Bestiality in Australia (4 Viewers)

[KFunk]

modus ponens only affirms the validity of claims, not their truth.

Yes, but you're neglecting the fact that you have to judge whether the proposition "modus ponens preserves validity" is true or false. That modus ponens is a valid argument structure is one of the background assumptions of our logic. Likewise, for our ethics we require some theoretical assumptions with regard to value before we can go about the systematic task of applied ethics. Modus ponens is not empircally determined but instead comes naturally to our internal logical apparatus. Similarly, the moral sense makes clear the animal Hierarchy and the central value of Caucasoids.

Aristotle saw clearly that some 'men', by virtue of being of a barbarian race, fall naturally into subordinate hierarcy. I quote from book 1 of Aristotle's Politics:

"... [H]e who can forsee with his mind is by nature intended to be lord and master, and he who can work with his body is a subject and by nature a slave; hence master and slave have the same interest. Nature, however, has distinguished between the female and the slave. For she is not niggardly, like the smith who fashions the Delphian knife for many uses, she makes each thing for a single use, and every instrument is best made when intended for one and not for many uses.

But among barbarians no distinction is made between women and slaves because there is no natural ruler among them; they are a community of slaves, male and female. Wherefore the poets say, 'It is meet that Hellenes should rule over barbarians,' as if they thought that the barbarian and the slave were by nature one."

 

[HNAKXR]

i don't believe in ethics or morals, I'm a nihilist.

For the fun of it lets just review some of Aristotle's beliefs.
* Thinking Occurs in the heart region
* Women have less teeth than men
*Spontaneous generation

and many other mistakes, however Aristotle never claimed to be infallible
referring to his theories he states

'The facts have not yet been sufficiently ascertained ... If at any time in the future they are ascertained, then credence must be given to the direct evidence of the senses rather than to theories.'

take this advice to heart.

barbarian is a highly subjective slur look at Charlemagne for example.

 

[KFunk]

'The facts have not yet been sufficiently ascertained ... If at any time in the future they are ascertained, then credence must be given to the direct evidence of the senses rather than to theories.'

You take the quote out of context. It is a more than reasonable claim in the context of empirical sciences such as animal biology (to which I believe the quote applies). A priori moral truths work differently. They are apparent to the inner senses (such as reason, which must be distinguished from the outer senses to which your quote more properly applies) like modus ponens and so are not up for revision in the way our theories about, for example, the movements of planets or of bees are.

i don't believe in ethics or morals, I'm a nihilist.

It's ok to be a barbarian. We need one another, for we "have the same interest"/

 

[Slidey]

Stop fucking around with animals (in both senses) you cunts.

Utilitarian humanism still applies to animals, even if you give them fewer rights.

Thread closed.

 

[KFunk]

Utilitarian humanism still applies to animals, even if you give them fewer rights.

Exactly, rights which are adjusted according to the consideration constant k.

 

[Enteebee]

Stop fucking around with animals (in both senses) you cunts.

Utilitarian humanism still applies to animals, even if you give them fewer rights.

Thread closed.

Yeah sure, where's their harm? I'd argue it often doesn't exist.

 

[HNAKXR]

You take the quote out of context. It is a more than reasonable claim in the context of empirical sciences such as animal biology (to which I believe the quote applies). A priori moral truths work differently. They are apparent to the inner senses (such as reason, which must be distinguished from the outer senses to which your quote more properly applies) like modus ponens and so are not up for revision in the way our theories about, for example, the movements of planets or of bees are.



It's ok to be a barbarian. We need one another, for we "have the same interest"/

for me this theory lacks verisimilitude

well sir since internal and external logic are useless in this argument now, i tip my hat to you and take my leave.

 

[Slidey]

Yeah sure, where's their harm? I'd argue it often doesn't exist.

Argue away. Most people can tell you that it does, however.

Anybody willing to be a moral nihilist for animals is barely divorced from moral nihilism for humans.

 

[Enteebee]

Argue away. Most people can tell you that it does, however.

Anybody willing to be a moral nihilist for animals is barely divorced from moral nihilism for humans.

Hey, I agree. My point here is to show that in the end we're just exerting our desires as true and it has nothing to do with rationality. Will post more l8r.

 

[Graney]

Argue away. Most people can tell you that it does, however.

Anybody willing to be a moral nihilist for animals is barely divorced from moral nihilism for humans.

Most people don't consider such things deeply, and just jump to their predjudiced conclusions. It's no different to past generations who could unquestioningly immediately conclude homosexuality is wrong, even if they were secular.

We have established it can be done without physical harm, that it may be gentle and easy. It has also been seen that animals are often up for it, and through body language give implicit enthusiasm for consent. Therefore to the best of our knowledge, any sort of psychological trauma is at least, unlikely when done properly.

So where is this harm?

 

[Slidey]

Hey, I agree. My point here is to show that in the end we're just exerting our desires as true and it has nothing to do with rationality. Will post more l8r.

Meh, don't bother. I'm not going to post in this thread again.

As long as the majority of the population feels empathy towards animals it's not worth my time dealing with the sociopathic portion (which I'm not saying you are, but I really don't have patience for you playing devil's advocate, either).

 

[Slidey]

Most people don't consider such things deeply, and just jump to their predjudiced conclusions. It's no different to past generations who could unquestioningly immediately conclude homosexuality is wrong, even if they were secular.

We have established it can be done without physical harm, that it may be gentle and easy. It has also been seen that animals are often up for it, and through body language give implicit enthusiasm for consent. Therefore to the best of our knowledge, any sort of psychological trauma is at least, unlikely when done properly.

So where is this harm?

If somebody wants to fuck an animal, they can go ahead and try. Right now, they have to deal with the law if they do, though, and that won't change any time in the next 100 years.

 

[Graney]

Slidey, please read the last paragraph of this article by Singer
http://www.nerve.com/Opinions/Singer/heavyPetting/main.asp

Now, in the story of the orangutan. supposing it had been physically able to go through with it's intentions, how would it have been harmfull to the animal? Or in any way wrong? (ignoring the fact in this particular story the human was not consenting).

 

[KFunk]

i tip my hat to you and take my leave.

In which case I will resume the resident moral nihilist post.

 

[Graney]

Right now, they have to deal with the law if they do, though, and that won't change any time in the next 100 years.

Punished for love.

 

[Slidey]

Slidey, please read the last paragraph of this article by Singer
http://www.nerve.com/Opinions/Singer/heavyPetting/main.asp

Now, in the story of the orangutan. supposing it had been physically able to go through with it's intentions, how would it have been harmfull to the animal? Or in any way wrong? (ignoring the fact in this particular story the human was not consenting).

Um, as I said:

If somebody wants to fuck an animal, they can go ahead and try. Right now, they have to deal with the law if they do, though, and that won't change any time in the next 100 years.

I'm sure you could come up with an example where you think paedophilia is loving, consensual and supportive, too. The law, and society in general, is still going to slam you down.

 

[Graney]

If somebody wants to fuck an animal, they can go ahead and try. Right now, they have to deal with the law if they do, though, and that won't change any time in the next 100 years.

I'm sure you could come up with an example where you think paedophilia is loving, consensual and supportive, too. The law, and society in general, is still going to slam you down.

The comparison to pedophilia is wrong... We've gone over this.

The law it may be, but without a solid moral reasoning behind it, it is an unjust law founded in predjudice and fear.

 

[sthcross.dude]

Um, as I said:

If somebody wants to fuck an animal, they can go ahead and try. Right now, they have to deal with the law if they do, though, and that won't change any time in the next 100 years.

I'm sure you could come up with an example where you think paedophilia is loving, consensual and supportive, too. The law, and society in general, is still going to slam you down.

You piss me off sometimes.

Why even bother pointing out that most people will probably never accept it.

Chadd acknowledged this from the very beginning.

The whole point was to challenge what the majority of people think and show that even though it may seem to make sense intuitively, it has no logical basis.

If you don't find it interesting, JUST DON'T POST.

But ffs, don't feel the need to post insultingly obvious platitudes.

 

[Slidey]

The comparison to pedophilia is wrong... We've gone over this.

The law it may be, but without a solid moral reasoning behind it, it is an unjust law founded in predjudice and fear.

That's an interesting perspective.

 

[sthcross.dude]

Remember guys, if you want to condemn something but can't think of a coherent argument as to why, just equate it with pedophilia, or terrorism.

Its about as logical as me saying "well banning bestiality is authoritarian and thus similar to communism, therefore Slidey may as well be justifying communism and we should immediately reject his dirty commie arguments."