Bestiality in Australia (3 Viewers)

[Iron]

You piss me off sometimes.

Why even bother pointing out that most people will probably never accept it.

Chadd acknowledged this from the very beginning.

The whole point was to challenge what the majority of people think and show that even though it may seem to make sense intuitively, it has no logical basis.

If you don't find it interesting, JUST DON'T POST.

But ffs, don't feel the need to post insultingly obvious platitudes.

Meh, it's only interesting in the sense that it demonstrates how life without reference to the truth of Christ is life that justifies anything and nothing.

The really interesting thing is that everyone instinctively believes it to be wrong, but cannot dismiss it with logical argument.

The truth is etched onto your hearts my kinder: step forward into Christ's loving embrace.
Our freedom must be grounded in truth.

 

[sthcross.dude]

go with christ brah

 

[Enteebee]

Most people will never accept lots of things, some of them imo true. If you're looking for a more practical application of the discussion I would say that I want to cut people off at their kneecaps when they attempt to rationally show that their morals are correct - Almost as if they've been divinely inspired.

Also tbqh I don't think there is no chance of people accepting beastiality. Our society is become more permissive at what seems to be an ever increasing rate, 100 years down the track... who knows?

The really interesting thing is that everyone instinctively believes it to be wrong, but cannot dismiss it with logical argument.

It's easy to explain why this is if you hold my position. If you hold yours (that morals are divinely inspired) then you have trouble accounting for the fact that not long ago at all being gay used to be something extensively shunned, as it was to have sex outside of marriage etc.

Life whether you believe in christ or not is exactly the same.

 

[sthcross.dude]

^ Who knows what that looney tune actually believes?

 

[Slidey]

Remember guys, if you want to condemn something but can't think of a coherent argument as to why, just equate it with pedophilia, or terrorism.

Its about as logical as me saying "well banning bestiality is authoritarian and thus similar to communism, therefore Slidey may as well be justifying communism and we should immediately reject his dirty commie arguments."

While it heartens me that you disagree with me, since you're a fairly vile individual who I am pleased to be dissimilar to, you're wrong:

Paedophilia is quite a valid analogy. The only significant difference is sapience and sentience. If somebody is pro-bestiality, they logically should hold a similar stance for paedophilia in various conditions.

My gripe with bestiality is that it is one of the few cases of sexual freedom which I can see as having the potential to lead to 'societal decay', as the conservatives call it. I don't believe I've said bestiality shouldn't be allowed, though, have I? Well done whipping yourself into a frenzy.

You might want to re-read my initial post, too, since you got it wrong as well; I was talking about moral nihilism and animal abuse, not bestiality.

 

[Iron]

It's easy to explain why this is if you hold my position. If you hold yours (that morals are divinely inspired) then you have trouble accounting for the fact that not long ago at all being gay used to be something extensively shunned, as it was to have sex outside of marriage etc.

Life whether you believe in christ or not is exactly the same.

Yes it is. Society has lost its way. The majority is wrong. Is that hard to believe? I thought this thread was born of similar inflammatory comments I made in the Homosexual thread?

 

[Enteebee]

^ Who knows what that looney tune actually believes?

hahah true. He used to be quite a rational guy but I don't think it was exciting enough for him or something.

 

[Enteebee]

Yes it is. Society has lost its way. The majority is wrong. Is that hard to believe? I thought this thread was born of similar inflammatory comments I made in the Homosexual thread?

So which person's god-inspired morals are correct? Yours or the liberal preacher down the street?

 

[Enteebee]

Paedophilia is quite a valid analogy. The only significant difference is sapience and sentience. If somebody is pro-bestiality, they logical should hold a similar stance for paedophilia in various conditions.

Not necessarily because there's no way of knowing whether a child will grow up to hate it. I think we see people as icons which live outside of their body, so much as you could feel sorry for a mentally disabled person who has been reduced to the mental capabilities of a happy child as you can imagine they would not want it you can also be annoyed at the prospect of a child being molested because you can imagine they would not want it.

 

[sthcross.dude]

While it heartens me that you disagree with me, since you're a fairly vile individual who I am pleased to be dissimilar to, you're wrong

Maybe you would like me if you got to know me better. :wave:

Paedophilia is quite a valid analogy. The only significant difference is sapience and sentience. If somebody is pro-bestiality, they logical should hold a similar stance for paedophilia in various conditions.

Why is this logical? You still haven't explained the alleged similarity.

My gripe with bestiality is that it is one of the few cases of sexual freedom which I can see as having the potential to lead to 'societal decay', as the conservatives call it. I don't believe I've said bestiality shouldn't be allowed, though, have I? Well done whipping yourself into a frenzy.

How would it lead to societal decay? If a few people that are attracted to animals are allowed to fuck them, how does it effect the vast majority of us who have no inclination do so?

It was clearly implied you think it shouldn't be allowed. If you believe it would lead to "soecital decay," yet think it should be allowed, you're a fool anyway.

Edit: A much higher proportion of people are homosexual than zoophiles. Allowing homosexuality hasn't lead to societal decay. All the outlandish arguments about it resulting in the collapse of the family and the inability of the species of continue to survive have been thoroughly discredited. So where's the evidence champ?

 

[Iron]

So which person's god-inspired morals are correct? Yours or the liberal preacher down the street?

Na, you're applying relativism to religion. It's a cop out. I'm saying that we all have a conscience which tells us what is instinctively right or wrong: this area is wrong.

As a personal note, I genuinely did convert to Catholicism. I spent a few years in the wilderness, having torn off the yoke of my mother's rather shallow Christianity (this is when NTB and I were closest <3), but i'm back in the true universal fold now. Pope Benedicts comments on Truth clinched it.
Other than that, I do not wish to discuss me.

 

[Enteebee]

Na, you're applying relativism to religion. It's a cop out. I'm saying that we all have a conscience which tells us what is instinctively right or wrong: this area is wrong.

My conscience leads me somewhere different to you, is one of us not really listening to our conscience or does god imbue people with different morals?

 

[Iron]

My conscience leads me somewhere different to you, is one of us not really listening to our conscience or does god imbue people with different morals?

Conscience can obviously be corrupted through temptation, but there is a period before you jump that ledge where you know that it's wrong.

 

[Slidey]

Not necessarily because there's no way of knowing whether a child will grow up to hate it. I think we see people as icons which live outside of their body, so much as you could feel sorry for a mentally disabled person who has been reduced to the mental capabilities of a happy child as you can imagine they would not want it you can also be annoyed at the prospect of a child being molested because you can imagine they would not want it.

Yeah, that's where the analogy diverges - sapience and sentience. People take the assumption that an animal's mental state is fixed, whilst a child's may not be. But if I wanted to play Devil's advocate for paedophilia, it'd be easy to argue that: "The only reason a child would feel differently about loving consensual paedophilia when they grow up might just be that society tells them it is wrong, and that it's bad, and that it causes mental problems. This happens all the time with homosexuality, for instance."

There's a degree of arbitrariness to paedophilia vilification which somebody like sthcross.dude should be trying to abolish as well.

 

[Graney]

Paedophilia is quite a valid analogy. The only significant difference is sapience and sentience. If somebody is pro-bestiality, they logically should hold a similar stance for paedophilia in various conditions.

What are the similarities? That there was no, no consent there was there?

As I've mentioned, the reason we worry about explicit (and informed) consent in humans is because where there is not consent there is always psychological harm caused.

This is what the victims (yeah the victims) themselves report.

There's certainly no evidence this is the case with animals.

On the issue of whether animals can consent, it's debatable, but I think there are cases where the animals do consent. Even where there is no clear consent, if the act is gently and lovingly performed, I don't think it's possible for an animal to experience the depth or kind of suffering a human will experience by a similar violation of it's autonomy.
In the same way that we assume animals don't suffer from being kept in captivity, being forced to work, follow rules etc... whereas the human conciousness obviously makes those same acts of slavery intolerable.

 

[sthcross.dude]

Iron:

Is this "conscience part of the brain," or something like a soul ect?

How do you account for sociopaths, psychopaths ect.

Similarly with profoundly retarded people, do they still have this conscience, notwithstanding that they can't even understand most of the concepts it would apply to?

 

[Slidey]

A much higher proportion of people are homosexual than zoophiles. Allowing homosexuality hasn't lead to societal decay. All the outlandish arguments about it resulting in the collapse of the family and the inability of the species of continue to survive have been thoroughly discredited. So where's the evidence champ?

Homosexuality involves two people - it's a relationship. Bestiality is not. There are definite mental health concerns for something like bestiality (especially considering the fact that it likely arises from the negative mental state of loneliness). Concerns which don't apply to masturbation because there's no possibility of 'attachment'.

 

[Enteebee]

So you're saying that we're not really listening to our conscience when we do the wrong thing because it's been corrupted? This leaves us no where, you can't tell me when it is wrong to do an act other than by alluding to some bad feeling you occasionally get and claiming that's when God's letting you know you're doing something wrong. What a totally perposterous, childish notion that completely betrays your real knowledge of the world around you.

"The only reason a child would feel differently about loving consensual paedophilia when they grow up might just be that society tells them it is wrong, and that it's bad, and that it causes mental problems. This happens all the time with homosexuality, for instance."

I would disagree because even if it were just society telling them that it's wrong there is still a decent probability that as a free actor (as much as any of us are free actors) they would dislike what was done to them.

 

[Graney]

Homosexuality involves two people - it's a relationship. Bestiality is not. There are definite mental health concerns for something like bestiality (especially considering the fact that it likely arises from the negative mental state of loneliness). Concerns which don't apply to masturbation because there's no possibility of 'attachment'.

You don't form an attachment and relationship with your pets already? What is wrong with taking it one step further?

Homosexuality was only disclassified as a mental illness by the WHO in 1992.

 

[sthcross.dude]

Yeah, that's where the analogy diverges - sapience and sentience. People take the assumption that an animal's mental state is fixed, whilst a child's may not be. But if I wanted to play Devil's advocate for paedophilia, it'd be easy to argue that: "The only reason a child would feel differently about loving consensual paedophilia when they grow up might just be that society tells them it is wrong, and that it's bad, and that it causes mental problems. This happens all the time with homosexuality, for instance."

There's a degree of arbitrariness to paedophilia vilification which somebody like sthcross.dude should be trying to abolish as well.

You've glossed over the main point, forget later psychological harm. CHILDREN DON'T ENJOY BEING MOLESTED BY ADULTS.

It is dispicable and cruel to do this to them.

As chadd as pointed out, there may be situations where animals enjoy it.

If they don't they are only animals. We kill them for food. If you want to make ridiculous statements like I have to accept pedophilia if I accept bestiality, then I will contend that if you don't accept bestiality, you can't accept killing animals for food.

Or at least not treat them in the cruel way we do to produce food cheaply (eg battery hens). We can get all the nutrition we need without meat and we could feed more people from the same land too. Meat is a luxury. We are putting animals through suffering from our pleasure. The only difference between bestiality and eating meat (assuming the animals don't like the sex) is the sexual element. It makes no difference to the animals. It's just an arbitrary value judgement.