Glory? Isn’t that skin deep and egoic? What is glory? I think I forgot what glory was, somewhere, sometime, and still can’t remember.
Epitome of what?
I think Christians take sex very seriously. Some of them take sex more seriously then death, depending on what group and individual. And I think Islam is even more strict about such things.
Glory- to honor, something such as this wouldn’t be honorable to God based on biblical interrpretations.
Epitome of God’s creations.
We do, but it’s meant for Good within the confines of marriage. Perversion of sexuality is very harmful, and as it is seen today causing much psychological damage amoung many.
Islam is strict about many things, and even contradictory as I’ve seen.
I’m confused. What is the connection between emotion and morality? There is one, but I haven’t seen it mentioned here. Killing is not considered wrong because it’s upsetting to the killer.
I see it as an honor thing. If you aren’t willing to kill an animal because you’re too soft-hearted, then I guess that sucks for you, but you can live like that. But if you’re so very soft hearted that you’d defile yourself through an act of bestiality before you’d kill an animal, then you’re soft-heartedness is crippling your ability to function.
Faust: The connection between emotion and morality? The most obvious connection is that we experience them both in similar ways- the impulse that something is good or evil is very much like an emotional impulse.
Compassion finds a horrible awakening in socially disunited biosphere. Relationships between one being and the next are dead, and almost impossible to revive, sometimes. Imagine swimming with a shark? You see, some beings have been living a certian way for so long that they CANNOT switch over to a united horisontal collective. Earth went vertal and anarchial, long ago.
Just as long as we understand that I ain’t entering into no ‘united horisontal collective’ with no dog.
Well, I didn’t say you have to eat any body fluid or flesh in either choices. There is a difference between physical-sanitation-defilement, and a defilement of the self-expectation.
I guess I’m still seeing it as an either/or situation. From my perspective, having sex with a dog is an extremely vile, low, self-degrading thing to do. If a person is presented with a forced choice to do this, and all they have to do to get out of it is kill an animal, and they choose to thusly degrade themselves anyway, then that person’s soft-heartedness towards animals has crippled them.
Why would pleasuring its body be more degrading then killing its body?
Not degrading to the animal, degrading to the self.
And is the self a fantasy stamped on a body? Something made and put in? Synthetic ego?
Hey, you phrased the question "What would YOU rather do..." I assumed the existence of the self was a given. :slight_smile: Isn't that a bit of a tangent?
“We”?
“The arrangement of pieces benieth your clothing”?
Hey, if you want to discuss the nature of the self, we can. I’m just not convinced it has anything to do with all this bestiality stuff. But, whatever, it’s your thread.
I think the self is a EDIT: Chain of events, not physical matter.
Chain of opinions about events which the observer’s outside persons believed had something to do with the observer.
We can only really get somewhere with this if we go far off topic. 
Ex: You touch someone, and they think that it’s you causing the feelings, BUT, it’s their own body creating signals and chemicals within itself.
A:
“I make myself feel this way about you through my the way that my body systems work, my opinions, my beliefs, my reaction protocol, etc. I am the one causing sensation and thought after processing a form of information.”
B:
“You made me feel bad about myself, you big meany you.”
Most inner pain exists due to a lack of self-control, and a lack of self-understanding.
In the case of anyone sexing up a dog, I believe that the pain, shock and embarrasment of the action will be purely self-inflicted, if it was ever done.
A complex aray of self-punishment protocols develop, as time goes by and morality is made. Then, if something “bad” is “done” by the “self”, the self’s subliminal self-punishment protocols begin to hurt the self, and the self then often blames the event which the subliminal self-punishment protocol used as a reason to begin to hurt the “self”.
It’s like smashing your own head through a window and then blaming the glass if you bleed. But instead, it is the heredetary mind-control system which permiates nearly all cultures, that causes most of the emotional pain you ever feel in your entire life. The “judge” and the “justice” are those who stand upon both sides of the fence. The “judge” enforces good through bad. He wants what he does not do. He is the punisher and the victim and the assaultant, all at the same time.
First of all, I don’t agree with that- though you’d have a lot of support. Who was it, Locke, who started the whole idea of sensations being primarily ideas in the mind? Whomever it was, I don’t subscribe to it. When I feel a finger touching me, I’m feeling that finger touching me , I’m not feeling an idea, or feeling a sensation. That’s another thing we could get into if you wanted!
Even if that were the case, it wouldn’t change my point at all. If the person is willing to put themselves through all that (self-inflicted) pain, shock, and embarrasment instead of simply killing animal, ESPECIALLY if that person eats meat, they’re just weak and it has nothing to do with morals.
So, then, screw the dog, kill the dog, then screw it again just to be sure. If you're willing to go with the whole "moral guilt is just a shackle we create for ourselves unnecessarily" thing, then I'm willing to play along for the sake of argument- but then there's no way you can seriously argue that there's a right answer to this question. Since we both know you think there is a right answer, why are we playing around with this?
precisely. If it’s wrong to kill the dog, why is it any better to screw the dog? Just throw morals and proper behavior out the window?
Think of it this way (and I agree with this sentiment) most animals, have the consciousness of a small child. Would you screw a small child, because it will feel good for the child?
Hell let’s change the nature of your question:
If you HAD to:
Would you kill a baby
Would you sex the baby
Would you shoot the person forcing you to make the choice.
What’s the RIGHT thing to do? Take action against those that take advantage of those that are less conscious. That includes animals Dan.
DAN:
Relativism has a firm grip on your morals and has created a moral vacuum where depravity now lives.
What “mindform” is more important? That of the dog? Or your own?
Morality has nothing to do with emotion dan. NOTHING.
From wikipedia:
The development of Morality:
Morals are a byproduct of evolution that have allowed our society to get where it is today. Throwing away morals because you feel they are emotional is hubris. The result though, is that you get to partake in behavior that is abnormal and immoral.
Dan… Here’s a little secret. PARTAKE. We only care, when you try to contradict what is normal and what is moral. Your philosophy on morality is riddled with problems… why is it more moral to screw an animal than to kill it? Your basing your judgement purely on emotional basis that the animal experiences the world the same way you do. It’s a faulty assumption, as I said above, it’s more like the eyes of a child. The cat doesn’t sit in the window thinking about it’s mortality or about whether or not god exists… it sits in the window looking for moving things. Moving things are fascinating to children as well…
Now we get back to eating pets. If I’ve equated pets mentality to that of children why is it not okay to eat children? Because the life of a human is more important than the life of any animal. That’s morality. Deal.
Dan, it’s not my personal actuation paradigm, it’s societies. Society dictates what is right and wrong… Not you. Not me.
raw flesh is fine as well…
here’s another little fact for you:
Humans are Omnivores. Like bears, we can enjoy a salad, but our body [/b]cannot[/b] get complete nutrition without digesting meat as well. What I find fascinating, is that if you really stand behind the “vegan” lifestyle and think killing is wrong, than having carnivoric, or omnivoric pets is wrong as well… how many cows and pigs and turkeys had to die to fill that can of cat and dog food? In India they hold the cow as sacred and don’t eat it, but enjoy the flesh of cats, dogs, and pigs. The animals we eat is based on the culture we live in. You can still value life and eat meat. You cannot value other creatures and yourself, if you desecrate the animal AND YOURSELF sexually with another creature.
That’s morals. Morals are dictated by society. If you feel otherwise you are abnormal. Deal.
And who cares if you are abnormal. Just don’t expect sympathy, or condolences, from those of us following societies morals because we see the wisdom of them.
I was talking more about how you feel about the finger touching you.
If you could control how you physically felt with your thoughts, then a person wouldn’t need to touch himself before he went off & released his loneliness onto a cleanex.
Yar, I was basically just talking about people being semi-responsable for the existence of their own emotions ABOUT physical sensations & physical events.
Even if you think they are weak, which of the two actions is more “evil”? Which is more “harmful”?
Sometimes it’s shocking, embarrasing and painful to admit lies which a person has hidden for so long, and it would be easier just to take out their frustrations on eachother and fight it. You see: that’s what the “strong” man does. The “strong” man will sooner break another’s body then break his pride. And if his pride is removed, his insecurity and fear may destroy him.
Haven’t you seen the darker side of “moral purity”?
Don’t polarize and cause this to be an extreme case of “all or nothing”, please.
As Christians believe in an absolute god, an absolute truth and an absolute right, they are more likely to polarize things into absolutes, despite how very relative everything is.
And if I was wrong on that opinion about Christians, well… I thought it was a good guess…
But, if it were a case of equal retribution, then:
If you swore at God, then he gets to swear at you.
If you lied to people about God, then he gets to lie to people about you also.
Give 'em a taste of their own medicine…
Unless, unless that God can’t do any of those things in retribution, and the believers want SO MUCH for that God to exist, that they do things for him, and they overcompensate. They may try very VERY hard to prove something which is invisible [or non existent?]. They may try very hard to prove it exists, through force and through reason, because physical-visual proof cannot be used.
Now, the ego and the morality also cannot be seen, so they can only be proven to others through force or through reason. You can either tell me through a complex string of reason why one thing is worse then the other, or you can simply force the idea upon me.
When you said: “So, then, screw the dog, kill the dog, then screw it again just to be sure”, it sounded like a polarization; a force. When you said about someone being “weak” if they were not willing to kill the dog vs sexually please it, “weak” is also a relative-opposite to your moral force.
Which of the three does your moral stance on animals feel most like to you?
I guessed that your moral stance here is a form of “righteous force/strength”, but my guesses are imperfect. What do you think about my guess?
Dan~
How many more times do I have to answer it? The bestiality is more harmful to the one who commits the act, and as such is more evil. The animal doesn't matter- animal's value only matters because humans [i]value them. [/i] In this impossible situation you've come up with, the animals wishes, and hence the animals values are not taken into account. If this had anything to do with animal welfare, you would have said something about whether or not the animal was aroused or in season, but you didn't.
This is a human question. So, I'm assuming all the normal human things- we eat meat, we kill animals for sport, or because they are inconvient to us. All of that is consistant with the idea of killing an animal to avoid having to have sex with it- as I've said, we kill animals for less cause all the time. If you first want to confront all the "bad" things we do to animals to create some context for the notion that killing one might be a bad thing [i]at all[/i], much less a worse thing than bestiality, then have at!
Once again, you’re taking what I’m saying off on all these wild tangents. Yes, I know, morals don’t exist and yet somehow killing animals is bad. Anything vaguely resembling Christianity is bad. Ye vilest Sorceries are apparently good. Ok. But pick one to a time, please?
For the record, no, moral purity does not have a darker side by definition. I don’t get the reason for the quotes.
I think it is a case of all or nothing. You’re trying to explain away the association of guilt with moral conviction- and unless you have in mind a system of ethics that doesn’t involve us ever feeling guilty when we violate that system, I can’t see how you can get back to the notion of something we do to a dog being wrong.
I dunno about screw.
Dogs tend to like humans quite a bit, and if it was one of the horny boy-dogs, he’d probably ask you to do that with him often, if he could talk.
Your version of the question makes perfect sense, and I guess I’ve misworded my post, as I did not realize how specific these things can get.
But in my version, no one is forcing you to, and it’s like: “which is worse?”
Depravity?
If I have strong compassion, can I have depravity at the same time? And if I harm noone, can I still be evil somehow?
I figured the depravity bell would go off if I began to really question human morality.
A mindform of a non-organic being. Something watching from so far a distance that they would be interested to see how it turned out, either way. “Objective”…
I thought that emotion motivated all action?
So is abortion.
Each are human constructs.
But at the same time, morality is an instinct. It’s in the neither world between “made up” and “inborn”.
A tricky subject indeed.
I’m all for immorality and abnormality, as long as it prevents hate and harm. =D>
You’ve said that awfully quick, I think you’ve just polarized your opinion of me, and if you don’t settle down really fast, we wont be able to talk strait anymore. 
Yeah.
Other then my larger brain lobes, we still have the same will to live, the same emotions of pain, pleasure, satisfaction, terror, passion, etc.
Please…
Okay, I think mental complexity is your organic individual value gage now. I’ve asked earlier whether intelligence is more honorable then peaceful, non-destructiveness. Some animals are far more peaceful and kind then humans are, but they are not as intelligent, so which one is “better”?
And when you go to war, it’s honorable, valiant, couragous, strong, admirable.
And if you smoke, that’s not so bad…
Society is “right”, after all…
“Just don’t expect sympathy, or condolences”
It’s funny how that exact fundamental principal: “sympathy”, was the focus of my moral question. Sympathy for a non-human, or moral-purity for a human? Which is better? Even if the question becomes a life-or-death situation?