. Theist morals come from the same place everyone elses do. They come from what we are taught as youngsters, what we read, what we experience throughout our lives, and our chemical make-up. Asserting that we get our morals beamed into us by the sky wizard is just lunacy brought on by bad intel.

If it sounds made up, it probably is.  


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
mythrys wrote: Now, I'm

mythrys wrote:
Now, I'm not trying to be unkind, because I love you all, but you atheists must believe bestiality is ok because humans are animals according to you. Horses + burros = donkey, so what about human + monkey?

Mankey? Not a very funny or original joke.. nevermind, in all seriousness, donkeys are burros, what you are referring to there is a mule.

There's no point to responding to the rest of your straw man, Mythrys. A pretty significant chunk of the atheistic viewpoint is not engaging in "religious" thinking and to put it as simply as possible a mere - belief that x just is categorically an A - is religious thinking. What is known as 'rational thinking' quickly recognises this assertion as totally naked (A isn't defined and there are no steps from x to A to speak of and that's just the start), such a 'belief' is just not part of the schema that frames the morality you purport you're seeking to understand here.

So in short, the answer to your question is simple, atheist "belief that humans are animals" has no significant counterpart in reality. It's just not true.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Just out of curiousity...

Just out of curiousity... Mythrys how would you like it if the Human+Animal role was... oh i dunno... reversed?

 

What Would Kharn Do?


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Vessel wrote: By this

Vessel wrote:

By this logic, since it is indisputable that adult humans and newborn humans are both animals (much more closely related than horses and burros or humans and monkeys) , everyone, atheist and theist alike, should agree that sex with infants is okay.

Nah, Vessel, he's trying to use bestiality as a framework for arguing that all morality comes from religion, and in the process ignoring the thread on this very forum where we did take a long hard look at how morality emerges w/out the need for the divine.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Vessel wrote:

Wierd. Doubleposts an hour apart.


zack
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Sounds like some theist

Sounds like a theist wants to fuck a horse.


zack
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-07-04
User is offlineOffline
mythrys wrote: Yes, human

mythrys wrote:

Yes, human beings are very unique "animals", but still, we are just animals. The most smartest and highly evolved, but we are still related to them.

Nobody told me this, but I did find an article where a person had the same thought.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/speculation.htm

 

Humans are not the most "highly evolved", just to be clear. That doesn't really make much sense, evolutionarily speaking. 

“It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.” - Voltaire


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
highly evolved in what

highly evolved in what sense? Strength? Ape are strongers, speed? Cheeta much faster, umm toughness? Rihnos have thick tough hides, besides being smarter how are we highly evolved? is there a standard level of evolution? What's low, medium, high, highly etc etc


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
This is a large reason

This is a large reason Darwin really disliked the term 'evolution' as it implies progression from inferior to superior forms. That's why the theory is not 'Evolution', but 'Natural Selection'. Evolution is just a label that's been slapped onto it, but strictly speaking, the term is inaccurate, just like in Darwinian Natural Selection, it is not 'survival of the fittest' but 'survival of the most able to adapt to change'.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
mythrys wrote: Now, I'm

mythrys wrote:
Now, I'm not trying to be unkind, because I love you all, but you atheists must believe bestiality is ok because humans are animals according to you. Horses + burros = donkey, so what about human + monkey?

 

I haven't read all the replies but thought I'd hit the main question here.  It is not common for cross species reproduction.  I am not even sure what all species could actually fertilize a human egg or what all species could be fertilized by a human sperm and actually generate a healthy baby.

If we're talking about sex with animals purely for pleasure, then no I don't condone it.  There are people that find murder pleasurable and many other things that as a society we have decided are not acceptable.  I believe beastiality to be one of those many things that are not socially acceptable.

I believe what you are guilty of here is making an assumption of one value based on the assumed disagreement of values because there is a disagreement in seperate unrelated value.

I'm sure there will be varied opinions on the topic.  Should we be cross-breeding humans? I could definitly see a defensible argument there.

To say that one person, or in this case many people, "must" hold a specific value because we used a large parenting group to label human as animals is a rather dramatic assumption.  There are many species that would not make sense to cross breed that still fall under animals the rather large scope of "animals".


ZaKEEuS
ZaKEEuS's picture
Posts: 10
Joined: 2007-11-26
User is offlineOffline
Well the question is if its

Well the question is if its wrong, so I'd ask myself what are the effects of it. Nothing good comes from bestaiality when involving humans as far as I know, while flirting with the posibility of disease. So I'd say its wrong.

"If something bad happened to you today, don't blame the devil, God is just taking a weed break, he'll fix it later."
myspace.com/zakeeus


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
ZaKEEuS wrote: Well the

ZaKEEuS wrote:
Well the question is if its wrong, so I'd ask myself what are the effects of it. Nothing good comes from bestaiality when involving humans as far as I know, while flirting with the posibility of disease. So I'd say its wrong.

 

Hedonism would suggest that the potential good in bestiality comes in the form of pleasure. Disease can be avoided with a condom. 


ZaKEEuS
ZaKEEuS's picture
Posts: 10
Joined: 2007-11-26
User is offlineOffline
If you consider pleasure as

If you consider pleasure as a good feeling resulting from some action, people, no matter what they believe would do whatever physically made them feel good. If you HAVE to wear a condom, its prolly because its wrong.

"If something bad happened to you today, don't blame the devil, God is just taking a weed break, he'll fix it later."
myspace.com/zakeeus


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
ZaKEEuS wrote: If you

ZaKEEuS wrote:
If you consider pleasure as a good feeling resulting from some action, people, no matter what they believe would do whatever physically made them feel good. If you HAVE to wear a condom, its prolly because its wrong.

Well human STDs make wearing a condom mandatory if you want to stop transmission. Does that make human sex wrong? 

 And it doesn't take too much imagination to realize that a great deal of what people do is motivated by pleasure seeking.


ZaKEEuS
ZaKEEuS's picture
Posts: 10
Joined: 2007-11-26
User is offlineOffline
Having irresponsible sex is

Having irresponsible sex is wrong in my opinion, having sex with anyone or anything just because it makes you feel good is wrong. If you're a responsible decent person, you should have sime clue if a person has a STD before having sex with them. You never what you could get from an animal.....ya know what, this is gross, I dont really wanna talk about this anymore lol

"If something bad happened to you today, don't blame the devil, God is just taking a weed break, he'll fix it later."
myspace.com/zakeeus


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
ZaKEEuS wrote: Having

ZaKEEuS wrote:
Having irresponsible sex is wrong in my opinion, having sex with anyone or anything just because it makes you feel good is wrong. If you're a responsible decent person, you should have sime clue if a person has a STD before having sex with them. You never what you could get from an animal.....ya know what, this is gross, I dont really wanna talk about this anymore lol

 

You're right.Iit is gross. But there is an underlying theme here. How is right and wrong decided? By social consensus? That makes morality pretty flexible. 


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: ZaKEEuS

wavefreak wrote:

ZaKEEuS wrote:
Having irresponsible sex is wrong in my opinion, having sex with anyone or anything just because it makes you feel good is wrong. If you're a responsible decent person, you should have sime clue if a person has a STD before having sex with them. You never what you could get from an animal.....ya know what, this is gross, I dont really wanna talk about this anymore lol

 

You're right.Iit is gross. But there is an underlying theme here. How is right and wrong decided? By social consensus? That makes morality pretty flexible.

 What's wrong with moraility being flexible? Of course it is.

Lots of things change with time.  Opinions change, we learn more and try more things.  Morality changes with knowledge. 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Tarpan wrote: wavefreak

Tarpan wrote:
wavefreak wrote:

ZaKEEuS wrote:
Having irresponsible sex is wrong in my opinion, having sex with anyone or anything just because it makes you feel good is wrong. If you're a responsible decent person, you should have sime clue if a person has a STD before having sex with them. You never what you could get from an animal.....ya know what, this is gross, I dont really wanna talk about this anymore lol

 

You're right.Iit is gross. But there is an underlying theme here. How is right and wrong decided? By social consensus? That makes morality pretty flexible.

What's wrong with moraility being flexible? Of course it is.

Lots of things change with time. Opinions change, we learn more and try more things. Morality changes with knowledge.

Projecting a little? Where did I say it was wrong? 


evil religion
evil religion's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2006-10-20
User is offlineOffline
mythrys wrote: Now, I'm

mythrys wrote:
Now, I'm not trying to be unkind, because I love you all, but you atheists must believe bestiality is ok because humans are animals according to you. Horses + burros = donkey, so what about human + monkey?

Now I'm not trying to be unkind, because I love you, but you are a fucking moron. It hurts to even try to think down to your level so I wont bother to even counter your "argument". The fact that even the other theists here are calling you stupid should give you a clue as to the depth of you idiocy.

 


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: Tarpan

wavefreak wrote:
Tarpan wrote:
wavefreak wrote:

ZaKEEuS wrote:
Having irresponsible sex is wrong in my opinion, having sex with anyone or anything just because it makes you feel good is wrong. If you're a responsible decent person, you should have sime clue if a person has a STD before having sex with them. You never what you could get from an animal.....ya know what, this is gross, I dont really wanna talk about this anymore lol

 

You're right.Iit is gross. But there is an underlying theme here. How is right and wrong decided? By social consensus? That makes morality pretty flexible.

What's wrong with moraility being flexible? Of course it is.

Lots of things change with time. Opinions change, we learn more and try more things. Morality changes with knowledge.

Projecting a little? Where did I say it was wrong?

Are you suggesting it's not a bad thing? I felt, and still do feel, that it was your intention to call into question the nature of socially decided on morals and the ability for it to determine what is or is not gross being potentially misguided. I apologize if I'm putting words in your mouth, that's just how the post reads imo.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Tarpan wrote: Are you

Tarpan wrote:

Are you suggesting it's not a bad thing? I felt, and still do feel, that it was your intention to call into question the nature of socially decided on morals and the ability for it to determine what is or is not gross being potentially misguided. I apologize if I'm putting words in your mouth, that's just how the post reads imo.

A relative morality eviscerates the meaning of good and bad. It is all reduced to acceptable or unacceptable according to the standards of the culture from within which the moral questions are posed. This leaves open the possibility of behaviors that we might find egregiously criminal in this culture but perfectly acceptable in another. Empiricism has no answer for this.


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: Tarpan

wavefreak wrote:
Tarpan wrote:

Are you suggesting it's not a bad thing? I felt, and still do feel, that it was your intention to call into question the nature of socially decided on morals and the ability for it to determine what is or is not gross being potentially misguided. I apologize if I'm putting words in your mouth, that's just how the post reads imo.

A relative morality eviscerates the meaning of good and bad. It is all reduced to acceptable or unacceptable according to the standards of the culture from within which the moral questions are posed. This leaves open the possibility of behaviors that we might find egregiously criminal in this culture but perfectly acceptable in another. Empiricism has no answer for this.

I don't know if there is any source of morality that has ever or can ever be anything other than acceptable or unacceptale according to the standards of the culture.  There are and always have been conflicts in what cultures consider to be criminal. 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Tarpan wrote: I don't know

Tarpan wrote:

I don't know if there is any source of morality that has ever or can ever be anything other than acceptable or unacceptale according to the standards of the culture. There are and always have been conflicts in what cultures consider to be criminal.

One of the core arguments of RRS is that theism, especially conservative theism, has no place at the table in public policy or government. Even allowing that theism is delusional, marginalizing it implies a judgment of "goodness" or "badness". But if delusions let people get on with their lives in a content manner, then what makes it bad? It's neither good not bad. Just different. And if theism is such a harmful meme, why wasn't it selected against? Suggesting that we are in the process of de-selecting theism is a bit of a reach. Unless theism is abandoned and humanity subsequently thrives, then nothing can be said one way or the other. It's all just speculation.


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: Tarpan

wavefreak wrote:
Tarpan wrote:

I don't know if there is any source of morality that has ever or can ever be anything other than acceptable or unacceptale according to the standards of the culture. There are and always have been conflicts in what cultures consider to be criminal.

One of the core arguments of RRS is that theism, especially conservative theism, has no place at the table in public policy or government. Even allowing that theism is delusional, marginalizing it implies a judgment of "goodness" or "badness". But if delusions let people get on with their lives in a content manner, then what makes it bad? It's neither good not bad. Just different. And if theism is such a harmful meme, why wasn't it selected against? Suggesting that we are in the process of de-selecting theism is a bit of a reach. Unless theism is abandoned and humanity subsequently thrives, then nothing can be said one way or the other. It's all just speculation.

Would you be content if the represenatives of your country were constantly tripping on drugs? They are delusional, and have thier judgement impaired by the drug.  Naturally if one views the source of ones judgement to be delusional it is quite fair to put it on par with drug use since the conclusions being made could avoid logical thinking and are instead based on the delusion. 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Tarpan wrote: wavefreak

Tarpan wrote:
wavefreak wrote:
Tarpan wrote:

I don't know if there is any source of morality that has ever or can ever be anything other than acceptable or unacceptale according to the standards of the culture. There are and always have been conflicts in what cultures consider to be criminal.

One of the core arguments of RRS is that theism, especially conservative theism, has no place at the table in public policy or government. Even allowing that theism is delusional, marginalizing it implies a judgment of "goodness" or "badness". But if delusions let people get on with their lives in a content manner, then what makes it bad? It's neither good not bad. Just different. And if theism is such a harmful meme, why wasn't it selected against? Suggesting that we are in the process of de-selecting theism is a bit of a reach. Unless theism is abandoned and humanity subsequently thrives, then nothing can be said one way or the other. It's all just speculation.

Would you be content if the represenatives of your country were constantly tripping on drugs? They are delusional, and have thier judgement impaired by the drug. Naturally if one views the source of ones judgement to be delusional it is quite fair to put it on par with drug use since the conclusions being made could avoid logical thinking and are instead based on the delusion.

What I want is irrelevant. I won't vote for a Creationist. But I have no moral standing for that position. In a relative morality, there is no moral authority. For me, it seems better to be rational than irrational. But this is a belief, not a scientific fact. Now that we have cracked the genetic code, should we proceed to clone humans? Why or why not? What emperical method exists to decide that question?

 And if leaders tripping on drugs made more people "happy", why not? Clearly this is hyperbole, but what is the rubric for "better"? We cannot even say what life would be like if Congress opened every day with a bowl of hash. We can only speculate. It would take actually trying it to find out. Our best guess is that we would go down the tubes pretty quickly. But even that judgment is based on partial information. And there may be cultural constructs where getting stoned regularly results in a stable society. Maybe not a fast paced, technological society, but one that is stable none the less.


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Hmmm stoned is very

Hmmm stoned is very different than delusional...I was thinking acid.

But weed could be an interesting one.  It would hard to lose stability in your country when all you need is weed and doritos.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Tarpan wrote: Hmmm stoned

Tarpan wrote:

Hmmm stoned is very different than delusional...I was thinking acid.

But weed could be an interesting one. It would hard to lose stability in your country when all you need is weed and doritos.

LOL. Doritos work for me. 


Girl Dancing In...
Girl Dancing In Orbit's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-12-27
User is offlineOffline
mythrys wrote: Now, I'm

mythrys wrote:
Now, I'm not trying to be unkind, because I love you all, but you atheists must believe bestiality is ok because humans are animals according to you. Horses + burros = donkey, so what about human + monkey?

 To get back to your original question, since human and monkey can't have offsprings together, it sets aside the ethical question of "should humans and monkey reproduce together" so if it turns you on mythrys and if the monkey is willing... knock yourself out !

Si Dieu existe, c'est Son problème !
If God exists, it's His problem !--Graffiti on the walls of the Sorbonne (France), May 1968
romancedlife.blogspot.com


ZaKEEuS
ZaKEEuS's picture
Posts: 10
Joined: 2007-11-26
User is offlineOffline
I think its best to deciede

I think its best to deciede right from from in the business sense, using cost benifit analysis makes it easy for me to decisions like this. In this case the costs outweigh the benifits.

"If something bad happened to you today, don't blame the devil, God is just taking a weed break, he'll fix it later."
myspace.com/zakeeus


Girl Dancing In...
Girl Dancing In Orbit's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-12-27
User is offlineOffline
ZaKEEuS wrote: I think its

ZaKEEuS wrote:
I think its best to deciede right from from in the business sense, using cost benifit analysis makes it easy for me to decisions like this. In this case the costs outweigh the benifits.

Yeah, getting a monkey is a pain in the ass.

 

Si Dieu existe, c'est Son problème !
If God exists, it's His problem !--Graffiti on the walls of the Sorbonne (France), May 1968
romancedlife.blogspot.com


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
evil religion

evil religion wrote:
mythrys wrote:
Now, I'm not trying to be unkind, because I love you all, but you atheists must believe bestiality is ok because humans are animals according to you. Horses + burros = donkey, so what about human + monkey?

Now I'm not trying to be unkind, because I love you, but you are a fucking moron. It hurts to even try to think down to your level so I wont bother to even counter your "argument". The fact that even the other theists here are calling you stupid should give you a clue as to the depth of you idiocy.

Welcome to the mod team.  You got it. 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Didymos
Didymos's picture
Posts: 23
Joined: 2008-01-18
User is offlineOffline
mythrys wrote:

mythrys wrote:
Now, I'm not trying to be unkind, because I love you all, but you atheists must believe bestiality is ok because humans are animals according to you. Horses + burros = donkey, so what about human + monkey?

 

Insofar as animals can not provide CLEAR consent, bestiality is wrong because it is a form of abuse. Even when animals can consent to sexual activity with a human being, it should still be illegal because the law has no way of verifying whether or not consent actually was given. However, I believe that bestiality is not wrong IN PRINCIPLE. I know that this will horrify a lot of people, and I admit I'm not thrilled with this realization myself, but if we are constructing a system of ethics that determines right and wrong on the basis of whether or not harm is done, then I think we should realize that activities like bestiality and pedophilia are not necessarily ALWAYS wrong. Rather, it depends on the specific circumstances involved. In general, however, I'd argue that since the POTENTIAL for abuse is so high, and that more often than not, both bestiality and pedophilia do involve sexual abuse, they ought to be illegal and tabooed.

The correct way of understanding our existence is as conceptually created entities superimposed upon our changing mental and bodily states.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Please tell me you do mean

Please tell me you do mean 'do' and not 'do not' in your last sentence... otherwise, I'm confused and you are misinformed about sexual abuse.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Didymos wrote:   Insofar

Didymos wrote:
 

Insofar as animals can not provide CLEAR consent,

 

So some damn hyperactive poodle humping my leg isn't consent?


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
As with most rational

As with most rational ethicists my sexual ethics is based on consent, not on the opinions of disgust that some people might feel at an act that doesn't concern them.

Wavefreak has actually brought up something interesting. Animals might often have sexual desires towards human beings. It can actually be possible for some animals to give consent, uncoersed by human beings (there may be cases where if a human touches the animal in the right place it might become sexually aroused when it would normally not be). Of course it is harder for animals to express consent clearly.

I would not ever want to fuck a chimp or anything like that. It disturbs me greatly that anyone would ever do such a thing. But, I do not see a problem if an animal is not abused but is fully participant in the act.

It is also theoretically possible for chimpanzees and humans to cross-breed, although in practice it may not work due to a difference in the numbers of chromosones. I would however not condone the breeding of human-chimpanzee hybrids for fear that the consequences might end up in breeding a slave race.


Didymos
Didymos's picture
Posts: 23
Joined: 2008-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote: Please

Thomathy wrote:

Please tell me you do mean 'do' and not 'do not' in your last sentence... otherwise, I'm confused and you are misinformed about sexual abuse.

 

Oops!  My bad.  I fixed it. 

The correct way of understanding our existence is as conceptually created entities superimposed upon our changing mental and bodily states.


Didymos
Didymos's picture
Posts: 23
Joined: 2008-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Jacob Cordingley wrote:

Jacob Cordingley wrote:

It is also theoretically possible for chimpanzees and humans to cross-breed, although in practice it may not work due to a difference in the numbers of chromosones. I would however not condone the breeding of human-chimpanzee hybrids for fear that the consequences might end up in breeding a slave race.

 

I read some time ago that there is evidence that the ancestors of human beings (perhaps Austrolepithecines or one of the early Homo species) and chimps DID cross-breed. I doubt that would be possible with Homo sapiens however. What makes you think it's theoretically possible?

I would completely be down with the breeding of human-chimpanzee hybrids. I'm tired of mowing the lawn and doing my own laundry.

On a side note, several years ago I was messing around on yahoo groups and found a gay bestiality chat room (I kid you not).  I got talking to some guy there and told him that I thought what he was doing was really wrong, that bestiality (including gay bestiality) is a form of animal abuse.  At this point, he responds, "Hey man, my dog mounted ME."  I proceeded to vomit and log off.   

 

The correct way of understanding our existence is as conceptually created entities superimposed upon our changing mental and bodily states.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Another problem here is that

Another problem here is that consent implies free will. But free will seems to be an unresolved question. And then there is coercion. If I take a woman on a date and her inital inclination is to not have sex with me, but by the end of the date, by virtue of my charm, she changes her mind, I have still coerced her. Where is the line drawn that turns coercion into a crime?


Didymos
Didymos's picture
Posts: 23
Joined: 2008-01-18
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: Another

wavefreak wrote:
Another problem here is that consent implies free will. But free will seems to be an unresolved question. And then there is coercion. If I take a woman on a date and her inital inclination is to not have sex with me, but by the end of the date, by virtue of my charm, she changes her mind, I have still coerced her. Where is the line drawn that turns coercion into a crime?

Well, if you are a determinist, you can take the compatibilist view that free view does exist but is still subject to causative forces.  So according to this view, free will means being able to do what you truly want to do and not being coerced by EXTERNAL forces.  At the same time, anyone who holds to this view nonetheless believes that what we want to do is the result of genetics and environmental factors.

I think your example does not represent true coercion.  I would define coercion as FORCING someone to do what they don't want to do.  Your example would be better termed persuasion.  Persuasion is ok provided that it is not duplicitous.  

 

The correct way of understanding our existence is as conceptually created entities superimposed upon our changing mental and bodily states.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Didymos wrote: I think

Didymos wrote:

I think your example does not represent true coercion. I would define coercion as FORCING someone to do what they don't want to do. Your example would be better termed persuasion. Persuasion is ok provided that it is not duplicitous.

But isn't this a matter of degree? Forcing seems to be the wrong word as well. A date rape drug overcomes a person's ability to choose.  This is forcing compliance. But coercion is inducing somebody to make a choice they to which they initially may show great resistance. When does persuasion become coercion? And what justification is there for considering duplicitous persuasion wrong? If I do the date thing and I never explicitly ask "can I bone you?" and she nevers says "bang away" where is the consent? All I'm really pointing out is that there is a huge grey area. Consent is often implied, and sometimes even when spoken it isn't consent but rather capitulation.


Psymn
Posts: 29
Joined: 2008-01-19
User is offlineOffline
lol, funny thread. Without

lol, funny thread. Without going too far into it i can confirm from another athiests pov that animals are quite safe around me tbh. Im not going to offer a reason but i do want to offer a slightly different slant on the question...

 Are you serious? and forgive my ignorance, i know the bible deffo says blokes dont bone blokes, but does the bible actually say that blokes dont bone animals? Because if not i would presume that god has nothing against beastiality! ( i can feel the biblical quotes coming but unless it says 'tho shall not knob beasts' im not interested and its as open to interpretation as the rest of that crappy publication.)

So for a thiest, im not aware of any reason ethically, not to do this, but this thread has many examples of free will, and proof in itself, as to how an athiest reaches the conclusion that beastiality is undesirable WITHOUT any 'help' from god. 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Whosoever lieth with a

Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death. -- Exodus 22:19
And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. -- Leviticus 20:15
And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. -- Leviticus 20:16


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
I love Leviticus. It's such

I love Leviticus. It's such a cheerful, happy book. Smiling

If a man lieth with a man as he would a woman, both shall be put to death.

If a man lieth with the wife of his brother, he shall be destroyed and the woman killed.

If a man giveth a cop the finger, his finger shall be cut off and the cop put to death, and then everyone nearby stoned until dead, and the finger shall be jammed in the man's eye from whom it were cuteth off, and pushed hard until it goeth clear through his brain and he shall die...

ok, that last one might be a bit of an exageration... I think the cop gets to live in that situation, but he must be ritually blinded with hot coals or something.

I mean, how can you not love that book? Smiling

(ok, I'm an ass sometimes, but hopefully an amusing one.) 

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote: If a man

BMcD wrote:

If a man giveth a cop the finger, his finger shall be cut off and the cop put to death, and then everyone nearby stoned until dead, and the finger shall be jammed in the man's eye from whom it were cuteth off, and pushed hard until it goeth clear through his brain and he shall die...

 

Moral: Never finger a cop. 


Psymn
Posts: 29
Joined: 2008-01-19
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak

wavefreak wrote:
Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death. -- Exodus 22:19
And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. -- Leviticus 20:15
And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. -- Leviticus 20:1

Ok, so isnt it obvious why this is divisive?, and i assume the rest of the bible is written like that. Non of those say that beastiality is WRONG, they just tell YOU as a christian WHAT YOU SHOULD DO ABOUT IT. Its not a book of GODS opinion, its an instruction manual of how to make people all think the same and as such make then less 'savage'...
Or to put it another way, to make them predictable and easy to rule.
Or another way still, to make them rule themselves.

Along with other good advise, like in the muslim book, however its spelt, 'tho shalt not accept currency in your corner shop with your right hand because thats the hand they wipeth with, and anyone offering their right hand for change shall have the change dropped unto them from great height so as not to touch their wipething hand'

It all makes sence in the context of everyones hand being covered in crap, but we all use toilet paper now (i hope).

Im sure theres parralels in the bible but ill be honest and say i havent read it or the kiran.


Girl Dancing In...
Girl Dancing In Orbit's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Since humans are all

Since humans are all related, should Catholic Priests continue to fuck with Choir Boys ? 

 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Psymn wrote: Ok, so isnt

Psymn wrote:

Ok, so isnt it obvious why this is divisive?, and i assume the rest of the bible is written like that.

 

Bad assumption. 


Psymn
Posts: 29
Joined: 2008-01-19
User is offlineOffline
yeah, does the bible say

yeah, does the bible say anything about 'thou shall not stick it to kids'?

 

No? srsly?

or even yes? srsly?

 

i know non religious people do it aswel, but i hered a couple of cases in the UK of Jehovas Witness' covering up child abuse cases at the elder level due to the 'bad light' it painted them in. Non religious paedophiles tend not to have a huge psudo-authority to conduct themselves inside, wwith relative safety.

Jehovah's Witnesses: child abuse policy

 

sick.