Kay 17: I'm beginning to believe morality is merely sentimental. So its no use, rationalising it.

Morality is logical.....can be logical but theists and some oppressed atheists choose to either claim that it is sentimental or absolute.

I can justify any position i take logically. Just like i did here with consent and bestiality.

inurmind:

A child cannot be murdered for food or fun, a child cannot be leashed or caged, a child cannot be put to death if termed crazy, a child cannot be used as a lab rat(literally), a child cannot have all these things and many more done to him, at least not with the culprit being locked up. But yet we do all these things to animals and they become perfectly normal, makes perfect sense right?

By the way, what exactly does consent mean? Please enlighten me.

Consent applies to only s.ex and marriage.


Your comment about caging or killing animals is irrelevant

Logicboy03:



Morality is logical.....can be logical but theists and some oppressed atheists choose to either claim that it is sentimental or absolute.

I can justify any position i take logically. Just like i did here with consent and bestiality.

where will you place cultural influences in your "logical morality"?

Kay 17: where will you place cultural influences in your "logical morality"?

Culture is foolish, most of it anyways.


I am assuming that you are yoruba. Sango is silly while prostrating for your elders is nonsense (it is good to respect elders but they are not Gods).


Furthermore, in general, we can not abuse elders in Nigeria. Can you imagine an old man calling me a fool because of something I didnt do, and when I explained the mistake to him and told him to apoloigise, the crowd that gathered said that I should leave the old man alone. They said that I should still respect him. The old man didnt even apologise and was saying that young people have no respect.

F4ck culture. This is why I like progressive countries; they modify their culture with reason.

^^ yet everyone has culture

PAGAN 9JA:


We are the sovereign Nation of Nigeria and we have our brain. not everything those european countries do has to be right.

I agree with your second statement...but the first...

What is "our brain?"

Logicboy03:


Consent applies to only s.ex and marriage.


Your comment about caging or killing animals is irrelevant

I can't believe this!

If it is wrong to put your pe.nis into a goat, how is it right to put a knife into its throat?

Kay 17: ^^ yet everyone has culture

Yes and culture can be modified....

italo:

I can't believe this!

If it is wrong to put your pe.nis into a goat, how is it right to put a knife into its throat?

Murder and sex have two different legal and logical consequences and sets of principles concerning them.

I know that you arent willing to learn.

When the Swedish Government legalized barnyard sex (bestiality),they put a clause to the law that it can be performed so long as the animal is not harmed,or in Layman's terms:"SO FAR SAY DEM NO TEAR THE DONKEY NYASH TOO MUCH"...............................These are the same hypocritical white bastards who said that it was when Africans slept with monkeys,that AIDS came to this world..............................How dare a european fool,who treated my ancestors like goats,try to teach me how to treat animals like humans?

@logicboy,chairman,I appreciate the wisdom you are dropping on this topic.Imagine the hypocrisy of animal rights groups claiming that Colonel Harland Sanders committed genocide by killing 10,000 fowls,only to go to their house to eat salad.ISN'T THE CARROT AND TOMATO NOT A LIVING THING?SUPPOSING I FORMED A "PLANT" RIGIHT GROUP AND ARRESTED THEM FOR EATING SALAD?WOULDN'T THEY CALL ME A LUNATIC? WHEN ARGENTINA HAD MALARIA PROBLEM, THEY WIPED OUT THE ANOPHELES MOSQUITO POQPULATION. SUPPOSING I ARRESTED THEM FOR "MOSQUITO MASSACRE"?.....................these white fuckers just love to see black men arguing over nothing!!!

Imagine Barack Obama coming to nigeria with his daughter,and she plucks a flower and the flower dies, and I shout, "THE GIRL HAS MURDERED THE FLOWER,ARREST THAT GIRL!!!"................wouldn't these same white men not claim that I am insane in the membrane?

So white men who created vaccination to kill bacteria(a living thing),now want to accuse me of putting a pot on fire to cook fowl(another living thing) abi?..........................HYPOCRISY AT IT'S FINEST!!!

inurmind:

How?

yeah coz ur theory on population control is laughable.....check it out urself......homosexuality,bestiality et al should nw be accepted based on reduced reproduction

Niflheim: @logicboy,chairman,I appreciate the wisdom you are dropping on this topic.Imagine the hypocrisy of animal rights groups claiming that Colonel Harland Sanders committed genocide by killing 10,000 fowls,only to go to their house to eat salad.ISN'T THE CARROT AND TOMATO NOT A LIVING THING?SUPPOSING I FORMED A "PLANT" RIGIHT GROUP AND ARRESTED THEM FOR EATING SALAD?WOULDN'T THEY CALL ME A LUNATIC? WHEN ARGENTINA HAD MALARIA PROBLEM, THEY WIPED OUT THE ANOPHELES MOSQUITO POQPULATION. SUPPOSING I ARRESTED THEM FOR "MOSQUITO MASSACRE"?.....................these white fuckers just love to see black men arguing over nothing!!!

Thank you jo.


Animal rights people are the worst hypocrites!


Self righteous azzholes acting like they are saving the world while full of contradictions. Literal pharisees!


The way to cure their madness and put their children and some animals on a balancing scale over a pit of fire. We will see whether they will save the animals or their children

italo:

Who decides what is "harm" and "distress?"

What one person considers "harmful" and "distressful"' another might consider as "okay."

Actually thats a very good point, but I fear it's too broad to be discussed here. Likewise I might ask who decides what is happy and what is sad, what is memorable and what is useless. Infact the questions of what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is bad, they all need to be discussed, because they all seem so subjective as much as we try to make them look objective.
But one thing is certain, that there are some qualities which are universal in nature, they apply to all, and if not all then most. And so those are the only things we have to go by.
We cannot tell what is harmful to every single person, but we can tell what will be harmful to a majority of people, the same thing goes for distress, and for now that will have to be the standard of measurement.

@Op,

I really dont know what you mean by atheists supporting homosexuality. Supporting homosexuality in what way?.

Saying that no human being should face persecution,discrimination, or suffer physical harm purely on the account of sexual orientation is not the same thing as saying that one supports homosexual acts.
For both atheists and theists, what exactly is anyone's business with what consenting adults do in the confines of their bedrooms?

I used to be extremely homophobic, but having worked with and interacted with many homosexuals, I have matured to see and accept them as just ordinary folks who are just expressing themselves in the way that the all wise, the all knowing, schizophrenic, grand designer and creator of the perfect universe made them.
Discriminating against homosexuals on religious grounds , without first holding god accountable,is quite moronic , to say the least.

So, saying that atheists support homosexuality is quite false.
Atheists, being unencumbered by the yolks of blind faith religions, are easily drawn to support issues of social justice.

Bestiality, on the other hand , is fully repulsive to everyone ,and is in no way connected to social justice.

Again, the notion that because an atheist's mind is not beholden to any imaginary moral authority, therefore an atheist lacks a moral compass or threshold is false false false.

PAGAN 9JA:


which animals? dogs that hump legs do it due to icreaed se.xual drive. there is nothing homose.xual about it.male dogs that climb other males do it to show an act of dominance. they do not actually penetrate.

Er, maybe you need to do some research sir:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

Evening inurmind,

Long time no thread

Just want to say welcome man...

Logicboy03:


Doesnt mean that it is supported in those countries that it is not illegal. Kissing on the mainroad is not allowed in muslim countries. It is not illegal in naija but then....try am whether they no go yab you.

Funny enough logicboy, I think I would give you an A for your analogy, but an F for your interpretation. You see kissing in public in Nigeria will definitely attract insults, no doubt, but can we say it is wrong just because of the negativity it attracts? What exactly is inherently wrong in kissing in public? Can an action be termed immoral solely because it is not a societal norm, because it is strange and new? What makes kissing in public wrong? What really makes bestiality wrong?

Logicboy03:


Consent applies to only s.ex and marriage.

Because master Logicboy said so abi?

Logicboy03:
Your comment about caging or killing animals is irrelevant

Why?

striktlymi: Evening inurmind,

Long time no thread

Just want to say welcome man...

Thanks!

inurmind:
What really makes bestiality wrong?

There is nothing wrong with it. Infact we should all start sleeping with animals, why? Because they are readily available and always willing. Like seriously, do you need a God to tell you that sleeping with animals is repulsive?

Just because we eat them, that does not mean we should screw them.

Think back to slavery, imagine it were virtually impossible to eradicate, at least some laws to alleviate the suffering of slaves would do some good. Same thing here, eventually we may get around a way to producing painless meat, until then we just have to accept it. In the meantime we should do all we can to limit cruelty.

That's my take now, though I used to be on your side of the fence. My take generally is no victimless crime should be government's, or anyone else's, business. Non at all. A victimless crime would be a crime in which no one's rights are being infringed on, yet the act is still labeled a crime. Animals, in this case, I consider victims.

plaetton: @Op,

I really dont know what you mean by atheists supporting homosexuality. Supporting homosexuality in what way?.

Saying that no human being should face persecution,discrimination, or suffer physical harm purely on the account of sexual orientation is not the same thing as saying that one supports homosexual acts.
For both atheists and theists, what exactly is anyone's business with what consenting adults do in the confines of their bedrooms?

I used to be extremely homophobic, but having worked with and interacted with many homosexuals, I have matured to see and accept them as just ordinary folks who are just expressing themselves in the way that the all wise, the all knowing, schizophrenic, grand designer and creator of the perfect universe made them.
Discriminating against homosexuals on religious grounds , without first holding god accountable,is quite moronic , to say the least.

So, saying that atheists support homosexuality is quite false.
Atheists, being unencumbered by the yolks of blind faith religions, are easily drawn to support issues of social justice.

Bestiality, on the other hand , is fully repulsive to everyone ,and is in no way connected to social justice.

Again, the notion that because an atheist's mind is not beholden to any imaginary moral authority, therefore an atheist lacks a moral compass or threshold is false false false.

Somehow you have still failed to answer my question. Why is bestiality wrong? I cannot just accept your opinion. I need reasons man.

Da-ny-ell:
There is nothing wrong with it. Infact we should all start sleeping with animals, why? Because they are readily available and always willing. Like seriously, do you need a God to tell you that sleeping with animals is repulsive?

Do you need a god to tell you homosexuality is likewise repulsive?

inurmind:

Funny enough logicboy, I think I would give you an A for your analogy, but an F for your interpretation. You see kissing in public in Nigeria will definitely attract insults, no doubt, but can we say it is wrong just because of the negativity it attracts? What exactly is inherently wrong in kissing in public? Can an action be termed immoral solely because it is not a societal norm, because it is strange and new? What makes kissing in public wrong? What really makes bestiality wrong?

I didnt say that bestiality is wrong because of societal norms or laws.

The point I made was clear; something not being illegal doesnt mean it is supported by the society

inurmind:
Because master Logicboy said so abi?



Why?

Does self defense apply to se.x?

Does consent apply to murder?


Every issue has its underlying principles and terms. That is the nature of law and logic.

We do not apply the logic of thermodynamics to photosynthesis.

We do not apply consent to murder.

wiegraf: Just because we eat them, that does not mean we should screw them.

Think back to slavery, imagine it were virtually impossible to eradicate, at least some laws to alleviate the suffering of slaves would do some good. Same thing here, eventually we may get around a way to producing painless meat, until then we just have to accept it. In the meantime we should do all we can to limit cruelty.

That's my take now, though I used to be on your side of the fence. My take generally is no victimless crime should be government's, or anyone else's, business. Non at all. A victimless crime would be a crime in which no one's rights are being infringed on, yet the act is still labeled a crime. Animals, in this case, I consider victims.

Since when did animals have rights? We kill them for fun, we use them for lab tests, we do all these horrible things to them and can still say they have rights? Don't you still consider them victims here, shortening their life span, putting them through so much distress? Don't we even have alternative food sources? Besides, I am talking about zoophilia, something which is more of a relationship(I know, it's also disgusting to me, but it is something we must consider. We cannot term it wrong just because of the eww factor). Here these animals show willingness to engage in the act, they approve of it, it is consensual, so how they are labelled victims is a big mystery to me.

inurmind:
Since when did animals have rights?

Morning boss,

Saw this but can't ignore...yeah, yeah...I know, I am a dumb azz, puny brained, orthodox idiiot but I aint leaving till I say my bit .

Now to the rather interesting quote above...What exactly do you mean when you say 'rights'? Are you talking about doing what is just? What is correct?, or better still, doing what is in line with the principles of right conduct?

Every living thing is subject to the unwritten laws of nature...animals have rights in this regards...a lion will be considered doing its civic duty by mother nature when it kills an antelope for lunch but does this same lion have any business sniffing the anus of that antelope? Your guess is as good as mine...

striktlymi:

Morning boss,

Saw this but can't ignore...yeah, yeah...I know, I am a dumb azz, puny brained, orthodox idiiot but I aint leaving till I say my bit .

Now to the rather interesting quote above...What exactly do you mean when you say 'rights'? Are you talking about doing what is just? What is correct?, or better still, doing what is in line with the principles of right conduct?

Every living thing is subject to the unwritten laws of nature...animals have rights in this regards...a lion will be considered doing its civic duty by mother nature when it kills an antelope for lunch but does this same lion have any business sniffing the anus of that antelope? Your guess is as good as mine...

If the Lion is naturally oriented to sniff an Elephant's anus,it would without a doubt. A man playing with another man's anus is only as a result of orientation or curiosity. How would he know how it feels if he never tried it. All is good regardless as odd as they seemed.

inurmind:
Do you need a god to tell you homosexuality is likewise repulsive?

I'm not in support of homosexuality either. It is not only repulsive, it is also unnatural. Sometimes, I begin to wonder if the Christians are right afterall and the world truly is coming to an end.