Bestiality in Australia (3 Viewers)

[_dhj_]

I'm not using this as my rebuttal but moreso for principle's sake and articulating thoughts; what would you be saying if we were talking about sexual activity with adults and children?

Logically in mind, sex with children is wrong because of their inability to consent, and how it would likely fuck up their quality of life from there on. So if sexual activities with children aren't allowed, then it trumps everything below it, which seems to include sex with animals. Does that make sense?

This does not apply to animals.
Not that I approve of bestiality, mind you.

 

[ur_inner_child]

This does not apply to animals.
Not that I approve of bestiality, mind you.

I didn't say that it equates the same to animals, but the fact that we don't allow sex with children, and therefore trumps everything below it, which in my mind, includes sex with animals. Exactly what criteria I have to rank sexual activities... well, I can't articulate it as of yet, which I've admitted throughout the thread!

 

[Zingy]

beastforum.com

 

[_dhj_]

I didn't say that it equates the same to animals, but the fact that we don't allow sex with children, and therefore trumps everything below it, which in my mind, includes sex with animals. Exactly what criteria I have to rank sexual activities... well, I can't articulate it as of yet, which I've admitted throughout the thread!

I think there's no real moral/ethical/consequential argument against it. Rather, it's generally accepted as to be in 'bad taste', in the same way that sex between a slim and extremely obese person, between a young and old person, BDSM etc. are to varying degrees regarded as 'just wrong'. Bestiality is probably further down that spectrum.

 

[Zingy]

It is way more than that. Human dix dont fit in most animal pussy or ass.

 

[Enteebee]

It makes us feel uneasy etc... tbqh there's no reason really to accept beastiality and not accept necrophilia or turning people who are in a persistant vegetative state into soylant green.

 

[Iron]

It makes us feel uneasy etc... tbqh there's no reason really to accept beastiality and not accept necrophilia or turning people who are in a persistant vegetative state into soylant green.

Unless you submit to the universal church which your conscience aches for!

 

[Enteebee]

Unless you submit to the universal church which your conscience aches for!

no it doesn't, I can quite comfortably accept arbitrary morals... tbqh even if I went to a church it'd still be arbitrary I'd just be saying it isn't.

 

[sthcross.dude]

I didn't say that it equates the same to animals, but the fact that we don't allow sex with children, and therefore trumps everything below it, which in my mind, includes sex with animals. Exactly what criteria I have to rank sexual activities... well, I can't articulate it as of yet, which I've admitted throughout the thread!

We don't allow sex with children because they are human beings.

Just like we don't keep human beings locked in farms until they are ready to be slaughtered and eaten.

Also the "therefore trumps" bit doesn't really make sense. You don't seem to have made any relevant connection between sex with children and with animals, other than that you personally regard them both as repugnant.

 

[KFunk]

We don't allow sex with children because they are human beings.

We should base our ethics on the natural image of the animal kingdom. Lions, as rulers of the animal kingdom must be protected. But subordinate animals, like horses, negroes, and mongols may be bastardised in those cases where the benefit accorded the human party outweighs the degree of harm experienced by the defiled animal multiplied by a constant factor k (0 < k < 1, which is determined by the animal's respective distance down the heirachy). Humans may not be treated as means to an end and so are exempt from the calculus.

 

[HNAKXR]

We should base our ethics on the natural image of the animal kingdom. Lions, as rulers of the animal kingdom must be protected. But subordinate animals, like horses, negroes, and mongols may be bastardised in those cases where the benefit accorded the human party outweighs the degree of harm experienced by the defiled animal multiplied by a constant factor k (0 < k < 1, which is determined by the animal's respective distance down the heirachy). Humans may not be treated as means to an end and so are exempt from the calculus.

Negroes and Mongols are subordinate animals?

 

[KFunk]

Yes, according to the divine, aesthetic sense through which we appreciate the natural ordering of the animal kingdom.

 

[Zingy]

Yes, according to the divine, aesthetic sense through which we appreciate the natural ordering of the animal kingdom.

Cite sources buddy.

 

[HNAKXR]

Yes, according to the divine, aesthetic sense through which we appreciate the natural ordering of the animal kingdom.

This theory has a lot of holes in it, consider the Mongol, Moorish and Timurid invasions for starters.

 

[KFunk]

Cite sources buddy.

Would you ask for sources for the veracity of modus ponens? It's just the core moral framework which exists as a properly basic belief. If you have Mongol heritage then I understand why you might question The Hierarchy - genetically you won't have as much clarity when considering the moral realm and so some degree of confusion is inevitable.

This theory has a lot of holes in it, consider the Mongol, Moorish and Timurid invasions for starters.

Chimps and hyenas fight turf wars all the time. It's all a matter of the consideration constant k. The Timurids are arbitrarily close to '1' (where the Lion sits) and so for all intents and purposes we treat them as though they had the same value as Caucasoids. However, the difference in value is hidden by small numbers. Once you consider the level of civilisations and international warfare the consideration constant becomes a significant factor in the decision calculus about whether harm (to peoples with k < 1) is justifiable.

 

[Zingy]

imagine a male human fucking a female dog.....wtf would the fetus look like. lol

There would be no fetus, "a pig and an elephant just dont match". Dog DNA != Human DNA.

 

[Graney]

imagine a male human fucking a female dog.....wtf would the fetus look like. lol

 

[bigboyjames]

lol

 

[Graney]

Is the Orwell quote in your sig meant to be ironic?

 

[HNAKXR]

Would you ask for sources for the veracity of modus ponens? It's just the core moral framework which exists as a properly basic belief. If you have Mongol heritage then I understand why you might question The Hierarchy - genetically you won't have as much clarity when considering the moral realm and so some degree of confusion is inevitable.



Chimps and hyenas fight turf wars all the time. It's all a matter of the consideration constant k. The Timurids are arbitrarily close to '1' (where the Lion sits) and so for all intents and purposes we treat them as though they had the same value as Caucasoids. However, the difference in value is hidden by small numbers. Once you consider the level of civilisations and international warfare the consideration constant becomes a significant factor in the decision calculus about whether harm (to peoples with k < 1) is justifiable.

But the Mongolian empire was far larger than the Timurid empire...

modus ponens only affirms the validity of claims, not their truth. however as your claims are inconsistent they can not be called valid, and as the premises are unsupported and have sound evidence to the contrary they can not be called true.