Dogs HAVE evolved to please humans, otherwise they'd still all be wild wolves. I've read quite a lot about canine psychology and most of their attention is on their humans and what the humans want: obviously dogs who didn't adapt to living with humans weren't kept around and so didn't breed in captivity. Sorry I don't have time to find the references on this, but there are plenty.
No that would not be you exploiting the dog unless you were gaining some sexual satisfaction from it and misinterpreted dominance body language as sexual.
I do not accept a parallel between homosexuals and pedophiles: the former has to do with sex between consenting adults, the latter is exploitation of children by adults. It may be true that neither group has a choice about who they're attracted to, but EVERYONE has a choice on whether or not to act on that desire.
The abolition of slavery could also be seen as "modern" in terms of the scope of history: that does not mean it was not a desirable thing for good people to work for, just as is the sexual exploitation of children, including child marriage. I don't care who accepts those things as moral, if they involve people with power exercising that power over the less powerful THAT IS WRONG. If you believe that is moral in a society which regards it as such, then where does you own moral compass come from? Is female genital mutilation (outlawed a few days ago in Nigeria, which is a welcome start) moral if the society where it occurs believes it is? You're arguing from a moral vacuum.
Clearly you lack an understanding of how EVOLUTION works. Things that are evolving aren't ADAPTING. Until you possess an understanding of how the process of evolution works you will likely continue to use the term incorrectly. Domesticating and/or breeding for certain traits is not evolution.
So, you support bestiality when a horny dog mounts an unsuspecting human and does what it wants to do. Penetration isn't a requirement for these acts to be functionally equivalent.
Whether sex is consensual or not has zero bearing on the urges that a person feels. You're arguing from a place that, if homosexuality was not acceptable (say, in the Catholic church) people with those urges should be able to just go ahead and repress them and be happy to do so because others find their urges to be immoral. There are places, like China or Iran, where your kind of thinking is not only accepted it's encouraged.
I'm not sure where the slavery argument is coming from, but since you bring it up, slavery is alive and well in the 21st century. I'd invite you to explore the current human sex trafficking that's rampant in Europe and Asia, as well as just about everywhere else in lesser numbers for ready examples of modern slavery.
Until you accept that morality is purely a societal and/or cultural construct there will be no way for your limited world view to expand. Since there really is no such thing as morality (well, there is, but it's completely subjective) there is no basis for an argument based on it. You're assuming you have a morally superior point of view when in fact, it's simply different.
I don't believe your twisting is necessarily intentional, it just seems that you lack the perspective to understand that you're not right just because you've decided you are. But, that's okay, I'm here to help.
2 That's not what I said and it's not what I meant
3 That's not what I said either
4 I know all that, I'm not an idiot, I was referring to the move to abolish it
5 The powerful not exploiting the less powerful IS a moral point of view, I don't care what you say, on our reasonong there is no such thing as morality
"This is my last response to you, I have better things to do with my time & energy."
Ever?
Like, burying your head in the sand?
You know, you've missed the entire point of what I've been posting. I haven't actually stated anything that is pro-bestiality, but what I have posted doesn't align with your world view. You apparently are of the belief that anyone that isn't with you is against you. Sad.
Take for example this evolution business. You could read any number of books that would explain how evolution actually works, but then your apple cart would be jostled and who knows what you might start believing next.
Here's a quick take for your perusal...
When any given species reproduces, nature, in it's infinite wisdom, tries all sorts of mutations. That's why we end up with people with 6 toes and hermaphrodites. The mutations that give an advantage tend to get passed along to offspring where they become more and more the norm. Thus, the mammoths that wear able to adapt by becoming woolly aren't really a thing. It's actually the mammoths that just randomly happened to be woollier were better adapted to their environment, and thus the gene for woolliness was passed on.
Things don't "adapt" in a generation (things really don't adapt as such in an evolutionary sense), things that work well in a given environment tend to survive more and thus pass on those genes which happen to be better adapted to the environment.
Back to dogs... Canines did not happen to magically adapt to become useful to humans. Humans selectively bred canines for the traits they found useful. In fact, by your own, "Power forcing others with less power is wrong" argument you make people bad for ever domesticating canines, because wolves didn't automagically evolve into Pomeranians to be useful (or decorative, or whatever) to people.
Lastly, you might want to look a little harder at the whole conversation. I haven't treated you with much respect, because frankly I don't respect ignorance, and I don't have tons of time to slowly, and gently educate others, especially others that have their heels dug in and cling to falsehoods. But I certainly wouldn't characterize my responses as patronizing. I think you may be misunderstanding the correct use of that word as well. In fact, I feel like I'm seeing a pattern of close mindedness and ignorance to your posts. I'm sure you don't feel that way, but consider how articulate this post is... I'm not one of the poo flinging asshats that populate this site.
Another brief (hopefully) point: I never said there isn't morality, I said it's a human construct and it's subjective. It's not comparable to say... gravity, which is not a human construct and not at all subjective, it's a law of nature and is immutable until you get to the quantum level, which (patronizingly) I doubt you understand.
As for all your numbers and what they are supposed to track to, I have no idea.
Do you support beastality?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Dogs HAVE evolved to please humans, otherwise they'd still all be wild wolves. I've read quite a lot about canine psychology and most of their attention is on their humans and what the humans want: obviously dogs who didn't adapt to living with humans weren't kept around and so didn't breed in captivity. Sorry I don't have time to find the references on this, but there are plenty.
No that would not be you exploiting the dog unless you were gaining some sexual satisfaction from it and misinterpreted dominance body language as sexual.
I do not accept a parallel between homosexuals and pedophiles: the former has to do with sex between consenting adults, the latter is exploitation of children by adults. It may be true that neither group has a choice about who they're attracted to, but EVERYONE has a choice on whether or not to act on that desire.
The abolition of slavery could also be seen as "modern" in terms of the scope of history: that does not mean it was not a desirable thing for good people to work for, just as is the sexual exploitation of children, including child marriage. I don't care who accepts those things as moral, if they involve people with power exercising that power over the less powerful THAT IS WRONG. If you believe that is moral in a society which regards it as such, then where does you own moral compass come from? Is female genital mutilation (outlawed a few days ago in Nigeria, which is a welcome start) moral if the society where it occurs believes it is? You're arguing from a moral vacuum.
I haven't tried to twist anything into anything.
--
KingTermite
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Clearly you lack an understanding of how EVOLUTION works. Things that are evolving aren't ADAPTING. Until you possess an understanding of how the process of evolution works you will likely continue to use the term incorrectly. Domesticating and/or breeding for certain traits is not evolution.
So, you support bestiality when a horny dog mounts an unsuspecting human and does what it wants to do. Penetration isn't a requirement for these acts to be functionally equivalent.
Whether sex is consensual or not has zero bearing on the urges that a person feels. You're arguing from a place that, if homosexuality was not acceptable (say, in the Catholic church) people with those urges should be able to just go ahead and repress them and be happy to do so because others find their urges to be immoral. There are places, like China or Iran, where your kind of thinking is not only accepted it's encouraged.
I'm not sure where the slavery argument is coming from, but since you bring it up, slavery is alive and well in the 21st century. I'd invite you to explore the current human sex trafficking that's rampant in Europe and Asia, as well as just about everywhere else in lesser numbers for ready examples of modern slavery.
Until you accept that morality is purely a societal and/or cultural construct there will be no way for your limited world view to expand. Since there really is no such thing as morality (well, there is, but it's completely subjective) there is no basis for an argument based on it. You're assuming you have a morally superior point of view when in fact, it's simply different.
I don't believe your twisting is necessarily intentional, it just seems that you lack the perspective to understand that you're not right just because you've decided you are. But, that's okay, I'm here to help.
--
itsnotnormal5
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
Ellenna
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
Ellenna
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You are a fucking idiot
cont'd
2 That's not what I said and it's not what I meant
3 That's not what I said either
4 I know all that, I'm not an idiot, I was referring to the move to abolish it
5 The powerful not exploiting the less powerful IS a moral point of view, I don't care what you say, on our reasonong there is no such thing as morality
6 As I said earlier, don't patronise me
--
intooblivion
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
KingTermite
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I thought you were done...
LOL.
Quick, run!
--
itsnotnormal5
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You are a fucking idiot
This is my last response to you, I have better things to do with my time & energy.
1 Don't patronise me
2
--
KingTermite
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
"This is my last response to you, I have better things to do with my time & energy."
Ever?
Like, burying your head in the sand?
You know, you've missed the entire point of what I've been posting. I haven't actually stated anything that is pro-bestiality, but what I have posted doesn't align with your world view. You apparently are of the belief that anyone that isn't with you is against you. Sad.
Take for example this evolution business. You could read any number of books that would explain how evolution actually works, but then your apple cart would be jostled and who knows what you might start believing next.
Here's a quick take for your perusal...
When any given species reproduces, nature, in it's infinite wisdom, tries all sorts of mutations. That's why we end up with people with 6 toes and hermaphrodites. The mutations that give an advantage tend to get passed along to offspring where they become more and more the norm. Thus, the mammoths that wear able to adapt by becoming woolly aren't really a thing. It's actually the mammoths that just randomly happened to be woollier were better adapted to their environment, and thus the gene for woolliness was passed on.
Things don't "adapt" in a generation (things really don't adapt as such in an evolutionary sense), things that work well in a given environment tend to survive more and thus pass on those genes which happen to be better adapted to the environment.
Back to dogs... Canines did not happen to magically adapt to become useful to humans. Humans selectively bred canines for the traits they found useful. In fact, by your own, "Power forcing others with less power is wrong" argument you make people bad for ever domesticating canines, because wolves didn't automagically evolve into Pomeranians to be useful (or decorative, or whatever) to people.
Lastly, you might want to look a little harder at the whole conversation. I haven't treated you with much respect, because frankly I don't respect ignorance, and I don't have tons of time to slowly, and gently educate others, especially others that have their heels dug in and cling to falsehoods. But I certainly wouldn't characterize my responses as patronizing. I think you may be misunderstanding the correct use of that word as well. In fact, I feel like I'm seeing a pattern of close mindedness and ignorance to your posts. I'm sure you don't feel that way, but consider how articulate this post is... I'm not one of the poo flinging asshats that populate this site.
Another brief (hopefully) point: I never said there isn't morality, I said it's a human construct and it's subjective. It's not comparable to say... gravity, which is not a human construct and not at all subjective, it's a law of nature and is immutable until you get to the quantum level, which (patronizingly) I doubt you understand.
As for all your numbers and what they are supposed to track to, I have no idea.
--
intooblivion
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
itsnotnormal5
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
Ellenna
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
wow. such comment. much awesome. so respect. really logic. - doge
You are a fucking idiot
Deleted without reading it
--
KingTermite
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
Deleted? Really? Is there a way to delete others comments, or are you just saying "buried head in sand" the short way?
--
ChildMolester
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
-
Itsnotnormal1
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Have you ever heard of letting someone save face? That was a fine bashing you dished out. Nice one. OP
You are a fucking idiot.