Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Bestiality: Can an animal "consent"?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
    Are you saying that an anti-bestiality sentiment can only arise through religious tradition? Do you think any secular philosophy can justify anti-bestiality laws? Where do you think the desires of the social majority come from?
    A healthy sense of disgust, which the most common religions may indeed justify with moral strictures but hardly need assistance to do so in a normal environment. Like religious belief and patriarchy, it's the normal operating mode of 99% of humanity, and only extraordinary social atomization, extreme prosperity and technological advancement protecting people from the deadly consequences, and massive educational propaganda campaigns can convince the majority of any civilized group to abandon the belief.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Epoetker View Post
      A healthy sense of disgust, which the most common religions may indeed justify with moral strictures but hardly need assistance to do so in a normal environment. Like religious belief and patriarchy, it's the normal operating mode of 99% of humanity, and only extraordinary social atomization, extreme prosperity and technological advancement protecting people from the deadly consequences, and massive educational propaganda campaigns can convince the majority of any civilized group to abandon the belief.
      Disgust isn't a good reason to make a law.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
        Are you saying that an anti-bestiality sentiment can only arise through religious tradition? Do you think any secular philosophy can justify anti-bestiality laws? Where do you think the desires of the social majority come from?

        What I'm saying is that anti-bestiality sentiment HAS only arisen through religious tradition. Any other source would be an argument from silence, or an attempt to transfer our feelings into the past. Secular philosophy cant speak from itself as it has no foundation of itself, including the basic human condition we all share. Because secular philosophy, can only exist like a boil on the butt of what has come before it, which was theistic in nature, building it's foundation from an outside source inward.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Epoetker View Post
          A healthy sense of disgust, which the most common religions may indeed justify with moral strictures but hardly need assistance to do so in a normal environment. Like religious belief and patriarchy, it's the normal operating mode of 99% of humanity, and only extraordinary social atomization, extreme prosperity and technological advancement protecting people from the deadly consequences, and massive educational propaganda campaigns can convince the majority of any civilized group to abandon the belief.
          Normal environment??? Epic argument fail!!!

          Healthy sense of disgust as the normal operating mode of 99% of humanity? That's not listed in the marketing plan of any financially successful public media provider. Which plays to the actual verifiable operating mode of 100% of humanity. Take it to the bank, and they do. Social entropy is the default position of any secular philosophy.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
            Disgust isn't a good reason to make a law.
            Pain isn't a good reason to make a law.
            Offense isn't a good reason to make a law.
            "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

            There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Mr. Anderson View Post
              Normal environment??? Epic argument fail!!!

              Healthy sense of disgust as the normal operating mode of 99% of humanity? That's not listed in the marketing plan of any financially successful public media provider. Which plays to the actual verifiable operating mode of 100% of humanity. Take it to the bank, and they do. Social entropy is the default position of any secular philosophy.
              Come now, Mr. Anderson, surely you're not trying to claim that certain elements in the media have no interest in, say, accelerating social entropy via targeted advertising at the segments of society most vulnerable to their messaging, now?

              I do like the whole "Times of falling crime are times of social corruption" theme the blogger has going on.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Mr. Anderson View Post
                What I'm saying is that anti-bestiality sentiment HAS only arisen through religious tradition. Any other source would be an argument from silence, or an attempt to transfer our feelings into the past. Secular philosophy cant speak from itself as it has no foundation of itself, including the basic human condition we all share. Because secular philosophy, can only exist like a boil on the butt of what has come before it, which was theistic in nature, building it's foundation from an outside source inward.
                You can't know that anti-bestiality sentiment has only arisen through religious tradition. I would argue that all social progress has come about from secular causes. By what measure is secular philosophy foundationless but all competing religions aren't? If you believe that one religion is true, then other religions must be false. Where is the outside source for false religions? From a secular and what I would call an objective perspective, all religions are equal. Religion and philosophy all come from inward sources.

                Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                Pain isn't a good reason to make a law.
                Offense isn't a good reason to make a law.
                Speaking generally, I agree.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
                  Speaking generally, I agree.
                  The former at least is the basis for most laws.
                  "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                  There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Epoetker View Post
                    Come now, Mr. Anderson, surely you're not trying to claim that certain elements in the media have no interest in, say, accelerating social entropy via targeted advertising at the segments of society most vulnerable to their messaging, now?

                    I do like the whole "Times of falling crime are times of social corruption" theme the blogger has going on.
                    Most likely said media outlets couldn't care less about social corruption. The bottom line is the primary motivator.

                    The blogger is describing cyclic trends involving socially corrupted segments of society that leave the majority of society untouched and living improved lives. What he fails to look for is that the "Leave It To Beaver Crowd", which he claims continue on mostly untouched by said social corruption in the cycles, have been decreasing per capita as the cycles progress. The reason a majority population of socially healthy individuals stay healthy isn't truly given in the blog. They remained untouched because of their isolation from the corruption. The same technological advancements that improved their personal lives in the past cycles have proven to provide the greater threat for today's cycle. Beaver is no longer isolated from the corruption. The only way to be isolated in today's culture is is to unplug and pull away from it.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
                      You can't know that anti-bestiality sentiment has only arisen through religious tradition. I would argue that all social progress has come about from secular causes. By what measure is secular philosophy foundationless but all competing religions aren't? If you believe that one religion is true, then other religions must be false. Where is the outside source for false religions? From a secular and what I would call an objective perspective, all religions are equal. Religion and philosophy all come from inward sources.


                      Yes we can! With one question. Are there any sources from antiquity that give claim to a moral code by secular means to govern a culture? Case closed!

                      Your argument for secular sources: Because many and one can't be true doesn't touch the fact that they were religious not secular in nature.

                      Even if all religions were false the argument fails. Every false religious tradition still appeals to something outside of humanity as the authority and inspiration behind the moral code. And in the process develops the only possibility to make a claim for an objectively solid moral code. They develop a foundation.

                      Secular philosophies are fluid, any claim to a foundation is a foundation built on water with no appeal to any authority that will leave humans desirous to obey it. There is a reason Marx called it the opiate of the masses.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Mr. Anderson View Post
                        Most likely said media outlets couldn't care less about social corruption. The bottom line is the primary motivator.

                        The blogger is describing cyclic trends involving socially corrupted segments of society that leave the majority of society untouched and living improved lives.
                        Highly debatable, since most of the improvements have been bought with massive deficit spending, various forms of debt slavery, radically diminished social trust, and a decreased national IQ. The degredation of the nation would never have been seen as worth the reduction in crime rates, which are in fact, only really due to a much lower level of people actually being out and about (and also due to greater mistrust of the police, as fewer crimes in the cities get reported when the police can't be trusted. More witnesses in public=more crime reports.)

                        What he fails to look for is that the "Leave It To Beaver Crowd", which he claims continue on mostly untouched by said social corruption in the cycles, have been decreasing per capita as the cycles progress. The reason a majority population of socially healthy individuals stay healthy isn't truly given in the blog. They remained untouched because of their isolation from the corruption.
                        The only ones truly isolated, at least in America, would be the Amish. For the rest, I'd volunteer that a much larger number of people than you give credit for have done that thing known as "repentance" at some point in their lives, and brought about the partial social restoration that eras like the late 70s and most of the 80s were known for. It actually was a better time for a great majority of people, and even the women's magazines were light-years ahead in moral understanding.

                        The same technological advancements that improved their personal lives in the past cycles have proven to provide the greater threat for today's cycle. Beaver is no longer isolated from the corruption. The only way to be isolated in today's culture is is to unplug and pull away from it.
                        Again, it's only sort of worked for the Amish. But if you want to defeat the culture, you actually will have to be both engaged enough with it to speak its language, and free enough from its temptations to resist their call in other contexts.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                          The former at least is the basis for most laws.
                          I disagree. Avoidable or freely initiated pain or some other qualifier is the basis.

                          Originally posted by Mr. Anderson View Post
                          Yes we can! With one question. Are there any sources from antiquity that give claim to a moral code by secular means to govern a culture? Case closed!

                          Your argument for secular sources: Because many and one can't be true doesn't touch the fact that they were religious not secular in nature.

                          Even if all religions were false the argument fails. Every false religious tradition still appeals to something outside of humanity as the authority and inspiration behind the moral code. And in the process develops the only possibility to make a claim for an objectively solid moral code. They develop a foundation.

                          Secular philosophies are fluid, any claim to a foundation is a foundation built on water with no appeal to any authority that will leave humans desirous to obey it. There is a reason Marx called it the opiate of the masses.
                          Just because a source makes the claim that their moral code comes from their religion doesn't make it true.

                          If a religion is false, then the authority/authorities is/are the founders or the priests. Even if a religion is true, if it's organized it has, at least partly, an authority in the priests or leader.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
                            I disagree. Avoidable or freely initiated pain or some other qualifier is the basis.
                            No, that's just liberal garbage and getting off topic.

                            What I am saying is that since pain is a response to dangerous stimuli pain is used as a basis to determine laws (this is not the same as anything that causes pain being made illegal). Same with disgust. People are disgusted by things because they pose a danger, even if they don't understand the specific danger. Homosexuality and bestiality would both fall under this category, though in the case of the former liberals go out of their way to minimize the bad consequences, or find something else to blame them on.
                            "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                            There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                              No, that's just liberal garbage and getting off topic.

                              What I am saying is that since pain is a response to dangerous stimuli pain is used as a basis to determine laws (this is not the same as anything that causes pain being made illegal). Same with disgust. People are disgusted by things because they pose a danger, even if they don't understand the specific danger. Homosexuality and bestiality would both fall under this category, though in the case of the former liberals go out of their way to minimize the bad consequences, or find something else to blame them on.
                              I've been quite disgusted by some of the things you and Epoetker have said on this forum. Can I get a law against you guys? It makes no sense to base a law on disgust, since it is a subjective feeling that may or may not have a basis in what really matters, harm. When harm conflicts with rights (meaning rights need to be restricted to prevent harm), we make each decision considering the context of each situation. An opinion may cause harm, but free speech supercedes the desire of censorship. That's why caveats like whether that harm is avoidable or freely initiated are important.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
                                Just because a source makes the claim that their moral code comes from their religion doesn't make it true.

                                If a religion is false, then the authority/authorities is/are the founders or the priests. Even if a religion is true, if it's organized it has, at least partly, an authority in the priests or leader.
                                Argument fails: The claim doesn't have to be truthful to bear authority, current politics give evidence of this fact. The authority of the priest is claimed to be a delegated authority, not their own. Or it would be ignored. Therefore the appeal is to a non-secular authority. The actual reality of it's truthfulness has no bearing in the matter.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                175 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                411 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                383 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X