Unknowingly, Twins Get Married

Turtle on 16/1/2008 at 13:13

ITT:Scots puts forward a sad, weak argument

Scots Taffer on 16/1/2008 at 13:16

Turtle the thought of you having sex repulses me more than any practitioners of bestiality.

Morte on 16/1/2008 at 13:27

So are all the ones arguing in favour of premitting bestiality also in favour of rescinding animal cruelty laws in general? We do have laws against torture and inhumane killings in most countries now, you know.

To me it's pretty clear that it constitutes abuse, because even more than children animals have no way of comprehending or consenting to the act. If you believe otherwise; well your dog might be a slut, I don't know, but it definitely was not asking for it because it's physically incapable of doing so, and I advise seeking medical treatment.

Turtle on 16/1/2008 at 16:30

ITT:Turtle's wife hijacks Scots' account

The_Raven on 16/1/2008 at 16:30

Quote Posted by mopgoblin

I'm not sure about links between gender and sex being entirely socially constructed, but in practice the categories and roles might as well be...Regardless of what cultural variations we can observe, I'd also say it's preferable to treat gender and gender roles as (undesirable) social constructs, as people will have gender identities that fall outside whatever genders are recognised as valid for their sex, or goals that aren't compatible with their available gender roles.

Mmm, pretty much my view on things as well; however, further research into the topic has more of less forced me to acknowlege that there are some predispositions involved. The flip-side of that is that predispositions DO NOT EQUAL predeterminations, and that the actual measurable differences aren't as extreme as people think. One thing that people mention all the time is the fact that females are better at concurrent tasks, and that males are better at spacial reasoning. A predisposition has been proven to exist in this case, via experiments. The problem is that this study was conducted on infants, the measurable difference was very small, and the difference pratically disappeared as the subjects got older. The reasoning for the disappearance is that the subject had gained more experience and knowledge, so they were better able to work around their individual strengths and weaknesses in order to compensate.

SD on 16/1/2008 at 16:58

Quote Posted by Scots Taffer

The "you lunatic" wasn't intended as a genuine insult.

I was referring more to you claiming my initial post was "absurdist self-parody", and that even I couldn't be this "shockingly retarded".

Quote:

If you want to be insulted then you can take it from the fact that I genuinely find your manner, viewpoint and debating style to be insulting in general.

I don't know what about my manner or debating style you've found insulting in this thread, or any thread in the last year or so for that matter. So far as you being insulted by my viewpoint, that's just too bad. Thank goodness you've never put forward any viewpoints that could be considered (http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?p=47454&highlight=homosexuality#post47454) insulting.

Quote:

If you'll notice, I don't respond as aggressively toward anyone else in this thread as you because your very manner is confrontational and your initial salvo in this thread was just mindbogglingly put across - even if you were trying to say what mopgoblin eventually produced.

Again, I haven't noticed anything confrontational, and I fail to see anything mindboggling in my initial post, which simply illustrated that I found prohibition of sexual relations between consenting adults bizarre, and my puzzlement that sex with an animal is somehow considered worse than slaughtering it, a double standard which (unless you're one of these weirdos who considers rape a worse crime than murder) should be obvious to just about anyone.

Quote:

For a man who purports to be a vegetarian to be espousing bestiality... well, I guess I just don't have a fucking clue how you can really equate any of this in your mind. Hence my genuine confusion and perhaps, yes, horror at the ideas you favour.

What did I say about strawmen? I'm not "espousing bestiality" nor am I "favouring the idea" - I simply think what other people get up to is none of my business, so long as they do not harm another person.

Not sure why my vegetarianism should come into it either; I'm not trying to force my diet on anyone, so why should anyone else be expected to share my sexual morality?

Quote:

And I asked a genuine question, if we are advocating sex with creatures that can't offer consent on a recognisable human level than what the fuck else is having sex with children except another social taboo unfairly put upon a sexual practice that will sooner or later be recognised by our enlightened peers to not be any deal at all. You can call it a strawman, I call it logical progression.

Let's "logically progress" that idea to our diet too, then. Is eating meat inevitably going to lead to an acceptance of cannibalism? Of course not, the idea is absurd. Some taboos - such as eating other people, or raping children - are entirely reasonable. Others are not. It's the latter I'm interested in getting rid of.

Quote:

Edit: And really, to all the devil's advocates out there who are discussing this like a neutral dead topic perhaps inject your viewpoints with a little more passion, if you honestly are debating these concepts (bestiality and incest) in a positive enforceful light even abstractly, can you genuinely say that you'd be comfortable if these things were a reality?

My comfort or otherwise has nothing to do with it. I am extremely uncomfortable with people believing most fuckwitted religious mumbo-jumbo, but you have to respect their right to believe in it. Unless I can demonstrate that someone undertaking a certain activity causes harm to another human being, I don't think I have any moral right to prevent someone pursuing that activity.

SubJeff on 16/1/2008 at 17:48

I agree with you on your refutation of Scots' "logical progression" argument. I understand why you are saying it Scots but I think your fear is unfounded. Those that are going to do it don't need a law to do it. If incest laws were repealed there would probably be a tightening of laws regarding sex with minors.

So I was trying to imagine an SD world where the taboo of incest between consenting adults has been forgotten and for some reason I imagine a lot of incest going on because of the possibility of pre-existing strong emotional bonds. I think it would get all rather wrong. "Hey Bob, I hear it's your sisters 16th birthday on Friday" "Yep, I'm going to bone her like only her brother could." :eww:
You know I speak truth.

SD on 16/1/2008 at 18:11

The thing is though, how many people here could honestly say that they wanted to bone pets or members of their family if it was made legal? I suspect it wouldn't be many. I'd bet money that nigh-on everyone would balk at the idea whether it was legal or illegal.

SubJeff on 16/1/2008 at 19:15

At the moment, yes. But if it were made legal and the taboo abolished people would see their sister/brother as sexual beings in a way they do not now.

Come on SD - if your friend brings his sister out with him how likely are you to mention that she is hot? If it were legal and acceptable for him to sleep with her you'd get people doing it a lot more often and making all sorts of lewd suggestions about showering together at home and sharing bedrooms and all sorts of crap. And I reckon that lots of people would lose their virginity to siblings, especially in societies where being a virgin at 20+ brands you a goof.

DinkyDogg on 16/1/2008 at 23:31

Is that what happens in France? Somehow I doubt it, though it'd be worth looking at. I've never heard of France having a bigger problem with sexual abuse than any other country.

As to bestiality constituting animal cruelty, my problem with this is the double standard, which I've explained before. If the meat or egg industry abuses hundreds of thousands (or millions? tens of millions?) of animals, it's legal, but if a man or woman decides to get it on with his or her sheep, suddenly everyone is all over it. Because the issue here is not the animal abuse, it's the taboo against sexual deviance. And it's not the government's business to legislate something out of existence simply because the thought of it makes them uncomfortable.

Look at SD's example about religion. Say we had a majority of Christians in the US (I think it's currently only a plurality). Should they be allowed to ban other religions simply because it offends them?