I can't speak for everybody, but yes I am vegetarian.
Beastiality
- Thread starter CuriousBioGirl
- Start date
I can't speak for everybody, but yes I am vegetarian.
Seriously, Avatar, you shouldn't believe everything you read!
Employ your critical faculties!
Also, there's a helluva difference between 70 and 93.
There are books written about great ape intelligence, I suggest you read them. Also about dolphin and other animal. Koko is a well known case in the scientific community and is the most far-reaching ape language experiment yet conducted. It seems that you're not a member of that community though.
Human IQ varies dependant on the state of mind of a person at that particular moment - tired, energetic, rested, exhausted, ill, healthy, etc.
Avatar, I have Alison Jolly's Evolution of Primate Behavour on the shelves of my library. I don't know what process of measurement someone has gone through to produce the figures you saw. There is always an incentive to produce a high figure when inquiring into some aspect of the intelligence of the great apes. (Indeed, I should really say of the other great apes, since I consider myself to be a great ape.)
There exists a gap between river apes (humans) and gorillas that is for most practical purposes immeasurable. (Comparisons between gorillas/chimps/orangutans/bonobos and feeble-minded humans is not illuminating.) However, let's not continue this dispute among ourselves. What have others to say?
There exists a gap between river apes (humans) and gorillas that is for most practical purposes immeasurable. (Comparisons between gorillas/chimps/orangutans/bonobos and feeble-minded humans is not illuminating.) However, let's not continue this dispute among ourselves. What have others to say?
As far as I'm concerned with this discussion I've proven that bestiality is not immoral for those who think that a consent from the animal is required for it to be moral.
As a side note which I don't use as an argument here I think that IQ is vastly overrated and that it's wrong to use the IQ developed for a particular species at a particular period of development on measuring the intelligence of other species.
In regards to it being overrated I think that there is much more to human intelligence and brain capacity than an IQ test shows.
This is just my opinion and I won't argument it or defend it in this discussion.
As a side note which I don't use as an argument here I think that IQ is vastly overrated and that it's wrong to use the IQ developed for a particular species at a particular period of development on measuring the intelligence of other species.
In regards to it being overrated I think that there is much more to human intelligence and brain capacity than an IQ test shows.
This is just my opinion and I won't argument it or defend it in this discussion.
I’m still perplexed by anyone who thinks that it’s necessary for animals to consent to sex, but not necessary for animals to consent to any of the other things that humans routinely do with animals. I mean, even ignoring the whole killing and eating animals for fun thing that almost everyone happily engages in, it’s widely accepted that we can use animals as slaves to carry us around, do heavy work on farms, etc. Did the animals consent to that?
Discussions about sexual ethics are always really amusing, because most people have a long list of things that they have been pre-conditioned to think are disgusting and unacceptable - but since most people are also enlightened enough to realize that “It just grosses me out!” isn’t a rational argument about why something should be outlawed, people do all sorts of mental gymnastics trying to come up with rationalizations for why certain things should be banned/considered unacceptable.
Tell me, James, is the level of consent different from that which occurs during animal-animal sex? If not, do you consider all sex involving animals to be immoral?
If a woman bends over for her dog, how is the level of consent different than if another dog presents itself for mating? Indeed, the level of consent might be even higher when the human female is involved since she's not secreting phemones that pretty much remove all choice and drive the male dog into a frenzy.
Don't get me wrong. I'm also disgusted with bestiality. But your reasoning is flawed.
Nope. They're just kinky people.
Drop the dog and the retarded human off in a forest, see who survives.
A normal dog is a fully functional adult of its species. A retarded human is not.
By some measures the retarded human would be smarter, but I'd put my money on the dog in the "survival of the fittest" contest.
So the retarded human female lacks the judgement available to a normal female of her species. A normal dog does not. For a dog to have sex with a human is no more immoral, from the dog's perspective, than for it to have sex with another dog.
Claiming that the same dog that humps your leg every chance it gets did not give consent to mount and mate with the human female who presented herself to it is absurd.
Just as an aside, it is interesting that in past times it seemed important to emphasise that animals should be killed and eaten in that order. When God gave Noah seven laws to obey, one of them was the mitzvah "Ever Min HaChai", stipulating that Noah and his descendants should not eat the flesh of a living animal. So there you are, kill them first and eat them afterwards (and best they have cloven feet and chew the cud) and you'll be in God's good books. The bad news for those so inclined is that another of the seven laws forbids bestiality (and quite a lot of other fun).
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
The woman who have sex with horses might consider its erection as a sign of consent.
What about the desire (not the immoral act) to have sex with an animal....is that what you would call 'unnatural'?
James doesn't believe in the concept of "natural". He'll call it an "appeal to nature".
madanthonywayne:
Obviously not. But then, animals don't necessarily have the same moral capacities as human beings. Therefore, it might be incumbent on the human being to make moral choices on behalf of the animal. Perhaps.
Maybe. I admit I haven't actually considered the matter in much depth. I think I need to think it through more.
Carcano:
Erection can be an automatic response to stimulation. Many human males who are raped experience an erection, but they certainly are not consenting.
If it happens, then it seems to me it must be "natural" for the person involved.
In general, I think the word "natural" is overused. Especially in our age of increasing environmental awareness, "natural" is too often equated with "morally desirable". But all it really means for something to be "natural" is that it occurs "in nature" - and we can argue about that, too.
Obviously not. But then, animals don't necessarily have the same moral capacities as human beings. Therefore, it might be incumbent on the human being to make moral choices on behalf of the animal. Perhaps.
Maybe. I admit I haven't actually considered the matter in much depth. I think I need to think it through more.
Carcano:
Erection can be an automatic response to stimulation. Many human males who are raped experience an erection, but they certainly are not consenting.
If it happens, then it seems to me it must be "natural" for the person involved.
In general, I think the word "natural" is overused. Especially in our age of increasing environmental awareness, "natural" is too often equated with "morally desirable". But all it really means for something to be "natural" is that it occurs "in nature" - and we can argue about that, too.
I believe Bells indulges in a bit of this wild-love. Her performance in locking my Feminization of Man thread shows that this forum has not only deteriorated to a boring grouping of adolescent minds, here to talk about sex and to pretend they are 'intellectuals', but also into factory of conformity, breeding and perpetuating mediocrity and stupidity, as they are most obviously found in the "authorities" who enforce the forum rules.
If averageness was a virtue - it actually is in this day and age - then this forum and Bells as one of its representatives, is doing a fine job.
Keep up the good work and make sure the conversations remain comfortably away from a anything that insults or challenges us and our established norms.
Let us be "civil", without analyzing what "civil" means and let us never utter a word that threatens our peace of mind and our self-esteem, thusly remaining comfortable numb and "normal".
Yes, bestiality is a more appropriate subject, since here the average and the simple can agree and share in their common disdain for it, and then Bells can just sit back and enjoy speaking about nothing, while pretending to speak about profound, earth shattering, ideas and then she can interject her own simplicity, knowing that she will and must be respected - under the rules - as a member of the elite sciforum class.
Let stupidity be respected and let the simpleton inherit this earth.
If averageness was a virtue - it actually is in this day and age - then this forum and Bells as one of its representatives, is doing a fine job.
Keep up the good work and make sure the conversations remain comfortably away from a anything that insults or challenges us and our established norms.
Let us be "civil", without analyzing what "civil" means and let us never utter a word that threatens our peace of mind and our self-esteem, thusly remaining comfortable numb and "normal".
Yes, bestiality is a more appropriate subject, since here the average and the simple can agree and share in their common disdain for it, and then Bells can just sit back and enjoy speaking about nothing, while pretending to speak about profound, earth shattering, ideas and then she can interject her own simplicity, knowing that she will and must be respected - under the rules - as a member of the elite sciforum class.
Let stupidity be respected and let the simpleton inherit this earth.
Laura Bush does it all the time. :shrug:
Well, honestly, I thought Bells too was being bestial when she, out of the blue, slammed and locked the door shut on The Feminization Of Men. Sure, it was crawling along, but only because Satyr had to make it impossibly lengthily—lots of ground to cover and adjacent fields to cross.