Walkntune
Well-Known Member
Is it wrong in your view to take advantage of someone mentally retarded?
-
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
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Interesting how you do not answer the question and instead attempt to divert focus.
Walkntune
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
That you are scared of giving a direct answer to a direct question?
yeppers, saw that right away.
Walkntune
Well-Known Member
Sorry I am not the one who brought that issue up. I only countered it. You need to read the thread.
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Are you going to answer either of the questions?
Walkntune
Well-Known Member
No because she asked Badran. Now please go read the thread.
Walkntune
Well-Known Member
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
What does taking advantage of someone mentally retarded have to do with consent?
Walkntune
Well-Known Member
Someone has to have the intellectual capability to make good judgement.
IOW, necessity. That's a valid point. A few follow up questions:
1) Why does our need, our necessary need of survival trump theirs? Is it because we're able to? What i mean is, you (we) have the option of sacrificing ourselves rather than them. So why choose to sacrifice them?
This might seem like a weird question but i'm curious to see the bottom line of morality for you.
2) What about being vegetarian/vegan or whatever, where you wouldn't have to sacrifice anything that is able to feel pain (or something that is far less intelligent or whatever way you want to describe it)?
3) How do you feel about other examples where no possible necessity arises. Such as keeping animals within a household as pets. They're not asked for consent there too, supposedly. Why is it and should it be legal?
Walkntune
Well-Known Member
=Badran;3176927]IOW, necessity. That's a valid point. A few follow up questions:
3) How do you feel about other examples where no possible necessity arises. Such as keeping animals within a household as pets. They're not asked for consent there too, supposedly. Why is it and should it be legal?
I believe we could be more humane in our slaughter houses.
Something must die in order to sustain life so how far one carries the sacredness of life is a matter of conviction.
I don't try to base what is moral on logic. Logic likes the easy roads and morality is usually on a harder one. Real morality is only based in love and conviction.Sometimes logic seem to confuse the issue of a glass being half empty or half full so man just sways it in his favor.
3) How do you feel about other examples where no possible necessity arises. Such as keeping animals within a household as pets. They're not asked for consent there too, supposedly. Why is it and should it be legal?
No not weird, very logical. My morality lies in love and conviction and not logic.It is more intuitive. My views are based in Christian principles.
I believe we have dominion.If it was the other way around the animals would be less humane about it than most of us.LOL
I believe we could be more humane in our slaughter houses.
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.
I don't believe that having caged animals is really that humane.A turtle or snake needs to experience life as such.If I had a cat or a dog I would let them experience the outside with their instincs.I don't believe in having a dog on a chain,or a cage.I only had a couple of stray dogs as pets so they could come and go as they please.I suppose some dogs have a better life than humans while others are trapped in misery.
I don't try to base what is moral on logic. Logic likes the easy roads and morality is usually on a harder one. Real morality is only based in love and conviction.Sometimes logic seem to confuse the issue of a glass being half empty or half full so man just sways it in his favor.
Good point.
I see no argument to ban bestiality other than IT IS ICKY!
But is the ick factor enuf to justify banning?
Homosexuality would meet that criterion.
Consent by the animal isn't even an issue, since their uses generally aren't voluntary.
Besides, you know she wants it.....
But is the ick factor enuf to justify banning?
Homosexuality would meet that criterion.
Consent by the animal isn't even an issue, since their uses generally aren't voluntary.
Besides, you know she wants it.....
Last edited:
Skwim
Veteran Member
As for the term "rape"
"Historically, rape was defined as unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman against her will. The essential elements of the crime were sexual penetration, force, and lack of consent. Women who were raped were expected to have physically resisted to the utmost of their powers or their assailant would not be convicted of rape. Additionally, a husband could have sex with his wife against her will without being charged with rape. Beginning in the 1970s, state legislatures and courts expanded and redefined the crime of rape to reflect modern notions of equality and legal propriety.
As of the early 2000s, all states define rape without reference to the sex of the victim and the perpetrator. Though the overwhelming majority of rape victims are women, a woman may be convicted of raping a man, a man may be convicted of raping a man, and a woman may be convicted of raping another woman. Furthermore, a spouse may be convicted of rape if the perpetrator forces the other spouse to have nonconsensual sex. Many states do not punish the rape of a spouse as severely as the rape of a non-spouse."
Source: Free Legal Dictionary
So I don't consider sex between humans and animals to be rape.As of the early 2000s, all states define rape without reference to the sex of the victim and the perpetrator. Though the overwhelming majority of rape victims are women, a woman may be convicted of raping a man, a man may be convicted of raping a man, and a woman may be convicted of raping another woman. Furthermore, a spouse may be convicted of rape if the perpetrator forces the other spouse to have nonconsensual sex. Many states do not punish the rape of a spouse as severely as the rape of a non-spouse."
Source: Free Legal Dictionary
My position is that as long as society condones using animals in any way there is no good reason to prohibit bestiality.
Last edited:
Skwim
Veteran Member
Bestiality isn't considered rape. And eating meat is not necessary for people to survive. Think vegetarian here.
Yes, I understand your brand of morality, based on the same love and conviction your god showed toward the innocent children of Bashan.
Numbers 21: 34-35
34 But the Lord said to Moses, Do not fear him, for I have given him into your hand, and all his people, and his land. And you shall do to him as you did to Sihon king of the Amorites, who lived at Heshbon. 35 So they defeated him and his sons and all his people, until he had no survivor left. And they possessed his land.
34 But the Lord said to Moses, Do not fear him, for I have given him into your hand, and all his people, and his land. And you shall do to him as you did to Sihon king of the Amorites, who lived at Heshbon. 35 So they defeated him and his sons and all his people, until he had no survivor left. And they possessed his land.
So wouldn't having sex with animals be exercising this dominion? Of course it would.
We'll chalk you up as a supporter of bestiality.
Last edited:
Skwim
Veteran Member
Good point.
This reminds me of how criminals will dehumanize their victims in order to justify their actions. Is the ickiness of cruelty to animals a case of anthropomorphizing the animal, or is it a case of addressing the ickiness found within the perpetrator's mind? (Keep in mind the serial killers often show a pattern of cruelty to animals before they turn to human victims.)
Skwim
Veteran Member
I think any sense of cruelity towards animals simply comes from an empathy with them.
The recognition of the animal's suffering, and the identification of the pleasure the perpetrator derives from inflicting the suffering as hubris?