Alien Fever

[wacki]

Ok, this is a pure philosophy exercise on sex. Lets say

Cheetara (on the left)
http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/7263/030529qj4.jpg


Lelu
http://img93.imageshack.us/img93/358/akjovovich5thelement01xt3.jpg

And a klingon
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/9391/gklngenral5gf4.jpg

(insert any other hot alien)


come down to planet earth. None of them understand your language. So their only form of communication is non-verbal. Since they are an advanced species, they are of much higher intelligence than you are. (just play along with my rules) Compared to them, you are about as intelligent as a monkey. Despite your short comings they have given you obvious and aggressive non-verbal communication that they want to bang you. It's for one night only. Since they are fully developed adults that are giving consent is it ok to bang one of the aliens? You are not genetically compatible with any of them.

How many of you would bang an alien?

Now, here's the next question. If it's ok to bang an alien, why isn't it ok to bang a fully grown chimpanzee that is not only giving us verbal consent but shares 99% of our genome? If you can go up, why can't you go down? After all, to the aliens we are an even more distant chimpanzee. And for those that don't know, yes Chimpanzee's can give obvious signs that they want to mate. That question isn't up for debate. Just follow my rules here. You know beyond any doubt.

I'm looking for general philosophy rules like consent, fully developed, genetic compatibility, darwinism, etc. To simply decree one animal is bad but another is good is like banning the sale of beer on Sunday. There is very little rhyme or reason other than it's offensive to some people. Those arbitrary rules should be avoided.

<font color="red">****keep in mind this thread isn't about you. This thread is about what you can tolerate other people doing. What is moral and what is immoral.**** </font>

[wacki]

Well apparently we need a new poll.

Do all you you people that are voting yes on the alien and no on the lower animals realize you are a hypocrite?

[Stu Pidasso]

Hi Wacki,

[ QUOTE ]
Do all you you people that are voting yes on the alien and no on the lower animals realize you are a hypocrite?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you can make that claim. You have to look at the two situation independently. In one situation the human(who is deciding if there is anything wrong with his actions) consents with the higher order being. The human knows that there is consent among both parties. In the other situation the human(who is still deciding if there is anything wrong with his actions) is the higher order being and cannot be sure of the lower order beings consent.

Stu

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
In the other situation the human(who is still deciding if there is anything wrong with his actions) is the higher order being and cannot be sure of the lower order beings consent.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with you but that is besides the point. The rules of the game is that consent is known. There is no uncertainty here.

FYI on identifying animal consent. A baboon sticking her red swollen behind in your direction is a pretty good indicator. That's just an FYI though. The rules of the game include that you know what is going down. If the rules weren't defined like this then the alien could be a rapist.

[Borodog]

Wacki,

Find a chimpanzee that looks as human as your 3 examples, and I would consider banging it. I hope that clarifies the results of the poll for you.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Wacki,

Find a chimpanzee that looks as human as your 3 examples, and I was would consider banging it. I hope that clarifies the results of the poll for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

ugh..... I should have designed the poll differently. My question isn't about attraction but more about what is moral and immoral. See, this is the hypocrisy I'm getting at though. It doesn't matter what you are attracted to. This is about what you can tolerate other people doing.

[NeBlis]

[ QUOTE ]
Wacki,

Find a chimpanzee that looks as human as your 3 examples, and I was would consider banging it. I hope that clarifies the results of the poll for you.

[/ QUOTE ]


Exactly

Lelu = unreal hot
Monkey = I'd rather give Iron81 a sponge bath

But to answer the real point of your post I can tolerate peopl doing anyting as long as no one is harmed.

NeBlis

[Borodog]

There is nothing hypocritical in either my post or position. If you want to [censored] a chimp, be my guest.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
There is nothing hypocritical in either my post or position. If you want to [censored] a chimp, be my guest.

[/ QUOTE ]

K, see this is my point. If you are going to define moral sex in the Darwinian sense then homosexuality is wrong but heterosexuality is right. However if you go to by 'rules of consent', then you can accept homosexuality into society. However, by doing that it seems that you have to accept bestiality as well. If you don't then you are a hypocrite. Well as far as I can see at lest. And that is the main point of this thread.

But my position on domestic matters is an AC one. So I'm with you. I just found this a curious puzzle.

[jogsxyz]

This is a forum of poker players. Ask this same question in a forum of farmers. Replace monkeys with sheep.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is nothing hypocritical in either my post or position. If you want to [censored] a chimp, be my guest.

[/ QUOTE ]

K, see this is my point. If you are going to define moral sex in the Darwinian sense then homosexuality is wrong but heterosexuality is right. However if you go to rules of consent, then you can accept homosexuality into society. However, by doing that then you have to accept bestiality as well. If you don't then you are a hypocrite. And that is the main point of this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can [censored] dudes or aliens or chimps or narwhals to your heart's content. How does that make me a hypocrite again?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
You can [censored] dudes or aliens or chimps or narwhals to your heart's content. How does that make me a hypocrite again?

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't. You are consistent by your rules of morality. This is about other people.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can [censored] dudes or aliens or chimps or narwhals to your heart's content. How does that make me a hypocrite again?

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't. You are consistent by your rules of morality. This is about other people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, ok. Your first response to my response read like I was being hypocritical, that's all.

[Carded]

I disagree with the tactics employed. Dress Milla Jovovich up in a monkey suit and call her a monkey and a lot of people would say, Yeah, I want that monkey but it’s not really a monkey and he wouldn’t really want a monkey if present with a real one.

Furthermore, I disagree with the genetic reasoning. Reasoning in terms of temperature 1 degree Celsius is closer –5 degrees Celsius than –50 degrees temperature. However water at –5 degrees Celsius has more in common with water at –50 degree Celsius than it does with 1 degree Celsius even though it has a greater temperature disparity.

The point is this just because a human may be close to a chimp in DNA then an imaginary alien doesn’t necessarily mean we are close in nature to a chimp then the alien. Perhaps humans barely passed a genetic threshold giving us a nature on greater tier then monkeys and even though we are still far less then the alien we are still on the same tier. Therefore, we could be more simliar to the alian despite a higher genetic difference.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are going to define moral sex in the Darwinian sense then homosexuality is wrong but heterosexuality is right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Moral in the Darwinian sense? Animals don't give two [censored] what's right or wrong; they do whatever gets them off. Natural selection is such that this action, be it moral or immoral, is the basic element of evolution. Reproduction/heterosexuality is an inevitable result, but it's also ROT. What's the "correct" action in poker; making +EV moves, or winning money?

So the morally correct sexual behavior is doing what gets you off. I'll [censored] all the chimpanzees I want.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree with you but that is besides the point. The rules of the game is that consent is known. There is no uncertainty here.

FYI on identifying animal consent. A baboon sticking her red swollen behind in your direction is a pretty good indicator. That's just an FYI though. The rules of the game include that you know what is going down. If the rules weren't defined like this then the alien could be a rapist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok so as I understand it, its postulated that in both situations the higher order being knows the lower order being is granting its consent. If thats the case then yes we have a lot of hypocrites voting in the poll.

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
So the morally correct sexual behavior is doing what gets you off.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be true of irrational animals but not humans.

Stu

[madnak]

Great post, wacki. Now let's see the inconsistency start rollin'. I imagine some of the people just didn't quite get the caveats that consent is known and that "this isn't about you." I'm less interested in how the theists defend themselves than how the secular folks who like to rain on others' parades will. Logically this is extremely hard to argue against. I would bet that &gt;99% of people have inconsistent views simply because having sex with chimps strikes them as "gross," while having sex with aliens strikes them as "hot." Which makes sense, I feel the same way. But somehow they seem to be generalizing that onto everyone else - "I think it's gross therefore you can't do it" - and then backtracking and trying post-hoc rationalizations.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So the morally correct sexual behavior is doing what gets you off.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be true of irrational animals but not humans.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Give me one reason why I should think there's something "wrong" or "bad" about homosexuality. Please keep in mind that modern technology allows them to procreate if they actually want to (hell, a bottle of wine may be enough to do the trick.)

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So the morally correct sexual behavior is doing what gets you off.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be true of irrational animals but not humans.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Give me one reason why I should think there's something "wrong" or "bad" about homosexuality. Please keep in mind that modern technology allows them to procreate if they actually want to (hell, a bottle of wine may be enough to do the trick.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I really need to start siding with these people.
Answer: Dude, read the bible...christ you're ignant.

I'm glad we are arguing about something now...to OP - I don't see the problem here. Aliens are hot, monkeys, not so much...If anyone is attracted to a consenting monkey, though, that's cool. No different that a consenting stupid fat chick...

[DCopper04]

Would a consenting monkey know the difference between having sex with another monkey, and having sex with a human?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Why? Give me one reason why I should think there's something "wrong" or "bad" about homosexuality. Please keep in mind that modern technology allows them to procreate if they actually want to (hell, a bottle of wine may be enough to do the trick.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Modern technology is already creating human-pig and human-mouse chimeras. Be very very careful with this argument.

[ QUOTE ]
Moral in the Darwinian sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes you can have morality in the Darwinian sense. You can argue traditional mating is natural. Even if it's not used to procreate it's still part of the mating dance with a partner that might choose you as a mate in the future, etc, etc. Darwinian ethics can be used to *categorically* call homosexuality a perversion because there is no point in mating with a species/gender that can't produce offspring. Thats the facts. That does not mean Darwinian ethics is correct.

Then there is religion... but we are trying to skip religion and go straight to the secular and pure logic.

If you go by consent to endorse homosexuality, then you can also endorse hot aliens. However, if you do that then you also have to endorse bestiality. It's this hypocrisy I'm trying to point out. As I said earlier, I don't believe in consensual crime, but my opinion is irrelevant.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes you can have morality in the Darwinian sense. You can argue traditional mating is natural. Even if it's not used to procreate it's still part of the mating dance with a partner that might choose you as a mate in the future, etc, etc. Darwinian ethics can be used to *categorically* call homosexuality a perversion because there is no point in mating with a species/gender that can't produce offspring. Thats the facts. That does not mean Darwinian ethics is correct.


[/ QUOTE ]

You just aren't thinking hard enough. While I don't believe in the concept of 'darwinian ethics', I'm sure we can find genetic advantages to homosexuality. Granted, the individual may not reproduce, but that doesn't mean there are no advantages to the propagation of his/her genes.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]

Modern technology is already creating human-pig and human-mouse chimeras. Be very very careful with this argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no problem with people playing god. I have a problem with the government doing it, but that's another story.

[ QUOTE ]


Yes you can have morality in the Darwinian sense. You can argue traditional mating is natural. Even if it's not used to procreate it's still part of the mating dance with a partner that might choose you as a mate in the future, etc, etc. Darwinian ethics can be used to *categorically* call homosexuality a perversion because there is no point in mating with a species/gender that can't produce offspring. Thats the facts. That does not mean Darwinian ethics is correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's more to sex than reproduction, and there's more to survival of the species than reproduction. It's good for the immune system, helps people maintain their sanity. If human well-being is at all useful to the continued survival of the species, then there is good reason to believe that sex, independent of reproduction, is valuable. (if birth control gets really advanced and GATTACA-style birthing becomes practical, even heterosexual sex is going to be nothing more than happy fun time.)

Bright, starry-eyed girl with lots of potential is applying to college. She has a boyfriend, and they practice safe sex. Which, in your opinion, is better for the survival of the species: her going on to complete school and have a productive career, or getting knocked up only to become a single, low-income mom? If the former, you can see why homosexuality (or bisexuality) is advantageous.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm looking for general philosophy rules like consent, fully developed, genetic compatibility, darwinism, etc. To simply decree one animal is bad but another is good is like banning the sale of beer on Sunday. There is very little rhyme or reason other than it's offensive to some people. Those arbitrary rules should be avoided.

[/ QUOTE ] Nope, no rules. Just values. What is valuable about the relationship. The only person that can asign this value is oneself. And the only judge can be reason. After reading Pinkers article, Forsaking human relations in favor of animal relations seems to pass some simple reasonable values. Mutual exchange, increase the quality of animals life, increase in quality of humans life. I have to raise an objection to the increase in quality of the person life. Pleasure although often the marker of correct action, it's not sufficent. What increases in this exchange? Survival is out. Mating with a animal can not possibly provide the deep conection with mating with a human, quality of survival out. So I would like to make the case that the person is in fact harming themselve with their actions. Sacrificing something of greater value, human relation, for something of lessor value. I, if what I understand about the info from Mr. Pinker??, would allow someone to continue on with their life. But strongly encourage them to re-evaluate what is of more value. Aliens on earth would not have anything around that was of greater value to them. So it would be ok on their side, and these ones are pretty smoking hot. So sex would be OK, but when it comes down to relationships it would really depend on the benefit of increasing the quality of survival, not just pleasure. I am under the impression that zooaphiles aren't thinking about values at all. If there was at all a chance of a hybred, I'm pretty sure that is valuable under survival, in most instances. Perhaps I'm a bigot agianst zooaphiles, but I don't place much value in zoo-human relations. I don't think that I am. Morality is what is good for humans in there dealing in the world regarding other people. It's very different when you then try and apply it to animals and aliens. Life partners seem to pass mustard regarding things I value. As does fun and meaningless sex between adults.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
(if birth control gets really advanced and GATTACA-style birthing becomes practical, even heterosexual sex is going to be nothing more than happy fun time.)


[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. But this gets extremely complicated and we will approach speciation here.


[ QUOTE ]
Which, in your opinion, is better for the survival of the species: her going on to complete school and have a productive career, or getting knocked up only to become a single, low-income mom? If the former, you can see why homosexuality (or bisexuality) is advantageous.


[/ QUOTE ]

For modern humans copulation can be considered part of the mating dance. Therefore it is still a natural process.

Either way, I don't see your point as an advantage to homosexuality. Homosexuals have never been able to procreate. Lots of child bearing women have finished college. Lots of women learn how to use birth control. Lots of women have abortions.

[Skidoo]

The choice of pictures could bias the results, like in a push poll.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Good point. But this gets extremely complicated and we will approach speciation here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Perhaps I should downl-, I mean, go to blockbuster and rent this movie?

[ QUOTE ]


Either way, I don't your point as an advantage to homosexuality. Homosexuals have never been able to procreate. Lots of child bearing women have finished college. Lots of women learn how to use birth control. Lots of women have abortions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is altruism beneficial to a species? An altruistic specimen has no chance of passing on his genes.

My point is that, if human well-being is at all advantageous to the survival of the species, and reproduction can result in a loss of well-being (which it can, i.e. single teenage mothers), there is reason to suspect that the ability to engage in sexual gratification without the overwhelming burden of a child could be better for the species than not being able to. (Anyone who has ever had a sexual affair with a member of the same sex and/or a member of the opposite sex who was post vasectomy/hysterectomy will tell you that life is an awful lot better without the looming threat of pregancy.)


EDIT: I remember discussing this or something similar with you before, and I'm 65% sure that I conceded my point, but I don't remember why.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is altruism beneficial to a species? An altruistic specimen has no chance of passing on his genes.

[/ QUOTE ]

A) Altruism doesn't need to be beneficial to the species, and

B) The second sentence is fantastically false. For example, the runt of a litter may be programmed to die gracefully and be eaten by his siblings by genes that will then prosper from his altruism in his littermates.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is altruism beneficial to a species? An altruistic specimen has no chance of passing on his genes.

[/ QUOTE ]

A) Altruism doesn't need to be beneficial to the species, and

B) The second sentence is fantastically false. For example, the runt of a litter may be programmed to die gracefully and be eaten by his siblings by genes that will then prosper from his altruism in his littermates.

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant it in a very, very member-specific way. A self-sacrificing member will not pass on its genes. That doesn't mean that his altruism won't produce a net benefit to his closest of kin.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is altruism beneficial to a species? An altruistic specimen has no chance of passing on his genes.

[/ QUOTE ]

A) Altruism doesn't need to be beneficial to the species, and

B) The second sentence is fantastically false. For example, the runt of a litter may be programmed to die gracefully and be eaten by his siblings by genes that will then prosper from his altruism in his littermates.

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant it in a very, very member-specific way. A self-sacrificing member will not pass on its genes. That doesn't mean that his altruism won't produce a net benefit to his closest of kin.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you understand what "his genes" mean. The genes are the unit of selection, not the individual. The same gene lives in many instantiations in multiple bodies both simultaneously and through time. When the gene in the runt tells it to die gracefully, it directly benefits itself, because it increases the chance of survival of other copies of itself at the expense of a copy that will likely not survive anyway. I.e., from the gene's point of view, it is +EV for the runt and its copy to die.

[hmkpoker]

Point taken.

[soon2bepro]

man it doesn't even matter if there's consent.

wtf, you can break a sheeps' neck, you can grill it in your barbacue, but you can't do nasty stuff with it?

Religion's sexuality dogma is still ruling over us? What, missionary position only?

Whatever. Most people are such hypocrites.

For what it's worth, out of all of these i'd only bang the 5th element girl, but as far as im concerned if you wanna hit a chicken that's your business man.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]


wtf, you can break a sheeps' neck, you can grill it in your barbacue, but you can't do nasty stuff with it?


[/ QUOTE ]

Not in Wisconsin (http://www.bloggernews.net/12265) you can't.

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
(insert any other hot alien)

[/ QUOTE ]

I saw no similar stipulation that the chimpanzee would be attractive. And even if you make the chimp physically attractive, the psychological barriers (to attraction) are likely greater.

Scott

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I saw no similar stipulation that the chimpanzee would be attractive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh, I've heard this logic before. When people say this girl gets to molest any boy she wants:

http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/5366/storylafavecourtlb4.jpg

yet the ugly girls are limited to people their age. It seems like your moral compass has guided *your* perception of beauty.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]


For modern humans copulation can be considered part of the mating dance. Therefore it is still a natural process.

[/ QUOTE ]

HMk has already pointed out that there are non-reproductive benefits to sexual interactions. Sexual actions between same sex partners can stregthen bonds between individuals, encourage trust and reciprocation of other favors, help define a hierarchy, relieve stress, ect.

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
Heh, I've heard this logic before. When people say this girl gets to molest any boy she wants:

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, I made no such claim, nor would I. You have misconstrued my objection. I was pointing out that your compare and contrast fails to isolate a single variable (species) for analysis, because a second variable (attraction) was not fixed.

[ QUOTE ]
It seems like your moral compass is guided *your* perception of beauty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming you mean that my "moral compass has guided" my perception of beauty, I would argue that the two are inextricably linked in everyone. Unless you are willing to claim that moral good is undesirable and that beauty is a bad thing, you'll have a lot of trouble completely separaty beauty and morality. I am not saying they are identical, just that they are not independent.

Scott

[Double Down]

I think I found a couple possible differences.

1. Physical attraction is affecting this "moral" decision

First of all, the aliens that you chose happen to be hot chicks with a fake weird looking forehead or whatever. If you had posted pictures of Predator or Alien we might not be so quick to tap that alien nookie. You also posed the idea of a monkey, which you know people aren't attracted to. Perhaps you should've leveled the playing field, and posted a picture of the female ape from Planet of the Apes.
So you've presented very skewed examples. You're manipulating the physical aspect of this, which you know is directly tied in.
At the end of the day, had you posed two things that are equally attractive or unattractive, I think you'd find similar results.
This is the cause for the apparent "hypocrisy". As humans, we are ATTRACTED TO HUMANS. So we're not inclined to even think about a monkey in that way. Similarly, a monkey wouldn't offer us her red ass because she wouldn't be attracted to us. And again, those aliens were actually hot human women. That Milla Jovovich from 5th element wasn't even physically different from us. So this isn't a good example.

2. We have sex for other reasons than physical.

Sex is also to feel a connection at a heightened emotional, mental, and spiritual level (don't flame cause I just said spiritual) and whereas an advanced alien species would probably be capable of experiencing this (and know whether we could also) we know that chimps are not capable of this.

3. Extension of this argument

If you're going to argue that maturity level is the only prereq morally to having sex with another living being, you have to extend that to then justify morally having sex with mature kids, or even a genius toddler. You could also argue that mentally challenged adults who have the mental age of a three year old should not have sex.

If you don't agree with the above then you're the hypocrite.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Heh, I've heard this logic before. When people say this girl gets to molest any boy she wants:

First off, I made no such claim, nor would I. You have misconstrued my objection. I was pointing out that your compare and contrast fails to isolate a single variable (species) for analysis, because a second variable (attraction) was not fixed.

[/ QUOTE ]

This thread wasn't about attraction or even what you would bang. Please read the bright shiny red letters in the original post. This thread is about what is moral and immoral. Unless you think morality is guided by looks, then there is no reason to bring it up.


[ QUOTE ]

It seems like your moral compass is guided *your* perception of beauty.

Assuming you mean that my "moral compass has guided" my perception of beauty, I would argue that the two are inextricably linked in everyone. Unless you are willing to claim that moral good is undesirable and that beauty is a bad thing, you'll have a lot of trouble completely separaty beauty and morality. I am not saying they are identical, just that they are not independent.

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

This is odd. It almost sounds like a backtracking from the previous quote. I never meant to say your moral compass is ruled by beauty. But thanks for clarifying the fact that your moral compass is in fact influenced by superficial features.

And yes, I type fast and make mistakes while editing. I use pageaddict limiting my time to 30 mins a day while still churning out a crap ton of posts. I make typos and after reading your response I've realized that you do too. /images/graemlins/grin.gif Thanks for catching my error though.

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
Please read the bright shiny red letters in the original post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, let's concentrate on those then. You just defined morality as what "I" can stand others doing. Are you sure that's the definition that you want to use?

[ QUOTE ]
But thanks for clarifying the fact that your moral compass is in fact influenced by superficial features.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, I can only assume that it is your own views you are expressing, and then projecting onto me. Nowhere did I reduce beauty to superficial, or even purely physical, features. Quite to the contrary, I made it a point to identify both physical and psychological aspects of attraction.

Scott

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
HMk has already pointed out that there are non-reproductive benefits to sexual interactions. Sexual actions between same sex partners can stregthen bonds between individuals, encourage trust and reciprocation of other favors, help define a hierarchy, relieve stress, ect.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is certainly true of heterosexual partners. Marriage even increases lifespan by 10 years. But there are a lot of studies out that show the homosexual lifestyle dramatically reduces the average lifespan. However, those studies are controversial. Either way I personally think this is should be considered irrelevant for the topic. You are free to include this in your moral compass but keep in mind this may very well encourage you to come to conclusions you may not like.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
You just defined morality as what "I" can stand others doing. Are you sure that's the definition that you want to use?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would focus more on the last red sentence and less on the first two. The first two where there just to drive a point home.



[ QUOTE ]
Once again, I can only assume that it is your own views you are expressing, and then projecting onto me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. My view is that physical beauty is irrelevant to morality. You were the one that brought up the physical attractiveness of the chimp, not me. So don't label me as doing something that I definitely did not do. Besides, beauty is in the eye of the beholder so what I think is pretty is irrelevant to what someone else chooses to sleep with. I find fat big butts disgusting but tons of guys love the "junk in the trunk". Does that make big butts immoral? No. You claim beauty is "inextricably linked" to morality in this situation but I think ones own perception of beauty is in fact completely irrelevant.

You brought up psychological barriers but at the same time humans have one night stands, the aliens don't know your language and they are here "for one night only", and the chimps are on about the same communication level as the aliens. So the psychological barriers are *mostly* irrelevant as well. This is pure primal love baby.

[Stu Pidasso]

Hi hmkpoker,

[ QUOTE ]
Why? Give me one reason why I should think there's something "wrong" or "bad" about homosexuality. Please keep in mind that modern technology allows them to procreate if they actually want to (hell, a bottle of wine may be enough to do the trick.)

[/ QUOTE ]

You justified homosexuality in this passage:

[ QUOTE ]
Moral in the Darwinian sense? Animals don't give two [censored] what's right or wrong; they do whatever gets them off. Natural selection is such that this action, be it moral or immoral, is the basic element of evolution. Reproduction/heterosexuality is an inevitable result, but it's also ROT. What's the "correct" action in poker; making +EV moves, or winning money?

So the morally correct sexual behavior is doing what gets you off. I'll [censored] all the chimpanzees I want.


[/ QUOTE ]

In your justification for bestiality and homosexuality you fail to take into account the human abilitiy to reason. The ability to reason is what seperates us from the lower order animals and gives us the ability to either behave in a moral manner or an immoral one. By your reasoning its entirely moral for me to kill another human as long as it "gets me off".

Stu

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
By your reasoning its entirely moral for me to kill another human as long as it "gets me off".

[/ QUOTE ]

If you can afford the private security firm to insulate you from the consequences, rock and roll.

[Zurvan]

I voted yes to the alien, and no to the chimp

I don't see any hypocrisy in this.

Look at it like this:

A 13 year old (of either gender) wants to have sex with a 40 year old. There's no doubt that the teenager is a willing participant, so that's not a factor.

If this happens, it's morally wrong for the 40 year old to have done it, but not for the 13 year old. The 13 year old (like the chimpanzee) is not capable of fully understanding the consequences of the decision they are making. The 40 year old is.

My analogy obviously assumes that one agrees with the concept of a legal age of consent.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I voted yes to the alien, and no to the chimp

I don't see any hypocrisy in this.

Look at it like this:

A 13 year old (of either gender) wants to have sex with a 40 year old. There's no doubt that the teenager is a willing participant, so that's not a factor.

If this happens, it's morally wrong for the 40 year old to have done it, but not for the 13 year old. The 13 year old (like the chimpanzee) is not capable of fully understanding the consequences of the decision they are making. The 40 year old is.

My analogy obviously assumes that one agrees with the concept of a legal age of consent.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the first place, this implies that the alien is being immoral in this case. Second, it wasn't just willingness that was stipulated - it was consent. So no, the age of consent cannot apply. If you think 13-year-olds and chimps are incapable of consent, that's fine, but the scenario was specifically worded to avoid that particular catch.

Also, this strikes me as a rather naive position. If a 13-year-old seduces a 40-year-old, she's not doing anything immoral by your standards?

[KUJustin]

Didn't read all the posts, but it's not hypocritical to say one is okay and the other is not.

The reason is that you've chosen the human in both cases when different roles are fulfilled. If I say sex with an alien is okay and with a chimp is wrong BUT I think the alien is in the wrong for having sex with a lower life form then I'm not being hypocritical.

[wacki]

Woman Marries Dolphin

A woman has married a dolphin in Israel.

Sharon Tendler from Redbridge, East London, wore a white silk dress and a pink tiara for the ceremony in Eliat, Israel.

The dolphin, Cindy, swam to the side of his enclosure for the ceremony.

Sharon kissed Cindy and whispered “I love you” in his blow hole.

According to The Sun she said: “Cindy is 35 and I’ve been visiting him on holidays for 15 years. He’s lovely.”

After the ceremony she dived into the water in her dress to give Cindy a hug.

[metsandfinsfan]

I agree with Zurvan's post.

Since we are the lower being to the alien, it is wrong for the alien to accept but not wrong on our part

With the chimp, we are the higher being, so it is wrong for us to accept (although i voted i dunno for the second one)
When you said,"if the chimp sticks her ass in our face that shows consent" that is the same as a 13 year old girl consenting like zurvan said.

[metsandfinsfan]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, this strikes me as a rather naive position. If a 13-year-old seduces a 40-year-old, she's not doing anything immoral by your standards?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would think not. By her morality, it is probably okay to seduce the 40 year old man. The 40 year old man should be moral enough to know that a 13 year old consenting is not okay

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
When you said,"if the chimp sticks her ass in our face that shows consent" that is the same as a 13 year old girl consenting like zurvan said.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's wrong to molest a 13 year old girl for developmental reasons. Once the woman reaches an appropriate level of maturity (relative to her full potential) then that woman deserves the right to do as she pleases. Otherwise there are a lot of people on this planet that probably shouldn't have the right to vote, drive, breed, etc. The same rule applies to chimps.

If you are going to argue some IQ barrier then I think at least 1/2 the populations should be neutered and blocked from voting booths.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with Zurvan's post.

Since we are the lower being to the alien, it is wrong for the alien to accept but not wrong on our part

With the chimp, we are the higher being, so it is wrong for us to accept (although i voted i dunno for the second one)
When you said,"if the chimp sticks her ass in our face that shows consent" that is the same as a 13 year old girl consenting like zurvan said.

[/ QUOTE ]

And if a chimp rapes a woman, the woman is in the wrong?

[Zurvan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with Zurvan's post.

Since we are the lower being to the alien, it is wrong for the alien to accept but not wrong on our part

With the chimp, we are the higher being, so it is wrong for us to accept (although i voted i dunno for the second one)
When you said,"if the chimp sticks her ass in our face that shows consent" that is the same as a 13 year old girl consenting like zurvan said.

[/ QUOTE ]

And if a chimp rapes a woman, the woman is in the wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because that's exactly the same thing... /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Rape =/= consensual sex, regardless of whether the sex would have been moral had it been consensual.

[Zurvan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When you said,"if the chimp sticks her ass in our face that shows consent" that is the same as a 13 year old girl consenting like zurvan said.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's wrong to molest a 13 year old girl for developmental reasons. Once the woman reaches an appropriate level of maturity (relative to her full potential) then that woman deserves the right to do as she pleases. Otherwise there are a lot of people on this planet that probably shouldn't have the right to vote, drive, breed, etc. The same rule applies to chimps.

If you are going to argue some IQ barrier then I think at least 1/2 the populations should be neutered and blocked from voting booths.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't consider it an IQ barrier. I consider it the ability to make an informed decision. It's sometimes IQ (in the case of the mentally handicapped), and it's sometimes developmental (13 year old girl). In both cases, the individual is not able to make a fully informed decision on their actions.

If somebody who is able to make an informed decision takes advantage of the individual who is not able to make an informed decision, then that person is doing something immoral.

Finally, in regards to a 13 year old seducing a 40 year old: no, the 13 year old is not doing something immoral. The 40 year old should know better, and allowing himself to be seduced by a child is immoral.

[madnak]

Right, but neither party is consenting, isn't that right? In other words, the chimp is just as much the victim as the woman?

If you say no, then tell me at what point the chimp does become just as much the victim? If a 13-year-old girl sits on a man's lap and reaches into his pants, of course what he should do is get her off him. But at the same time, to say that she is the only victim, that he is the perpetrator and the predator, if he accepts her advances... That's not easy to justify.

And since a lot of people judge genders differently, let's say a woman has a big crush on a 13-year-old boy, and he gets up close behind her and reaches into her blouse. Is she victimizing him by not stopping him?

You say consent is the line, clearly the adults in these situations are consenting to some degree, the kids are too young to have any consent. The rape example is only taking the consent on the part of the adult to 0, so that the consent level is 0 for both parties.

[Zurvan]

[ QUOTE ]
Right, but neither party is consenting, isn't that right? In other words, the chimp is just as much the victim as the woman?

If you say no, then tell me at what point the chimp does become just as much the victim? If a 13-year-old girl sits on a man's lap and reaches into his pants, of course what he should do is get her off him. But at the same time, to say that she is the only victim, that he is the perpetrator and the predator, if he accepts her advances... That's not easy to justify.

And since a lot of people judge genders differently, let's say a woman has a big crush on a 13-year-old boy, and he gets up close behind her and reaches into her blouse. Is she victimizing him by not stopping him?

You say consent is the line, clearly the adults in these situations are consenting to some degree, the kids are too young to have any consent. The rape example is only taking the consent on the part of the adult to 0, so that the consent level is 0 for both parties.

[/ QUOTE ]

All of your example's are assault, at one level or another. One party is doing something to the other party. Whether it's rape, reaching in to the man's pants, or the woman's shirt, it's one person doing something to another. They are attacks of varying severity.

The attacker is not a victim, they are an attacker. Like I said, rape is not sex. It's violence. There's a huge difference in what we're discussing.

As for the 13 year old boy/grown woman - if he grabs her breast, that's assault. If she has sex with him, it's immoral on her part.

Your examples are hardly valid for this situation.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Right, but neither party is consenting, isn't that right? In other words, the chimp is just as much the victim as the woman?

If you say no, then tell me at what point the chimp does become just as much the victim? If a 13-year-old girl sits on a man's lap and reaches into his pants, of course what he should do is get her off him. But at the same time, to say that she is the only victim, that he is the perpetrator and the predator, if he accepts her advances... That's not easy to justify.

And since a lot of people judge genders differently, let's say a woman has a big crush on a 13-year-old boy, and he gets up close behind her and reaches into her blouse. Is she victimizing him by not stopping him?

You say consent is the line, clearly the adults in these situations are consenting to some degree, the kids are too young to have any consent. The rape example is only taking the consent on the part of the adult to 0, so that the consent level is 0 for both parties.

[/ QUOTE ]

All of your example's are assault, at one level or another. One party is doing something to the other party. Whether it's rape, reaching in to the man's pants, or the woman's shirt, it's one person doing something to another. They are attacks of varying severity.

The attacker is not a victim, they are an attacker. Like I said, rape is not sex. It's violence. There's a huge difference in what we're discussing.

As for the 13 year old boy/grown woman - if he grabs her breast, that's assault. If she has sex with him, it's immoral on her part.

Your examples are hardly valid for this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alright, let's say she doesn't reach into his pants, let's say she does a striptease and asks him to [censored] her. Or do you consider that "visual assault?"

But even if he grabs her penis, she still isn't consenting and he's still just as wrong to have sex with her? That's what you're arguing?

In that case, let's try a different angle. I frequently scratch my dog behind the ears. I pat his head, stroke his fur, and scratch his belly, too. Obviously he can't "consent" to any of this. Yet he seems to enjoy, so I do it.

Let's pretend I, ugh, how to remain appropriate, let's say I masturbate my dog and he participates with equal enthusiasm. Why is that so different from petting him?

[Zurvan]

Madnak

I'm pretty sure I've lost track of the point you're trying to make.

[ QUOTE ]

But even if he grabs her penis, she still isn't consenting and he's still just as wrong to have sex with her? That's what you're arguing?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's wrong for an adult to have sex with a child. Period. It doesn't matter what the child does to try and entice the adult. Children are not fully capable of understanding the consequences of their actions. It's up to adults to teach them, and protect them when they're trying to do something foolish. I'm not saying that the girl isn't consenting, I'm saying that she's not fully capable of understanding the situation, and therefore, her consent is not valid.

EDIT: And since her consent is not valid, it's immoral for the adult to have sex with her.

[madnak]

The point I'm trying to make is that it's unjustifiable to demonize bestiality on the basis of consent (let's ignore that the OP stipulated there was full consent, we're beyond that now).

I have much more to say about the 13-year-old situation, but I've moved on to the example of "scratching behind the ears" above, because it's hard to continue with the 13-year-old and relate it to bestiality. Most of my further points on that subject would have to do with 13-year-olds per se, with age and humanity and the often-arbitrary nature of our classifications and that 13-year-olds frequently have sex with other 13-year-olds and nobody sees anything wrong with that (that one might apply - can dogs not consent to have sex with other dogs? And if they can fully consent to sex, why not sex with humans?) and is it impossible for the feelings of a 13-year-old to be genuine and etc etc etc.

Again, I'm moving on to dogs because I can see I'm not going to be able to make the point as well by analogy.