1. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #235331 by Appleby on August 22, 2008 at 7:36 pm

I just watched the second episode. It was very good. I've been intrigued by this idea about "going against nature because we now know better" that Richard talks about. However, doesn't this open a whole other can of worms? How do we decide or know what to go against and what not to go against?

For example, would it be fair to say that homosexuals should fight their homosexual urges because they should "know better"? How would one differentiate between that and something like "being kind to strangers" because it's the right thing to do?

I'm also surprised to learn that (human) eugenics apparently isn't the complete BS one might think it is.

2. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #235305 by Appleby on August 22, 2008 at 5:14 pm

Comment #234846 by Appleby

False alarm. The Quicktime file for Part 2 does indeed work but I had to upgrade my Quicktime player from version 7.0 to 7.4. Josh, you might want to take note of this.

3. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #234846 by Appleby on August 22, 2008 at 5:31 am

The Quicktime version of Part 2 doesn't work. I've downloaded it twice already.

4. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #234321 by Appleby on August 21, 2008 at 7:27 am

I just watched the first episode of "The Genius of Charles Darwin" and though I enjoyed it, I can see a little of Libby's point. RD does seem to be trying to convince his viewers (and those kids) that there is no god, perhaps equally as much, as he's trying to explain Darwin's genius. Darwin though, if I remember correctly, preferred (wisely) not to comment about belief in the supernatural. I hope RD isn't in some kind of rush (such as within his own lifetime) to eradicate the world of religion or at least make a significant difference. He seems to be pushing just a little bit too hard. I'd hate for shows like this to come off as evangelical rather than educational. Right now, it looks around 30-70 that way.

5. Enemies of Reason: Available now on DVD!

Comment #230905 by Appleby on August 15, 2008 at 12:21 pm

Comment #230870 by Diacanu

I'm not advocating religion as an alternative to science for the sake of wonder. I'm just saying it's disingenuous to lead people on by saying science is wonderful. That's not the whole story. To properly understand science, you really need to work hard. Even science books can only pussyfoot for so long before having to get serious (and I'm not even talking about math yet). Unless of course, you're advocating a mere superficial understanding of science, which to me, is not quite right. Keep in mind we're talking about the average Joe here.

6. Enemies of Reason: Available now on DVD!

Comment #230861 by Appleby on August 15, 2008 at 11:07 am

Yet, today, society appears to be retreating from reason.

Is this any surprise? It's likely because science (beneath its sugar-coated exterior of wonder) is so damn difficult. For instance, there apparently isn't a single science-fiction film in the history of the world that ever quite got its science right. Why do you think this is?

Humans need to feel wonder. And it's so, so much easier without science. RD only portrays himself as disingenuous when he keeps pimping science as something anyone and everyone can and should enjoy. Let's be realistic for a change. The kind of appreciation *he* has for science takes a lot of hard work and study before yielding fruit.

7. Richard Dawkins interviewed about 'The Genius of Charles Darwin'

Comment #223008 by Appleby on August 1, 2008 at 8:41 am

A militant atheist would get upset if someone said they thought Darwin wasn't great.

8. Richard Dawkins interviewed about 'The Genius of Charles Darwin'

Comment #222666 by Appleby on July 31, 2008 at 5:06 pm

I don't know... it's starting to look like Darwin has become some kind of atheist prophet. I certainly don't think of him that way.

9. Sydney brothels say Pope's visit will give business a leg-up

Comment #220031 by Appleby on July 28, 2008 at 1:43 am

Comment #219697 by moderndaythomas:

I agree. Masturbation is underrated. And I think sex is overrated too.

I've been through puberty, so don't get me wrong, I've certainly had my share of self love but.........What????????

I'm afraid so. Sex is often just not worth it anymore. Too much work (and risk, given the topic) for too little pay-off. Many times, masturbating even feels better. And once you're spent, your blood stops boiling all the same and you can get back to work (or sleep).

Of course, if you need or are into 'emotional intimacy' and stuff like that, then you're going to prefer having a partner. It's not really about intercourse anyway, then.

On the other hand, if you're young and want to have a good number of conquests under your belt to boast about, then you'll be willing to take the risks and invest a lot into getting laid. As you get older, you tend to realize nobody gives a shit who you're fucking. Excuse my language.

10. Biology Enters 'The Matrix' Through New Computer Language

Comment #220022 by Appleby on July 28, 2008 at 1:09 am

I've noticed that people with little or no background in computing often tend to think programming a computer to do something is out-of-this-world.

11. Biology Enters 'The Matrix' Through New Computer Language

Comment #219981 by Appleby on July 27, 2008 at 10:40 pm

Comment #219869 by Cyboman

Well put. I would have said it myself but knew that someone here (even though only after 18 posts) would have already.

I work in AI too. Mechanical automation of tasks which produces unexpected or unplanned output is not uncommon. It's still thrilling when your program "discovers" something, though. "Real" AI, unfortunately, is probably only achieved when computers act as unpredictably (even about one particular thing) as humans. And I'm not sure we want that.

12. Sydney brothels say Pope's visit will give business a leg-up

Comment #219422 by Appleby on July 27, 2008 at 12:20 am

Comment #219346 by kkelly:

I'm fine with masturbation, I certainly prefer it to casual sex considering the risks involved in my dating pool. Some people get an ego boost from sex, I never do.

I agree. Masturbation is underrated. And I think sex is overrated too.

Comment #219362 by mordacious1

Let's not get Appleby talking about virgin sex again. Remember where that led last time. Meow meow.

Gravedigger.

13. Sydney brothels say Pope's visit will give business a leg-up

Comment #219335 by Appleby on July 26, 2008 at 5:34 pm

Comment #219214 by kkelly:

I never understood how a guy could willingly contract 30 strains of genital warts in one go, for a few minutes of bland sex with a toothless skank.

Well, I wouldn't put it quite like that. Some prostitutes certainly *look* great but seeing how they might have been with literally thousands of guys (before you), it's certainly risky. At least with a woman who isn't a prostitute, she would unlikely have been with that many (hence a lower probability of contracting a disease from her). Even better are virgins (if you're into them).

As for sex itself, guys don't have much of a choice in the matter. If we don't get it out of the way every now and then, it interferes with our work.

14. Sydney brothels say Pope's visit will give business a leg-up

Comment #219051 by Appleby on July 26, 2008 at 7:35 am

"A follow-up paper entitled "Prostitution and the sex discrepancy in reported number of sexual partners" (Brewer et al., 2000) goes on to estimate a mean number of 868 male sexual partners per prostitute per year of active sex work..." (Wikipedia)

This is one of the reasons why I've always avoided prostitutes.

15. Historian predicts the end of 'science superpowers'

Comment #218066 by Appleby on July 24, 2008 at 9:44 pm

Comment #218002 by dragonfirematrix

Science, I think, will be its own undoing. There will probably come a time when machines will do most of our science and thinking for us. On a smaller scale, consider this. How many people today know how to calculate the square root of a number (on paper)? How many (scientists, even) actually know the actual formulas and logic behind the statistical analyses they use? Most likely all they know is how to use Excel or SPSS.

16. Historian predicts the end of 'science superpowers'

Comment #217839 by Appleby on July 24, 2008 at 5:37 pm

Past performance is no indication of future performance?

17. Historian predicts the end of 'science superpowers'

Comment #217786 by Appleby on July 24, 2008 at 4:14 pm

Many third world countries (even Muslim ones e.g. Malaysia) have virtually limitless budgets when it comes to education. They send their people overseas often with full scholarships (the criterion usually being only admission into *any* "Western" institution). This means something like full work pay (despite being overseas for 3-4 years and not working), a comfortable living allowance in said foreign currency, additional allowance to take their whole family (wife and kids) and a bunch of other stuff. And they don't have to pay it back even if they fail (and many fail). The just work off their bond to the institution which sent them in continued service for a few more years. Many run and don't even do that (and it's not strongly enforced anyway). This is the kind of "investment" in education a Westerner could only dream about.

However, the West kind of gets back at them by passing even substandard students. Even supposedly top institutions grant PhDs to such foreigners who can't even string a proper sentence together in English. Presumably these institutions need the money. So, simply looking at the number of PhDs foreign countries have is no indication of their scientific talent. Neither is the volume of their publications. They too rehash the same old papers and are not well-cited. Finally, those foreign academics worth their salt will likely find their way to some Western country to settle down and work anyway. The U.S. and other Western nations don't really have anything to worry about, IMO. But there's no harm in them improving themselves further for its own sake.

18. How Anecdotal Evidence Can Undermine Scientific Results

Comment #217333 by Appleby on July 24, 2008 at 8:14 am

I suppose we're lucky in this day and age to have the luxury of finding things out through the scientific method.

It makes me wonder, though. How much worse off would we be if we didn't?

19. Anti-Darwinists turned away by Israeli academia

Comment #212447 by Appleby on July 17, 2008 at 8:24 am

If the Christians (at least some) could get over their fear of evolution, I'm sure Muslims will too, someday.

20. Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes

Comment #212215 by Appleby on July 16, 2008 at 8:27 pm

Comment #212104 by MPhil

I think I'll check out this book by Mackie. Is it something like "Sense and Goodness without God" by Richard Carrier (for anyone who has read both)?

21. Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes

Comment #211619 by Appleby on July 16, 2008 at 7:51 am

Comment #211578 by MPhil

I think you're right. My concept of philosophy must be off. I never really studied much philosophy (not academically, anyway).

Then again, there's very little I see in common with philosophers of old such as Socrates and Seneca when compared to Dennett. He certainly tries to *look* like Socrates, though.

I suppose if analytical philosophy, as you say, did not draw heavily on science, it would be pretty much void of substance, much like philosophers (perhaps wrongfully) are generally accused of being anyway (by physicists, especially).

22. Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes

Comment #211542 by Appleby on July 16, 2008 at 6:10 am

Comment #211527 by Mitchell Gilks

It's just that when I think of "RD", what comes to mind are not scientific facts, but rather the wonders and philosophical implications of science, like that memorable passage of his (the one he wants read at his own funeral) from "Unweaving the Rainbow".

When I think of Dennett, I seem to remember him spewing nothing but scientific facts, terms and references (with only a smattering of philosophy). I suppose if I had met Dennett for the first time (without any knowledge of his background), and heard him talk, I'd never guess he was a philosophy professor. Other philosophers, for example, don't write or speak like him.

As far as science goes, RD just seems to be rehashing the same basic stuff for new audiences (which is fine) but does not make him much of a scientist. I suppose in his "retirement", that's understandable.

Christopher Hitchens (and to some extent Sam Harris) on the other hand, are clearly on the political front. Harris is no doubt doing some possibly groundbreaking work in neuroscience and Hitchens is, of course, entertaining us with his polemics.

23. Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes

Comment #211463 by Appleby on July 16, 2008 at 3:45 am

Comment #211427 by Mitchell Gilks

Philosophy, at it's core, is the study of knowledge. This makes it unavoidably, and intimately linked with science. They'll always share a close relationship.

I think Dawkins is a better philosopher than Dennett, ironic as that may sound. And Dennett, a better scientist!

24. Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes

Comment #211412 by Appleby on July 16, 2008 at 1:36 am

I enjoyed "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" and somewhat less, "Breaking the Spell". However, for a philosopher, Dennett sure talks a lot more about science than philosophy. I've also noticed he seldom talks about homosexuality (unlike Dawkins).

25. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206162 by Appleby on July 8, 2008 at 6:30 am

Comment #205530 by Cartomancer

I was thinking the same thing. You have to admit though, that evolution is pretty damn amazing. It's so simple yet so beyond anything humans would ordinarily perceive. And in this, for some people, rests the acceptable dictum, "which is more likely?...". Except that when these guys choose "God", they don't examine that contention any further - so it actually seems more likely. "Evolutionists" are just "blind", they think.

26. When too much Rapture is barely enough

Comment #204753 by Appleby on July 5, 2008 at 5:10 pm

I've noticed something strange over the years. Christians seem to be pretty confident they are going to heaven but Muslims seldom say they are. I guess it's all a matter of how "strict" or merciful you think your god is.

27. The day of judgment

Comment #192632 by Appleby on June 13, 2008 at 6:02 pm

Quite a history lesson, this article. I suspect, like McEwan suggests, that many people are just "pretenders" in religion. They don't really believe in this stuff but play along so that their spouse, children and grandparents don't give them a hard time. The rest of us writing these kind of articles and books "just don't get it". It'd be so much easier (and a kind of "pornographic" pleasure, as McEwan puts it), if we just played along but never for a second actually believed in this stuff.

In Islam for example, condemnation of "hypocrites" can be found in both the Quran and hadith. My guess is there were many people like that even in the past but they were not very good at hiding their skepticism. Either that or it stems from the feeling you get when you're trying to bullshit someone and are pretty sure they aren't falling for it (even if they appear to be).

28. Kluge: The Haphazard Construction of the Human Mind

Comment #191438 by Appleby on June 11, 2008 at 1:17 am

Damn it. Another book I'm tempted to buy.

29. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189742 by Appleby on June 7, 2008 at 6:01 am

Well what do you know... you don't need a Ph.D. to not believe in God.

30. Male circumcision is a weapon in the sperm wars

Comment #189739 by Appleby on June 7, 2008 at 5:57 am

This article is a little difficult to swallow.

31. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189709 by Appleby on June 7, 2008 at 3:04 am

I'm obviously discussing ideas above everyone's head. It doesn't matter. I'm quite done here. And kudos to Josh for not banning me. I take back whatever I said about him the last time.

32. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189704 by Appleby on June 7, 2008 at 2:51 am

Comment #189703 by epeeist

It's an ethical entailment (which has been demonstrated). Your claim of bestiality necessarily being paraphilia is also insufficiently proven.

33. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189701 by Appleby on June 7, 2008 at 2:45 am

Comment #189699 by Mitchell Gilks

Why is there reason to prohibit zoophilia if homosexuality is prohibited?

There isn't, but you must realize that it automatically entails the permission of homosexuality. A heterosexual society cannot permit bestiality yet prohibit homosexuality. Can you not understand this?

34. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189698 by Appleby on June 7, 2008 at 2:30 am

Comment #189679 by Rachel Holmes

Not in the absolute sense, I didn't.

35. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189697 by Appleby on June 7, 2008 at 2:26 am

Comment #189687 by Mitchell Gilks

More importantly though, your point is nonsensical. In a completely heterosexual society why is zoophilia impossible?

It isn't. But if it is permitted in a heterosexual society, then there's no reason to prohibit homosexuality either, is there?

36. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189674 by Appleby on June 7, 2008 at 12:37 am

Comment #189671 by Cartomancer

Sorry. We're talking about ethics here and there are no societies (that we know of) in which *only* homosexuality is viewed as "acceptable behaviour". These are not my prejudices. This is just you getting carried away with the supposed absolute equality of homosexuality and heterosexuality.

37. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189635 by Appleby on June 6, 2008 at 7:48 pm

Comment #189462 by hungarianelephant

There are several problems with your reasoning. I'll point them out.

A different list of justifications does come into play. The most obvious is that we need(ed) to eat, and so we need(ed) to do what was necessary to farm them, including killing them. But we do not torture them, or inflict unnecessary suffering, because that is unjustified.

I think the "need(ed) to eat" part is not entirely justified. Especially when you claim:

"Animals are not human, but since they are clearly sentient, we extend them broadly the same courtesy. They are entitled not to be touched, except insofar as is justified."

The "minor" exception of slaughtering them to death, humane or not, is a contradiction if I ever saw one. Broadly the same courtesy? Are you quite sure? What if one day sex with animals becomes a much easier avenue for our "needs" than sex with humans? What if marriage/kids or any other form of commitment in line with the times becomes economically unfeasible? Our need for sex will likely remain. Doesn't this "lesser" need for sex outweigh the need to slaughter? Couldn't under these circumstances, sex with animals be permitted? Especially if there was no harm inflicted? What more if the animal in question was our own pet which we shared an emotional bond with i.e. loved, cared for etc.?

It's possible to argue that killing them is no longer justified, but that's an entirely separate argument. What it will never do is somehow prove that having sex with them is justified. You can't find a justification because there isn't one.

Why not? You'll have to provide evidence for this positive claim. Just saying it doesn't make it so.

The argument that "consent doesn't apply to animals because animals can't consent" is hogwash.

Logically, you would have to extend it to very young children, the mentally ill and people in comas, the "justification" presumably being "I needed to get off and it hasn't harmed them". Or you would have to draw a distinction between humans and animals which just can't be made to stick.

Here you go again with the supposed immutability of the consent argument. No, permission to have sex with your pet Labrador is not permission to have sex with a stranger's toddler (an ethical difference). By no stretch of logic could it be. I think, what you're implying is that should we be permitted to have sex with certain animals (at certain times when they are comfortable with it, perhaps), that would necessarily imply we suddenly cannot slaughter (other) animals for food or must allow our toddlers to be raped. This does not follow. Unless sex necessarily implies something more than it is. A reason, I dare say, that is comparable to the supposed "sanctity" of marriage.

Does this have anything to do with homosexuality?

If you feel there are valid reasons to prohibit bestiality, then it can be argued that you also need to reexamine your position on homosexuality, which is why I find prohibition of bestiality hypocritical. Now, in societies where only heterosexuality is recognized as "acceptable behaviour" (reminder: you think bestiality is "unacceptable"), this problem does not arise.

38. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189380 by Appleby on June 6, 2008 at 6:43 am

Comment #189379 by irate_atheist

Oops! My bad. I stand corrected and apologize for the assumption.

39. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189377 by Appleby on June 6, 2008 at 6:38 am

Comment #189373 by Cartomancer

Sorry about that. These men have been trying to distract me with endless vituperations. If I was in a bar with my girlfriend, they'd be like the shameless thugs picking on her just to goad me into a fight.

Please please please tell us all whether you believe that homosexuality and heterosexuality are ethically equivalent to one another. If so why, if not why not.

I do. But I really can't put my finger on the reason why. They are, after all, different. So absolute ethical equivalence does not make absolute sense to me.

You have also said that people's ethical systems change and vary across the world. Which is true, but immaterial. We are talking about our own ethical system, which we base on logic, evidence and argument - that is why we consider our own ethics to be superior. Unless you are willing to advocate absolute moral relativism as the only viable ethical doctrine then you must admit this and engage in the arguments rather than trying awkwardly to wave them away via such irrelevant distractions.

This actually makes a lot of sense. But there are inconsistencies in our ethical system. You mentioned earlier on that if bestiality did not cause harm, you wouldn't have a problem with it. I think this is a fair position. And most of all, it is not hypocritical.

40. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189368 by Appleby on June 6, 2008 at 6:20 am

Comment #189327 by Steve Zara

Don't think I don't understand these guys, Steve. I know where they are coming from. I really have no *reason* to be disgusted by what male homosexuals do anymore than I should have a reason to be disgusted by what you and your wife might be doing (from time to time or on your birthday).

But all this while all of you conveniently dodge the question of bestiality saying you "do not want to think about it". This strikes me as not having the arguments to back up the disgust *you* feel for bestials. I, on the other hand, have already explained several times why I find male homosexual acts disgusting.

41. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189333 by Appleby on June 6, 2008 at 4:05 am

Comment #189327 by Steve Zara

Why do you find bestiality repulsive, Steve? You must be a bigot. Unless you don't find it repulsive.

42. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189326 by Appleby on June 6, 2008 at 3:31 am

Comment #189302 by Quetzalcoatl

I feel like this debate is winding to a close, since your arguments have been thoroughly dismembered by everyone here, but there are one or two points from your last comment to me that I wanted to address.

Are you serious? There must be a communication problem, then.

This seems to be the accepted ethical point of view. Does that mean it cannot be challenged? How do you think homosexuality was viewed (and still is in many parts of the world) in the past?

You do seem to have difficulty maintaining a consistent position, why is that? You have repeatedly claimed that consent applies only to humans and not animals, yet in ther above you attempt to introduce homosexuality into a discussion about CONSENT! Homosexuality was obviously not viewed as something for which parties were incapable of giving consent.

The problem is, you're treating language as if it were a mathematical equation. This was attempted hundreds of years ago and failed. I am not referring to homosexuality with reference to consent, but to ethics! If homosexuality was ever viewed as unethical, why do you presuppose that it must have been about consent? This is a very limited (Western) view of the matter. Don't you think that by assuming it is *exclusively* a consent issue with homosexuality, you are not in fact, open to examining the issue objectively? And it's fair if you then ask "what else could it possibly be about?". Well, like I said in Comment #189261, ethics could very well be based on a deviation to the status quo. And I've repeatedly mentioned (e.g. Comment #188426) the status quo isn't necessarily better. But it doesn't matter. How can you "prove" what you consider ethical (e.g. the consent issue) is somehow more valid than the deviation argument? And let us not forget, that the possibility that something in nature could be wrong, does not exclude the fact that it could just as well, be right. It is even arguable that *most* things in nature are right. At best, how gay rights (and consequently bestiliaty) is looked upon by societies, is arbitrary. This includes comparing homosexuality with heterosexuality as if it were exactly the same thing. This is just your limited view of what is considered ethical. Now, if you want to bring science into the picture to support your case, you are also going to open the door to bestiality and I've explained this only too many times.

Again, consistency is not your strength- weren't you the one claiming that rape is not relevant? It's good to see that you are capable of changing your mind. And please point to where I claimed that it unequivocally causes harm.

Now you're just punching in the dark. I used rape as an example with *you* to aid *your* understanding. And if you admit that the "harm" supposedly caused by sex with animals is not unequivocal, how can you so easily dismiss it as impermissible? Who's being inconsistent now?

What a very theistic response. It's up to me to prove to you that my judgement is clear, rather than for you to point out where it isn't. How very stupid

Uh... yeah? Excuse me, Your Honour, how about that little thing called "evidence" before you send me to jail?

There is legitimacy in homosexuality, and it's up to you to show otherwise

Just like there *is* legitimacy in bestiality and it's up to you to show otherwise. This sums up my arguments very nicely, actually. Perfectly, even.

43. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189297 by Appleby on June 6, 2008 at 1:37 am

One of the reasons why many parts of the world reject homosexuality is because it technically opens the door to the acceptance of other things as well (e.g. bestiality, which all of you argue is somehow completely different and unrelated). This is hypocrisy in my book. How you pick up your magical pen and draw the magical line between hetero/homo and bestiality is beyond me. I've presented a spate of cogent arguments, both scientific and ethical, as to why that line is as imaginary as a sky god.

All the insults I've received in this thread (probably more than the number of stars in the Milky Way) clearly demonstrate your lack of objectivity as well.

44. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189280 by Appleby on June 5, 2008 at 11:58 pm

Comment #189279 by MaxD

I'm talking about ethical arguments here. You guys suddenly decided it wasn't about science, remember? And please, factor in the rest of the world.

45. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189278 by Appleby on June 5, 2008 at 11:54 pm

Comment #189273 by Philip1978

Character assassination. How quaint.

46. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189275 by Appleby on June 5, 2008 at 11:52 pm

Comment #189271 by Cartomancer

Procreation. It's the one thing in nature that heterosexuality is known for (imagine if we thought it was wrong and outlawed it) that homosexuality and bestiality do not have. On that basis, from an ethical standpoint, is it inconceivable that they be considered aberrations that can be acted against since we are conscious beings who are capable of making that decision?

And, if all this while, you assumed homosexuality or bestiality to be equal to heterosexuality in any and every way, I think you'll see that you're wrong. And procreation, I would say, *does* matter.

47. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189270 by Appleby on June 5, 2008 at 11:43 pm

Comment #189268 by MaxD

Since you are talking in terms of aberant you are already working from the naturalistic fallacy anyway. Say heterosexuality were the absolute norm and homosexuals made up one percent of one percent one percent of any human population would that then make their actions, or feelings wrong?

It's not really about the norm. It's about what is "right". Nature might urge us to steal, cheat or rape to get ahead, but being conscious, we choose not to do it. In the same way - and I was just wondering - could homosexuality and bestiality, ethically, be considered "wrongs" to be acted against? You certainly seem to think the latter is wrong. And many parts of the world think both are. To say that heterosexuality is wrong... well, that's just silly for obvious reasons.

48. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189265 by Appleby on June 5, 2008 at 11:28 pm

Comment #189262 by Bonzai

Homosexuals and bestials are both human, no? Or do you take offense at that too? And if you're going to tell me that heterosexuality should also be considered an aberration in nature, you should have your head examined.

49. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189261 by Appleby on June 5, 2008 at 11:12 pm

One other thing I'm wondering about is this. If our consciousness gives us the ability to "go against" certain natural tendencies i.e. to do instead what is "right"; can it be argued that homosexuality and bestiality are aberrations in nature that we should use our consciousness to act against? Do (conscious, human) homosexuals and bestials in fact, *have* a choice in the matter?

50. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189252 by Appleby on June 5, 2008 at 10:42 pm

Comment #189224 by Cartomancer

I shall assume there is an implicit male standpoint in this, i.e. that you are talking about heterosexual intercourse. I would just ask for a clarification here - do you equate homosexual intercourse as equal, ethically, to heterosexual intercourse? If not, why not?

Do you equate bestiality as equal to homosexuality, ethically? If not, why not? Arguments for and against have been presented for hundreds of posts now so I suggest you catch up on them (I suspect you don't) before replying to this.

Oh what a pitiable lack of imagination you have! We could outlaw anything we chose to outlaw. We might not be able to enforce such a decree (we couldn't really enforce anti-homosexual legislation, only make prominent examples) but we could certainly pass one.

We may as well outlaw food, then. Anti-homosexual legislation by the way, can and is, enforced in many parts of the world. And why should this be any different from making "prominent examples"?

Also, being a part of the "status quo" is not a distinctive feature of heterosexuality. Homosexuality is also a part of the "status quo" ("state which is"), and always has been. Male and female animals have been enjoying the sexual company of their own genders since they had genders to enjoy. My sexuality has just as fine a pedigree as yours. What you mean, I think, is that heterosexuality is more prevalent than homosexuality. Which is true. But entirely immaterial to anything we are discussing here.

I think it is relevant. What would you say if inter-species relations are also found to be present in nature? Would you then accept bestiality as equal to homosexuality?

For a start the term "zoophile" is the correct one. "Bestial" is simply an adjective meaning "beastly" or "animal-like". It has no implicit sexual content, and in everyday english has a rather forceful negative implication

And "zoophile" doesn't? I know. I coined the term (as a noun). Refer: Comment #188318 by Appleby

I am of the opinion that most zoosexual acts generally do cause harm to both animal and perpetrator, though as I say there are some which might not (masturbating over squirrels is the one I keep giving). The harm caused is something that can quite easily be ascertained from observation

It nonetheless still needs to be demonstrated (scientifically) before being accepted as unequivocally true. From mere "observation", one might think male homosexuality is harmful (at least to one partner).

Why is copulation with the opposite sex any more legitimate the copulation with the same sex? Why would it have greater legitimacy? If anyone were to use that as an argument they would simply not have an argument, so why do you bring it up at all? Sounds an awful lot like unreconstructed patriarchal assumptions by fiat again.

Well the obvious answer is offspring (pretty Darwinian, if you ask me). I'm also not saying it's necessarily a valid argument; but it's something bestials could use to support their case further. Not that they can have children with animals, but rather that it is something in common they share with heterosexuals that homosexuals don't.

Again, it should be emphasised that zoophilia is not a sexual orientation at all but a very unusual paraphilia

Addressed in: Comment #188909 by Appleby

THE MOST COMMON FORM OF BEHAVIOUR DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY GET A FREE PASS TO UNEXAMINED ASSUMPTIONS OF LEGITIMACY

How would you feel if bestials said that about homosexuality and heterosexuality?

Yours is the uncritical obedience, but it is to medieval western values rather than modern ones, and you are steeped in political incorrectness of the very worst kind which you wear as if it were a virtue.

I'm of the kind who is willing to accept the evidence anywhere it takes me. Even if it means stripping gays of their rights as they once were (not that I want this to happen). Unless you feel that objective evidence *must* agree with your desires or our ethics.