This is not a forced situation, Ucci, this is a:
“Which would you feel worse about?”
When you pet a dog’s head or back, they feel pleasure and acceptance.
Now if you were to stimulate a different organ which felt a greater degree of pleasure & acceptance, it would suddenly become worse then killing?
Yeah. It’s more of a question of personal cringe.
Which would you feel worse about doing?
Dan~
Hey, are you asking a question, or are you leading the witness? :slight_smile: If what you really want is to put an argument forward in favor of allowing bestiality, then go ahead. I already told you I'd rather kill the animal on moral grounds.
If you’re asking me which one “I’d feel worse about” outside of ethics, it depends on all sorts of details on how the killing is done, how the sex is done, and so on- and it’s honestly not a conversation I’m interested in having!
Um…
That’s pretty relativistic.
Sometimes some things are harmful, sometimes some things are not harmful. How can I say anything is good or bad? Can I say a knife is good or bad, or both?
Yes, it’s hard to face the polarities of organic reality, isn’t it?
hypotheticals like this are useless… personally I’d kick the guys ass who coerced and forced people to make such a choice.
Dan~
A knife isn't an act. Bestiality is an act, and acts are the types of things that 'moral' and 'immoral' apply to. If you don't feel qualified to say anything is good or bad, that's your personal affair- but then I have to wonder why you created the thread.
Not sure what your point is here. Either you’re asking a moral question, in which case you can be all judgemental about the answers people give (which it’s obvious you want to do), or you’re asking a non-moral question about what grosses a person out more, in which case you have to let everybody’s answer stand. I’m simply not interested in discussing in detail all the various ways in which a person can kill/screw a dog, and which might be more appealing/less awful than others. Surely that’s not hard to understand?
It’s a question, not a moral commandment.
rightly so dan!
See my post in the morality thread. You can no longer tell right from wrong, thus to you screwing an animal is better than killing it. If anything they are EQUALLY disgusting…
and like I said in the tolerance thread… You develop a certain respect for the animals that you eat and kill. Like in many farms, the pigs are pets and buddies, then when it’s time to put bacon on the table to feed the family, the pig has to sacrifice itself.
That’s life and morality. Deal.
no look at the way you worded the question:
“If you HAD to do one of these things, which would you do.”
I’m sticking with my assertation of kicking the guys ass who forces people to make a decision that makes them sacrifice their moral standing.
An act, in and of itself, is just as good as an object.
How and why the act is used, that’s the question.
I’m not being judgmental, am I?
What grosses a person out IS the “moral” question.
I’m on a tangent here, leave any time you like, or allow me to waste more of your time with this.
Do you think intelligence vs non-intelligence, or destructive vs non-destructive – is the value gage of a species?
Let’s suppose a super-intelligent alien race came and killed all of us, just for fun? Would that be okay to us? Or would that be okay to them only? And does the same principal apply to humans vs animals? You know, humans exctincted allot of species here, but they still consider themselves to be more righteous and valuable then animals are. If I called you an “animal”, that’d be an insult…
I think I’d take option D, neither. There are so many ways you can go with this question. If you killed a decently healthy decently good dog for no apparent reason you’d be sick, sex a dog, well you’d be sick as well… but the way our society is heading it may not be in years to come.
Dan I must read your book when it’s done, if I could only understand your brilliancy in these exceptional threads, I would understand your position on theism as well as your precision in the English language, but I’ll leave that up for you to ‘deside’.
Or they are both not disgusting at all, to some mindforms.
Morality has to do with a ubliminal superstructure of values and goals, then its conscious manifestation is an emotion.
Anyone can say that to anyone else who does not agree with his personal actuation paradigm.
OR, your own pleasure & the flavor of cooked flesh must be sacrificed. Do people take more pleasure in a live body, or a dead one? Are we artistic observers, or destructive consumers?
The pain would be too strong if I wrote that sort of book.
You see, once you’ve absolutely explained yourself, you’ve also changed the format of your existence…
Once something is explained, it is in a format which pleases and satisfies the desires of the listener…
Is my life some object meant to please a bored pack of destructive, ignorant, wasteful butt-monkies?
I’m not a utilitarian…
But you sound like you love me, to some degree, Club29…
Thanks.
Dan~
The “how” and the “why” are all a part of the act itself, in the case of humans. If you want to break them up, you can, but when I say that acts are the things of moral consideration, I mean the whole kit n’ kaboodle- motivation, physical action, right through to outcome.
It's obvious to me, and should be obvious to anyone who reads the thread, which option of the two provided you feel is the right answer. Either I'm psychic, I'm wrong, or you're working some judgementalism in your responses, and indeed, the way you pose the question. That's why I asked if you were leading the question. The way you asked,
Dan~
Makes it clear that you consider this question to have a moral component,
and makes it equally clear that you’ve decided which moral position is the correct one- not that there’s anything wrong with that, but it does conflict with your alleged unability or unwillingness to judge.
Also, you explicitly state that you’re looking for moral positions in your opening post on this thread.
I’m not sure. Trying to work that out in a different thread as we speak.
If another race killed us off, it wouldn't be ok to us, that's for sure- if they are an ethical race, maybe it wouldn't be ok to them (some of them) either. As far as applying the principal to us an animals, I'm not sure what the principal is yet. We [i]are[/i] more righteous and valuable than animals- as evidenced by our having this discussion. Bears don't have these discussions.
Okay.
If this is wholistic morality and not mechanical action condemnation/tolerance, I believe that the one working towards a point by many means, should which to reach a sustainable-united-horisontal-collectivist-hive-mind-ploy-dimensional-expansionistic-existential-values-system.
Yes, I’m pretty biased there. I think it was compassion calling. Would you rather die then be sexed up? Which would the dog be more likely to resist/be-harmed-by?
Maybe I am not being judgmental at all, but am considering more then humanity at this time?
Uccisore:
Many many months ago, you said something to me, and someone else said something to me, which helped me realize that thought IS judgment. We are both being, to some degree, “judgmental”, IMO.
I just go by personal preferance.
I’d prefer an unintelligent, safe, trustworthy life-form, compared to an intelligent but dangerous or harmful life-form.
I’m now going to marry my pet rock and fear the American military.
Bears aren’t destorying the biosphere, either.
Righteousness is ego. Ego is selfishness. Selfishness is self-preservation. Self-preservation exists because self is lacking and mortal. Self is lacking and mortal because self is so small and degenorate. Self needs the collective. Self wants the collective. Self is affraid and does not understand. Self cannot touch the assimilation chamber. Self dies and is forgotten forever. Self has no meaning when alone.
Dan~
Whereas I prefer ketchup.
In other words, it doesn’t count as being judgemental when you’re right. Where have I heard that kind of thing before? Anyways, I’m not trying to condemn you for being judgemental, but I may well condemn you for trying to weasel out and deny that you’re doing it.
Hell yes. You’ll never see me say that I’m not being judgemental (I don’t think). You’ll see me giving people a hard time when they claim to be the magical person that can discuss an issue without being judgemental, or that one side on an issue is the inherently non-judgemental side.
And they don't care if we do or not. I will say this: We can only consider the ethics of things that can present there case. If we were being wiped out by aliens, and we could communicate with them, then the aliens would be forced to deal with our point of view on the matter- they could disregard our point of view, but that would still be a choice of theirs.
On the other hand, a bear is never going to come to Congress and appeal for rights. Because we're human and humans are awesome, we can consider what it might be like to be a bear, and how bears might like to be treated. But it's still [i]us doing it[/i]. Any agreement we humans come to on how to treat a bear is still going to stem from how kind and benevolent we humans are, because bears can't say or do anything for themselves.
Only if it’s self-righteousness. I don’t think seeing one’s species as more valuable than others is necessarily egotistical. If a person is self-less, humble, and kind to their fellow humans because they see human life as the most valuable thing there is (above and beyond other sorts of life, even), then I don’t see that as egotistical.
The rest of your paragraph there, I don’t really follow, so I’ll make my point about killing animals vs. sex with them instead.
I have killed animals for food.
I have killed animals to impress my father.
I’ve shot squirrels for getting into the shed and chewing up our stuff.
I’ve killed mice in mousetraps for eating our food and crapping in the house.
I’ve swatted flies for buzzing around and making that ‘fly buzzing around’ noise.
So, would I kill an animal in order to keep from having sex with it? Hell yeah, I’ve killed them for much smaller reasons.
If this isn’t a ‘do one or do the other’ situation, then I have to say I’ve never had sex with an animal- but I have killed plenty, and from what I can tell, I never felt nearly as bad about it as I would for having sex with one, so my yuck factor falls in favor of killing, too.
Just in case my point isn’t clear- if a scientist conclusively proved that sexually gratifying a mouse would cause it to leave my house and never come back, I’d still use mousetraps. Not because of some blind faith that mousetraps would work better, but just because I don’t want to go to the trouble and revulsion of jerking off a mouse. And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that.
Isn’t it strange when something with Will also becomes a natural law?
I think so.
I think it exists as something potentially subvertable.
It’s easier to get around human justice then it is to get around gravity.
But which animals can get around or inside of human justice?
If you tortured a frog to death, noone would do jack-shit to you, but if you tortured a dog to death, you may get many years in prison.
&
This is because a dog is more pleasing to the human society then the frog is. It is NOT really a question of ethics or justice, it’s a question of pleasure and pain. It’s frighteningly robotic, to me…
I’m going to go sulk in my astral telecore now…
I am not into killing anything, so if I was forced into this situation, I would have to sex up the dog.
But, since I usually don’t believe in one or the other, I would try, up the last minute possible,
to get out of the situation all together.
Dan, I know you are only weighing morals etc,
But, if someone really tried to put me in the situation, I would figure out a way to beat them in their own game . . . tie him/her up, and then find some horny rino or bull or something to sex them up. 
Yeah, there you go.
Perspectives:
Which would you dislike more?
Being sexed by a lion, or being killed by one?
[bonus: you get to choose what position, what time of the day, etc.]
Yes, weighing morals.
You know the question to me ends up at God’s morality and God basically. To judge this morality without God it would all be relative, thus you really can’t weight the 2 objectively, this argument would never be settled.
However if you took biblical interpretation, Man has dominion over the animal. The body is that of God’s, God’s temple, if you were to eat the dog(gross) and it was healthy, it would be a better choice than the second. No part in sexing a dog up would be of any glory to God… Even if you tried to take the, “well what if your just trying to please the dog” stance, it would be against God’s commandments and you’d have good reason to thwart the option. Thus such as saying I’d like to kill this because it pleases her, you may be doing some good act, but the overall act to God is wrong through his commandments.
This type of poll poses all kinds of questions. Not just what would you do, but why you’ve been left with these options in the first place. Even if to say I will shoot your wife if you don’t do one or the other, the Christian would kill, being as he has dominion over the animal, man would have dominion over the animal, thus he sustains one life by killing an animals life, while man is the epitome.
Have I made this clear?