This entire article is hilarious

[Chaerophon]

I'm sorry, but I don't buy this argument.  While I personally agree that this sort of thing is disgusting and "wrong" (and shouldn't need to be explained), saying that it should be illegal on the grounds of animal cruelty is just ridiculous, considering the way we treat animals we plan on eating.  If having sex with a horse is wrong because the horse can't consent to the act, why is it ok to keep cows perpetually pregnant so that we can harvest their milk indefinately?  Why is it ok to slaughter thousands of animals for food?  They certainly don't give their consent to that treatment.  Several people have already made this point in this thread, and no one's responded to it.  Either we grant animals rights or we don't - you can't call sex with a horse rape but not call slaughtering cows for food murder.

gekko
[right][snapback]84709[/snapback][/right]

Meh... I'm not that invested in it. Bottom line is that there is no comparison here between animal cruelty and homosexuality. What two rights-bearing adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom is up to them. I think that, from a liberal 'human rights' perspective, homosexual behaviour can quite clearly be defended - the defense of animal cruelty in the ways that you mention may rely more on convention than reason in coming to a determination.

You're right, the way that we treat animals is not humane. However, I wouldn't hesitate to point out that the fact that we treat them inhumanely does not excuse said treatment. I eat meat, and I'm not likely to stop. I haven't chosen the 'animal rights' battle as one into which to sink my chips. I suppose that that makes me a hypocrite, and fair enough to those that count me as such.

I haven't taken the time to explore the issue as well as I ought to do; however, I definitely see a marked difference between the two proposed types of 'sodomy'. In the case of animal abuse, 'convention' does not automatically equal 'rightness'. Whether animal rights abuses like those that you mention can be defended I'll leave to someone else (if they feel so inclined).

In sum - I'm not sure about the ethical status of animal cruelty; however, I'm confident that there is a difference when we're talking about a consensual act between two adults in a Western, liberal society.

[Guest]

"Cruelity" is a red herring aand you know it. I explained and so did others.

Haveing sex with an animal could be cruel but it doesnt have to be, that is unless you are going to take the jump and say animal domestication is wrong on the grounds its slavery.
Until you are ready to imbue animals with all the rights of humans the consent issue is a joke.

[Chaerophon]

"Cruelity" is a red herring aand you know it. I explained and so did others.

Haveing sex with an animal could be cruel but it doesnt have to be, that is unless you are going to take the jump and say animal domestication is wrong on the grounds its slavery.
Until you are ready to imbue animals with all the rights of humans the consent issue is a joke.
[right][snapback]84715[/snapback][/right]

I'll take a stab at it... no promise.

I don't believe that it is necessary for our moral/ethical perspectives on given issues to be 100% logically consistent. Normative consensus on the basis of sound reasons acceptable to all is all that ought to be required.

I find the notion of having sex with an animal (particularly if we think of less humane instances - for instance, with a dog, using rodents, etc) repugnant for a pair of reasons:

1. causing undue pain to other living creatures for reasons unrelated to their larger interests is cruel in a very real, physical way, and constitutes behaviour that most in society deem unacceptable for normative reasons that may, indeed, appear logically inconsistent. We don't let people beat their dogs for the same reason; despite the absence of absolute 'human' rights for such animals. Please note that this DOES count against inhumane methods of killing domesticated livestock, etc., but does not necessarily rule out that they may be used as food...

2. Such acts bring into question the willingness of such individuals to cause pain and suffering to humans, as they clearly lack a conditioned/innate(?) response that is common to the vast majority of the rest of society, and brings into question their ability to relate to the order that has been established through some limited form of achieved normative consensus (even if that consensus is limited to only the KINDS of behaviour that are unacceptable and not the exact reasons).

Perhaps you folks are putting a bit too much stock in the pure logic of the situation - morality is not an absolute, and right and wrong are human constructs, not logical 'discoveries'.

[Guest]

So the bigotry you accuse me of is just your abstract creation - you dont believe its build with logical foundation on any base which humans generally agree on.


Also just drop the cruelity line really. Ever see horse sex or for that matter dogs going at it? In a simple measure of pain a human wont do any worse.

The offense is to human dignity not the animals physic.

[Chaerophon]

So the bigotry you accuse me of is just your abstract creation - you dont believe its build with logical foundation on any base which humans generally agree on.

Actually, you misunderstand me completely. Morality is not an absolute - it is not a derivation of correspondent truths. Morality is a human construct - as you point out - and while it must have a logical basis, or in other words be created out of the interaction of 'sound reasons', that any particular moral code meets any test of logic does not necessarily ensure that it is 'correct'. There is no test of 'logic' from which one can derive 'the perfect moral code'. Moreover, not all moralities stem from abstract logical foundations, although any morality must be logically coherent and articulatable in the language of public discourse for it to be legitimate in a society such as ours.

Logic is the tool that we use to dispute different conceptions of moral truth; it is not its abstract source.

You appear to contend that there is one unified order recognizable to us through the use of reason alone. I contend that meaning and order are human constructs that legitimate themselves in the public realm through logical coherence and the contestation of logical/reasoned discussion. In other words: you believe in abstract truth, and I do not. I believe that truth can be constructed, but never abstractly 'identified'.

But all of that is a ways away from the horse bit...

To be more specific: there probably is a way to make a logical argument that domestication is slavery, and you know it.

[Guest]

You misunderstood. I wasnt relating the slavery issue to the nature of logical constructs with in our beliefs. I suspect we have the same perspective on that 1 element and was attempting to dimiss it.


And back to your main point.

You are proposing that its legitimate to have beliefs that potentially conflict with each other. You are doing this on the basis all moral/principals being subjective.

I reject this veiw.

I believe that while base moral/principals are subjective all constructs we hold should be consistant. If you find a paradox you have a mistake somewhere.
This view is the basis of most modern thought.

[Chaerophon]

You misunderstood. I wasnt relating the slavery issue to the nature of logical constructs with in our beliefs. I suspect we have the same perspective on that 1 element and was attempting to dimiss it.
And back to your main point.

You are proposing that its legitimate to have beliefs that potentially conflict with each other. You are doing this on the basis all moral/principals being subjective.

I reject this veiw.

I believe that while base moral/principals are subjective all constructs we hold should be consistant. If you find a paradox you have a mistake somewhere.
This view is the basis of most modern thought.
[right][snapback]84721[/snapback][/right]

I don't disagree with you on this point. I don't believe that all morals/principles are subjective - at a societal level. I believe that consensus or mutual belief can, indeed, be a source of truth - provided that certain conditions are met in the process of arriving at such a consensus/societal perspective.

It is not legitimate, as an individual, to have beliefs that conflict with one another. An inability to recognize that fact is ignorance, plain and simple. That is beside the point.

The very fact that you and I could disagree, for perfectly logical reasons, over the nature of domestication and the fact that one of us could not necessarily convince the other through a force of some abstract 'true' logic that overwhelms that of the other, speaks to the fact that logic is a tool of discourse and not the absolute arbiter of truth. Coherence is, indeed, a legitimating factor in arguing moral points; and some consensus may be achieved on that basis. To take the case of abortion - what is it that legitimates one perspective over the other? Not the logic of either position - each possesses a perfectly logical argument that operates from fundamentally different premises, the truth or falsity of which is indeterminable in terms of abstract logic.

[Doc]

You know... I gotta say something here.

Only at the Lounge could we talk about something so vile and taboo with such class and learning. I don't know how to feel about this, but I had to point it out. We really are an STRANGE bunch.

Carry on.

[Chaerophon]

edited

[Chaerophon]

Carry on.
[right][snapback]84724[/snapback][/right]

I think that I've probably mashed my foot squarely into my mouth with Ghost on this one several times, but I'll do my best. Maybe I'll work it out in the morning. :D

[gekko]

The point, I believe, has been missed.

Whether or not we feel that sex with animals is moral or ethical or right or wrong is not the issue. The question is why should it be illegal.

Ghostiger's point - and I agree here - is that this is an issue that should not be legislated against; we should not be so arbitrarily choosing when and where to apply "animal's rights."

I make no argument as to whether having sex with your dog is right or wrong, good or bad. I do however contend that we should not be creating or upholding laws because an act is inexplicably "wrong." If we can't explain why something is wrong, why on earth would we outlaw it?

gekko

[wakim]

“I don't believe that it is necessary for our moral/ethical perspectives on given issues to be 100% logically consistent. Normative consensus on the basis of sound reasons acceptable to all is all that ought to be required.”

“I believe that truth can be constructed, but never abstractly ‘identified.’”

“I contend that meaning and order are human constructs that legitimate themselves in the public realm through logical coherence and the contestation of logical/reasoned discussion.”

“I believe that consensus or mutual belief can, indeed, be a source of truth - provided that certain conditions are met in the process of arriving at such a consensus/societal perspective.”

[italics mine]

Would one have misconstrued the meaning of your rhetoric, Chaerophon, if he understood you to be essentially arguing from the premise that what is true becomes true only when agreed upon by a majority of people?

[wakim]

The question is why should it be illegal[?]
[italics original]

This is a digression that asks What is the proper function of legislation?

I do however contend that we should not be creating or upholding laws because an act is inexplicably "wrong."  If we can't explain why something is wrong, why on earth would we outlaw it?

Would you agree that one should be creating and upholding laws that pertain to an act that is explicably wrong? If it can be explained why something is wrong, would you then agree to the application of an appropriate legislative remedy? If so, then the burden remains to demonstrate why something is right or wrong before asking what legislative action, if any, is appropriate.

“...right and wrong are human constructs...”

And, prior to knowing what acts are right and what acts are wrong, mustn't one first know right and wrong simpliciter?



[edited for cogency, clarity, and concision]

[Chaerophon]

Would one have misconstrued the meaning of your rhetoric, Chaerophon, if he understood you to be essentially arguing from the premise that what is true becomes true only when agreed upon by a majority of people?

To put it simply: no, but your version is not quite catching the nuance. I'll have to fill this space later, when I have more time, and less wedding-related stuff to deal with (now 5 days from being a married man). Apologies. At this point, I don't have two hours to accurately recapture Rawls and Habermas (whom I am presently butchering) for the Lounge. Since I can't do my argument justice, I'll decline to elaborate on my opinion for now. If the thread dies, I will try revive it someday soon, or send you a PM.

[jahcs]

I believe DeeBye has the right of it on this issue. "Are we seriously defending the right to have sex with an animal? Some things are wrong, and don't need to be explained. This is one of those things."

Sex with an animal is wrong.
Sex with your sibling is wrong.
Sex with your Parent is wrong.
Sex with your child is wrong.
Sex with the dead is wrong.

Having consent from the other party does not make it right. Even if both parties consent (where possible) the act is still wrong. Bringing homosexual conduct, animal breeding practices, or moral issues about domestication into the argument is just so much red herring when regarding the issue of bestiality.

[Ninjadruid]

Sex with an animal is wrong.
Sex with your sibling is wrong.
Sex with your Parent is wrong.
Sex with your child is wrong.
Sex with the dead is wrong.

Why are these things wrong?

Maybe I missed something growning up, but sex was never lumped into a category with "wrong" like violence against others, child abuse, forcing someone to do something against thier will, stealing, lying and cheating.

Unless there is a victim - I don't see a problem with any act. Acts of bestailty, incest, necrophelia... they don't impact anyone who doesn't want to be involved.

I am sure there are much bigger things to concern myself with than if Sally likes to have sex with her pony and brother. I don't really want to know if Sally has sex with her pony and her brother, but I don't think there should be laws enforcing it one way or another.

[Guest]

Umm so you dont have any idea why you believe it Ya Im really going to value your opinions in the future.


You mentioned 4 other cases as being "just wrong". Im curious how are sure those are validly wrong but sex between 2 men isnt?

Anyway lets take a look at your examples.

Sex with your sibling is wrong. - There are practical reasons why this is prohibited.

Sex with your Parent is wrong. - The same practical reasons apply here too.

Sex with your child is wrong. - The same reasons apply here also plus child abuse.

Sex with the dead is wrong. - Umm why is this wrong(Im not saying I dont believe its wrong, just that its no more logical homosexual sex)? In most cases of necrophilia it would be wrong because it would go against the dead dudes wishes but there could be obviose exceptions.

[Ashock]

Why are these things wrong?

Maybe I missed something growning up, but sex was never lumped into a category with "wrong" like violence against others, child abuse, forcing someone to do something against thier will, stealing, lying and cheating. 

Unless there is a victim - I don't see a problem with any act.  Acts of bestailty, incest, necrophelia... they don't impact anyone who doesn't want to be involved.

I am sure there are much bigger things to concern myself with than if Sally likes to have sex with her pony and brother.  I don't really want to know if Sally has sex with her pony and her brother, but I don't think there should be laws enforcing it one way or another.
[right][snapback]85441[/snapback][/right]

I sincerely hope that you never have kids. OTOH, if you already do, I'll light a candle for them.

Meanwhile, I hope that the next pitbull you see on the street takes a liking to your testicles.



Have a nice day.



-A

[Doc]

I sincerely hope that you never have kids. OTOH, if you already do, I'll light a candle for them.

Meanwhile, I hope that the next pitbull you see on the street takes a liking to your testicles.
Have a nice day.
-A
[right][snapback]85444[/snapback][/right]

For some reason, that struck me as being utterly hilarious. Thanks a lot. Now I have a stitch in my side from laughing to hard, and I see stars and white and blue spots in my vision.

You jerk... Shouldn't make folk laugh like that. I aint as young as I used to be. I get chest pains when I laugh.

[whyBish]

Why is it ok to keep cows perpetually pregnant so that we can harvest their milk indefinately?
gekko
[right][snapback]84709[/snapback][/right]

Say what?