evilthecat: The average person in modern society is often a tiny cog in increasingly complex and interconnected institutions which operate so far above them that they never see the things they help to achieve. I don't think I can blame people for not being able to define themselves by their own achievements, I don't think most people have many achievements they can claim as their own any more.
I agree, but I think for our society to evolve to it's next level of enlightenment, we need to fix that. I can't really blame people for the way they see things, especially when our society constantly bombards us of high-prestiege dreams of success via musicians who get millions of dollars for a computer to correct their singing and athletes who make billions to put some variety of ball through some variety of goal. Compared to those, being proud because you were a genuinely good friend to someone in their time of need or because you raised your children to be good people just doesn't seem to compete.
evilthecat: You've fixated on people's attitude towards animals as if that's the only thing that matters. I think what's far more important is people's attitude to sex, because I think there is a logically consistent approach to sex at work here, which applies irrespective of what you're having sex with.
It may be logical consistent if you only look at sex, but it isn't logically consistent if you look at how we treat animals. For murder, enslavement and imprisonment, we have completely different rules for animals than for humans. How then would it be logically consistent to apply your human-sex-morals to animals?
In the Netherlands, you can ritually slaughter a horse without stunning, causing the animal to die slowly and painfully, struggling to breath. That's possible and allowed, tolerated, no problems. At the moment you take his penis in your mouth... you're a criminal.
This is in no way designed to protect the animal or the human, it's just bothering other people with your morals. General morals in the public? No problem. I support public decency laws. But you're morals have no place in someone's own house. If your wife wants to have sex with the dog, I'm not the one to judge her. If she harms the animal, okay. If she harms others, okay. If she harms herself, maybe I must intervene. But if NOBODY is harmed, and in no way a victim can be found, well, then the police has no right to arrest her.
evilthecat: There's more at stake here than "is the animal hurt", there's a principle which we (for good reasons, I think) tend to hold as quite important to our sexual dealings, which is that people who have sex with each other should have some kind of awareness of what they are doing.
People, not animals.
evilthecat: A guy watching a paedophilic porn film isn't "harming" a child, they are just placing themselves in a position which resembles that taken by someone who does harm a child. That alone is enough to make their actions criminal.
Child porn can only be made by (psychologically) harming children. Therefore, childporn is illegal and anyone buying or possessing it is criminal.
But... I thought there was a (scientific, sponsored by governments) project that focused on creating hyperrealistic virtual child porn. It seems to be highly effective at countering the pedophile's libido. They're still 'placing themselves in a position which resembles that taken by someone who does harm a child', but I don't think that should be enough to make their actions criminal.
*Captcha; 'tastes like chicken'. In the universe where bestiality=rape=illegal, this would be cannibalism or something. But everybody thinks this is normal, while a captcha like 'tastes like children' would be insanely WTF.
Danyal: I visited Bodyworlds a few weeks ago. I saw two corpses having sex. The women was riding the men, and her stomach was 'open' so you could view the penis in the vagina. I didn't saw puking/crying people, nor did the police storm in. So if dead people can have sex with each other, a living person can probably have sex with a corpse?
Bestiality shouldn't be banned and was allowed in the Netherlands until 2008 (providing that the sex wasn't harmful); I don't see any problems with necrophilia as long as the dead person consented to it before death.
EDIT: I can't predict how sexuality will evolve, so I don't know where "The Line" is, but my simple rules...
-Sapient beings should be allowed to sexually do with each other what they want, if both consent* -Sapient beings can do with non-sapient beings what they want, unless they hurt the non-sapient being
*Sapience defined by Wikipedia;
Sapience is often defined as wisdom, or the ability of an organism or entity to act with appropriate judgment, a mental faculty which is a component of intelligence or alternatively may be considered an additional faculty, apart from intelligence, with its own properties. Robert Sternberg[22] has segregated the capacity for judgment from the general qualifiers for intelligence, which is closer to cognizant aptitude than to wisdom. Displaying sound judgment in a complex, dynamic environment is a hallmark of wisdom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapience#Sapience
Children can be seen as not-sapient regarding sex, but they have a special position because they do possess sapience in general and will evolve to be more sapient. Some forms of sexuality can be dangerous that this it is decided that people are not 'sapient enough' for it; they lack the capacity to properly judge the risks of that sexual act.
yet fucking an animal, which can result in actually pleasuring it, is wrong.
Yeah, and a child might get off to being molested, and women have been known to orgasm from rape. It doesn't mean we should legalize either one.
There are other legitimate arguments against rape and child molestation, pulling this kind of stuff undermines your argument rather than supports it. But if you want to play that game; we are allowed to cut off an animal's testicles. What aren't we allowed to fondle it?
Danyal is right in his argument that there really is no legitimate argument against bestiality aside from the "ick" factor. We are already doing a shitload of things that are worse than fucking them. I think letting animals have some fun is the least we can do for them.
Danyal: I visited Bodyworlds a few weeks ago. I saw two corpses having sex. The women was riding the men, and her stomach was 'open' so you could view the penis in the vagina. I didn't saw puking/crying people, nor did the police storm in. So if dead people can have sex with each other, a living person can probably have sex with a corpse?
Bestiality shouldn't be banned and was allowed in the Netherlands until 2008 (providing that the sex wasn't harmful); I don't see any problems with necrophilia as long as the dead person consented to it before death.
EDIT: I can't predict how sexuality will evolve, so I don't know where "The Line" is, but my simple rules...
-Sapient beings should be allowed to sexually do with each other what they want, if both consent* -Sapient beings can do with non-sapient beings what they want, unless they hurt the non-sapient being
*Sapience defined by Wikipedia;
Sapience is often defined as wisdom, or the ability of an organism or entity to act with appropriate judgment, a mental faculty which is a component of intelligence or alternatively may be considered an additional faculty, apart from intelligence, with its own properties. Robert Sternberg[22] has segregated the capacity for judgment from the general qualifiers for intelligence, which is closer to cognizant aptitude than to wisdom. Displaying sound judgment in a complex, dynamic environment is a hallmark of wisdom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapience#Sapience
Children can be seen as not-sapient regarding sex, but they have a special position because they do possess sapience in general and will evolve to be more sapient. Some forms of sexuality can be dangerous that this it is decided that people are not 'sapient enough' for it; they lack the capacity to properly judge the risks of that sexual act.
yet fucking an animal, which can result in actually pleasuring it, is wrong.
Yeah, and a child might get off to being molested, and women have been known to orgasm from rape. It doesn't mean we should legalize either one.
There are other legitimate arguments against rape and child molestation, pulling this kind of stuff undermines your argument rather than supports it. But if you want to play that game; we are allowed to cut off an animal's testicles. What aren't we allowed to fondle it?
Danyal is right in his argument that there really is no legitimate argument against bestiality aside from the "ick" factor. We are already doing a shitload of things that are worse than fucking them. I think letting animals have some fun is the least we can do for them.
there are no arguments that are valid for bestiality either.
Danyal: I visited Bodyworlds a few weeks ago. I saw two corpses having sex. The women was riding the men, and her stomach was 'open' so you could view the penis in the vagina. I didn't saw puking/crying people, nor did the police storm in. So if dead people can have sex with each other, a living person can probably have sex with a corpse?
Bestiality shouldn't be banned and was allowed in the Netherlands until 2008 (providing that the sex wasn't harmful); I don't see any problems with necrophilia as long as the dead person consented to it before death.
EDIT: I can't predict how sexuality will evolve, so I don't know where "The Line" is, but my simple rules...
-Sapient beings should be allowed to sexually do with each other what they want, if both consent* -Sapient beings can do with non-sapient beings what they want, unless they hurt the non-sapient being
*Sapience defined by Wikipedia;
Sapience is often defined as wisdom, or the ability of an organism or entity to act with appropriate judgment, a mental faculty which is a component of intelligence or alternatively may be considered an additional faculty, apart from intelligence, with its own properties. Robert Sternberg[22] has segregated the capacity for judgment from the general qualifiers for intelligence, which is closer to cognizant aptitude than to wisdom. Displaying sound judgment in a complex, dynamic environment is a hallmark of wisdom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapience#Sapience
Children can be seen as not-sapient regarding sex, but they have a special position because they do possess sapience in general and will evolve to be more sapient. Some forms of sexuality can be dangerous that this it is decided that people are not 'sapient enough' for it; they lack the capacity to properly judge the risks of that sexual act.
Yea I heard about being in Germany the sex after death exhibit
Angelblaze: But I want to know what you guys think :D
I think we have our priotitys backward. Public Nudity (of any kind) should be the equvalent of physically murdering someone, while Homosexuality is allowed.
Although, Same-sex marriage is as far as I want us to go. No Bestiality, no Necro-ality, no Polygamy. JUST same sex marriage.
Danyal: It may be logical consistent if you only look at sex, but it isn't logically consistent if you look at how we treat animals. For murder, enslavement and imprisonment, we have completely different rules for animals than for humans. How then would it be logically consistent to apply your human-sex-morals to animals?
Why would it be any more logically consistent to apply your morals about animals to sex?
Like it or not, sex is important to people.. the concept of sex is important to people, the establishment of consent in sex is actually life and death to people. It's that concept, that idea that sex involves two or more partners, not one person pleasuring themselves on an object, which is at stake.
I think, when we talk about things which are still genuinely unacceptable, it's not just because these actions disgust people. What people hate is the violation of a concept which we all rely on to govern our sexual lives equitably and fairly, and the violation of that concept does harm people all the time.
So forgive me if I don't see this huge gulf between a person who can stick their dick in a pig and derive pleasure from that, and a person who can stick their dick in a brain damaged person, or a child and achieve the same pleasure. All of those people would tell you that they did no harm (they might even be right) but that's not the point. I think they hurt a principle which protects people from harm.
Of course, I don't think you will ever be able to see this. You see a clear end goal to human culture, to you the rationality of this situation is completely based in reality. I'm sorry to tell you that in this regard, I think you're really no different to anyone who believes in an absolute moral universe, you just read a different book to all the religious people.
If you're going to whine about me forcing my "morality" on people, let me explain. Contrary to your opinion, I don't believe it's a "bad" thing to fuck a cow, just as it wouldn't be "bad" for everyone to suddenly give up on all this civilization bollocks and go and live in a forest somewhere. But unlike you, I also don't think it's "bad" for human beings to judge each other on the basis of socially derived rationality. In fact, it strikes me as something which works out pretty well if we all have to live in a society together.
Don't mistake condemnation for judgement. I don't have a single "moral" care if you want to fuck a cow, just as I don't think the universe would bat an eyelid if you fucked a child to death with a pneumatic drill. I don't believe in moral rules, I believe in layer upon layer of human rationality which often conflicts itself and is given differing priority based on the perceived needs of the situation. At this point though, I still find the social and ethical rationale that you generally shouldn't have sex with a cow (for the reasons outlined above) more compelling than your reasons why it should be legally allowed. Maybe that will change one day, but if it does it will be because the rationality we live under has changed and there is no longer any need to protect the idea of consent, not because "treating animals inconsistently is BAD!".
In short, I'm not convinced. But I do know that this is far more of a moral issue for you than it will ever be for me.
Angelblaze: But I want to know what you guys think :D
I think we have our priotitys backward. Public Nudity (of any kind) should be the equvalent of physically murdering someone, while Homosexuality is allowed.
Although, Same-sex marriage is as far as I want us to go. No Bestiality, no Necro-ality, no Polygamy. JUST same sex marriage.
Yes, because a nipple is the same as killing someone. Those damn nipples, destroying our society.
There is nothing wrong with non-sexual nudity at all. Just because all you can think about is sex when you see a naked person does not mean everyone else does.
There is nothing wrong with non-sexual nudity at all. Just because all you can think about is sex when you see a naked person does not mean everyone else does.
Or, I think "We have clothing for a reason people!"
There is nothing wrong with non-sexual nudity at all. Just because all you can think about is sex when you see a naked person does not mean everyone else does.
Or, I think "We have clothing for a reason people!"
To protect ourselves from the elements for extended periods of time.
Here is a question, are you fine with men not wearing tops or is it just women who have to cover up?
There is nothing wrong with non-sexual nudity at all. Just because all you can think about is sex when you see a naked person does not mean everyone else does.
Or, I think "We have clothing for a reason people!"
To protect ourselves from the elements for extended periods of time.
Here is a question, are you fine with men not wearing tops or is it just women who have to cover up?
So long as there are out in public, they should cover up with at least a tank top (I wear one even when I go swimming). But in private on their own property...well, to each their own (last part applys to women too)
Angelblaze: But I want to know what you guys think :D
I think we have our priotitys backward. Public Nudity (of any kind) should be the equvalent of physically murdering someone, while Homosexuality is allowed.
Although, Same-sex marriage is as far as I want us to go. No Bestiality, no Necro-ality, no Polygamy. JUST same sex marriage.
Wait.
What?
Public nudity should = HOMICIDE?
You have some really deranged ideas for what you feel should be public policy.
You have some really deranged ideas for what you feel should be public policy.
No, no. People are taking it the wrong way. The op said "I've noticed a trend that female nudity seems to be 'okay' but any slight poke at homosexuality is considered the equivalent of physically murdering someone." and so I was making the point about how our priorities where backward by flip-flopping what the OP said, and now everyone is getting all butthurt about it. :S
You have some really deranged ideas for what you feel should be public policy.
No, no. People are taking it the wrong way. The op said "I've noticed a trend that female nudity seems to be 'okay' but any slight poke at homosexuality is considered the equivalent of physically murdering someone." and so I was making the point about how our priorities where backward by flip-flopping what the OP said, and now everyone is getting all butthurt about it. :S
PrinceOfShapeir: Let's please draw the line at bestiality and stop it before we get into animal rape
Stop at 'animal rape'? Why? Because you think it's disgusting or because you'd like to protect animals? If you think it's disgusting; you have got nothing to do with it. If you'd like to protect animals; apply the normal animal laws; no animal cruelty/no suffering to animals. Sucking a horse penis cannot be considered worse or more cruel than normal bio-industry-practices.
There is a valid reason to eat meat and thus keep animals to kill them and eat them.
Some sick puppy sucking off a horse is just a sick puppy, its not the same.
Why is it corpse desecration if the person consented to it before death? Do you oppose Bodyworlds?
Actually I do. Turning human corpses into crass entertainment is morally wrong in my view.
Even if you don't share my morals, the corpse was donated knowingly for that purpose. At a minimum, the corpse you want to have sex with would have to be as well.
But even that isn't the only problem, plasticized bodies are not a health threat, a rotting corpse is.
There is no line to what can be portrayed in fiction, nor should there be. That's why it's fictional.
As for what can be done in depictions of real life, that simply depends on whether it's actively causing harm to any of the participants, and would fuel the demand for further depictions of such.
Angelblaze: I've noticed a trend that female nudity seems to be 'okay' but any slight poke at homosexuality is considered the equivalent of physically murdering someone. Why is this?
Hypocritical Christian values and boys who are insecure about themselves.
Wolverine18: There is a valid reason to eat meat and thus keep animals to kill them and eat them.
Some sick puppy sucking off a horse is just a sick puppy, its not the same.
Some dishes include penis or testicles. Why would eating dead genitals be less sick than orally caressing living genitals?
Wolverine18: Actually I do. Turning human corpses into crass entertainment is morally wrong in my view.
Do you want to ban Bodyworlds?
Mission of the Exhibitions
The primary goal of BODY WORLDS is health education. On the one hand, individual specimens are used to compare healthy and diseased organs, i.e., a healthy lung with that of a smoker, to emphasize the importance of a healthy life-style. On the other hand, life-like posed whole-body plastinates illustrate where in our bodies these organs are positioned and what we are: naturally fragile in a mechanized world.
Thus, the exhibitions are targeted mainly at a lay audience to open up the opportunity to better understand the human body and its functions. The exhibits help the visitors to once again become aware of the naturalness of their bodies and to recognize the individuality and anatomical beauty inside of them.
The authenticity of the specimens on display is essential for such insight. Every human being is unique. Humans reveal their individuality not only through the visible exterior, but also through the interior of their bodies, as each body is distinctly different from any other. Position, size, shape, and structure of skeleton, muscles, nerves, and organs determine our "interior face." It would be impossible to convey this anatomical individuality with models, for a model is nothing more than an interpretation. All models look alike and are, essentially, simplified versions of the real thing. The authenticity of the specimens, however, is fascinating and enables the observer to experience the marvel of the real human body. The exhibitions are thus dedicated to the individual interior face. http://www.bodyworlds.com/en/exhibitions/mission_exhibitions.html
Wolverine18: Even if you don't share my morals, the corpse was donated knowingly for that purpose. At a minimum, the corpse you want to have sex with would have to be as well.
Again, this doesn't make a ban against necrophilia logical. If I'm dead, somebody should not be allowed to do with my corpse whatever he or she wants. But they should be allowed to do all kinds of stuff when I've consented to it.
Wolverine18: But even that isn't the only problem, plasticized bodies are not a health threat, a rotting corpse is.
Necrophilia is not a health threat, a rotting corpse is. You should make laws to protect corpses and to protect everyone from rotting corpses, but when the dead person consented before dying and nobody is at a medical risk... Well, do what you want to do.
So, why is it not logically consistent to apply animal-morality towards animal-sex?
evilthecat: Like it or not, sex is important to people.. the concept of sex is important to people, the establishment of consent in sex is actually life and death to people. It's that concept, that idea that sex involves two or more partners, not one person pleasuring themselves on an object, which is at stake.
You know fleshlights? I haven't heard people argue that this should be banned, but it is all about one person pleasuring themselves on an object.
evilthecat: I think, when we talk about things which are still genuinely unacceptable, it's not just because these actions disgust people. What people hate is the violation of a concept which we all rely on to govern our sexual lives equitably and fairly, and the violation of that concept does harm people all the time.
People. It's a concept for people. There's a different between people and animals, and we make this moral and legal distinction all the time. How can we be like OH NO ANIMALS ARE RAPED WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT but not like OH NO ANIMALS ARE MURDERED AND EATEN WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT?! Or maybe if eating them is deemed 'necessary', OH NO ANIMALS ARE IMPRISONED WHILE BEING INNOCENT! (zoos and pets)
evilthecat: So forgive me if I don't see this huge gulf between a person who can stick their dick in a pig and derive pleasure from that, and a person who can stick their dick in a brain damaged person, or a child and achieve the same pleasure. All of those people would tell you that they did no harm (they might even be right) but that's not the point. I think they hurt a principle which protects people from harm.
If there's no moral and legal distinction between animals and people, we'd be murdering, eating, imprisoning and enslaving people all the time.
evilthecat: Of course, I don't think you will ever be able to see this. You see a clear end goal to human culture, to you the rationality of this situation is completely based in reality.
Is "your rationality is based in reality" an insult? Is it a flaw in my logic?
evilthecat: I'm sorry to tell you that in this regard, I think you're really no different to anyone who believes in an absolute moral universe, you just read a different book to all the religious people.
Wait, believing in some kind of morality or something is a flaw too?
evilthecat: But unlike you, I also don't think it's "bad" for human beings to judge each other on the basis of socially derived rationality. In fact, it strikes me as something which works out pretty well if we all have to live in a society together.
What strikes me as pretty good concept for living together in a society is *Imprison those who harm others, don't imprison those who don't harm others*. "Social rationality" is antisemitism, homophobia, ignorance and bigotry. I'm sorry, but I really prefer a rational judge above "Boohoo it's disgusting".
evilthecat: I still find the social and ethical rationale that you generally shouldn't have sex with a cow (for the reasons outlined above) more compelling than your reasons why it should be legally allowed.
Wait wait wait. You don't reasons to legalize something. You need reasons to criminalize something.
keiskay: there are no arguments that are valid for bestiality either.
And there are no valid arguments for playing games or being religious either. It's not about "Herp derp it's not useful to me thus it's criminal", it's about "We won't criminalize stuff that doesn't harm anyone".
HardkorSB: We slaughter billions of cows, pigs and chickens each year but it's OK as long as their death was painless, yet fucking an animal, which can result in actually pleasuring it, is wrong. How does that make any sense?
People say it's torture, it's lack of consent or whatever but really, they just don't like it because it's icky and icky things are bad.
So let me get this straight. You people are perfectly fine with the genocide we've been comitting against animals but are against bestiality? And before someone decides to come up with the "BUT WE NEED TO EAT MEAT" rethoric, no we fucking don't.
Danyal: You know fleshlights? I haven't heard people argue that this should be banned, but it is all about one person pleasuring themselves on an object.
Yes, because it's masturbation.
I think you'll find that the vast majority of people, including those who would want to do it, don't see fucking a pig as masturbation.
The objectification of living things for sexual gratification would be seen by most people as denying the value of consent as applied to everyone. Do you have an argument against that beyond "PIGS AREN'T PEOPLE BECAUSE THE GIANT RABBIT IN MY BRAIN SAYS SO?!" Do you have an actual reason why the status of animals should take precedence over the rationale governing sexual activity?
I'm trying to tell you why your argument is not persuasive.
Danyal: People. It's a concept for people. There's a different between people and animals, and we make this moral and legal distinction all the time. How can we be like OH NO ANIMALS ARE RAPED WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT but not like OH NO ANIMALS ARE MURDERED AND EATEN WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT?! Or maybe if eating them is deemed 'necessary', OH NO ANIMALS ARE IMPRISONED WHILE BEING INNOCENT! (zoos and pets)
Repeating the same thing over and over again is not an argument. It's not a deep or complex point. I understand it, I just don't think it's in any way relevant.
One more time. You have never once demonstrated that there is more difference between people and animals than there is between sexual and non-sexual acts. Which one of those differences you consider to have preference is entirely arbitrary. Stop fixating on how abstractly BAD it is that we can't fuck animals, and look at what these statements actually do.
Danyal: If there's no moral and legal distinction between animals and people, we'd be murdering, eating, imprisoning and enslaving people all the time.
And if there was no moral and legal distinction between sexual and non sexual acts, none of the things I have mentioned would be considered illegal or immoral.
The "moral and legal distinction between humans and animals" doesn't have to be the most important thing in the world. There are other moral and legal distinctions which might also apply, and you have yet to demonstrate why they are any less important.
Because from what I can see, they actually do more.
Danyal: Is "your rationality is based in reality" an insult? Is it a flaw in my logic?
Since you're fond of dictionary definitions. Let's play a dictionary game:
Bestiality - sexual relations between a human being and a lower animal.
Human - having human form or attributes
Form - the shape and structure of something as distinguished from its material
Shape - the visible makeup characteristic of a particular item or kind of item [a cake in the shape of a Christmas tree]
Item - a distinct part in an enumeration, account, or series.
...
You can go round and round the dictionary doing this for ever and you will never reach an referent, you will never reach a point where you open a page and find a real thing, the words will only ever reference other words. Eventually, you will arrive at a word you've already looked up, and the logic will be visibly circular. All words will end up referencing themselves in their own definitions.
Go play the game with whatever words you think vindicate your argument. "Harm" would be a good place to start. Look up harm, look up the words which make up the definition of harm, look up the words which make those definitions and keep going until you arrive full circle. Do you still think "harm" is a perfect moral principle truly based in reality, if so, where does harm cease to be a word and become a real thing?
Basically, yeah. If you want to apply blanket principles to human society because you think they emerged full formed surrounded by a heavenly light with a choir of angels singing, your argument is flawed. You haven't demonstrated why it works, you've just pulled a Spock and told me it's "logical" at every turn. Sorry, logic doesn't work that way.
Danyal: "Social rationality" is antisemitism, homophobia, ignorance and bigotry. I'm sorry, but I really prefer a rational judge above "Boohoo it's disgusting".
All of those things were once considered "rational judgement", with reasoning structurally very similar to your own.
Why is your conception of "rational judgement" different, why will it be any more long-lasting or well remembered?
You'll be proven right by being right, by using the logic tools of our society to demonstrate something, not by trying to impose your own tools because you arbitrarily think they're "better".
This is why repeating the same thing over and over again will not win you the argument.
Danyal: Wait wait wait. You don't reasons to legalize something. You need reasons to criminalize something.
I have those reasons. I outlined them pretty well, I think.
If they don't make sense to you, argue against them. You are not Spock, you don't get to say "that's illogical" without justification.
keiskay: there are no arguments that are valid for bestiality either.
Two things about that. 1) I believe that a free and liberal society should strive for as much social freedom and personal freedom as possible. Therefore nothing should be banned unless there is a reason to do so. That's why I'm for allowing bestiality. I'm personally not into it, but I can't find any reasonable argument against it. 2) There are no argument for allowing anal sex either. Or basically any other sexual acts other than regular vaginal penetration.
evilthecat: ... So forgive me if I don't see this huge gulf between a person who can stick their dick in a pig and derive pleasure from that, and a person who can stick their dick in a brain damaged person, or a child and achieve the same pleasure. All of those people would tell you that they did no harm (they might even be right) but that's not the point. I think they hurt a principle which protects people from harm.
You mean just like those homosexuals, and people who have casual sex, are spitting in the face of idea of a stable nuclear family, causing "harm" to the concept itself, even if they aren't actually hurting anyone? Please think of all the children who suffers in unstable homes, and how these sexually promiscuous people are on principle undermining this stability!
Your whole argument of "socially derived rationality" simply favours the social and societal control of the prevailing majority on any issue: If they think some concept dear to them is being harmed by a conduct, then they suddenly are being harmed by it, regardless that no actual human have suffered anything but its own thoughts, its own inability to accept a harmless plurality!
One can only hope you'll find yourself in a minority which so offends - or "harms the values, perceptions, and principles of" - such a majority, and see your rights trampled upon just as you would see those of others here. If you acknowledge something like some dude's bestiality harming the principles of people completely unrelated to him, then surely you have no argument against those who feel whatever you're into is violating what they hold sacred.
Wolverine18: There is a valid reason to eat meat and thus keep animals to kill them and eat them.
Some sick puppy sucking off a horse is just a sick puppy, its not the same.
Some dishes include penis or testicles. Why would eating dead genitals be less sick than orally caressing living genitals?
Animals, including humans, eat to survive. You do not need to suck the dick of another species to survive.
Wolverine18: Actually I do. Turning human corpses into crass entertainment is morally wrong in my view.
Do you want to ban Bodyworlds?
Do you enjoy making things up that people didn't say. Read what I said again. I said it is morally wrong in my view, then I went to go on to talk about other views. You can't make your case my lying about what others said.
The primary goal of BODY WORLDS is health education.
The original Body Works had some merit. Once you start putting them in clown shot and having sex, it has risen to "ok, how can I top the last freak show so that more people come to this freak show and give me more $$$$$$$"
Wolverine18: Even if you don't share my morals, the corpse was donated knowingly for that purpose. At a minimum, the corpse you want to have sex with would have to be as well.
Again, this doesn't make a ban against necrophilia logical. If I'm dead, somebody should not be allowed to do with my corpse whatever he or she wants. But they should be allowed to do all kinds of stuff when I've consented to it.
Prove consent.
Wolverine18: But even that isn't the only problem, plasticized bodies are not a health threat, a rotting corpse is.
Necrophilia is not a health threat, a rotting corpse is. You should make laws to protect corpses and to protect everyone from rotting corpses, but when the dead person consented before dying and nobody is at a medical risk... Well, do what you want to do.
Do you even read what you write? You agree the rotting corpse is a health risk. Leaving in there to continue to rot while you have sex with it IS a health risk. You know that a corpse is considerd a biohazard? Those who handle it often glove up and always wash after? The longer its out, the more hazardous it becomes. Not just to the fucktard who is having sex with it, but to anyone in the environment nearby.
Katatori-kun: Compared to those, being proud because you were a genuinely good friend to someone in their time of need or because you raised your children to be good people just doesn't seem to compete.
Is that something to be particularly proud of, though?
IMHO, that's not setting the bar high enough, that should be the default. Failing to do so earns you condemnation, but you shouldn't be that proud merely of doing something like that.
Katatori-kun: Compared to those, being proud because you were a genuinely good friend to someone in their time of need or because you raised your children to be good people just doesn't seem to compete.
Is that something to be particularly proud of, though?
IMHO, that's not setting the bar high enough, that should be the default. Failing to do so earns you condemnation, but you shouldn't be that proud merely of doing something like that.
Given what I've seen, yes, it is something to be proud of.
When I say "good" here I don't mean "average". I mean "better than the norm". Which by definition can't be the default.
A lot of friends are only superficially there for people in their hour of need. And it's not always because they're bad friends- sometimes we aren't aware there is an hour of need. Sometimes we don't know how to help. And sometimes we think we know how to help but in truth we're only making things worse.
And judging by the number of bad people in the world, I think it's fairly safe to say that raising one's children to be good people isn't the default either. And as I'm old enough to have many friends raising children now, one of the things I see happen a lot is that there are a lot of parents who want to be good parents but circumstances prevent them from doing things the right way. Or they stress about not having a parenting manual and not knowing how to do things in the right way. When in truth there is no "right way". Raising a child seems to me to be more a long exercise of learning and correcting your own mistakes rather than getting things "right" on the first try.
And in that light, I think raising a "good" child is indeed an achievement worthy of pride. I am presently living in a University town, and I'm literally surrounded by self-entitled brats who don't know the first thing about how to behave around others. That seems to be the default.
Sorry, it's *Don't harm them*, not *It must be crucial for human survival*.
Wolverine18: Do you enjoy making things up that people didn't say. Read what I said again. I said it is morally wrong in my view, then I went to go on to talk about other views. You can't make your case my lying about what others said.
'Do you want to ban Bodyworlds?' is a question, not a conclusion.
Wolverine18: The original Body Works had some merit. Once you start putting them in clown shot and having sex, it has risen to "ok, how can I top the last freak show so that more people come to this freak show and give me more $$$$$$$"
Clown shot? Sorry, but have you ever visited Bodyworlds? I thought it was all quite respectful.
Well, let the person who doesn't object to being used for necrophilia fill in some papers?
Wolverine18: Do you even read what you write? You agree the rotting corpse is a health risk. Leaving in there to continue to rot while you have sex with it IS a health risk. You know that a corpse is considerd a biohazard? Those who handle it often glove up and always wash after? The longer its out, the more hazardous it becomes. Not just to the fucktard who is having sex with it, but to anyone in the environment nearby.
Is the act of putting a dead penis into a living vagina inherently and definitely harmful? Nope. Are rotting corpses dangerous? Yes. We shouldn't ban necrophilia, we should create laws that regulate safety hazards.
Katatori-kun: Compared to those, being proud because you were a genuinely good friend to someone in their time of need or because you raised your children to be good people just doesn't seem to compete.
Is that something to be particularly proud of, though?
IMHO, that's not setting the bar high enough, that should be the default. Failing to do so earns you condemnation, but you shouldn't be that proud merely of doing something like that.
...that's pretty much part of the problem he's addressing, isn't it?
When you set the bar that high, you'll never actually have anything to be proud of, since you'll in all likelihood never be capable of more than that. Hence your life will be unfulfilled.
Its not merely in matters of fame, wealth, and physical appearance things have run wild, the idea that everyone should be ethical paragons is equally demanding, and equally ruinous for people's lives. When the bar is set that close to ethical perfection, all a normal human can ever feel is shame; Just another category where it'll never suffice or find any fulfilment.
All that can reasonably be asked of people is that they don't cause harm to others, and keep the contracts they've struck. Anything beyond that should earn them praise and social recognition, for absent that, it won't last long anyway.
Katatori-kun: Given what I've seen, yes, it is something to be proud of.
When I say "good" here I don't mean "average". I mean "better than the norm". Which by definition can't be the default.
A lot of friends are only superficially there for people in their hour of need. And it's not always because they're bad friends- sometimes we aren't aware there is an hour of need. Sometimes we don't know how to help. And sometimes we think we know how to help but in truth we're only making things worse.
And judging by the number of bad people in the world, I think it's fairly safe to say that raising one's children to be good people isn't the default either. And as I'm old enough to have many friends raising children now, one of the things I see happen a lot is that there are a lot of parents who want to be good parents but circumstances prevent them from doing things the right way. Or they stress about not having a parenting manual and not knowing how to do things in the right way. When in truth there is no "right way". Raising a child seems to me to be more a long exercise of learning and correcting your own mistakes rather than getting things "right" on the first try.
And in that light, I think raising a "good" child is indeed an achievement worthy of pride. I am presently living in a University town, and I'm literally surrounded by self-entitled brats who don't know the first thing about how to behave around others. That seems to be the default.
I do take your point, but my concern is, if raising a child well is something to be considered note- and praise- worthy, isn't failing to do so no longer something to be condemned?
I believe the proper response to Danyal is "dude get over it already, if you want to diddle a horse just do it illegally, no one is going to think any more of you if you wait till its legal." Seriously, enough with the subject. It's illegal and it's going to stay illegal and nothing you say is gonna make it any better.
OT: Whilst I may dissaprove of all 3 since the first one is between 2 CONSENTING (there's the word Danyal and the reason beastiality will never be legal) adults I say it should be allowed. In both necrofelia and beatiality one of the parties does not give consent and thus it is RAPE (Danyal no matter how hard you try to justify what you want is to legalize rape and I think you'll find most sane people are anti-rape).
thaluikhain: I do take your point, but my concern is, if raising a child well is something to be considered note- and praise- worthy, isn't failing to do so no longer something to be condemned?
That depends on a lot of things. For one thing, I don't think the opposite of "feeling pride" is to be "condemned by others". One is a strictly internal self-assessment, the other is a social judgement. And in a free society, I think we should be very careful in setting the threashold by which we feel comfortable condemning other people's parenting. For example, I wouldn't even feel comfortable condemning the parents of Jared Lee Loughner, as there was probably quite a lot going on in that family I'm not aware of and his adult behavior may well have been beyond their control. But they probably shouldn't be proud of how he turned out either.
And remember, when I say, "good", I mean better than average. Parents should generally not be criticized for failing to raise their children to be better than the average.
Also, a person has so many facets, it's impossible to objectively measure who is "good", "bad", and "average" except for in exceptional, unambiguous cases. But parents know what obstacles a child has in front of them, and what their child is capable of. Parents whose children start out with the deck stacked against them but through work and perseverance become "average" are far more worthy of pride in my opinion than parents with children who have plenty of advantages over other children and who end up being just a bit better than the norm.
I agree, but I think for our society to evolve to it's next level of enlightenment, we need to fix that. I can't really blame people for the way they see things, especially when our society constantly bombards us of high-prestiege dreams of success via musicians who get millions of dollars for a computer to correct their singing and athletes who make billions to put some variety of ball through some variety of goal. Compared to those, being proud because you were a genuinely good friend to someone in their time of need or because you raised your children to be good people just doesn't seem to compete.