Bestiality vs Murder?

[scythekain]

@Dan~

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.

So because dogs can’t control their sexual impunity (like children can’t control many of their bodily functions) it’s okay to take advantage of that for your own selfish purposes?

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.

Of course it’s specific…

1. killing an animal is not as bad as murdering a man.

2. sexing an animal is like rape, as the animal has no compulsion or natural desire to have sex with you.

Therefore the two are equally as bad, and I’m taking my option d. If you want me to make a decision it’s to stop the person who’s asking the question to force people into an impossible immoral trap. Both behaviors are immoral, both are dangerous to your self. Killers and murderers train to kill humans by killing animals. Rapists practice on dogs and cats before moving on to humans.

What you are talking about is serious Dan~! The stakes are that high. Thus killing the practicioner to prevent harm to others maybe the only moral thing to do. In the very least, the questioner must be stopped, to prevent the atrocities from being committed.

But in my version, no one is forcing you to, and it’s like: “which is worse?”

And like Uccisore said, you are looking for people to say murder is worse so that you can sleep with yourself at night.

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?

What’s your definition of harm? Like I said, I consider sex acts with animals akin to pedophilia and rape. I consider both of those acts harmful, therefore I consider beastiality harmful. Your pet does not have a natural compulsion to screw you, it has a natural compulsion to chase moving things. Sure there’s an occasional horny dog, that likes to hump legs, but using that as justification for perversity is absolute hubris.

I figured the depravity bell would go off if I began to really question human morality.

Well of course it’s going to, you are proposing immoral and depraved behavior.

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”…

ah, another word for god. a non-existant being you’ve created who is okay with you committing perverse immoral acts. he doesn’t care one way or the other right?

I thought that emotion motivated all action?

I never said that…

So is abortion.

Abortion is a byproduct of the immoral feminist movement.

Each are human constructs.

Morality is far far more pervasive than abortion, thusly over half the population thinks abortion is immoral.

But at the same time, morality is an instinct. It’s in the neither world between “made up” and “inborn”.

If morality is an instinct, than it’s nothing like abortion. Women have to be convinced by the depraved eugenecists that killing the future babies life is the best thing for her, and for the “baby”.

Here’s the brilliant part of this dan. You are okay with killing unborn babies, but killing a dog, is completely immoral… better to have a relationship with the dog, that you should be having with another human being.

A tricky subject indeed.

for someone who can no longer tell light from darkness maybe it is.

I’m all for immorality and abnormality, as long as it prevents hate and harm. =D>

ludicrous modern liberal notions. Hate and Harm are a natural part of life. Not everyone will like you, and you will get hurt.

Especially if you do un-natural things.

Like this guy, who lived a couple towns away who was engaging in a behavior he found “normal”. Letting the horse screw him in the ass. Guess what? The horse killed him, and he got hurt, trying to live out his depraved and immoral lifestyle.

seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/l … rm16m.html

And how do you think the family members feel? His wife for god’s sake? Her husband got killed on a table, screwing a horse. What you are suggesting ADDS hurt and harm, it doesn’t remove it. Remember the quote from wikipedia?

Compliance with and internalization of social conventions leads to a sense of regularity that makes group living more predictable and hence, less stressful, for its members.

not only less stressful, but less painful as well.

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.

You’ve polarized yourself against others by choosing to partake in immoral and depraved behavior.

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.

absolutely, thusly I’d have to take option D. (see above.)

to finish this up:

if you don’t believe in killing animals, get rid of your pet cat or dog now. How many pigs, cows, turkeys salmon and chicken have to die to feed your animal?

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”?

regardless of the animals “peacefulness”, man has more right to life than any animal. That’s morality and ethics.

And when you go to war, it’s honorable, valiant, couragous, strong, admirable.

are you expecting me to disagree with that? The warrior defends his nation from those that would destroy it.

And if you smoke, that’s not so bad…

smoking is a personal choice, and never had a moral grounding, but did become societally popular in some circles.

Society is “right”, after all…

unless it’s wrong. Which is possible… but not in your case.

Sympathy for a non-human, or moral-purity for a human? Which is better? Even if the question becomes a life-or-death situation?

Option D dan. Option D.

remember we are omnivores and must kill to survive. It’s the nature of the beast.

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

@scythekain

But in my version, no one is forcing you to, and it’s like: “which is worse?”

And like Uccisore said, you are looking for people to say murder is worse so that you can sleep with yourself at night.

You’ve lost it.

I never had sex with a dog before, or any other animal.

This thread is dead. Your mind is making up stuff about me now so that it can win.

Here: you deserve it. =D>

[scythekain]

You’ve lost it.

I never had sex with a dog before, or any other animal.

This thread is dead. Your mind is making up stuff about me now so that it can win.

Hooray!

A thread about immorally depraved behavior is dead!

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

@scythekain

You’ve lost it.

I never had sex with a dog before, or any other animal.

This thread is dead. Your mind is making up stuff about me now so that it can win.

Hooray!

A thread about immorally depraved behavior is dead!

[Uccisore]

So, with that picture, were you trying to make us hungry, or turn us on?

You know, if you had to choose.

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

@Uccisore

So, with that picture, were you trying to make us hungry, or turn us on?

You know, if you had to choose.

The pictures were a joke.

[Uccisore]

So was my comment.

But jokes can have a point, no?

[scythekain]

dan,

I’ll remit the comment about you enjoying beastiality… (though if you are right, why would you take offense?) And perhaps I was reading way too far into what uccisore was saying.

answer the rest of my post, regarding morality, pets and food.

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

@scythekain

dan,

I’ll remit the comment about you enjoying beastiality… (though if you are right, why would you take offense?) And perhaps I was reading way too far into what uccisore was saying.

answer the rest of my post, regarding morality, pets and food.

Your reply was way too long for me to feel like reading today.
Maybe some other day.

Whether I was a dog, a cat, or a human, I think I would prefer being sexually stimulated as opposed to being shot or beat to death.

All mammals have emotion capacity just like we do.

[Uccisore]

Haha scythe, you kissed his ass for nothing.

And God only knows where it’s been.

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

@Uccisore

Haha scythe, you kissed his ass for nothing.
And God only knows where it’s been.

searchlores.org/schopeng.htm

@Ben

i) No ad hominem arguments

This is not a playground. In order to produce high quality philosophical discussions we expect the posts to contain a good level of courtesy and respect. If something has angered you, walk away from the computer and come back when you have a clear head. It helps no-one to start throwing insults around the place. This rule is two-fold: Do not use personal attacks to further your argument (argumentum ad hominem) and don’t use insults at all.

answers.com/ad%20hominem

[Uccisore]

Is that an invitation to elevate the discussion? Suits me fine. We’ll see how you hold up the next time you feel the need to say something about Jews, Christians, or whomever.

[scythekain]

@Dan~

@scythekain

dan,

I’ll remit the comment about you enjoying beastiality… (though if you are right, why would you take offense?) And perhaps I was reading way too far into what uccisore was saying.

answer the rest of my post, regarding morality, pets and food.

Your reply was way too long for me to feel like reading today.
Maybe some other day.

Whether I was a dog, a cat, or a human, I think I would prefer being sexually stimulated as opposed to being shot or beat to death.

All mammals have emotion capacity just like we do.

mammals do have emotional capacity like children. Which I’ve said like 200 times in this thread alone dan.

BUT, morality means that not all lives are equal. The lion must kill the gazelle for food, in the same way we must kill cows, turkeys, fish, and chickens for our pets food. The same way that EVERYONE a couple hundred years ago, had to kill or be killed. Secularists like yourself live in some idealized world, where pacifism means not killing anything, Become a Jainist Dan. They take it to the extent of wearing a cloth over there mouth so they don’t breath in insects.

Death is a part of life, I’d rather not be forced into a situation where I had to choose to kill or sex an animal, and like I said before I think the best option is to not make the choice at all. (which I haven’t. I haven’t clicked your poll.) If someone is FORCING or Coercing people to choose the two with a gun to their head, than the only morally just thing to do is to stop that person with any means necessary.

The world is a harsh place and I think the majority of westerners (which strangely enough coincides with the same people against the war against Islamo-fascism.) are soft and spineless. Have you ever killed the food that you eat? Probably not, and then you get all attached to your pets, and wonder how it’s possible to kill a cow for yourself. Ask yourself AGAIN, what is your pet eating? The same thing you should be eating, the flesh of other animals.

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

@scythekain

@Dan~

@scythekain

dan,

I’ll remit the comment about you enjoying beastiality… (though if you are right, why would you take offense?) And perhaps I was reading way too far into what uccisore was saying.

answer the rest of my post, regarding morality, pets and food.

Your reply was way too long for me to feel like reading today.
Maybe some other day.

Whether I was a dog, a cat, or a human, I think I would prefer being sexually stimulated as opposed to being shot or beat to death.

All mammals have emotion capacity just like we do.

mammals do have emotional capacity like children. Which I’ve said like 200 times in this thread alone dan.

BUT, morality means that not all lives are equal. The lion must kill the gazelle for food, in the same way we must kill cows, turkeys, fish, and chickens for our pets food. The same way that EVERYONE a couple hundred years ago, had to kill or be killed. Secularists like yourself live in some idealized world, where pacifism means not killing anything, Become a Jainist Dan. They take it to the extent of wearing a cloth over there mouth so they don’t breath in insects.

Death is a part of life, I’d rather not be forced into a situation where I had to choose to kill or sex an animal, and like I said before I think the best option is to not make the choice at all. (which I haven’t. I haven’t clicked your poll.) If someone is FORCING or Coercing people to choose the two with a gun to their head, than the only morally just thing to do is to stop that person with any means necessary.

The world is a harsh place and I think the majority of westerners (which strangely enough coincides with the same people against the war against Islamo-fascism.) are soft and spineless. Have you ever killed the food that you eat? Probably not, and then you get all attached to your pets, and wonder how it’s possible to kill a cow for yourself. Ask yourself AGAIN, what is your pet eating? The same thing you should be eating, the flesh of other animals.

ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … 34&start=0

This wasn’t a question about killing for the sake of your own survival, it was just like: “which is worse? murder or sexual immorality?”

J has defined “murder” at the top of the thread which I’ve linked to.
You can talk to J about murder stuff also, there’s pleanty to be said.