-->
@Lemming
Eh, the end purpose of debates vary, depending on different individuals goals.
I think any goal besides the truth is wrong, and according to my aesthetics, gross.
Bestiality
Posts
Total:
125
-->
@Lemming
Eh, the end purpose of debates vary, depending on different individuals goals.I think any goal besides the truth is wrong, and according to my aesthetics, gross.Except animal f***ing, apparently.
Did you expect anyone to forget the context in the span of one post?
"I think any goal [of debate] besides the truth is wrong, and according to my aesthetics, gross."
No exception to speak of.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Eh, I didn't think the context was clear,
But since you clarified,
It's more clear to me now.
48 days later
So I'll debate flat earthers, big foot people, holocaust deniers, etc... etc... on principle
Will you debate against an advocate of pedophilia. Is there any place where you would disagree with them and be able to debate them
-->
@Incel-chud
Yes. Evidence piles up against them. It is basically defending a habitable settlement on a mountain.
-->
@Intelligence_06
But never mention the P word.
Always use the Q word.
43 days later
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Animals cannot rationally consent to sex, so any sex with them is immoral as it is rape.
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
Notwithstanding the human animal.
Does any other animal intellectually consent or not consent to sex?
Or do they just do it, because the are functionally compelled to do it?
Would a pig being fucked by a human, actually consider that "rape" was taking place?
It's always interesting how we apply human conceptual standards to the behaviour of other animals.
17 days later
-->
@zedvictor4
@DebateAllDaTings
DebateAllDaTings: Animals cannot rationally consent to sex, so any sex with them is immoral as it is rape.
It is not necessarily rape because they can consent. Consent requires a will not abstract knowledge or the ability to infer from that knowledge, although many animals do possess primitive versions of these capacities.
zedvictor4:Does any other animal intellectually consent or not consent to sex?
Perhaps if that phrase could be defined in concrete terms we could explore it. What is intellectual consent vs any other kind of consent?
zedvictor4: Or do they just do it, because the are functionally compelled to do it?Would a pig being fucked by a human, actually consider that "rape" was taking place?
They (their lotus of will) can be known to not be compelled by some kind of automatic override when members of the species have been observed to consistently but not deterministically behave differently based on life experience.
An ant will follow a pheromone trail no matter how many times it leads into an ant trap. A pig will not mount a mating dummy if it electrically shocked them the first two times.
Pigs do possess a discernible will, that is they have definite decisions with learned patterns of behavior to achieve varied values. They know what they want, they know when they aren't getting it. Furthermore they are social, they can keep a long and complex tally of social relationships. As the pig has a character that can be learned to predict his or her decisions, the pig knows that others also have characters. If one person whips a pig and another feeds him, he will differentiate between them. Running from one, and pestering the other.
From all of this I can say that a pig would know they are being raped if they were being raped.
Waving one's hands at the eminently relatable as if a mystical grey fog was all that existed in the minds of others is itself lazy mysticism and I would directly compare it do the oriental exoticism, which at its height had human beings in Europe suggesting that the minds of East Asian humans were incomprehensible (and pity the fool who tries to understand that which they could not).
Let me make that point crystal clear: When humans will declare other humans invalid targets for empathy (labeling it 'projection'), we know that there is a temptation in humans to falsely complicate matters in an attempt to manufacture a sense of uniqueness.
In contrast to the wolf-crying consider the boring but straightforward analysis I use to respond to zed's last sentence:
zedvictor4: It's always interesting how we apply human conceptual standards to the behaviour of other animals.
Anthropomorphism applied to near relatives like mammals is usually the simplest explanation because many mechanisms and systems evolved before the last common ancestor, thus it tends to be the correct explanation.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
As I see it, a pig would be aware of what was happening.
But rape is an intellectual concept.
Overthink as it were.
Very much a human specialism.
Sort of the reason why pigs never split the atom.
And why we stopped frying humans for breakfast.
And some have taken the overthink of nutrition and ethics to a higher level, and also stopped frying bacon for breakfast.
What they will do when they feel the urge to take into consideration the concept and ethics of plant abuse, I don't know.
Though I suppose that the extraction of nutrients from decaying matter is a viable option.
Is it ethical for a vegan/veggie to wait around for animals to drop dead from natural causes?
And what about road kill? Must be one heck of a dilemma for driving, vegan/veggie, ethical overthinkers.
Sort of rambling but all sort of relative.
-->
@zedvictor4
As I see it, a pig would be aware of what was happening.But rape is an intellectual concept.Overthink as it were.
All concepts are intellectual, overthink? rather semantics. Sex is a thing, like eating is a thing, that we have defined but which would continue to exist and be perceivable by all manner of living things even if we had never written a dictionary.
Though I suppose that the extraction of nutrients from decaying matter is a viable option.
Total tangent but fruits are designed to be eaten without killing the originating organism. It would be analogous to milk.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Yep.
Plum crumble and custard.
Yum Yum.
All concepts are intellectual.
Undoubtedly.
83 days later
Good god! I do not know who is worse, this clown defending humping animals or Best.Korea defending pedophilia.
Both are very mentally disturbed and should seek professional help. Anyone who defensed those inhumane things should.
-->
@TWS1405
Tell us more about how to stop ugly people reproducing and how mentally sane you are for wanting eugenics.
Tell us more about how to stop ugly people reproducing and how mentally sane you are for wanting eugenics.
That's exactly what an intellectual coward denialist ignoramus would say!!
-->
@TWS1405
I'm that cowardly, denialist, sophomoric, banal, meek,
Disfigured, dumb and degenerate pagan freak,
I'm one of Satan's sheep; ghoulish demon you pray to beat,
Left-wing hypocrite, pissing myself from nightmares; staining sheets,
Yeah I'm that final-hour-obesity tier fatal feast,
Big, delicious, bad for the heart... Ignorant bot, AI or not, I'm lazy n weak,
I'm that baloney-spewing incel clown you hate to meet.
469 days later
A new article was added to Peter Singer's journal of controversial ideas. I had some commentary:
Article originally found here https://journalofcontroversialideas.org/article/3/2/255
The ethics of zoophilia has been subject to little academic attention so far.
Ethics has been a subject of little academic attention since Kant. Sure people write books, but they don't debate or make any novel points. Ethics is a dead branch of philosophy in modern academia.
We might thinkat first that zoophilia is so obviously wrong that no discussion whatsoever is needed
It is tempting to try to appear compromising for the sake of endearing good will but this is a morally bankrupt premise to start from.
Nothing is by default wrong or evil just like no assertion of existence is true by default. It must be proven so by a coherent and objective moral theory.
Those who have addressed the ethical status of zoophilia sometimesconfess that most existing arguments for the wrongness of zoophilia are lacking.
Comically so, but that is the result when people have to look for an excuse to justify their disgust on the spot.
He attributes our hostility to sex with animals to speciesistprejudice.
I have come to believe it is more basic. Any sexual expression which is not normalized by culture produces disgust. This explains why homosexuality or race mixing once produced widespread disgust but no longer does.
Rudy takes queer theory as her starting point and uses zoophilia to questionthe demarcation between sex and nonsex.
I don't think deconstructing the definition of sex is an honest way to convince anyone.
This is not to say that zoophilia cannot be defended within anthropocentricapproaches. In fact, perhaps the easiest way to conclude that there is nothing wrong withzoophilia is to postulate that humans have a vastly higher moral standing than animals, sothat zoophilia is just one instance among many others of permissible use and exploitationof animals for human purposes.
Well you have to respond to the excuse they give, even if it is clearly an excuse and not the actual reason for their disgust. Having someone agree to the permissibility of bestiality because they don't care if animals suffer is a prime example of aPyrrhic victory. It is good that they won't attack people unjustly, but the right answer for the wrong reasons is not ideal.
Onemight take this to contradict my general claim that zoophilia is permissible, but this wouldbe a mistake: that zoophilia is permissible does not mean that all instances of zoophiliaare permissible, in the same way that the permissibility of heterosexuality does not meanthat all instances of heterosexuality are permissible.
This should be obvious, but when dealing with emotionally charged people one can never be too careful.
If there is no clearcut boundary between the ordinary love that pet keepersexpress and the romantic love that some zoophiles express, then why accept one and notthe other?
There is a clear-cut boundary, sexual excitement. You know it when you feel it. Even if there wasn't, beware the continuum fallacy.
I should point out that I am not interested here in the psychological and social factorsthat explain our ordinary aversion toward zoophilia.
It is a long standing tradition to avoid the inexplicable in favor of solvable problems :)
Bolliger and Goetschel claim that “one important aspect of the dignity of the animalis its sexual integrity.” By this they mean “unhindered sexual development and sensation,the protection from damaging decisionmaking by sexual exploitation of dependencies,and the protection from sexual harassment.”
Uh, this is the same human civilization that considered castration a necessary procedure for many animals?
there is an unwillingness to recognize the competences ofdomesticated animals for agency, cooperation, and participation in mixed human–animalsettings
Despite evidence constantly piling up in every household with pets and every farm with animals. I wonder if the people who say these things have ever known a non-human in more than passing.
The section on consent is as good as any I've seen. It echoes some of my best debates on the subject.
To be clear, finding out the moral status of zoophilia is not the same as finding outits optimal social status, so we might grant that zoophilia is morally permissible whilestill opposing decriminalization and normalization, perhaps on the grounds that it wouldultimately lead to a worse outcome for animals.
That depends on what moral framework connects the morality of an action to the ideal legality. I believe liberty is the only objective moral principle and under that framework finding out the objective moral status of something is exactly the same as finding out its optimal social status. Punishing victimless actions with violence or deception is an assault on liberty, itself a crime under ideal law.
However, because of the sheeramount of moral outrage around this topic, advocating for zoophilia should be done withgreat caution to avoid undermining the broader agenda of the animal rights movement andother social justice movements. There are obvious pragmatic considerations to downplaythe plea for decriminalizing zoophilia, and even more so for including it within the LGBT+umbrella.
The author may have no problem conspiring with "social justice movements" to change society but I do.
If the cause is just and the arguments solid there is no need to hold your tongue (or more realistically proxy anonymous keystrokes); especially not to coordinate with movements who are provoking a backlash over trivial matters and invented injustices.
Zoosexuals face real persecution. Real discrimination. The oppressors of zoosexuals have very real designs against the liberty of zoosexuals. The moral demand here is "stop abducting us", not "we demand you expose your children to our particular sexuality and then provide them species reassignment surgery upon request"
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I maintain that:1. Bestiality is not inherently immoral
I can agree with that.
this clown defending humping animals or Best.Korea defending pedophilia.Both are very mentally disturbed and should seek professional help. Anyone who defensed those inhumane things should.
How rude.
21 days later
This interview apparently happened a while ago, but I didn't see this clip till now. The last sentence from Peterson succinctly asserts something I have very often had to say in reference to this topic.
99 days later
This topic helps prove B.K's new Religion topic.
50 days later
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Here I posted a video about this topic here not really arguing any point just attempting to fairly portray your argument https://youtu.be/7yQDFFedahU
-->
@WyIted
Gota love the infinite regression at the beginning.
ADOL, they leave off the F
hardy hardy har
should be pronounced beastiality
"beast" is English, "bestia" is the latin root of the word. See bestiary, bestial. So the question is how much magic do you want to use cause Hogwarts has taught us that you really need to use latin to cast spells.
libertarian moral framework
I think libertarianism (also known as real liberalism) is above the level of a moral framework, as in they have a principle but most can't justify it and those that could would disagree with each other.
It's more like an objectivist moral framework but the moral derivation I give is more detailed in a critical area than Rand's and Rand is heavily focused on the complete moral theory which is dominated by personal ethics.
While that is certainly something philosophers should talk about a lot it's a lot of unneeded noise in the political sphere. The social subset of moral principle from objectivism is essentially liberty and thus the political expression of objectivism is basically libertarian.
...his entire adult life...
Well I did have to stop to eat and sleep :p
Jokes aside this is essentially correct. I was a young adult when I read Atlas Shrugged and before that I had never really looked at morality as something you sit down and think about. A lot of people seem to still be in that phase all the way to retirement homes.
After I read everything Rand and Peikoff ever wrote and then read the sources they contested or relied upon (Kant, Aristotle, Plato, Aquinas) I deconverted (formally) from catholicism. The clincher was reading Aquinas.
Aquinas is really quite clear in his writings, I mean clear as in the concepts are precise and he never confuses context. The exact polar opposite of Karl Marx (who wrote gibberish in most cases).
However in the clarity errors have no where to hide, and I knew on a conscious level then that I would never have the faith he proved to be necessary to be a christian.
Finally, after my "awakening" I started to emulate the philosophers not just to check them against each other but to get answers for subjects they did not address, one of those was my sexuality.
I haven't changed my beliefs about the morality of bestiality since then, but I've certainly gotten a lot of practice taking apart the attempted arguments against it and in the process I've pinpointed exactly where the conceptual error in the "informed consent" is which rippled out into other domains.
DDO was where that last part happened, but I had already been debating people about bestiality for years before joining DDO.
FYI I also concluded taxation is theft around the same time and have also passionately argued that for the entire time. When I started it was much farther outside the overton window than it is now. In the radicalization of the past couple of decades the liberals (libertarians) have radicalized too and now I hear it more and more often.
..."I'm disgusted by the thought of it", he could still argue that bestiality is correct......Not a lot of people that don't engage in it would make the argument, I guess because it's so taboo...
That's confusing cause and effect. Personal interest motivates contemplation which means apologists are dominated by those with a personal interest.
This is true of all subjects. If I was not a zoosexual I probably wouldn't even have considered the subject except as a joke unless somebody came at me with real arguments, at which point I am fairly certain I would concede (all else being equal) as many people have conceded to me that they have no good arguments but that it still grosses them out and they don't want to spend another second thinking about it.
The act of apologizing for homosexuality shows an almost identical phenomenon before barrier breakdown.
Most people are sheep in the field of ethics. What they refuse to think about they absorb from culture. If being homosexual is cool now that's not because the nature of man changed in the last sixty years.
The catalyst for that change was the portrayal of the homosexual as a victim instead of a threat. A very few people started that trend and they did not do it from some breakthrough in science or philosophy. It was personal interest.
People intuitively 'oh that is wrong'
but what is intuition? Human sacrifice is a nearly universal sin in our distant past. Even today dominant religions believe that god sacrificed himself on a cross (human sacrifice).
I don't need to have faith in tabula rasa to know that the noble savage is a myth.
I don't think we want to see what human intuition looks like without the influence of rational philosophy, or rather we've seen enough to know that it can't be trusted.
That doesn't mean that their premises aren't good, it just means they're hard at putting their premises into words
Maybe my premises are secretly and mystically better than they appear too?
There is no solution down that line of thinking. If debate serves no other purpose than to force people to understand their own beliefs it is a good thing.
I have given over a thousand people the opportunity to search themselves for those good reasons. If they existed, I would assume that somebody at some point would have found them.
Earlier in this thread somebody said something along the lines of "you're just making him feel justified by answering", and I have seen many people make similar comments.
Yes, that is correct. The more I offer to debate a conclusion and the more people refuse or fail to provide a good argument or debunk my arguments the more confident I get.
This is the human condition. I know humans are capable of self-delusion. Debate is the only cure there is, for now; maybe true AI will one day make it obsolete, but I wouldn't take an AI at its word either so....
The point is constantly winning the debate "for my entire adult life" is as good as it will ever get.
You know it in your heart
Yeap, just follow your heart; what could go wrong?
I am reminded of a nickelback song (No they don't suck, it's a fad to say so)
Someone told me love will all save us.
But how can that be, look what love gave us.
A world full of killing, and blood-spilling
That world never came.
All hate is born from love. The heart follows the mind, and when a mind is left to apathy neither are reliable guides.
Evil cannot be explained away as a bunch of people ignoring their hearts.
I don't see a lot of people making the arguments
Neither do I. I have the distinct impression that intellectual honesty and interest in debate (in general) have been declining over the last 20 years. Could be that the debate has moved to twitter and the like but it looks more like a generational cultural shift to me. Things are not looking up.
He might not actually believe consent matters, being a libertarian
Sorry, that doesn't follow at all.
Liberarians are about liberty and liberty is intrinsically bound to consent. To respect liberty is to respect consent. Without consent the only way to be free is to not interact with others.
Consent means "this interaction is not violating my liberty"
I actually have some issues with the popular impression of the word "property", and so my saying animals are or are not property doesn't mean much.
I am most certainly not someone who believes a mind (artificial or natural) can have a discernible will and that this will can be entirely ignored and dismissed because somebody claims to own the body attached to that mind.
My true position is that consent matters, and I was merely pointing out that if you are one of those who thinks animals are merely objects you still wouldn't have an argument.
Treat animals humanely
Note that this is a different axis of measurement for most people from consent. Most people think you can humanely imprison an animal and inject them with vaccines they can't possibly understand or humanely castrate them.
"humanely" means nothing much in particular and in general "not more painful than it needs to be for our human purposes"
So speaking of premises I don't hold, I could say that it doesn't matter if the animal consents as long as its not "unduely" painful.
Consent is a more restrictive standard than "humane".
I'm sure he'll watch it
I see I played right into your plans
What other arguments does he have?
This is why epistemology understanding where the burden of proof is important before debating.
When you don't have the burden of proof and someone asks you to "make an argument against this" you'll find yourself guessing. Guessing what? What the argument purporting to be proof might be.
This is the situation:
Many people (the majority if not vast majority) say bestiality is disgusting, wrong (ethically), and should be illegal (subject to socially condoned physical attacks).
That's a conclusion, I ask them why, then I debunk the answers given. If Polytheist witch was the only person to come up with an answer (non-consent therefore rape, rape bad even if murder OK), then that is the only counter argument I produce.
Other answers to the 'why' that I have seen over the years:
God doesn't want you to
Just because (follow your heart)
If you let this happen (more openly?), then something bad will happen to society
Cause mother nature wants you to make babies and it's wrong to use your bits for anything else
Cause it's cruel
Defiant and self-righteous "just because" people do trigger me, coal can tell you all about it. Not thinking is less than ideal, but being proud of not thinking...
-->
@WyIted
based on his exact same arguments you could argue in favor of pedophilia
Again, this is why BoP matters.
How could my debunking bad arguments argue in favor of pedophilia?
The only possible connection would be if the arguments I debunk were the only ones condemning pedophilia.
As touched on already, there are a lot of people who don't really know why they believe what they believe. Trampling over their bad reasons for being against pedophilia (or anything else) is not a reason to shun the truth (whatever it may be).
I happen to be against what most people think of when they say pedophilia but that is not a conclusion I am begging the question with.
I don't test an argument with "but if this implies pedophilia is fine there must be something wrong with it" (not that any of my arguments have implied such a thing). At some level of analysis arguments to absurdity can be that simple, but in deep formality nothing is absurd but the infinite and self-contradictory.
It doesn't make sense to give the impression you did which is basically "Yea I'm not sure about bestiality but if it involves changing the way I think of pedophilia then this is morally reprehensible"
Pedophilia is no more inherently immoral than bestiality, murder, human sacrifice, or baking a cake. You need reasons to condemn any of them.
That's why I said "happen to" be against pedophilia, from first principles it is a coincidence. I am not one of those who is trying to strike a deal or a compromise "Do what you want with the pedos but leave me alone", and there are many like that. I have much more freedom (in practice) to make arguments in and around pedophilia on this site than I do on those "animal love" sites you referenced. They would shut it down instantly.
Of course they say it's because it disgusts them and it's super evil and all that jazz, and they probably mean it too, I'm not saying they don't; but the real reasons they're so strict is because of optics and because it makes people feel better about themselves if someone else is worse.
My identity, that which gives me what little pride I have, comes from what I see as virtues such as honesty and integrity. Reason is the only teacher I accept. If reason had led me to condone pedophilia, then I would follow (or try to).
Now you go on to speculate that there might be pedophiles who are being held back only by their belief that it is morally wrong. I think it's a very insightful thing to consider because many just assume they're all going to take any opportunity they have.
I think anybody with taboo inclinations is going to think about them a lot harder than most people will and will come to their own conclusions one way or another. Now suppose they go online and look for a debate site. Do you think they would be less likely to conclude that pedophilia is moral when they see a uniform wall of condemnation without reasons or an honest engagement with the topic?
We are talking very small numbers here, most people tend not to think about ethics much and when they do only to find excuses to do what they wanted to do anyway; pedos included, but as far as excuses go "they won't even engage with the topic because they've got nothing" is a pretty good one.
Suppose there are some who really do care about the truth. Suppose all you have to throw at them is "informed consent" or "gods will"? Perhaps you had this one opportunity to keep this pedo celibate but you blew it with that bullshit.
Maybe it is my reason for condemning pedophilia that stops a pedophile because it is actually sound where the invalid arguments would have failed?
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I appreciate you taking the time to listen to my take and respond. I think I owe you a thorough well thought out response to what you said and since I didn't outline my arguments, it is understandable that you don't understand them. I will try to outline them shortly
Maybe my premises are secretly and mystically better than they appear too?
This did stick out to me and I acknowledge.... That could be the case. I think my point is that intuition can sometimes be a better barometer for truth than reason. We also know there are situations where intuition is worse than reason which is why we have tragedies like the Salem witch trials and other moral panics, such as the satanic daycare panic that happened in the early 90s and late 80s.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Okay I didn't give any of my own arguments against this in the last video, it was mainly to highlight your opinion and to give some thoughts on it. In this video I make some arguments
-->
@WyIted
...Intuition is a lot of things, it's a lot of processes, a lot of math and calculus going on in your subconscious mind...
Not sure how much math is involved in ethics, but what matters is that we know it can be wrong and we know it can be learned (disgust responses specifically). That's all we need to know to reject it as the basis for violence and ostracism.
...They don't have a robot that can catch baseballs....
I know this is a tangent but classical mechanics + third order approximations for fluid dynamics are well within the power of a modern computer and can easily exceed human judgement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93WHRSKg3gE (that was 12 years ago) I am sure if nothing better has been made it is because no one has been paid enough money, not because it is impossible.
I guess you were trying to make a point about the subconscious parts of the brain being impressive, and I don't deny that; but it's unwise to have faith in them over conscious thought.
A hundred millions years of good reflexes and "muscle memory" won't learn Newtons laws, and even if there are some things humans are naturally disgusted by; that doesn't mean they should be disgusted. (or things that feel right, that may not be; like forcing yourself on a harem after murdering rival males)
abandoned this intuition that a greater being exists... men can get pregnant
Rational philosophy may cause people to abandon faith in god, but it's not the only thing. There can be no argument that reason fails because an argument is reasoning. This is what Rand calls an axiom, so there really isn't anything to talk about down this alley.
Men can't get pregnant. Reason tells me so. Those women who are pretending to be men and saying they are pregnant are relying on (more or less) what you are calling intuition here. They feel deep down that they're right in what they're saying and doing. Rationality did not lead them there.
As a certain fast talking man once said "facts don't care about your feelings", facts come from conscious reasoning, not gut feelings.
Why did we evolve to like people that kind of look like us? We evolved that way because our genetics are more compatible and less likely to have dead offspring.
That's an ironic take given that consistently (almost) every identified "cousin species" for homosapiens sapien has since been shown to be reintroduced into the core genepool at some point.
That is they keep finding skeletons of human "subspecies" that they believed to be separate species (and a species is defined by being a separate gene pool), and then learned that actually no the only way to explain the fossil record, and sometimes direct genetic comparison is if they interbred later on.
A lot of people aren't aware of this fact but it had a big impact on my world view. What we call "races" now are barely different compared to how different the "races" of humanity used to be.
Our isolation in the distant past was much more severe than it was when "history began" (8000 years before present).
We used to be a species where some of our races were hobbit sized, had radically different (by today's standards) facial structures, had big variances in muscle density and bone length, and in all probability some were just as naked as we are (or more) and some were more chimp like being covered in true fur.
We are more similar now because we didn't give a shit back then. Back then there might have actually been enough genetic drift to cause a noticeable difference in fertility or function of the offspring, and in that critical context hybrids dictated the future of the species. If there was some pure and superior version of humanity we would have seen what was expected, many dying lineages that never crossed back into the main trunk.
Genetics and biology in general is very complex, and generalizations don't always survive contact with the evidence. It seems like in many cases hybrids are superior and I can give you two very obvious examples:
1.) Sexual reproduction itself. Lifeforms can clone themselves, but if cloning yourself was better than creating a hybrid with another individual then the world wouldn't be dominated by sexually reproducing species. Different is good if it works.
1.) Sexual reproduction itself. Lifeforms can clone themselves, but if cloning yourself was better than creating a hybrid with another individual then the world wouldn't be dominated by sexually reproducing species. Different is good if it works.
2.) Incest. Incest is nothing more than hyper concentration of the same genes. If you think the healthiest offspring come from sexual reproduction with those most similar to yourself then it would follow that incest produces the best offspring. Different is good if it works.
If I were feeling like wild speculation of the type popular these days about genetics and sexuality I would say that maybe there is a gene which produces xenophilia precisely because finding the weirdest looking human subspecies was an advantageous thing to do in evolutionary history. An out of control or unbalanced version of this gene might spill over into other species. (I do not believe such a gene exists, at least if there is a genetic cause to zoosexuality this would be an oversimplification to the point of falsehood)
Women should be in the workforce, that's a rational argument
No, it's a conclusion made by people who style themselves as rational. There is a difference.
What is rational is determined by the logic, and if evidence has shown unhappiness in women increasing and all other factors are less likely then it is not rational for women to be in the workforce.
Another tangent: In my ethics there is a big difference between what people should be allowed to do and what they should be encouraged to do. I can't imagine a sound argument concluding that violence should be employed to keep a woman out of a field of work; but I can easily imagine a strong argument concluding that girls have been fed propaganda and many have made choices that they were told would make them happy and which did not.
It's[intuition] a lot more accurate
How would I know that but for reason?
It's[following one's animal instincts as opposed to intuition] supposed to come with some form of guilt
Then what does it mean if I've never felt guilty about my sexual thoughts?
You might say "well that means your intuition is broken", but hold on there, if we have different intuition systems then how can we still link the transcendent to the intuitive?
Is there such a thing as "my transcendent truth" and "your transcendent truth"? Is there a god for each of us no matter how depraved some other group may find you? (for surely you know there are people who find Catholics depraved).
BTW it's not like I can't feel guilt, shame, disgust, etc... I have some serious regrets; mostly about how my unguarded tongue have hurt people emotionally.
I even have an example of giving into a base instinct in spite of reason, I am overweight and it's because (this will surprise you) I eat too much. That I feel guilty about because I know it's wrong and since I do it when I know it's wrong it's a personal failure.
When I have no problem with the lizard brain I feel no guilt. I have never felt guilty about breathing and I've never felt guilty about my sexuality.
Do you want to be a martyr?
Well I guess that's an argument for me to personally stop (if I was active, something I never explicitly admit to) but it's not really an argument about the core contention of the thread. As you said I don't need to be zoosexual to argue that there is nothing wrong with it and similarly I don't need to be sexually active (with non-humans) to be zoosexual and argue about it either.
I don't want to be a martyr, but I don't think I will be. I'm much more likely to be lynched for supporting Trump too much. My support for him can actually be traced to me, of course in that fight I have a lot of allies but my strategies take that all into account.
This is basically an appeal to game theory, and in terms of pure game theory secrecy is a valid tactic and I think I can win the game with it without giving up much.
for you to get a partner that would respect you
My sexuality combined with my idea of virtue has already made it pretty much impossible. You imply that if my sexuality is known then I couldn't find someone to respect me, but if my sexuality was a secret from them would it really be respect?
I've always hit a brick wall with my human relationships because I've never trusted them enough to tell. I am not interested in a marriage agreed to with less than total honesty. Doing something like that with the plan to come clean after the first kid is truly asking for suffering.
If you want to talk about my higher self, I have yearned for a family, for the life of a father and if I was to blame something in this world (besides myself) it would be the fact that I can't be open. If I could I could have easily filtered the dating field and perhaps found someone who could be the wife or husband I hoped for.
It would change how many people you know think about you
Surely you must know that I am aware of this. My most treasured relationships are with my siblings, and they know.
There is a time to stand up for something that's right
I'm not standing up, I'm hiding and sending walls of text from the shadows. The only thing I've risked is my own beliefs, which I suppose is a courageous act but only for someone who fears they would be compelled to change those beliefs upon losing a debate.
I don't fear that though. In a real debate, everyone wins because everyone gets closer to the truth.
God's not going to defend you for fucking a dog
I wouldn't know, and frankly I don't think you know either. You think you know, but you don't.
People who claim to believe in god murdered a young woman for fucking a dog in the middle ages. Every once in a while some story in history feels vivid and real to me and that was one. I felt such incredible rage at people who have been dead for centuries.
You might call that part of my intuition. I don't believe god exists, but if something as just as god is supposed to be exists he does not enforce justice in this world. If he did, he would not have let that young woman's life be destroyed for nothing.
If you think there is any way that I will ever believe in an afterlife where the creator of the universe agreed with that despicable mob of murderers you can forget it. My heart will not tolerate such a notion, and it is fortunate that reason agrees.
-->
@WyIted
You basically imply that if you're smart enough you can just power your way to victory in any debate through the magic of IQ.
Not much I can say to that. If winning a debate doesn't mean anything, then losing a debate doesn't mean anything. Then why debate? but if reason is impotent then you have no chance of arguing me into accepting your intuition above mine. Thus we find another dead end.
It's true that just because nobody can prove you wrong, that doesn't make you right; but that isn't exactly what I said.
We're talking about taking the con of a positive assertion. It's not like I can craft a deductive argument that proves bestiality MUST be moral, in that case giving as many people the chance to present arguments is (as I said) "as good as it gets".
If I was making a positive assertion, and I had a deductive argument for it; I would care far less about this "polling", although as a matter of principle I would still offer my argument for review (i.e. a debate).
Is the bad worth the good?
No, that was not my point.
We do not choose to feel emotion. Emotion is a reaction to perceived facts and chosen values. It is inevitable.
The point was that starting with emotion is putting the cart before the horse. If there is one emotion that never leads to evil it is compassion. All others, including love need only the admixture of falsehood (bad logic, bad evidence) to produce tragedy.
Yet now we see even compassion blinds people, as it has blinded people with regards to mutilating children's genitals and the crimes of Hamas.
If love could save us, Christianity would have saved us. It didn't, it won't; there is no substitute for the truth and no path to the truth but reason.
I believe that deeply, and my heart follows my belief as it always will.
Unless you need to, in defense of someone you love
Every soldier who has ever gone to war has said they were doing it to defend their homeland and their family which they loved.
Their love is equal. The only difference that could possibly matter would be the ethics of their governments. If the love of a soldier can be turned to evil by falsehood, why would it be any different within an individual?
'All hate is born from love', that's not true
Love is the emotional reaction which motivates protection and creation of value. Anger is the emotional reaction which motivates immediate protection of value. Rage is the immediate revenge-motivator, revenge serves to remove threats to value permanently.
Hate is abstract and crystalized rage. It endures where anger and rage subside with adrenaline.
Hate is what kills the predator before they get close to the children.
You won't find a single example of someone being filled with hate without them admitting to loving something they see as threatened.
There are those who value nothing, nihilists. They don't hate. There is no fire in them at all.
There are those that value having values and hate the whole world because the world threatens their dream of finding significance.
I don't know if he enjoys hearing from me or not
Watching someone read out my sentences is pretty interesting. Never had that before. I'm paying attention to the compound sentences you have to read twice, that probably means they should have been simplified and separated.
Apparently some people don't "read aloud" in their mind like I do.
I would love to hear why you're against it (pedophilia)
I've done a mini debate with Best.Korea in one of his rare non-trolling phases. I can find that if you're interested but the summary is:
Prepubescent children don't consent. Not "can't" "don't", if you see a prepubescent child consenting to sex it's because somebody is threatening them, lying to them, or bribing them. They have erogenous zones but not the psycho-sexual formation in their brains to be lustful or form specific attractions this can be demonstrated etc... etc...
When the child reaches a certain level of social awareness and wisdom (yes wisdom, not knowledge) they will in high percentages view threats, lies, or bribes as dishonest betrayals from someone they trusted, if that someone was an adult they rightly assume the adult knew they were lying etc... this betrayal is the source of trauma of various severity.
Psychological trauma is harm, it is a general responsibility to not harm others or take significant risks of significant harm unless the harm was specifically consented to and children without the wisdom to predict the pain of the betrayal cannot consent to the harm of the betrayal.
Post pubescent is a different matter. Threats, lies, or bribes still cause trauma of course but you can't rule out mutual sexual interest. Then you need to look at circumstances, an 17 year old with a 16 year old relationship doesn't necessarily constitute an impending trauma.
The perception of betrayal is heavily influenced by social norms and those norms dictate what constitutes an immoral risk.
For instance a 30 year old goes after a 16 year old. Now the 16 year old might be genuinely attracted to the 30 year old and have convinced herself she is in love, but if they live in a society where any sex is going to get called statutory rape then the 30 year old has the duty to refrain from sex merely on the high likelihood that the 16 year old might be convinced by social pressure she was raped.
Only slightly more complicated than the standard spiel but correctly predicts all (and not just some) scenarios and outcomes. It also explains history, how people used to get married at 14 and there is a glaring lack of diaries saying "so I was definitely raped until I was 18 what a bummer".
A few things should go without saying: A lot of what people imagine when they think of pedophilia are straightforward cases of kidnapping and rape, or rape by extortion. As legal guardians parents should be informed of all relevant aspects of a child's life and I have no problem with failing to obtain consent from parents being criminal.
So when you rule out those two categories you're basically left with parents crazy enough to say "yes" to a genuinely dangerous interaction. Now you make it illegal to pimp out your children, because that is really the only reason a 'sane' parent would say yes and what is left?
I guess the absolute crazies who would let a 45 year old clown drive off with their children for the sake of diversity or something, but those people are (as you say) cutting off dicks and maybe someone should be stepping in to stop them anyway.
Maybe that same argument could be used to destroy your argument
No it couldn't because non-humans can't be shamed by society and they don't get much wiser than they are at sexual maturity.
I think it's good enough that most people find it disgusting
History contradicts that premise, for what people find disgusting is not constant.
You're really not hurting anybody by outlawing it
Liberty means you don't get to decide what hurts for others.
I guess your opinion is probably that we shouldn't legislate victimless crimes
Yes
Whatever happened with LGBT can happen with bestiality
and the catholic church might launch a crusade against a gaybar, but people's rights are not subject to the imagined slippery slopes of critics.
You have a right to a religion so long as it doesn't violate the rights of others and you have a right to homosexual or zoosexual behavior as long as it doesn't violate the rights of others.
The LGBT movement is an evolving cult, not a class of behavior. No matter what it does or does not do attacking people for homosexual sex will always be wrong just like attacking people for praying to god will always be wrong no matter how recently a jihad or crusade happened.
You would legit start seeing people marry their dogs
Probably they would claim to be marrying their dogs but that wouldn't be a true consequence of any argument I've made. The only reason "gay marriage" was ever an issue was because people were trying to force social acceptance (something they do not have a right to) through subverting existing institutions.
The slip could have stopped right there if not for the political structures involved. It was not an inevitable consequence of failing to abduct and castrate homosexuals.
you would see confused kids being taken advantage of
Again, subverting existing institutions (like schools); done by a specific cult like movement. This isn't an argument against bestiality it's an argument against this cult that may not last another ten years (or may take over the world and rule it in a digital fascist state for a hundred thousand years)
The narrative that is needed to defeat this thing is recognition of the difference between their political agenda and the actual state of sexual liberation. That's already happening to some degree with homosexuality and it has weakened the cult significantly.
Unwarranted criminalization was the genuine and justified origin story and the farther they get from it the weaker they become. If you were to advocate for re-criminalizing homosexuality that would make them three time as strong as they are now.
Of course they invent victims where there are none, but if you wanted to deny them good fuel you would minimize the number of real victims they could use.
They aren't interested in zoosexuals right now, bizarrely they seem more interested in pedos, but it could actually give them a new lease on life if they did adopt zoosexuality as a cause, and that boost could be negated by jointly advanced decriminalization. Not that I think that is at all in the realm of possibility, nor can the two of us do anything about it either way.
If that does start to happen, right-tribers standing firm against bestiality would only ensure that it becomes a major political issue that might cause it to become propaganda material. I mean these people caused a fight over bathrooms because they found slight opposition in the right.
They'll call it a sexual orientation
It is a sexual orientation. It's a pretty loose term.
I'm sure there are diseases and other things that could spread from that
Not really. Or to be precise not just from that.
I know cats can get covid
Yea, there are lots of zoonoses but there is very little that can be spread by sex but not a light bite or facial licking.
For example (your example) covid just requires you to be breathing in the same building as the cat.
There have been some examples of diseases spreading because of bestiality
The only claimed example I have ever heard of was HIV, and it was more like a fringe possibility with the much more likely explanation being eating undercooked meat.
All medical arguments come to moot very quickly when you understand the origin of diseases. They aren't caused by interaction they are created by mutation. The only animals with isolated diseases are isolated populations of animals. It's not like we're talking about going on an expedition to have sex with a rare bat, these are dogs and horses. Anything they have, we'll get (if it's possible). Anything we have, they'll get (if it's possible). It's inevitable with or without sex.
Plus if you actually did find a true STD zoonoses, quarantine is exceedingly easy. If HIV spread among homosexuals it's because the bastards wouldn't stop having sex, and I don't feel at all bad about naming and shaming individuals who didn't care if they were spreading lethal viruses around.
If you are imagining a contagion spreading into the human population, I have to say that too is inevitable (and still hasn't happened as far as anyone can tell). What I mean by that is taboo or not, legal or not, it's going to happen and those people are going to then have sex with humans.
If disease control was the goal it would be much better if those who are active with animals can be honest with their doctors so risks (if any) could be discussed, and honest with potential human partners.
-->
@WyIted
That's probably the reason it was outlawed in other cultures and why we find it disgusting today
I could say a lot to debunk that. Let me go with the highlights.
In the middle aged European towns where bestiality would get you the death sentence, they threw human (and animal) bodily waste in to streets and alleys. That's not a cultural aversion to disease causing behavior.
In deep time, when evolution was operating, people were regularly eating raw meat and getting into bloody fights with animals. Genies can't be put back into the bottle.
The disgust is not specific, that is why homosexuality, masturbation, and kissing have all been looked at with the same disgust at various times and places. As far as I can tell any sexual practice will be disgusting if not normalized by cultural acclimatization.
It's all fun and games till you walk out your door and have three crackheads on your sidewalk you have to move by every day while they're begging you for change
"please, I have to feed my dog man"
Thing is sex (even with non-humans) isn't a debilitating addictive drug that prevents you from doing productive work or causes you to make financially reckless things. That goes without saying, now if this was just a general example of how liberty is supposed to lead to bad ends fine I guess, but even if we accepted it as possible that the ideal society has 'victimless crimes' that doesn't mean bestiality ought to be one of them.
Drugs destroy people's lives. Bestiality doesn't. Actually it does when it's exposed in a population where it is illegal and highly taboo. Always there are fringe cases but we're talking <1% for bestiality where it's more like 1/3 to 2/3 of people who try crack cocaine get addicted and spiral down to destruction with no easy exit ramp.
You mean you would advocate?
Condone means I would say there is nothing wrong with it.
I don't think you can argue against the transcendental truth very well
No I can't, and I don't have to, because it's not an argument to say "my conclusion is a transcendental truth". It would be a named fallacy and maybe it is in one of the bigger lists.
It means nothing to someone who doesn't feel it, faith means nothing to someone without faith.
Reason can build a bridge between differing minds. Faith cannot.
I don't mind watching the videos. Maybe it will actually get some people to come to the site. You probably shouldn't upload 50 hours of debating bestiality though :p