Philosophy Debate & Discussion Group. BANNED, All posts removed.
Post: When, how, and why is interspecial sex wrong? The closest thing I got was the simplistic invalid syllogism that, after some probing, I think I was able to decipher as:
1. Some interspecial sex is nonconsensual
2. Non-consensual sex is bad.
Therefore, Interspecial sex might be bad.
Where can anyone discuss such things? Sure, I can ask questions like "Is there a god?" here, but there might also be group bias. I'd rather ask anyone openly. Is eating meat good or bad? What's wrong with pedophilia? Is there a god? Why is interspecial sex wrong?
My post to that "philosophy" group tickled the dogmas of emotional and illogical members, resulting in personal attacks against me, clearly in violation of the rules, and then banning (with no notice, of course). ("Eek, a troll!".)
Mental incompetence, specifically the inability to think rationally (whether programmed in by schools, religion, etc), is harmful society. If we can't agree on what's real, and can't analyze facts objectively, how can we freely function?
Now if 6 turned out to be 9
I don't mind, I don't mind
Alright, if all the hippies cut off all their hair
I don't care, I don't care
Dig, 'cos I got my own world to live through
And I ain't gonna copy you
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
What the fuck is "interspecial" sex???
Edit to add: Pardon the pun.
It is when two special people love each other very much.
@Nyar Re: "It is when two special people love each other very much."
Oooooh... Okay.... *grin*... Well, I guess that means I regularly have interspecial sex. Because I tell my wife all the time, "Baby, you are so special to me." Funny thing, though, is that whenever she tells me that, she never says "to me" at the end like I do. And THEN she pats me gently on top of my head after telling me.... *puzzled look*.... Could I be missing something here?
Does he mean sex with other species?
Ewwwwww.
I could not care less if a person likes to fuck ducks. As long as it's OK with the duck and I don't have to watch. (although I don't know how one would go about getting the consent of a duck)
Why one would I want to discuss the morality of such a thing? Bestiality is 100% illegal in Australia .
I DID once hear of a case a few hundred years ago in England. Seems a bloke's sow gave birth to a piglet missing an eye, just like the farmer. People were convinced the farmer had sired the piglet. He confessed after rigorous questioning .(torture)
Both the farmer and the sow were hanged. Have no idea what happened to the piglet. I guess went to live with his real dad.
The ancient Romans had a far more liberal attitude. In the Satire "The Satyricon" Speaking from experience, one of the jaded characters makes the observation that the gender and species of one's sexual partner is irrelevant. The sensation is the same.
"Does he mean sex with other species? […] Why one would I want to discuss the morality of such a thing?"
Why yes, he one I does! (Awkward pronouns, crank.)
The point is to be able to discuss ethics and morality. Make sense?
Where can that occur?
The point is not to agree that tabooed subject matter is icky. To some, [taboo] is wonderful. Things are tabooed by social custom, tradition, or emotional aversion. Whether the tabooed things are ethically fine and healthy is another matter. Make sense?
Tell me… Do you value freedom of religion? Or do you prefer state atheism? Do you want the conclusion to suit you, everyone else be damned, or do you prefer the freedom of choice that gives rise to rationality and voluntary society?
If, for example, you were to present a claim (e,g. "there is a god"), and you claimed to have reasoning and evidence, then it would be reasonable to fairly examine and consider it.
Claims that things are wrong because they're taboo (or "gross") are not reasonable.
The common thread is reasonableness. The problem is that open public discussion of it is nearly absent.
Where can such reasoned discussion occur? In society, with the internet, it seems it should everywhere.
The inability to have reasonable discussion about diverse and taboo topics illustrates the problem of social censorship. Where might unmoderated public occur? Where can questions be asked to a reasonable group who considers and doesn't censor?
Lack of public discourse is a problem. It's a problem if you look at the Facebook of Donald J. Trump and see that nearly half of the postings there are from barely literate bible thumpers, all of whom look up to Mr. Trump who, by my guess, doesn't actually believe in that bible stuff. It's bad because we get a president who is elected for reasons that are not real (bible fakery) and possibly only proclaimed by him to garner support.
In our "free" society, the habits and opinions of the masses are formed and managed by such public relations. This is how public relations functions. Those who manipulate public relations effectively hold the true ruling power. Social values, tastes, and ideas are influenced by those who control the public mind.
To be able to break free from that is crucial to have a society that thrives freely, that can question any attempted manipulatory tactics, be they benign or malevolent.
Religion is just one aspect of groupthink.
I mentioned earlier that there is the problem of group bias here, too. Some play dumb, some shitpost, and some give an amount of effort to put up one post after another.
This is expected from people who aren't used to having their groupthink challenged in such ways.
Garrett, you asked, “The inability to have reasonable discussion about diverse and taboo topics illustrates the problem of social censorship. Where might unmoderated public might occur? Where can questions be asked to a reasonable group who considers and doesn't censor?”
Is it your expectation that the Atheist Republic Debate Forum is such a place? Is it your expectation that websites should all provide uncensored, unmoderated platforms to discuss whatever you wish to discuss? Are you suggesting that people who do not welcome discussion about ‘taboo topics’ are less worthy of (your) respect than those who do? Or that they somehow illustrate a problem?
Folks generally land in this debate forum to discuss a/theism, not what food is best to eat, not what critter is best to fuck, or any other subject for which you’ve been banned elsewhere.
"Is it your expectation that the Atheist Republic Debate Forum is such a place?"
Not entirely, no. I don't expect all subject matter to be welcome here, because here is focused on atheism, religion, and things like that. But discussions of "where to discuss [X]" should not be a problem.
Atheism examines evidence reasonably to question theology. It implies reason in its inquisitions of deeply held beliefs and social constructs. It is such reasonable inquisition that I find lacking in most discussion.
For examples of highly consequential unreasonable beliefs, look no further than President Trump's Facebook page. There, you will find barely literate posts proclaiming things about the President, COVID-19, and liberals, and all of that related to the holy scriptures, often with section and verse numberings. Those posts are unreasonable, but help explain why President Trump is president. Unreasonableness is not harmless. It is not just religion that is a problem, it is unreasonableness, which religion also shares. The inability to think and discuss beliefs rationally harms society.
If people believed not in religion, but in things bizarre beyond our imagination, they could still pose a problem if those beliefs influenced their behavior. If Tarot became the new belief and tarot cards were used to decide that Brittney Spears was our True Chosen Leader, that would be something to question.
Conversely, when it is deemed that [taboo] was wrong and people who do it must be punished and it is verboten, and that is accepted without question to the point where broaching [taboo] results in ostracization, society is impacted.
I'm trying to find out where to discuss anything without fear of censorship.
Any "philosophy" group that limits ethics discussion to fluff is disingenuous. A forum for skiing or automotive repair would be a different matter. That group was a philosophy group. The reason I posted there was to think and discuss various stuff rationally. It seemed like that was the group's intended purpose.
Again: Where might unmoderated public discussion occur? Where can questions be asked to a reasonable group who considers and doesn't censor? Where can anyone discuss such things? Sure, I can ask questions like "Is there a god?" here, but there might also be group bias.
The reasons that I posted those questions here was, as given in my initial post, that rationality is an important part of discourse necessary for a truly free society. Otherwise, we're stuck with following others, custom, emotion, authority, and social programming.
Does that make sense?
Garrett: “I'm trying to find out where to discuss anything without fear of censorship.”
Might I suggest you try doing so in front of your mirror.
No website is obligated to allow discussion on limitless subject matter. It preposterous, imo, to consider that they should be so obliged.
@Tin: I think what you were doing to the toaster last night would qualify.
@Cog Re: "I think what you were doing to the toaster last night would qualify."
Uh, for your information, Mr. Smartie Pants, that is called intermechanical sex. Geeeez, you're dumb... *rolling eyes*... And you call yourself a college graduate?
Hey Cog, Tin, OMS ...didn’t we cover the inter species sex thing a while back?????
Cog & I had kids (who knew our genes could mix) and we sold them for Chinese food. Then we ate them.
@White
Sure, we covered that. But this guy said "interspeciAL" sex. I dare not let my mind wander on that one... *shudder*...
Yes, yes, you are right... perhaps it’s the inter special sex that destroying his social life and not mental incompetence.
@White and Tin: Did you guys know that if you chop the top off a banana and scoop out the fruit, you can use the peel to...... Oh! This isn't the secret room........ never mind.
@GS
OK. Knowledge and ability to utilize critical thought is the issue...mental incompetence by a different name? Maybe.
Banned from yet another site, eh? So glad you’re telling us all about it. Was getting concerned that you were running out of things to post about here.
"Oh. Ahh, about eleven, sir!"
In my finest John Cleese centurion guard impression...
Look, I just want to know about this "interspeciAL" sex.... *looking around the room*... Where the hell is Cog? If there is anybody who should know, it will be him. Cog!.... COG!... Dammit, ain't no time to be playing hide-n-seek! We need your expertise here!
@Tin: Fuck SShit Damn Fucktard Shit , fuck, piece of turd shit fuck, sorry Tin, Fuck, my Tourettes is Fuck acting Shit up. Not sure the FUCK, DICK, cause. It only SHIT happens on this FUCK site. I'll get DICK FUCK SHIT FUCK back with you later.
What is with this dude, dragging his conflicts with others into this forum?
Mr Smith, if you have issues with "Philosophy Debate & Discussion Group", then take it up with them.
More freaking drama and tears than a bunch of twelve year old girls. Someone get Mr Smith a training bra and a box of Kleenex.
@David K. Re: "Someone get Mr Smith a training bra and a box of Kleenex."
Geez, you're so insensitive. Maybe he just needs a hug. You ever consider that?... *look of realization*... Oh, wait... Would that fall under the whole interspecial sex umbrella? I have no idea. Ummm... *nervously biting lower lip*.... Yeah, just forget about the hug for now. Just to be on the safe side....
Bonus points: it sounds like a Facebook group.
Your deliberate misreading only further posits you as unreasonable and stupid. Quite obviously I cannot take anything up with "Philosophy Debate & Discussion Group" as anyone is clearly able to read that I was banned.
The only drama is being posted up by you to try and impress your group of little interweb friends, tin et al.
@Garrett Smith: "Your deliberate misreading only further posits you as unreasonable and stupid. Quite obviously I cannot take anything up with "Philosophy Debate & Discussion Group" as anyone is clearly able to read that I was banned."
*TRANSLATION:*
"Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Qite obviouslyWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! Then I was banned.
The only drama is being posted up by you to try and impress your group of little interweb friends, tin et al.
*TRANSLATION*
The only drama is Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
Re: Garrett - "The only drama is being posted up by you to try and impress your group of little interweb friends, tin et al."
...*sniff-sniff-sniff*... Uh-oh... I smell another spoiled nappy in the making... *hauling HAZMAT suit out of closet*.... Ugh... Listen up, guys! I'll go ahead and get THIS one, but somebody else will have to get the next one! I got the last two, if you all remember! It's only fair that one of you catch a couple of these. Draw straws. Do rock/paper/scissors. Arm wrestle. Whatever. I don't care. But this is the last one I am changing.... *fitting respirator mask over face*...
I guess the reason you were banned from those other sites, will remain an impenetrable mystery.
LOL.
Sheldon is a god.
Whoops, was that a little too cliquey?
@Sheldon made one of his rare, but side splitting, funnies. When Sheldon begins..., we can all agree.... There is no joy in Mudville.
@Garrett
"Mental incompetence, specifically the inability to think rationally (whether programmed in by schools, religion, etc), "
An interesting claim.Can't wait to see the proof on which you base it.
In case you haven't noticed, we atheists make up a relatively a small proportion of humanity. Are you claiming even a goodly number' of humanity is mentally incompetent because of their religious beliefs?
Perhaps define what a you mean by the term. I think we might have different understandings. My understanding is that mental incompetence is a medical and legal term with a precise definition. I am not competent to assess such a thing . You have some relevant credentials?
.
I DO believe a lot (many, most) believers seem to suffer from some level cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias. Get them talking about their personal superstitions and they sound quite loopy. However, such people function perfectly well day to day in all other aspects of society.
I agree that mental incompetence caused by mental illness such as say schizophrenia has a devastating effect on the person and those close to them. Incompetence in old age caused by dementia is awful to witness. I watched my brilliant father die by inches through the ravages of arteriosclerosis.
The men in my dad's family start losing the plot in their mid 70's. I'm 72 and live with that fear. So please, before you start making idiotic claims about mental competency, try to do so research first.Theres a good chap.
PS :Why do you insist on continuing to whine about your treatment on another forum? Nothing anyone here can do about it. --Even if we gave a rat's arse.
For matters pertaining to age, I consider all sex I get as "special" and that is without even considering other species.
How does one conclusively tell if "baa baa", "moo", "quack", "woof", "squawk", "ook-ook" or "oink oink" doesn't mean "No!"?
Here is your discussion. People who want to justify fucking an animal or possibly even think they are having meaningful intimate sexual relations with one, are in need of 'special' caring treatment.
Why not discuss inter species sex in a veterinarian, biology or anthropology forum to get a real discussion? I am hazarding a guess that its a subject for which most anthropologists will have already considered and have some sort of reasoned response. Those philosopher types are a mixed bag, some are so easily stirred by the simplest ideas.
I consider it rational to view bestiality as harmful to a society. So did Ghandi, McCartney, Kant, Twain, Schweitzer, Heinlein and several million others. Does it really require discussion?
Pages