Skwim
Veteran Member
"Hubris"? I sure wouldn't think so.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"Farmhand busted for 'having sex with miniature donkey named Doodle'. . .
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
Hubris
In ancient Greek, hubris referred to actions that shamed and humiliated the victim for the pleasure or gratification of the abuser.[1] The term had a strong sexual connotation, and the shame reflected on the perpetrator as well.[2]
Violations of the law against hubris included what might today be termed assault and battery; sexual crimes ranging from rape of women or children to consensual but improper activity, in particular anal sex with a free man or with an unconsenting and/or under-aged boy;[3][4][5] or the theft of public or sacred property. Two well-known cases are found in the speeches of Demosthenes, a prominent statesman and orator in ancient Greece. These two examples occurred when first, Midias punched Demosthenes in the face in the theatre (Against Midias), and second when (in Against Conon) a defendant allegedly assaulted a man and crowed over the victim. Yet another example of hubris appears in Aeschines "Against Timarchus," where the defendant, Timarchus, is accused of breaking the law of hubris by submitting himself to prostitution and anal intercourse. Aeschines brought this suit against Timarchus to bar him from the rights of political office and his case succeeded.[6]
In Greek literature, hubris usually refers to infractions by mortals against other mortals. Therefore, it is now generally agreed that the Greeks did not generally think of hubris as a religious matter, still less that it was normally punished by the gods.
Aristotle defined hubris as shaming the victim, not because of anything that happened to you or might happen to you, but merely for your own gratification.[7] Hubris is not the requital of past injuries—that is revenge. As for the pleasure in hubris, its cause is this: men think that by ill-treating others they make their own superiority the greater.
Crucial to this definition are the ancient Greek concepts of honor (τιμή, timē) and shame (αἰδώς, aidōs). The concept of honor (τιμή, timē) included not only the exaltation of the one receiving honor, but also the shaming of the one overcome by the act of hubris. This concept of honor is akin to a zero-sum game. Rush Rehm simplifies this definition to the contemporary concept of "insolence, contempt, and excessive violence."
McBell
Resident Sourpuss
so you think that any time a mentally retarded person has sex they are being taken advantage of?
And again, what does this have to do with consent from female animals?
Why do you not address the point of the post about male animals?
Not trying to be offensive, but it seems you want to post with out actually replying to what you quote.
Sylvan
Unrepentant goofer duster
A Vice magazine documentary concerning a long standing tradition of Donkey ******* on the coast of northern Columbia.
Not in any way "Safe for Work".
Not in any way an advocate post for Donkey *******.
Although this thread has gotten way silly, it does make me think about word "Husbandry".
Not in any way "Safe for Work".
Not in any way an advocate post for Donkey *******.
Although this thread has gotten way silly, it does make me think about word "Husbandry".
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
When you think about it, people do not even vocally consent to everything 100% of the time, and throughout the animal kingdom we will find examples of animals not consenting and consenting, of which non-consent is usually accompanied by growls, hisses, teeth, fangs, and claws. For some animals it would be abuse for a male to penetrate them (or a larger animal to penetrate a human) as it would cause trauma, but for size-appropriate pairings I have a hard time thinking they are not consenting.
Too bad though there will probably never be any studies done to examine the psychological health of animals in such relationships. If the animals show signs of abuse or not I think should be the deciding factor for this issue.
Too bad though there will probably never be any studies done to examine the psychological health of animals in such relationships. If the animals show signs of abuse or not I think should be the deciding factor for this issue.
Walkntune
Well-Known Member
Bottom line for me is without God( selfless love for those who are atheist) there really is no justification for morality.One group of people can justify killing another group and eating them to save from starving?A man not walking in selfless love is in a fallen state and so is his morality.
Skwim
Veteran Member
So what's the deal now, were supposed to start using ancient meanings of words rather than their current ones? Then how about using "apology," an ancient Greek word, in it's original sense: speech in self defense. Or,how about using "cute" to mean clever, its original meaning. Or "awful" which used to mean awe inspiring. Kind of dumb wouldn't you say.
In the mean time let's stick with the current definition of hubris:
Skwim
Veteran Member
Is this your farewell then? Not going to answer any of the questions put to you, such as: "So wouldn't having sex with animals be exercising this dominion? " that came on heels of your: "I believe we have dominion [over animals]"
Walkntune
Well-Known Member
Dominion comes with a responsibility. Adults have dominion over children.It is not a license to abuse.By your logic if a child is willing then it would not be sexual abuse.Yes I am sorry this is a farewell though.Your points are very logical but nor based in a love based moral of selflessness.Only in that which would justify selfishness. Can't argue morale from a point of logic outside of existence of God because it does not exist.
Walkntune
Well-Known Member
Not what I said.If you show they are intellectually capable of good judgement and not being taking advantage of then I can't see anything wrong.Everyone deserves real love.
If you have consent from a child does that make it right and moral? If not, whyso from an animal?
Not trying to be offensive, but there are those who are understanding my replies.
Skwim
Veteran Member
By "my logic"? Just what have I said wherein my logic implies if a child is willing then it would not be sexual abuse? Please point this out, otherwise you're just making up crap out of thin air.
Yeah, I know this is what your preachers tell you, but aside from its outright silliness, many of us recognize these kinds of claims as tools people like you use to slip out of defending your morale (sic) position. "I can't discuss X, Y, and Z, with you because to do so you have to be born again in the rapture of the white knight of Mt. Saint Helens, and you ain't been." It's a pretty thread worn ploy, but if that's all you've got then that's all you've got.
Walkntune
Well-Known Member
For you what makes the seperation from an animal to a child? Or do you believe the animal should be at least 18 years old?
If being selfless is a sic position to you than there is no good position to stand.Yeah, I know this is what your preachers tell you, but aside from its outright silliness, many of us recognize these kinds of claims as tools people like you use to slip out of defending your morale (sic) position. "I can't discuss X, Y, and Z, with you because to do so you have to be born again in the rapture of the white knight of Mt. Saint Helens, and you ain't been." It's a pretty thread worn ploy, but if that's all you've got then that's all you've got.
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
Animals aren't mentally retarded, and regardless if they were, we take advantage of them all time.
I just thought of another thing pertaining to animal sexual consent. Is insemination also wrong?
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Would it be still be considered rape if it were the human who was mounted by the animal?
Me Myself
Back to my username
If it is then what the HECK is a slaughter house? o.o
Thanks for your honest answers. Given that we're talking about issues of legality, what alternative do you think is there to discussing the issue other than logic?
What i mean is, in some parts we would be assessing the situation logically. Then in another part we might hit a wall (so to speak) where there is a relied upon principle that is not based in logic and as such i'm not sure how are we going to address the issue then. For example:
There are those with this conviction.I am not enlightened to this point but I respect those who have this conviction.Jesus fed a multitude with fish and if it was good enough for him I can at least justify eating fish.I am not really certain that some people are meant to eat meat while others are not so therefore some feel a conviction others don't.Different blood types etc...
Something must die in order to sustain life so how far one carries the sacredness of life is a matter of conviction.
If on one hand people are saying that having sex with animals is immoral and should be illegal due to supposed lack of consent on the animal's part. While on the other hand saying it's fine and should continue to be legal to outright slaughter animals, despite lack of consent, while they also might be able to survive on other alternatives, and justify that by the actions of Jesus and/or stating that the sacredness of life should be left for everyone to decide for themselves, this to me looks like inconsistency both in emotions and in logic.
On the emotional level, someone would be outraged by the thought of a horse having sex with a female human, for example, even if the horse is the instigator, and feel that this is intolerable abuse towards the animal and then go on to eat a cheese burger while feeling pretty good about it. Something doesn't seem right here.
On the logical level, this possible inconsistency if true invalidates the argument of lack of consent to be the supposed basis for the illegality of sex with animals.
Now, to clarify a couple of things for the sake of my intent and position being clear:
1) I eat meat.
2) I'm not actually sure whether or not we can sustain ourselves without eating meat. Collectively, that is.
3) I'm not necessarily advocating for either side.
Rather, what i'm doing is trying to address seemingly inconsistent aspects both in the laws of many places and in the thought process of many people. Mainly to learn and be able to form a more informed opinion about the subject.
I pretty much agree with your sentiments here. Of course, the law doesn't not reflect neither of our sentiments in many places, and that is partially why there is (or at least seems to me) to be an inconsistency surrounding this whole thing. Which suggests ulterior reasons for the legal status and social view of the issue in question here.
To share another important thing which i was waiting for your answers before i address, i would like to talk about the supposed rape aspect. Here are a couple of thoughts that were already alluded to or stated by others as well as some other things i want to add for consideration:
1) Animals are frequently compared to children in that they can't give consent. I think this is an invalid argument because animals obviously can and do partake in sexual activity with each other, and seem to have the ability to refrain or engage with each other based on some criteria, as well as possibly being able to enjoy it. Children on the other hand are not ready for sex at all, of any kind or with anybody. It would damage them on account of many reasons that might not be present in an adult or grown animal.
2) I think the animal is capable of showing signs of wanting to engage or refrain from doing so in regards to the action of sex with a human being, and are usually capable of doing serious damage to defend themselves if needed. That's obviously not to say that a human can't rape an animal, but to say that there seems to be many signs to look for, obvious ones, where consent or non-consent can be detected.
3) If we discount those signs due to inferiority of thought process (to ours), IOW, say that whatever signs and/or actions they do don't matter, then we can't consider anything we do to be good for the animal, or perceived as such by it. As then we can never know whether or not anything we do is good or bad to them, or whether or not they want it. To put it differently, if we discount these signs of consent or non-consent then we essentially claim that we can't decide anything in regards to what an animal wants. I would not be able to know whether or not feeding the animal a certain type of food makes him happy, or whether playing catch is a good thing or a form of unspeakable torture.
Now, what i do think is lacking is perhaps informed consent. Animals would not be aware of the possible consequences of sex with humans. As such while i think it does not negate their consent, it does make it one that is lacking information. This makes a considerable amount of difference in m view. As then the issue seems to revolve more around the possible consequences, their likability, and what possible actions can be taken to minimize such consequences. The outcome of consideration of these aspects then seems to become the main crux of the matter as to whether sex with animals should be legal or illegal.
mr.guy
crapsack
To be fair, when it gets to that stage, having sex with dead children isn't really pedophilia anymore, either.
Me Myself
Back to my username
I don´t think you understood the point :no:
mr.guy
crapsack
Oh? I thought it dovetailed rather nicely with yours.