Utah can't into filters on porn searches

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

And the new guy's entire argument is essentially a scaffolding for the idea that rape couldn't happen if on some level the victim didn't want it. He's trying to get people to agree with his attempts at rationalizing the justification for zoophilia and pedophilia. In this case he's claiming that the desire is evolutionary, but it's fundamentally the exact same bullshit argument as this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKa5CY-KOHc

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I hate both of you because your conversation is both navel-gazing and puerile

Newsfeed.

[POFP]

Fernando, I'm going to be blunt with you. I think that intellectually speaking, you have potential, but, much like The Wizard Joseph, you are still in the exploratory stage where your thinking is cluttered with a lot of experimental ideas and stuff you're ultimately going to learn more about and realize was naive, or think through and discard. I find all the clutter intensely annoying, and I don't feel like being the person to help you pare it back to just the meaningful discourse, so I probably won't engage with you much until you get there.

Agreed, and understandable. It is a process, and that is the whole reason why I do this. I understand if you find the clutter to be too taxing. I'm probably more annoyed by it than you are.

Also, this is the first time I've written anything close to coherent in the last year or so, as I've not been doing anything but work and drive. I've not had the time to grow like I used to, mentally. So, now I've, in a way, started back at square 1.

And the new guy's entire argument is essentially a scaffolding for the idea that rape couldn't happen if on some level the victim didn't want it. He's trying to get people to agree with his attempts at rationalizing the justification for zoophilia and pedophilia. In this case he's claiming that the desire is evolutionary, but it's fundamentally the exact same bullshit argument as this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKa5CY-KOHc

If anyone had ever asked me, before, what an "Anarchist Monk" would look like, I wouldn't have thought of this guy. However, after some thought, it's so fitting. (Don't know if you read his introduction)

[CBXTN]

I didn't say that they don't limit arousals. I said they didn't have to evolve to do so. It's not very surprising that a system made up of people who are disgusted by sexual abuse would be biased against sexual abuse.

The universe has allowed for the possibility of organisms to influence and manipulate other organisms, whether by digesting them, inseminating them, etc. - from molecular to macro. I'm afraid if I apply a hierarchy of morality upon a nihilistic biology, I'm gonna slip on a banana peel.
 

No, Nihilists are the ones that think it's pointless to go out of their way to not step on the banana peel, and so they fall on their asses over and over again.

Biology is not Nihilistic. It is doing all the work, and making your existence possible. It gave you the ability to create meaning, and you chose to waste that on an ideology that is based on moral laziness. You're spineless inability to stand up for a set of moral principles is caused by cowardice. Ordinarily, I would attribute this to tween arrogance. But, you said you were already out of college in your Introduction, which means you're probably old enough to know better. As someone who went through your problem as a phase, I assure you that it is due to an ego the size of Texas, and a habit of compartmentalization at the first sign of a threat to your belief, and magical thinking. You assume that because your ideology explains and accounts for all, that it is infallible. You are wrong. You are not special. You are not a philosopher (No reason why you'd want to be one). We have seen plenty like you, and we are not impressed.

The world doesn't care about you, and it has nothing to do with Nihilism. It has to do with the fact that you can't accept that sexual abuse and manipulation are fucking wrong.

So go slip on a fucking banana peel.

I'll take your criticism, it's ok. Yes, you are right, I have slipped on many banana peels and will continue to do so. And yes, It's true that every type of viewpoint is both true and false and everything in between.

But, considering the legacy of Discordians, I thought the point of a discordian forum was to consider many types of view points rather than seek the "correct" or "ethical" answer. My view point is going to be very wrong to some people, but I do enjoy trying to think about issues in a different way than mainstream intellectuals.

(And in response to Mesozoic Mister Nigel, personally, I do not condone non-consenting sex/abuse between two people/animals - but I am interested in exploring the crevices of why these things are considered ok/bad)

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

Humans ARE just animals. The type of animals we call Homo sapiens. Other species may have, or reach, the type of intelligence we have. I absolutely do not buy into that "God breathed life into us and that makes us super special and different from all the others" crap. I don't even understand why anyone would WANT to feel like humans are fundamentally different from all the other animals; what a bleak, lonely, alienated existence that would be.

Although, now that I think about it like that, it kind of explains a lot about Western civilization.

I find it hard to hold people responsible for their actions if I see them as the same kind of animal as every other animal.

We have the ability to make or break the world, and everything in it. We're not holy. We have more responsibility than other animals, and should. Every member of this board that's worth a damn has demonstrated that responsibility in one way or another.

I mean, obviously we shouldn't start holding dogs accountable for dog fighting. They did the fighting, but we had the complexity and BADWRONG in us to force them to do it. We can choose to be better than other animals, or we can choose to be lower than other animals.

I mean, if you treat something or someone as if they have more responsibility than another, that is a fundamental difference, is it not?

Dogs are held accountable for dog fighting every day.  They are usually executed for it.

He's got you there

[POFP]

But, considering the legacy of Discordians, I thought the point of a discordian forum was to consider many types of view points rather than seek the "correct" or "ethical" answer. My view point is going to be very wrong to some people, but I do enjoy trying to think about issues in a different way than mainstream intellectuals.

   

Humans ARE just animals. The type of animals we call Homo sapiens. Other species may have, or reach, the type of intelligence we have. I absolutely do not buy into that "God breathed life into us and that makes us super special and different from all the others" crap. I don't even understand why anyone would WANT to feel like humans are fundamentally different from all the other animals; what a bleak, lonely, alienated existence that would be.

Although, now that I think about it like that, it kind of explains a lot about Western civilization.

I find it hard to hold people responsible for their actions if I see them as the same kind of animal as every other animal.

We have the ability to make or break the world, and everything in it. We're not holy. We have more responsibility than other animals, and should. Every member of this board that's worth a damn has demonstrated that responsibility in one way or another.

I mean, obviously we shouldn't start holding dogs accountable for dog fighting. They did the fighting, but we had the complexity and BADWRONG in us to force them to do it. We can choose to be better than other animals, or we can choose to be lower than other animals.

I mean, if you treat something or someone as if they have more responsibility than another, that is a fundamental difference, is it not?

Dogs are held accountable for dog fighting every day.  They are usually executed for it.

He's got you there

I'm saying the justice system shouldn't hold dogs accountable for dog fighting. Did Pergamos mean to say that the justice system executes dogs for dog fighting? Or that the dog fighters execute them for dog fighting? Because I know the latter is definitely true. The former doesn't make any goddamn sense.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm saying the justice system shouldn't hold dogs accountable for dog fighting. Did Pergamos mean to say that the justice system executes dogs for dog fighting? Or that the dog fighters execute them for dog fighting? Because I know the latter is definitely true. The former doesn't make any goddamn sense.

You've seriously never heard of owners being forced by law to put their dog to sleep because it kept mauling other dogs?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Or otherwise held accountable for their actions, if not by a court of law, then by the higher authority which is the animal whose homes they live in? Never heard of a dog scolded or punished for stealing food or peeing on the furniture?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Maybe I should return to my earlier question. What is "fundamentally different"?

What, to you, constitutes a fundamental difference?

Is it a quality or capacity no other animal has?

Is it a quality or capacity no other animal has to the same degree?

Is it a unique set of qualities and capacities that no other animal has the same permutations of?

Is it some other condition which you can define?

[Pergamos]

Humans ARE just animals. The type of animals we call Homo sapiens. Other species may have, or reach, the type of intelligence we have. I absolutely do not buy into that "God breathed life into us and that makes us super special and different from all the others" crap. I don't even understand why anyone would WANT to feel like humans are fundamentally different from all the other animals; what a bleak, lonely, alienated existence that would be.

Although, now that I think about it like that, it kind of explains a lot about Western civilization.

I find it hard to hold people responsible for their actions if I see them as the same kind of animal as every other animal.

We have the ability to make or break the world, and everything in it. We're not holy. We have more responsibility than other animals, and should. Every member of this board that's worth a damn has demonstrated that responsibility in one way or another.

I mean, obviously we shouldn't start holding dogs accountable for dog fighting. They did the fighting, but we had the complexity and BADWRONG in us to force them to do it. We can choose to be better than other animals, or we can choose to be lower than other animals.

I mean, if you treat something or someone as if they have more responsibility than another, that is a fundamental difference, is it not?

Dogs are held accountable for dog fighting every day.  They are usually executed for it.

Well, we don't like the people that hold them accountable and execute them for it. Those people tend to be the same people who made them fight. I hope you weren't trying to imply that I would support that?

Mostly just unsure of where this was going. Sorry if I seem unusually defensive.

No,  dogfighting trainers certainly kill dogs, but it is not out of any sort of accountability.  The people who kill dogs for being fighting dogs are called dogcatchers, they work for the government and we generally don't hate them because they are doing what needs to be done.  Can't have  vicious dog roaming about.

[POFP]

I'm saying the justice system shouldn't hold dogs accountable for dog fighting. Did Pergamos mean to say that the justice system executes dogs for dog fighting? Or that the dog fighters execute them for dog fighting? Because I know the latter is definitely true. The former doesn't make any goddamn sense.

You've seriously never heard of owners being forced by law to put their dog to sleep because it kept mauling other dogs?

Not until now, honestly. But that seems like a preventative measure, not a form of accountability. It is unfortunate, but it seems to be a necessity.

Or otherwise held accountable for their actions, if not by a court of law, then by the higher authority which is the animal whose homes they live in? Never heard of a dog scolded or punished for stealing food or peeing on the furniture?

You can hold a dog responsible for those things to the same extent that the dogs themselves can think about the action. If they stole food, that means they weren't trained. They were simply hungry, and saw an opportunity to eat. If they peed on the floor, then they were either not given a chance to relieve themselves outside, or they were not trained to do so. Behavioral modifications can be made by holding the dog accountable for the simple need it has to have to relieve itself or to eat. You are adapting the dog to its new environment as that is not their natural state.

Do you see dog training as complex enough to be considered a form of accountability?

Maybe I should return to my earlier question. What is "fundamentally different"?

What, to you, constitutes a fundamental difference?

Is it a quality or capacity no other animal has?

Is it a quality or capacity no other animal has to the same degree?

Is it a unique set of qualities and capacities that no other animal has the same permutations of?

Is it some other condition which you can define?

Comparing humans to all the other animals, I would probably argue it is the first one that defines the fundamental difference, and maybe partially the second option in some cases. But that quality or capacity is going to be mostly related to that thing that grants us our consciousness and self-awareness. You can't have responsibility without those things. And of the animals that do have those things that aren't humans, there are few that have it to the degree to be able to be held accountable for their actions in most environments that include humans.

No,  dogfighting trainers certainly kill dogs, but it is not out of any sort of accountability.  The people who kill dogs for being fighting dogs are called dogcatchers, they work for the government and we generally don't hate them because they are doing what needs to be done.  Can't have  vicious dog roaming about.

Fair enough. But my point is that humans were responsible for the viciousness of those dogs, and should be punished for it. The killing of dogs that are dangerous is incredibly unfortunate. But as you said, it has to be done. More animals shouldn't have to suffer because some piece of shit ruined a dog's life.



My overall point in this whole discussion is that humans, having the greater impact and potential, should have the most responsibility/accountability of all other animals. They are capable of greatness that no other animal could possibly achieve, and so they should be held to a certain standard of behavior, environment and genetics permitting. And that general responsibility for everything around humans makes them different from other animals.


EDIT: Better?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Jesus fuck, can you at least try to be concise? Think about what you want to say, then use the fewest words possible to say it in the clearest manner possible. Just throw away all those extra words. They're just garbage.

I'll filter through this lunchmeat salad tomorrow if I remember, and try to pick out any actual relevant nuggets that bear responding to.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Also, if you think of questions while you're typing, take a minute to sit back and ask yourself, "can I come up with an answer to this on my own?" and if the answer to that is yes, don't ask the question.

[POFP]

I'll filter through this lunchmeat salad tomorrow if I remember, and try to pick out any actual relevant nuggets that bear responding to.

Don't bother. I'll edit for efficiency tomorrow afternoon.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'll filter through this lunchmeat salad tomorrow if I remember, and try to pick out any actual relevant nuggets that bear responding to.

Don't bother. I'll edit for efficiency tomorrow afternoon.

Thank you. I'll look for it.