Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
SilverMK2 wrote:Things aren't just black and white, or even shades of grey. We live in a rainbow world.
Silver woudl know! After all, he's wearing rainbow underpants.
And nothing else...
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Amaya wrote:Devil's advocate, what if someone consents to have their corpse used for sexual practices prior to death?
Well, I suppose that's alright then as long as its in private?
I don't it would occur even as frequently as 1 in a million, but as someone else kindly pointed people have consented to have their remains eaten.
It's freaky and I admit to being disturbed by it, but I wouldn't call it immoral. After all, they did consent.
Aye I wouldnt even be disturbed by that.. I mean, it serves a purpose. I like the idea of being turned into fertilizer or something, so i suppose I would be pretty cool with being eaten myself.
They could ship me to Africa and feed me to some starving kids.. I would have a warm fuzzy feeling as I was dying, knowing that a young boy would gain some strength from my dry roasted arse cheeks.
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
Oh my word, your posts in this thread amaze me so much, matty.
Prestor Jon wrote: Because children don't have any legal rights until they're adults. A minor is the responsiblity of the parent and has no legal rights except through his/her legal guardian or parent.
Amaya wrote:Devil's advocate, what if someone consents to have their corpse used for sexual practices prior to death?
Well, I suppose that's alright then as long as its in private?
I don't it would occur even as frequently as 1 in a million, but as someone else kindly pointed people have consented to have their remains eaten.
It's freaky and I admit to being disturbed by it, but I wouldn't call it immoral. After all, they did consent.
Aye I wouldnt even be disturbed by that.. I mean, it serves a purpose. I like the idea of being turned into fertilizer or something, so i suppose I would be pretty cool with being eaten myself.
They could ship me to Africa and feed me to some starving kids.. I would have a warm fuzzy feeling as I was dying, knowing that a young boy would gain some strength from my dry roasted arse cheeks.
The dry roasted arse cheeks of a warrior god...
Spoiler:
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/05/06 21:44:53
Dakka Bingo! By Ouze "You are the best at flying things"-Kanluwen
"Further proof that Purple is a fething brilliant super villain " -KingCracker
"Purp.. Im pretty sure I have a gun than can reach you...."-Nicorex
"That's not really an apocalypse. That's just Europe."-Grakmar
"almost as good as winning free cake at the tea drinking contest for an Englishman." -Reds8n
Seal up your lips and give no words but mum.
Equip, Reload. Do violence.
Watch for Gerry.
Melissia wrote: Necrophilia and bestiality, along with the unspoken pedophilia, are wrong because they involve a partner who cannot legally consent. And I will be honest here: I believe, rather firmly, that people who compare homosexuality to necrophilia, bestiality, and paedophilia are nothing more than worthless trolls to be ignored.
Well, thats where you need to calm down and get a grip. I never mentioned pedophilia or rape, or anything of the sort because they are acts of brutality and do not involve two consenting beings. So going by your last statement, why don't you stop making "gak" up!
Secondly. There can most definately be consent between an animal and its human counterpart.....no, they probably don't talk it over, but if both parties climax then doesn't that count as a form of "acceptance". I believe an animal will be quite eager to show a human that's its not happy, its called fight or flight, and they use it a lot better than us.
regarding Necrophilia, what if a married couple who were deeply in love, and one of them passes away, enter into the act? There are many situations where necophilia doesn't have to be, necessarily, the undertaker banging granny on here way to the grave.....
Delephont wrote:Well, thats where you need to calm down and get a grip.
Says the person who is trying to force everything to be in black and white.
If they're all right, or all wrong, why are you saying that rape and pedophilia are wrong? Shouldn't they be right? After all, it involves intercourse. Oftentimes, rape and pedophilia also result in impregnation, so mechanically speaking, based on your previous statements these are indeed sex whereas gay ass-buggery is not.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/05/06 21:41:21
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
After just looking at some of the more disturbing mods for Skyrim and Oblivion (let's just put it this way, imagine the worst thing you've ever seen on the internet, exponentially increased to the point where it would make a normal, sensible person physically ill, added into the game) and I have once again come to the conclusion that even if homosexuality is in some way deviant (which I don't think it really even is) it is not even in the same universe as some the fethed up crap out there.
Delephont wrote:@ Mellissia [sic; misspelled my name]
I want to comment on your point "we don't belong to nature anymore".
Your objection misses the point.
We chemically manufacture hormones to change our body's cycles to prevent impregnation. We physically manufacture barriers which prevent impregnation. This is something no creature in nature does. Our race, while still connected to nature as far as resources go, is very distinct from what is "natural".
No creature in nature, except for humans of course. The idea that humans and the things humans do are somehow unnatural or separate from the natural world goes way beyond hubris.
SilverMK2 wrote:Things aren't just black and white, or even shades of grey. We live in a rainbow world.
Silver woudl know! After all, he's wearing rainbow underpants.
And nothing else...
I did wonder who that was hiding behind the curtains...
It was Biccat. The NSA hired him to spy on you.
Hordini wrote:No creature in nature, except for humans of course. The idea that humans and the things humans do are somehow unnatural or separate from the natural world goes way beyond hubris.
That depends on your definition of nature and natural.
I mean, if you want to argue from that point, everything is done and exists in nature because everything that we know of follows the laws of the natural world. But that's not a very useful definition for this particular debate.
The one I was using was simpler, although still not flawless; though influenced by instinct, we are not bound by it.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2012/05/06 21:44:52
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Delephont wrote:Secondly. There can most definately be consent between an animal and its human counterpart.....no, they probably don't talk it over, but if both parties climax then doesn't that count as a form of "acceptance".
"Climax" =/= consent.
I honestly can't quite believe what I am reading every time you post and I fear for a world where people who share your views rule the world...
SilverMK2 wrote:Things aren't just black and white, or even shades of grey. We live in a rainbow world.
Silver woudl know! After all, he's wearing rainbow underpants.
And nothing else...
I did wonder who that was hiding behind the curtains...
It was Biccat. The NSA hired him to spy on you.
Hordini wrote:No creature in nature, except for humans of course. The idea that humans and the things humans do are somehow unnatural or separate from the natural world goes way beyond hubris.
That depends on your definition of nature and natural.
I mean, if you want to argue from that point, everything is done and exists in nature because everything that we know of follows the laws of the natural world. But that's not a very useful definition for debate.
It may not be the most useful definition for debate ever, but I don't think a definition that claims everything belongs to the natural world except humanity is that much better. Ignoring the fact that such a definition is also less accurate.
It's more accurate in this context to be sure. As creatures get more intelligent they become more and more able to make decisions on their own without resorting to pure instinct. We humans are the pinnacle of that, as far as evolution goes.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/05/06 21:48:52
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Hordini wrote:No creature in nature, except for humans of course. The idea that humans and the things humans do are somehow unnatural or separate from the natural world goes way beyond hubris.
Humans could, given enough resources, completely control every aspect of their environment, re-write the DNA of every species on earth (including humans), etc... humans on an individual level are certainly exposed to the whims of nature, but humanity as a whole certainly can (and does) give large swathes nature the finger whenever it wants to.
Delephont wrote:Well, thats where you need to calm down and get a grip.
Says the person who is trying to force everything to be in black and white.
If they're all right, or all wrong, why are you saying that rape and pedophilia are wrong? Shouldn't they be right? After all, it involves intercourse. Oftentimes, rape and pedophilia also result in impregnation, so mechanically speaking, based on your previous statements these are indeed sex whereas gay ass-buggery is not.
Well, let me put this another way.....why are people so eager to prevent homosexuality being seen as something negative? Is it just because we (society) are seeing that homosexuals represent a large group of people? or is it because we truely care that by making it into something negative we risk destroying peoples lives, no matter how large a section of the population they represent?
If its the second reason, then should we not extend that courtesy to anyone whose life may be ruined by mindless, cruel judgementalism? Of course, if its the first reason, the fact that homosexuals form a large part of our society, then the political correctness is worthless, and we as a society should be worried....because, just like back in the sixties when homosexuality was something to hang a man over, thats how we treat other (shall we say) less accepted sexual preferences....but what happens when they reach that magical acceptance number...what then, banners and placards and marches through the street to fight for new rights?
Unfortunately compassion is black and white, you either have compassion or you don't. Everything else is just noise.
SilverMK2 wrote:Things aren't just black and white, or even shades of grey. We live in a rainbow world.
Silver woudl know! After all, he's wearing rainbow underpants.
And nothing else...
I did wonder who that was hiding behind the curtains...
It was Biccat. The NSA hired him to spy on you.
Hordini wrote:No creature in nature, except for humans of course. The idea that humans and the things humans do are somehow unnatural or separate from the natural world goes way beyond hubris.
That depends on your definition of nature and natural.
I mean, if you want to argue from that point, everything is done and exists in nature because everything that we know of follows the laws of the natural world. But that's not a very useful definition for this particular debate.
The one I was using was simpler, although still not flawless; though influenced by instinct, we are not bound by it.
That's a much better argument. I'm certainly willing to accept the idea that humans are influenced by instinct but not bound by it. I think that's a lot more specific and useful than a claim that humanity exists apart from the natural world though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverMK2 wrote:
Hordini wrote:No creature in nature, except for humans of course. The idea that humans and the things humans do are somehow unnatural or separate from the natural world goes way beyond hubris.
Humans could, given enough resources, completely control every aspect of their environment, re-write the DNA of every species on earth (including humans), etc... humans on an individual level are certainly exposed to the whims of nature, but humanity as a whole certainly can (and does) give large swathes nature the finger whenever it wants to.
Which are all abilities that have developed due to nature's affect on the development of humans. Just because we deal with problems in a different way than most other creatures, that does not make our methods unnatural.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/05/06 21:57:11
Delephont wrote:Well, let me put this another way.....why are people so eager to prevent homosexuality being seen as something negative?
I have a better question.
Why are you so eager to see it as something negative? Why are you so concerned with sex between two mutually consenting adults?
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Hordini wrote:No creature in nature, except for humans of course. The idea that humans and the things humans do are somehow unnatural or separate from the natural world goes way beyond hubris.
Humans could, given enough resources, completely control every aspect of their environment, re-write the DNA of every species on earth (including humans), etc... humans on an individual level are certainly exposed to the whims of nature, but humanity as a whole certainly can (and does) give large swathes nature the finger whenever it wants to.
Hordini wrote:a claim that humanity exists apart from the natural world though.
I never really made that claim though I can certainly see how one might read that in to what I said.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Hordini wrote:a claim that humanity exists apart from the natural world though.
I never really made that claim though I can certainly see how one might read that in to what I said.
I took that from the "we don't really belong to nature anymore" bit. But if you're not really claiming that humanity exists as somehow apart or separated from the natural world, then fair enough.
Delephont wrote:Well, let me put this another way.....why are people so eager to prevent homosexuality being seen as something negative?
I have a better question.
Why are you so eager to see it as something negative? Why are you so concerned with sex between two mutually consenting adults?
Isn't this whole thread about homosexuality being taught in schools? Surely everyone who's commented ont his thread is "concerned with sex between two mutually consenting adults".....I'm nt sure what you're getting at with the second part of your question.
Regarding the first part, I don't see homosexuality as "negative".....I just don't think it should be defined in so simplistic terms. To me homosexuality is less about the physical act of expressing ones feelings but more about those feelings. This was my original point. Sex (however its used) is just a tool, a means to an end....hetrosexuality, homosexuality, etc is about connection (in my opinion) and this is not something that can be taught. Just like you can't teach love, because if you have 20 people in a room, there will guaranteed be 20 different understandings on what love is....how can you teach this in a classroom to a group of children?
Hordini wrote:No creature in nature, except for humans of course. The idea that humans and the things humans do are somehow unnatural or separate from the natural world goes way beyond hubris.
Humans could, given enough resources, completely control every aspect of their environment, re-write the DNA of every species on earth (including humans), etc... humans on an individual level are certainly exposed to the whims of nature, but humanity as a whole certainly can (and does) give large swathes nature the finger whenever it wants to.
And there lies the problem.
Not really, Bill Gates could at the press of a button launch a mars colony - he has the money and the brain power and other resources to do so. He could singlehandedly fund the replanting of Africa, and the reintroduction of some semblence of law, order and government.
With technology existing today, mankind could, if it wanted to, do pretty much anything.
Hordini wrote:Which are all abilities that have developed due to nature's affect on the development of humans. Just because we deal with problems in a different way that most other creatures, does not make our methods unnatural.
If nature had intended for us to fly (in so far as nature can intend anything), it would have given us wings, not high performance jet aircraft
I see where you are coming from, since nature "gave" us the brains it takes to design and construct high performance jet aircraft, however, I would argue that anything abstract sets something apart from nature. Humans are not alone in this, but take it by far further than any other species.
When one individual, or species, can assert concious control over nature, then that individual or species can be considered to be beyond nature - at least to a certain extent.
Delephont wrote:Surely everyone who's commented ont his thread is "concerned with sex between two mutually consenting adults"
I'm not the one that is trying to claim it is morally wrong.
I don't care if two guys go in to their bedroom with a strapon, five dildos, some lube, and a copy of Atlas Shrugged.
I do not want to know what they DO with all of that, either, it's not my business
Hrm, I should probably censor this post. "Atlas Shrugged" is something that children under the age of 200 shouldn't be reading...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/05/06 22:05:26
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
SilverMK2 wrote: Not really, Bill Gates could at the press of a button launch a mars colony - he has the money and the brain power and other resources to do so. He could singlehandedly fund the replanting of Africa, and the reintroduction of some semblence of law, order and government.
With technology existing today, mankind could, if it wanted to, do pretty much anything.
I honestly can't quite believe what I am reading every time you post and I fear for a world where people who share your views rule the world...
Silver, 30 billion dollars or w/e Bill Gates is worth is not that much in the big picture. At most his personal wealth is a 1/4 of 1 percent of the US GDP.
Delephont wrote:Surely everyone who's commented ont his thread is "concerned with sex between two mutually consenting adults"
I'm not the one that is trying to claim it is morally wrong.
I don't care if two guys go in to their bedroom with a strapon, five dildos, some lube, and a copy of Atlas Shrugged.
I do not want to know what they DO with all of that, either, it's not my business
Ok, I've given you and your comments enough serious consideration, now. This post really just shows how you cherry pick posts to extract anything that helps a misguided point. I think you understand clearly what I'm saying, I know this because you've responded to half my post, I wonder why you have ignored the other half.
What-ever your reasoning, I'm going to place you on ignore, because you have nothing to say which interests me, or engages me conversation. You can chose to respond to this so that you can make another cheap statement, but be aware that I shall be in blissful ignorance of your rantings.
Delephont wrote:I think you understand clearly what I'm saying
I do, but I'm not really sure you understand what you're saying, and how it might contradict what you intend to be saying.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
though I can certainly see how one might read that in to what I said.
I honestly can't quite believe what I am reading every time you post and I fear for a world where people who share your views rule the world...