EPTKwark: thats amazing, I've never met such an objective vegan. My hat's off to you.
Why is this legal ?? - Page 8
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
fig_newbie
749 Posts
Kwark: thats amazing, I've never met such an objective vegan. My hat's off to you. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On October 08 2006 14:32 FrozenArbiter wrote: [removed quote within quote] I can't tell if your last line is a complete joke or if you are just dumb :[ Or trying to get people to flame you, I really have no idea what you are trying to do. I find it hard to believe you are serious but uh I dunno. Well, I agree that you don't get it... The conclusion was meant to be rhetorical, because if one follows the logic of asserting absolutes on the basis of pure moral intuition, one is implying that there is a standard of judgement independent of rationale. One such explanation could be: God. You could replace "God" with any sort of metaphysical figure which imposes moral absolutes, in other words, in saying an act can be inherently "immoral" or "moral" or "amoral", regardless of the utility of the act. This was to stir thought and encourage consistency and logic, not make religious conversions. I'd be just as happy if people retained consistency. For example, look at Testie's posts, his lists of reasons why something is wrong is because "it is wrong". Circular, fallacious. Does not hold water. You can't say something is "wrong" inherently without implying absolutes. Maybe you should read my next post after the one which you've quoted, in which I've anticipated brainless responses such as yours. No offense ;p | ||
|
Sfydjklm
United States9218 Posts
On October 08 2006 05:57 BeSiGeR wrote: i would say that humans have come to a point where u wont just fuck anything just because ur horny, we are not animals and have selfcontrol, but fucking animals violates every animal right out there, i somehow dont think a horse wants a human cock up his ass you kiddin me? We didnt come to that point, we're coming away from it. | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33723 Posts
On October 08 2006 17:18 HeadBangaa wrote: [removed quote within quote] Well, I agree that you don't get it... The conclusion was meant to be rhetorical, because if one follows the logic of asserting absolutes on the basis of pure moral intuition, one is implying that there is a standard of judgement independent of rationale. One such explanation could be: God. You could replace "God" with any sort of metaphysical figure which imposes moral absolutes, in other words, in saying an act can be inherently "immoral" or "moral" or "amoral", regardless of the utility of the act. This was to stir thought and encourage consistency and logic, not make religious conversions. I'd be just as happy if people retained consistency. For example, look at Testie's posts, his lists of reasons why something is wrong is because "it is wrong". Circular, fallacious. Does not hold water. You can't say something is "wrong" inherently without implying absolutes. Maybe you should read my next post after the one which you've quoted, in which I've anticipated brainless responses such as yours. No offense ;p Eh, sorry, I just assumed you were a crazy christian (as opposed to a sane christian) who thought that ONE LINE would prove God's existance  I didn't think it was what you meant cause I seemed to remember you making good posts.. and yeah, sorry again!Anyway, I think whoever brought up the example of a child raised to believe incest is right, might not actually feel bad because of it, but it would still be immoral, right? We can't communicate (not that well at any rate) with a dog, we can't determine wether the animal has been caused harm or not (psychological, or otherwise). Sure, there may be plenty of cases where there's no harm done but I'm sure there's been cases of incest where there was 'no real harm done' for above mentioned reasons. Hence I think it's fair to call it immoral on a rational basis as well. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On October 08 2006 17:30 FrozenArbiter wrote: Anyway, I think whoever brought up the example of a child raised to believe incest is right, might not actually feel bad because of it, but it would still be immoral, right? We can't communicate (not that well at any rate) with a dog, we can't determine wether the animal has been caused harm or not (psychological, or otherwise). I agree, this is where the example falls apart. | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
On October 08 2006 17:47 HeadBangaa wrote: [removed quote within quote] I agree, this is where the example falls apart. What was wrong with my explanation of this point? I think it is obvious enough that animals would choose a life without this insanity of sex with humans. It is far more likely than the opposite, even if unprovable. Plus, the undomesticated animal would never do this, even one that was friendly to humans. Therefore whether we can communicate with an individual animal is irrelevant, since we can make a safe assumption for all animals and have no good reason to go against it. I'd also like to add a seperate argument here... It is immoral to have sex with someone uneducated, or stupid (like retards). Since animals have no education and cannot advance themselves past their sexual instincts, they fall into that category. I think it is clear to everyone that having sex with a severely retarded girl would be wrong (iirc, if this happens I think it is legally rape), yet we can have FAR, FAR more consent from such a person. If the consent doesn't apply to retards, it definitely is farther off from applying with animals. We could also say the same about little girls, like say some quite young one has an Electra complex (female version of oedipal) and wants to have sex? For all the reasons it is wrong to have sex here, it applies far more to animals. Christ, why is this an argument. | ||
|
NewbSaibot
3849 Posts
On October 08 2006 14:00 Servolisk wrote: She wouldnt. A significant number of people who were brought up with incest in their lives without ever knowing it was bad show obvious signs of mental trauma anyway, and most when interviewed years later, while admitting they thought it was normal, also say "but something didnt quite feel right about it" (at least those not in denial). Humans are not complete puppets, or balls of clay. We DO we have certain ingrained instincts within us to help us deal with things and progress into adulthood for survival. [removed quote within quote] If someone raises a daughter to enjoy incest, is it wrong even though she would enjoy it? For instance, you cant raise a child by cutting his arms with a knife every morning to the point where he thinks it's normal and it feels good. It will hurt just the same every time, and god knows what will happen to the kid psycologically if one were to do this. | ||
|
Ceril
Sweden1343 Posts
Imagine their forum debates: Its just a human ffs, they dont know whats happening to them. And remember: No love is like that between a man and a child. Ehm, or similar, moral changes with ages. | ||
|
Koldblooded
United States661 Posts
| ||
|
Alborz
Canada1551 Posts
On October 08 2006 13:41 BeSiGeR wrote: [removed quote within quote] mayhaps, but do cosmetics realy need to be tested on animals, i think not i dont approve of cosmetics being testing on animals at all. i ment biological advancements as in cures for illnesses and things that are necessities. not make-up. | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33723 Posts
On October 08 2006 18:16 NewbSaibot wrote: [removed quote within quote] She wouldnt. A significant number of people who were brought up with incest in their lives without ever knowing it was bad show obvious signs of mental trauma anyway, and most when interviewed years later, while admitting they thought it was normal, also say "but something didnt quite feel right about it" (at least those not in denial). Humans are not complete puppets, or balls of clay. We DO we have certain ingrained instincts within us to help us deal with things and progress into adulthood for survival. For instance, you cant raise a child by cutting his arms with a knife every morning to the point where he thinks it's normal and it feels good. It will hurt just the same every time, and god knows what will happen to the kid psycologically if one were to do this. Just a thought, but don't you think the 'something didn't feel right' bit could be a later construct? Like, after he/she learned it's not normal? And the trauma might, in part, be there for the same reasons.. or because the parent is quite obviously insane ;( Anyway, let's say all of what you brought up is true (I don't doubt it is, the above was just a couple of questions), there's no way for us to tell if the same things happen to an animal in the kind of situation this topic discusses =] | ||
KwarK
United States44402 Posts
| ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States44402 Posts
| ||
|
lil.sis
China4650 Posts
![[image loading]](http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/beastiality/lv18_23b.jpg) it amazes me that there are people here who honestly believe having sex with animals is ok rofl, freaks | ||
|
NewbSaibot
3849 Posts
On October 08 2006 18:42 FrozenArbiter wrote: My argument is not for the protection of animals, but for the rehabilitation of humans who have sex with animals. Personally, I dont think a horse has the cognitive abilities to understand what is happening when it is being raped by a human or the slightest care unless it was being caused pain. Im not really sure how people have sex with animals, I guess if it were small it could be restrained, but the typical horse or sheeps seems like it would have enough strength to resist, and I cant imagine how one would pin down a horse for vaginal sex. [removed quote within quote] Just a thought, but don't you think the 'something didn't feel right' bit could be a later construct? Like, after he/she learned it's not normal? And the trauma might, in part, be there for the same reasons.. or because the parent is quite obviously insane ;( Anyway, let's say all of what you brought up is true (I don't doubt it is, the above was just a couple of questions), there's no way for us to tell if the same things happen to an animal in the kind of situation this topic discusses =] My concern is those individuals who are into beastiality and walk the streets among us. I see them as a threat to my safety, because i believe they probably also suffer from any number of other issues which might make them snap or just plain do something bizarre. | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33723 Posts
On October 08 2006 16:22 Kwark wrote: As people other people should be our priority. Not animals, no matter how cute they are. Thus, in my opinion, the only time the suffering of an animal is important is if it causes a human to suffer through empathy. Then I would act, but only to help the human. Animals do not have human rights. This is because they are not human. Just as the fox can butcher far more chickens than it intends to eat, simply because it is stronger and wants to have some fun, so humans can test cosmetics on animals simply because it's more cost effective. If anything more cost effective has more reason behind it for that would lower prices and thus decrease the net amount of work a human would have to do to possess it. Nature is cruel, strong animals use weak animals. Deal with it. On an aside, any issue like this is incredibly democratic. Take animal testing, if people are against it they don't buy products tested on animals. Thus the companies testing on animals stop doing this. The amount of animal testing done will always be proportional to the publics view on it. And that is as democratic as things come. Absolute proportional representation. The same applies with animal porn. If you don't like it don't buy it and by doing so your voice has made an impact. Something doesn't need to be illegal to disappear. Btw, I'm a strict vegetarian and have been for years, I never buy stuff tested on animals or buy anything like battery farmed eggs. I have made a choice to reduce the amount of suffering I cause to animals. But this is a personal choice and I defend the right of anyone else to torture animals should it bring a slight smile to their face, or should they have nothing to do. I've tried making some kind of reasonable post in response to this, but it's impossible. To me, what you just said is as absurd as if someone said 'Hey, I personally don't keep slaves, but I will defend the right for anyone to keep 'em, cause you know, the white man is higher up the foodchain than anyone else' (which is, thankfully, less true now than when this was an issue-_-). Also, if you can't feel empathy with animals just because they are not human.. I don't know you, and I'm not gonna pretend I'm Freud.. But that is very cold and.. strange, to me. | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33723 Posts
On October 08 2006 19:03 Kwark wrote: Oh, and on the hypothetical aliens scenario. Aliens have no moral obligation to humans. Aliens priority are aliens. Humans priority are humans. There would be no moral problem with aliens enslaving and testing on humans to their morality. Course, humans would object but thats because alien welfare isn't our priority, human welfare is. But this is a metaphor. When transferred it becomes to moral reason for humans to prevent animal testing because human morality applies to humans. You've never been a big fan of the 'do unto others as you would have others do unto you' thing right? Yes, there's a difference between me and a chimpanze. Yes there's a difference between me and an alien (presumably). There's also a difference between me and an asian, african or south american person. Does this mean my wellbeing should be completely ignored by anyone from these continents/races or vice versa? Why should I act in the benefit of my race anyway? I care more about my dog than I do you, I don't know you, I know my dog. If I know alien A but not human B, and I like Alien A, I'm more likely to help him/her/it than human B should I ever have to choose. I just don't see how you can split up morality into race/species like that. | ||
|
Alborz
Canada1551 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States44402 Posts
I guess this just comes down to how you view the world. I've had this debate a couple of times with friends too (they'd agree with FA). I do not believe a human society has a duty to animals. I believe that humans can seek to limit the suffering they cause animals as an individual moral choice. But that is a question of personal choice. And if someone likes sex with animals then fair enough as long as they do it in their own home (or a Dutch brothel) where it causes no harm to other people. The damage done to the animal, which is negligible compared to, for example, eating it, does not and never can be placed above the enjoyment of humans. To suggest a ban on sex with animals would be comparable to banning eating meat because it causes suffering to animals. The reason no-one has a problem with that is because a lot more people eat meat than screw animals and it is far more acceptable in our popular culture. But from an objective position, banning one for causing animal suffering for human pleasure would mean banning the other. And banning it because "it's sick" doesn't qualify for the record, see the word objective above. | ||
| ||
