This entire article is hilarious

[whyBish]

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.
[right][snapback]85414[/snapback][/right]

Well, I don't think I agree with any of those ...
I was going to say I agree with the parent/shild ones due to the power imbalance, but then realised I was considering children under the age of consent... once that imbalance is out of the way ... I'm not so sure... disturbing ain't it? :P

Hmmm... I wonder if there's any money in opening a brothel staffed with cloned dead cows... :blink:

[whyBish]

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.


...........


I think a bit too much focus is put on internal consistency. The only thing consistency provides is that of no conflicting answers to a question of the system... (i.e. look at the other forms of logic other than boolean, such as Bayesian and Fuzzy etc.)

Also, people can think that their beliefs are internally consistent until they are challenged on them, and usually don't go about trying to pick holes in their own beliefs... People have a psychological selective predisposition towards confirmatory evidence.

Also, people usually don't have boolean beliefs, they have a fuzzier view, kind of like a series of beliefs that are ranked or have a probability of being absolutely true. Consider the term "Tightly held beliefs"... some people can be convinced to change their minds in many areas, but 'core' beliefs are tougher to change...

Sorry for the lack of eoquence.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I think a bit too much focus is put on internal consistency.  The only thing consistency provides is that of no conflicting answers to a question of the system...  (i.e. look at the other forms of logic other than boolean, such as Bayesian and Fuzzy etc.)
[right][snapback]85472[/snapback][/right]

I think you are looking at this too simply. Boolean logic is simply the limit of probability in which all propositions are either 'true' ( P(s) = 1 ) or 'false' ( P(s) = 0 ). Except in formal systems, no on uses Boolean logic.

Bayesian 'logic' is not so much logic as it is a means to refine the estimate of the probability of a statement when new information is considered. The topic is huge, especially since it is based on such a simple concept. A brief description is found here.

So called 'fuzzy' logic is simply a set of techniques allowing probability theory to be used for predictions and control. It adds nothing to the underlying principles of probability calculations.

Now, *every* system starts out with assumptions. If working with one subset of those assumptions, we conclude that the probability of a given statement is one value, and working from a different subset of those same assumptions we conclude that the probability of that same statement is some different value, then we know that the assumptions are contradictory.

Although this is seldom done formally, except in the simplest cases, it is done by all who actually examine the world around them. For instance, "I believe that crime is the result of chemical imbalance" and "I believe criminals should be punished" would probably conflict in a Boolean analysis, but, with the right levels of probability (of being true) assigned to each, then they might be able to co-exist.

--Pete

[whyBish]

Now, *every* system starts out with assumptions.  If working with one subset of those assumptions, we conclude that the probability of a given statement is one value, and working from a different subset of those same assumptions we conclude that the probability of that same statement is some different value, then we know that the assumptions are contradictory.
--Pete
[right][snapback]85509[/snapback][/right]

Agreed.

But what if your
- assumptions have a probability distribution of their probability of correctness
- rules have a probability distribution of their probability of correctness
hence results are not a value but a probability distribution. (This is what I was calling the fuzzy logic one, but obviously it is something totally different...)

Then two 'different' results will only have some level of confidence that they are inconsistent...

Anyway, I've missed my point, which was that people usually:
- don't have consistent assumptions (this pretty much has to be true if you look into any set of assumptions enough, particularly around morality)
- don't usually evaluate them
- don't usually go looking for evidence that they are wrong
- have some beliefs that they hold more strongly than others
- can/do change their minds (learn?) particularly about things that they don't hold strongly, or they are aware of contradictions that this would resolve for their system.

[--Pete]

Hi,

But what if your
- assumptions have a probability distribution of their probability of correctness
- rules have a probability distribution of their probability of correctness
hence results are not a value but a probability distribution.  (This is what I was calling the fuzzy logic one, but obviously it is something totally different...)

Then two 'different' results will only have some level of confidence that they are inconsistent...
[right][snapback]85562[/snapback][/right]

Yep. Then, as in any statistical analysis, you have to determine what level of confidence corresponds to "contradiction". Is a 5% overlap of the distributions 'weak agreement' or 'strong disagreement'? :)

Anyway, I've missed my point, which was that people usually:
- don't have consistent assumptions (this pretty much has to be true if you look into any set of assumptions enough, particularly around morality)
- don't usually evaluate them
- don't usually go looking for evidence that they are wrong
- have some beliefs that they hold more strongly than others
- can/do change their minds (learn?) particularly about things that they don't hold strongly, or they are aware of contradictions that this would resolve for their system.
[right][snapback]85562[/snapback][/right]

Your second and third point demonstrate why there is so much nonsense and superstition. But your last point shows that, eventually, possibly, humanity has some small slim hope for the future. ;)

--Pete

[Guest]

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
[right][snapback]84727[/snapback][/right]

its wrong because it wasnt meant to be
and no, an animal cant give consent
so since it wasnt meant to be, and one of the 2 parties CANNOT agree then it is wrong, if we allow animals to be harrased sexually, whats the differnce with children being harrased sexually, its all the result of peoples demented minds now if drugs are illegal then so should animal sex be, if animal sex is legal, drugs should be made legal !

[Archon_Wing]

its wrong because it wasnt meant to be
and no, an animal cant give consent
so since it wasnt meant to be, and one of the 2 parties CANNOT agree then it is wrong, if we allow animals to be harrased sexually, whats the differnce with children being harrased sexually, its all the result of peoples demented minds now if drugs are illegal then so should animal sex be, if animal sex is legal, drugs should be made legal !
[right][snapback]86019[/snapback][/right]

The problem with this is that a lot of things can be considered to have "not meant to be."
Some would argue fast food and gay sex fall into this category. It's simply too vague of a term to determine what is permitted and what isn't.

[Ashock]

The problem with this is that a lot of things can be considered to have "not meant to be."
Some would argue fast food and gay sex fall into this category. It's simply too vague of a term to determine what is permitted and what isn't.
[right][snapback]86057[/snapback][/right]

Typical liberal drivel. No, that's even beyond that. You sir (and I use the term "sir" loosely here), definately take the cake. You're not one of these convicted child molesters whose name we pulled up when getting a list of sexual predators in our neighborhood from the Internet, are you? 'Cause if you are, you might as well fess up now, so I can come over and break your face as soon as I come home from work today. For reference, I live in the San Fernando Valley, California.

Oh and, would breaking your face also be "simply too vague of a term" for your taste?


I'd usually say "Have a nice day" here, but frankly I would not even say that in jest to you.


-A

[Archon_Wing]

Typical liberal drivel. No, that's even beyond that. You sir (and I use the term "sir" loosely here), definately take the cake. You're not one of these convicted child molesters whose name we pulled up when getting a list of sexual predators in our neighborhood from the Internet, are you? 'Cause if you are, you might as well fess up now, so I can come over and break your face as soon as I come home from work today. For reference, I live in the San Fernando Valley, California.

Oh and, would breaking your face also be "simply too vague of a term" for your taste?
I'd usually say "Have a nice day" here, but frankly I would not even say that in jest to you.
-A
[right][snapback]86058[/snapback][/right]

Blah blah blah. When did I ever say that child molesting and beastality were ok to do? I don't know, are you implying that?

My point is that there are reasons why things are illegal. Things like beastiality and child molesting are not accepted by our society, and as such should be illegal. Saying "it was not meant to be" doesn't really do anything.

[Guest]

"whats the differnce with children being harrased sexually,"

One obvious point you missed.

Children matter more. By your reasoning we shouldnt eat meat since we dont eat children.


If you are against eating meat then your position is valid - however most of us reject it out of hand.

[Guest]

Am I liberal or conservative?

[Guest]

I know a large number of people who dont accept homosexuality.

In fact most of America didnt until the 90s and that was thanks to a large efort led mostly by the media.
So I suppose you would be ok with beastiality if we talked it about it a lot for 30 years and eventually the majority became comfortable with it going on out of sight?

[Archon_Wing]

I know a large number of people who dont accept homosexuality.

In fact most of America didnt until the 90s and that was thanks to a large efort led mostly by the media.
So I suppose you would be ok with beastiality if we talked it about it a lot for 30 years  and eventually the majority became comfortable with it going on out of sight?
[right][snapback]86071[/snapback][/right]

That's a good point, Ghostiger.

Indeed, many people don't accept homosexuality, which is why homosexuality was illegal and there are still many legal issues surrounding it.

Regarding the beastilaity issue, yes, I personally would never accept it, but if we were actualy headed in such a direction, I think there would be other issues at stake here.

But you are probaly right about one flaw in my post... leaving it up to mob rule probaly isn't the best idea. I still say that we still have thousands of years of moral and philiosophical thinking to base decisons on. I daresay society has had a good reason to frown on such behaviors such as rape and beastiality.

Perhaps it's wrong for me to not view "right" and "wrong" as some kind of supernatural thing that it's out there and is self-evident. I thought of it more of society's way of saying "Don't push that or you'll kill us all" kind of thing. It's why I dislike people who always argue morality is subjective or absolute. They usually end up with reasoning (it's just wrong, it could be wrong but...) which leaves the rules (the law) vague and covering situations they never intended to cover. I know that each situation is diffrent, but without a clear law backed with strong reasoning, well... we're just left arguing all the time which is ok for discussions such as this but not in a court of law.


This is probaly not a sastifactory response for you, let me think about it and try to give me more input while I try to get my brain running.

[Guest]

Rape?

There are both pragmatic and basic humanistic issues with rape.

The ancient original and pragmatic issue with rape was basically about child care. No man wanted his woman raped because he only wanted to raise his kids and society didnt want single women raped because there was no father to support the potential kids.
Essentially those issues still matter.


If we jump up to a humanistic perspective its an insult on a human to be condemed much like murder or slavery(2 points which humans dont apply to animals.).

[Archon_Wing]

Rape?

There are both pragmatic and basic humanistic issues with rape.

The ancient original and pragmatic issue with rape was basically about child care. No man wanted his woman raped because he only wanted to raise his kids and society didnt want single women raped because there was no father to support the potential kids.
Essentially those issues still matter.
If we jump up to a humanistic perspective its an insult on a human to be condemed much like murder or slavery(2 points which humans dont apply to animals.).
[right][snapback]86076[/snapback][/right]

Well yea, practality and ideals do work hand in hand together. I would say practality forces people to think and reason about right and wrong. (Women are getting raped--> This is bad and should be prevented because of reasons stated above ---> This is also bad on another level.. because) There would be a hope that people would obey the law and not do these things. It would be enforced by punishment and isolation.

It might be another reason why I don't like the phrases "was not meant to be" or "not natural," because it could be argued that rape and other such things happen to be natural or is supposed to happen.

Are you asking whether I think the practical or humanistic concepts are more important? In the law, I would say practality makes the law, and the higher principles justify it. Certainly, we can't be insanely practical and amoral (ie. killing off people because they cost too much to feed) so we still have to moral aspect to prevent us from going overboard.

[Guest]

I wasnt trying to contrast pragmatism and humanism.

I was just showing 2 problems with rape that most people agree on and showing that neither applies to beastiality.

[Archon_Wing]

Point Noted.

[gekko]

Typical liberal drivel. No, that's even beyond that. You sir (and I use the term "sir" loosely here), definately take the cake. You're not one of these convicted child molesters whose name we pulled up when getting a list of sexual predators in our neighborhood from the Internet, are you? 'Cause if you are, you might as well fess up now, so I can come over and break your face as soon as I come home from work today. For reference, I live in the San Fernando Valley, California.

Oh and, would breaking your face also be "simply too vague of a term" for your taste?
I'd usually say "Have a nice day" here, but frankly I would not even say that in jest to you.
-A
[right][snapback]86058[/snapback][/right]

Foolish mortals! You have made the ignorant and typicaly liberal mistake of disagreeing with Ashock's personal opinions!

Like, come on guys. Seriously. We all know that Ashock's opinions are always right, and having a contrary opinion means you are (or should be) on the list of sexual predators from the internet. I mean, the answer is so obvious and not even worth discussing.

Ashock, you really need to either take some anger management classes or switch to decaf. You've now actually threated other lurkers on several different issues. And you're going to do the same to me I'm sure for what I'm about to say, but you're threatening lurkers because their opinions differ from your own. Grow up. It is possible to disagree without becoming so angry and so damned threatening!

Tell you what. I will admit the possibility that bestiality should be illegal if you will admit the possibility that sometimes your opinions are not the only valid opinions.

gekko

[Malakar]

I wouldn't say beastiality in general is "wrong", but rather pathetic and disgusting.

As far as whether it's cruel to animals, I think that is highly situational. I'm sure Mr. Ed had a jolly good ol' time puncturing Old McDonald's colon. On the contrary, a human man having sex with a small dog ("doggy style" :P ) would obviously induce pain for the dog and be considered cruel by most.

As for whether it should be legal and/or accepted by society like homosexuality... I personally think it should, just so I can protect myself. I would imagine that the late discovery of beastiality in a relationship could ruin it, much like the late discovery of homosexuality. If we force people to stay in the closet about beastiality, by law or shame, we're more likely to lack critical information until it's too late. Ultimately whether it's punished or not, people will still perform the acts. I'd at least like to have a better idea of who's into it and who isn't. :ph34r:

[Rinnhart]

Am I liberal or conservative?
[right][snapback]86069[/snapback][/right]

Sheep, man, SHEEP.

BAAAH. BAAAAAAH.