Animal sex and gay sex are the same in sweeden?

[Nicole]

This argument is way boring and incredibly stupid.

See if you're on the dog-screwing is wrong side then you're a judgmental facist. If you're on the "forty acres, a dog, and some lube" side then well, you're siding with dog-****ers. I can't believe there's four pages going on about this.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nicole

you're siding with dog-****ers.

I disagree with your dog ****ing but I'll defend your right to do it.

[Nicole]

NO! Don't you understand anything? This is not a good example of principles. It is a stupid stupid example. Run away from the example! You should stand up and say, " I can find a better way to express my views on freedom and consensual (kinda) crime than by defending dog-****ers" Go on, do it. It'll make you feel better.

[queball]

Originally Posted by Nicole

NO! Don't you understand anything? This is not a good example of principles. It is a stupid stupid example. Run away from the example! You should stand up and say, " I can find a better way to express my views on freedom and consensual (kinda) crime than by defending dog-****ers" Go on, do it. It'll make you feel better.

It seems the perfect cause to me. Something that doesn't harm anyone, but a group of people have decided is wrong and are trying to enforce their views through law.

[JammyJim]

its amazing that a thread with 'animal sex' and 'gay sex' in the thread title gets more posts and views than any other thread on the front page of GD.

[Nicole]

It'll hurt if a donkey back-kicks its rapist in the kneecap....

NO! you're not dragging me into this. I don't even care if someone ****s their dog. Hell, I fed my hamster to a snake. The point is that this just might be the most asinine argument in the history of GD and this is coming from a person who defended spackle just to piss people off. I can see myself getting sucked into the bullshit so I won't post again in the thread. So go, carry on till your eyes bleed.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nicole

This is not a good example of principles. It is a stupid stupid example.

Queball said it first and better, but you're wrong.

Defending safe freedoms (like freedom of speech) or fashionable freedoms (rights for homosexuals in some circles for instance) can tend to blur the issue. To paraphrase my usual Noam quote : You either believe in freedom for the most despicable in society doing the most unpleasant things (without hurting anyone) or you're against freedom for everyone.

Only defending those groups which are eloquent or doing something which you personally find interesting/pleasant is a dodgy precedent.

[Nodrog]

Except that the bestiality case isnt a clear cut "do you support freedom?" argument like the other ones mentioned, because some of those on the opposing side arent arguingfrom the standpoint of "ewww that's icky", but from animal rights perspective. Theres no intrinsic contradiction involved in saying "People should be left free to do whatever they like as long as they dont needlessly hurt other humans or animals".

[Cmdr_Cyrax]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

The general argument is that we ARE similar to dogs, cats, etc. The issue is that our brains, due to the level of complexity, have emergent properties like consciousness, self-perception, etc.

If we ever build a computer capable of intelligence/sentience/consciousness (or whatever) it will be similar to our modern desktops, but that doesn't mean our current machines are deserving of 10% of rights or whatever.

I'm not trying to determine their level of rights through an organisms complexity, I am saying they might have 'free will' because of this complexity in their brains. I find it highly unlikely that the animal kingdom is exactly divided as in the bible whereby humans are the only animals which have free will. The question i'm proposing is: At what stange of evolutive complexity does instinct and reflex give way to any kind of sentient thought?

[Cynical Oracle]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Only defending those groups which are eloquent or doing something which you personally find interesting/pleasant is a dodgy precedent.

Agreed, but discussing out of principle may turn your point into crap. However, you will get credit for doing so, by me atleast

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Except that the bestiality case isnt a clear cut "do you support freedom?" argument like the other ones mentioned.

Indeed, but Nicole wasn't arguing that. She was saying it's a shit simply because, not due to the possible unclearness of the issue (i.e. animals have rights).

Cynical : I'm arguing out of principle because personally I would never want to be cruel, or **** a dog, or whatever. I don't even like the idea of non-human animals in people's homes (it seems pretty unhygenic tbh) but whatever.

[Cynical Oracle]

What this thread has boiled down to, from my perspective, is simply the strongest link. Humans are the most advanced species on this planet. That said, should we limit 'rights' to those who can speak?

[Nodrog]

It's linguistically acceptable to just to say 'animal' rather than 'non-human animal' btw.

edit: it might actually be lingustically incorrect to call humans animals, im not sure.

[Cynical Oracle]

Yes.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

It's linguistically acceptable to just to say 'animal' rather than 'non-human animal' btw.

I should hope so too, but in this thread I've already had two morons tell me that humans were animals.

[Nodrog]

Well scientifically speaking they obviously are, but its generally fallacious to context switch like that within an argument.

[Cynical Oracle]

Dante: Why do you recon that humans have the right to do whatever they want with 'lesser' lifeforms? How can you back this up?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Cynical Oracle

Dante: Why do you recon that humans have the right to do whatever they want with 'lesser' lifeforms? How can you back this up?

It's an ethical statement, so it's not really testable. I think it's immoral/unethical to inflict suffering on a conscious/sentient being. I don't think animals are conscious beings, ergo, I have no problem with it.

[Cynical Oracle]

But they are, wich has been proven.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Cynical Oracle

But they are, wich has been proven.

Link please.

[Cynical Oracle]

Google for it. I cba

[Evergreen]

HAS ANYONE NOTICED THAT THE ACTUAL ARTICLE IS ABOUT THE INCREASE IN THE SEXUAL ABUSE OF ANIMALS (when I say abuse as in actually harming them, the sex part is non important) SINCE THE CRIMINALIZATION OF CHILD PRONOGRAPHY IN 1999.

IN OTHER WORDS WE HAVE A CASE FOR ARGUING THAT ALL DEVIANTS OF THE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY NATURE ARE NOT JUST INTO CHILD PORNOGRAPHY THEY ARE MERELY INTO ABUSING WHAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED DEFENSELESS ANIMALS INSTEAD OF CHILDREN.

So in otherwords why aren't we having another people who want/lust after sex with children just prefer to lust after something that is defenceless in nature and aren't overly specific with the species/maturity of said victim. In otherwords if Adults or at least a section of adults were defenseless (say mentally handicapped people) would those that abuse them be the same sort of sexual deviant as a child and hence Animal abuser?

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

What possible test could something pass to display consciousness;

On primates, it is normally tested through the use of a mirror. The creature gets to look in the mirror, after which a stain of sorts is put on his head (eg. a location he cannot detect visually) and he is placed before the mirror again.

If the creature realises that he is watching himself in the mirror and actually tries to remove the stain from himself, rather than from his mirror image, that is generally taken as a sign of consciousness; as it implies that he knows he exists and is watching himself, rather than another ape.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Leshy

On primates, it is normally tested through the use of a mirror. The creature gets to look in the mirror, after which a stain of sorts is put on his head (eg. a location he cannot detect visually) and he is placed before the mirror again.

If the creature realises that he is watching himself in the mirror and actually tries to remove the stain from himself, rather than from his mirror image, that is generally taken as a sign of consciousness; as it implies that he knows he exists and is watching himself, rather than another ape.

My dog can see himself reflected in the window when he looks out all the time. Seeing as he barks and goes crazy when he sees another dog outside, I'd say it's pretty clear he knows it's his reflection he's seeing.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Proteus

My dog can see himself reflected in the window when he looks out all the time.

How do you know this?

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Leshy

How do you know this?

I can see the reflection and he isn't blind.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Evergreen

Not that dogs bark at a ****ing mirror you ****ing ****wit.

Yawn. Read the thread Mr Thread-On-Topicness Enforcer.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Leshy

that is generally taken as a sign of consciousness; as it implies that he knows he exists and is watching himself, rather than another ape.

I've certainly heard of this, but I'm not sure what it's supposed to prove. Being able to distinguish yourself (reflection) from something else might simply be a basic evolved trait, not a sign of consciousness more generally.

[Evergreen]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Yawn. Read the thread Mr Thread-On-Topicness Enforcer.

I did and I importantly Read the source quoted for the thread.

Whats wrong, Child sex passe now?

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Proteus

I can see the reflection and he isn't blind.

I bet your eyes can see a lot of things your dog's eyes can't.

They also tested dogs in the same show, by the way. They took the dog's owner, put a bucket on his head with the dog out of the room, then had the guy sitting on the floor. The dog came in and simply started barking at the bucket, visibly being very excited. When they did the same test with primates, the monkeys simpy grabbed the bucket and removed it from their caretaker's heads.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I've certainly heard of this, but I'm not sure what it's supposed to prove. Being able to distinguish yourself (reflection) from something else might simply be a basic evolved trait, not a sign of consciousness more generally.

In order to distinguish yourself from something else, you need to have a sense of self-awareness.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Evergreen

I did and I importantly Read the source quoted for the thread.

This isn't Slashdot.

Discussions go "off-topic" to the point where they are the new topic. Coming to a thread over a 150 posts in and then shouting at everyone for the last 100+ posts being off-topic seems kinda dumb.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Leshy

In order to distinguish yourself from something else, you need to have a sense of self-awareness.

Not necessarily. I'm told very young infants can distinguish their mother from other people very early on. Perhaps you learn to distinguish yourself from others too, and then furthermore, learn that your eyes can't be trusted when it comes to this special person. Or something along those lines. Implying a sense of self from being able to tell a reflection from something else seems quite a leap.

[Evergreen]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I'm told very young infants can learn to and furthermore be trusted when this special person comes Or something along those lines. Implying a sense of self reflection from something else seems quite a leap.

Now we are heading somewhere.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I'm told very young infants can distinguish their mother from other people very early on.

Human infants? Because in that case you're talking about a fairly large amount of brain capacity and abilities that, while not fully developed yet, may already be present.

In addition, but this goes for all species, the parents (especially the mother) are likely to be the first thing any infant sees in this world. I have heard tales of geese following humans around as they would their mother, because they were the only living thing around when the eggs hatched.

And it's not really a big leap, it's a fairly basic argument. If you have no sense of yourself, no idea that you exist or what you look like, then looking in the mirror and seeing yourself wouldn't tell you that you are looking at yourself.

I'm not saying it's necessarily natural behaviour, the test was after all carried out on primates in a lab, not on a few wild gorilla's, but at the very least it implies that they have the basic brain capability to "understand" and apply the concept.

[Evergreen]

Originally Posted by Leshy

Human infants? you're talking about a fairly large amount of not fully developed humans.

it's not really a big leap, it's basic. you have no sense yourself, no idea, look in the mirror and look at yourself.

it's natural behaviour, the test was after all carried out on a few that have the basic brain capability to "understand".

Retort, Flames and more child sex discussion.

We are progressing.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Evergreen

I've recently come out of the closet and made it public that I'm gay. I'm also starting to wear pink clothes, although I still haven't got the nerve to fully dress up like a hooker and suck off men.

I'm progressing.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Evergreen

more child sex discussion.

Why are you obsessed by this?