OK, now do people consider pedophilia a natural sexual preference? I mean it was acceptable back in the time of the Greeks/Romans. I guess that may not be pedophilia and maybe hebephilia and ephebophilia. Or what about zoophilia? If our sexuality is nature over nurture then are they not just as valid?
I think it's fair to say that any sexual act or relationship in which one (or more) of the participants can be described as the victim is invalid.
Things get a bit stickier when you get to ephebophilia, as it is physically and often mentally natural but socially abhorrent to varying degrees, with race and gender preference often leading to harsher condemnation in some cases over others. For example: in Wilson v. State of Georgia a 19yo was charged with aggravated sexual assault for engaging in oral sex (it being oral was what constituted it being "aggravated" in the State of Georgia) with a 15yo and a 17yo and got 10 years in jail (he also happened to be black). He was only released after the Georgia Supreme Court ruled the conviction cruel and unusual, with a 4/3 split.
I used to have a problem with zoophilia because of the consent thing, but then someone on the forums pointed something out: animals don't consent to being eaten, either. Horses don't consent to being trained for riding or racing. So, I think the issue of non-consent in animals is largely moot.
No, really, I'm being dead serious. We use animals in a wide variety of non-consensual activities, and have for a long time. Why is this one particular use different?
Animals are not sentient and cannot understand the ramifications of human actions. They cannot give consent for the same reasons that children cannot give consent. This is simple.
Animals are not sentient and cannot understand the ramifications of human actions. They cannot give consent for the same reasons that children cannot give consent. This is simple.
But we slaughter the animals without their consent.
Animals are not sentient and cannot understand the ramifications of human actions. They cannot give consent for the same reasons that children cannot give consent. This is simple.
But we slaughter the animals without their consent.
Animals are not sentient and cannot understand the ramifications of human actions. They cannot give consent for the same reasons that children cannot give consent. This is simple.
What about an ape that can sign? And many animals are sentient. Do you perhaps refer to sapience?
But we slaughter the animals without their consent.
This is my point. Why are we squicky about fucking a cow without its consent? You're cool with killing the animal without its consent; I would think that a little bit of the ol' in-out should be less controversial.
Not so. Look at when a hot female teacher rapes a young male student. Yes she is tried and sent to jail, but everyone is really like, "Damn that kid is lucky".
Not so. Look at when a hot female teacher rapes a young male student. Yes she is tried and sent to jail, but everyone is really like, "Damn that kid is lucky".
A =/= B and V =/= 21. Apples & Oranges don't really have much in common other than that they are fruits. Rape & Murder are the same as they are both crimes of violence. Other than that, comparing them is useless.
A =/= B and V =/= 21. Apples & Oranges don't really have much in common other than that they are fruits. Rape & Murder are the same as they are both crimes of violence. Other than that, comparing them is useless.
That still doesn't answer my fundamental question: why is the non-consensual killing of animals OK, but the non-consensual fucking of animals super-duper taboo? What are the differences between the two that make one OK and the other not?
Are you gay? Or whatever? Why? Anecdotes, observations, etc.
To this:
That still doesn't answer my fundamental question: why is the non-consensual killing of animals OK, but the non-consensual fucking of animals super-duper taboo? What are the differences between the two that make one OK and the other not?
Are you gay? Or whatever? Why? Anecdotes, observations, etc.
To this:
That still doesn't answer my fundamental question: why is the non-consensual killing of animals OK, but the non-consensual fucking of animals super-duper taboo? What are the differences between the two that make one OK and the other not?
I'm going to deem it a result of the influence of the MLP thread.
Are you gay? Or whatever? Why? Anecdotes, observations, etc.
To this:
That still doesn't answer my fundamental question: why is the non-consensual killing of animals OK, but the non-consensual fucking of animals super-duper taboo? What are the differences between the two that make one OK and the other not?
I'm going to deem it a result of the influence of the MLP thread.
I'm perhaps a little less generous. I've seen too many conversations that quickly went from "it's cool to be queer" to "oh yeah, well then what about [insert inflammatory and generally-considered-immoral practice here]?" Like, really? As if there's not a big leap there? I find this more irritating than people "tolerating" my "lifestyle."
What are the differences between the two that make one OK and the other not?
It's troubling that you think that one of these is OK. Neither is. Just because society turns a blind eye to certain things does not make it acceptable. As mentioned earlier in this thread, in the past it was considered fine to have sex with children. Didn't make it so and today, in this country, it is not. What is and is not OK must be decided by the individual, preferably without coercion or influence from others. Someone who is vegetarian has a different view than someone who is an omnivore. Neither is right or wrong in their personal choice, but they may well be right or wrong in the context of societal law.
Having said that I have to agree with jtvh. We've gotten quite a way out of context as far as this thread is concerned. My thoughts on the original question though are: what does it matter? Your choice is your choice I have mine and your choice is not going to change mine in any way. Live and let live (as long as no one is being harmed). And equating lesbianism, gay, bisexuality, transgendered, asexual, etc to pedophilia dehumanizes those who identify as LGBTQA.
It's troubling that you think that one of these is OK. Neither is.
So...you're a vegan then? I'm talking explicitly about the killing of animals for food versus the fucking of animals for pleasure.
No, I'm not. You'll notice in my previous post that I point out societal acceptance doesn't make something OK. I eat meat. I love calamari and a good chicken fried steak. But I could be vegan. And I remain aware of the life that had to end in order for me to survive. I am respectful of that sacrifice and I prefer it were done in as quick and painless a way possible. Let me ask you this though: by your own logic what's the difference between eating a fruit vs. an animal. They are both alive. They both grow, react to stimulus, and die, all be it in very different ways. The same can be said for rocks, stars, whole galaxies. Life is life. There is a difference between doing something in order to survive vs. doing something because you have an urge to. A need =/= a want.
Thank you for proving my point on the uselessness of comparisons.
I guess the point that I'm trying (and admittedly failing miserably) to make is that Society chooses what it will tolerate but the individual has the ultimate veto power. If an individual A) has an urge to do something and is willing to accept the punishments society will inflict then the individual will do what he/she wants to and nothing will stop them.
Thank you for proving my point on the uselessness of comparisons.
Yes, only if you do the really stupid thing that I always do and take it to the reductionist extreme. I do it to be an ass and prove a point - it's useless as the foundation of an argument.
Life is life, morality doesn't exist, nothing is right or wrong, etc. This is not groundbreaking.
But to call comparisons "useless" is amazingly shortsighted and - frankly - intellectual cowardice. If comparisons were actually useless in conveying ideas, we'd have no science. Nothing would get done in any meaningful way because we'd be acting - essentially - randomly.
Pragmatically, we can make comparisons provided we define things sufficiently. Pragmatically, if your society says "X is OK," that means that it's effectively the same as if it were truly objectively "OK." That's how laws and such work - we collectively agree on what is "OK" and abide by those rules. And when enough people think something is no longer "OK," things shift. By comparing related concepts, we learn more about the things we're comparing. We reveal truths by engaging in these comparisons, and then we compare truths to reveal more truths. This is how we learn and grow.
So when I say, "Why is it OK to kill animals," I know full well that you might not think it's OK to kill animals. But you consume the products of such things, so you condone it by action, and by engaging in a society that accepts such a practice without actively fighting it, you are saying - effectively - "I think this thing is OK." We can split hairs about what we mean by "OK," but unless you actually change your behavior based on your notions of what is "OK" or not, it's meaningless.
by your own logic what's the difference between eating a fruit vs. an animal
Technically? Well, there's the conformational differences and cooking temperatures. Ethically/morally/whateverly? None.
Comments
Things get a bit stickier when you get to ephebophilia, as it is physically and often mentally natural but socially abhorrent to varying degrees, with race and gender preference often leading to harsher condemnation in some cases over others. For example: in Wilson v. State of Georgia a 19yo was charged with aggravated sexual assault for engaging in oral sex (it being oral was what constituted it being "aggravated" in the State of Georgia) with a 15yo and a 17yo and got 10 years in jail (he also happened to be black). He was only released after the Georgia Supreme Court ruled the conviction cruel and unusual, with a 4/3 split.
Having said that I have to agree with jtvh. We've gotten quite a way out of context as far as this thread is concerned. My thoughts on the original question though are: what does it matter? Your choice is your choice I have mine and your choice is not going to change mine in any way. Live and let live (as long as no one is being harmed). And equating lesbianism, gay, bisexuality, transgendered, asexual, etc to pedophilia dehumanizes those who identify as LGBTQA.
Thank you for proving my point on the uselessness of comparisons.
If an individual A) has an urge to do something and
Life is life, morality doesn't exist, nothing is right or wrong, etc. This is not groundbreaking.
But to call comparisons "useless" is amazingly shortsighted and - frankly - intellectual cowardice. If comparisons were actually useless in conveying ideas, we'd have no science. Nothing would get done in any meaningful way because we'd be acting - essentially - randomly.
Pragmatically, we can make comparisons provided we define things sufficiently. Pragmatically, if your society says "X is OK," that means that it's effectively the same as if it were truly objectively "OK." That's how laws and such work - we collectively agree on what is "OK" and abide by those rules. And when enough people think something is no longer "OK," things shift. By comparing related concepts, we learn more about the things we're comparing. We reveal truths by engaging in these comparisons, and then we compare truths to reveal more truths. This is how we learn and grow.
So when I say, "Why is it OK to kill animals," I know full well that you might not think it's OK to kill animals. But you consume the products of such things, so you condone it by action, and by engaging in a society that accepts such a practice without actively fighting it, you are saying - effectively - "I think this thing is OK." We can split hairs about what we mean by "OK," but unless you actually change your behavior based on your notions of what is "OK" or not, it's meaningless. Technically? Well, there's the conformational differences and cooking temperatures. Ethically/morally/whateverly? None.
I was making a joke because the acronym gets progressively longer...