A beastly notion

[Sojourner]

It seems the time may have come to reevaluate the merits of bestiality. So says Princeton University bioethics professor Peter Singer, who recently cited a "thought-provoking" study from the Journal of Controversial Ideas promoting the idea that the taboo status of zoophilia may be out of touch with a modern, enlightened society. "This piece challenges one of society's strongest taboos and argues for the moral permissibility of some forms of sexual contact between humans and animals," Singer said. The study's author, writing under the pseudonym Fira Bensto, wrote, "There is in fact nothing wrong with having sex with animals: it is not an inherently problematic sexual practice."

Such aberrant thinking could never gain traction and garner support, right? I remember a time when one's gender being a matter of personal choice rather than sex chromosomes would have seemed a ridiculous notion. But that time has passed. As spiritual wickedness increases, American society is growing ever darker and more twisted. God's judgment cannot be far off.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/princeton-professor-animal-rights-activist-called-bestiality-thought-provoking

[RabbiKnife]

Romans 1

[Athanasius]

Oh yeah, Singer is an idiot. That paper is the exact opposite of thought provoking.

[tango]

Oh yeah, Singer is an idiot. That paper is the exact opposite of thought provoking.

I disagree, I'd say this sort of thing is thought-provoking. Specifically we should be thinking about why we are giving such people a platform in the first place.

[Athanasius]

Oh yeah, Singer is an idiot. That paper is the exact opposite of thought provoking.

I disagree, I'd say this sort of thing is thought-provoking. Specifically we should be thinking about why we are giving such people a platform in the first place.

To mock them as they out themselves.

[Oscar_Kipling]

Oh yeah, Singer is an idiot. That paper is the exact opposite of thought provoking.

I disagree, I'd say this sort of thing is thought-provoking. Specifically we should be thinking about why we are giving such people a platform in the first place.

To mock them as they out themselves.

Oh idk guys, i'm sure they appreciate the platform you've generously given them, but I think they'd feel a bit betrayed if you just use it to make fun of them. I think they just wanted a place to talk to like minded individuals about how dumb and evil everyone else is without having to worry about being challenged on anything or be made fun of for their nonsense... doesn't everyone deserve a place to overestimate their own merit and underestimate everyone else's and complain about problems that they themselves are a major contributor to? ...you know, healthy fellowship I think its called.

[Sojourner]

I disagree, I'd say this sort of thing is thought-provoking. Specifically we should be thinking about why we are giving such people a platform in the first place.

Condemning someone for promoting perversion, and holding him up to scorn is more a pillory than a platform. Depends on one's perspective, I suppose.

[Athanasius]

Oh yeah, Singer is an idiot. That paper is the exact opposite of thought provoking.

I disagree, I'd say this sort of thing is thought-provoking. Specifically we should be thinking about why we are giving such people a platform in the first place.

To mock them as they out themselves.

Oh idk guys, i'm sure they appreciate the platform you've generously given them, but I think they'd feel a bit betrayed if you just use it to make fun of them. I think they just wanted a place to talk to like minded individuals about how dumb and evil everyone else is without having to worry about being challenged on anything or be made fun of for their nonsense... doesn't everyone deserve a place to overestimate their own merit and underestimate everyone else's and complain about problems that they themselves are a major contributor to? ...you know, healthy fellowship I think its called.

Going to choose a paper that argues for legalising sex between humans and animals (with implications around consent that extend further than the immediate subject matter) as the moment for a little self-righteous rant?

Save it. No one's buying.

[RabbiKnife]

Maybe in Zimbabwean $$$ or cash from the Weimar or confederate dollars…. But I wouldn’t waste good Monopoly money on it…

[Oscar_Kipling]

Oh yeah, Singer is an idiot. That paper is the exact opposite of thought provoking.

I disagree, I'd say this sort of thing is thought-provoking. Specifically we should be thinking about why we are giving such people a platform in the first place.

To mock them as they out themselves.

Oh idk guys, i'm sure they appreciate the platform you've generously given them, but I think they'd feel a bit betrayed if you just use it to make fun of them. I think they just wanted a place to talk to like minded individuals about how dumb and evil everyone else is without having to worry about being challenged on anything or be made fun of for their nonsense... doesn't everyone deserve a place to overestimate their own merit and underestimate everyone else's and complain about problems that they themselves are a major contributor to? ...you know, healthy fellowship I think its called.

Going to choose a paper that argues for legalising sex between humans and animals (with implications around consent that extend further than the immediate subject matter) as the moment for a little self-righteous rant?

Save it. No one's buying.

Oh, I didn't realize that we were going to pretend that the article couldn't have been about 50 other things and you folks wouldn't have had the exact same reaction. The fact that you cannot, will not, hear it from me in this context actually is not a consequence of me or the context, it's a consequence of the fact that you won't hear it at all. I didn't choose this paper, you people did.

[Oscar_Kipling]

Maybe in Zimbabwean $$$ or cash from the Weimar or confederate dollars…. But I wouldn’t waste good Monopoly money on it…

I wouldn't accept payment for this, it's something I do when the fancy strikes me. Honestly I'd be willing to pay to see what you folks actually think about yourselves if you watched yourself like I do.

[Athanasius]

Oh yeah, Singer is an idiot. That paper is the exact opposite of thought provoking.

I disagree, I'd say this sort of thing is thought-provoking. Specifically we should be thinking about why we are giving such people a platform in the first place.

To mock them as they out themselves.

Oh idk guys, i'm sure they appreciate the platform you've generously given them, but I think they'd feel a bit betrayed if you just use it to make fun of them. I think they just wanted a place to talk to like minded individuals about how dumb and evil everyone else is without having to worry about being challenged on anything or be made fun of for their nonsense... doesn't everyone deserve a place to overestimate their own merit and underestimate everyone else's and complain about problems that they themselves are a major contributor to? ...you know, healthy fellowship I think its called.

Going to choose a paper that argues for legalising sex between humans and animals (with implications around consent that extend further than the immediate subject matter) as the moment for a little self-righteous rant?

Save it. No one's buying.

Oh, I didn't realize that we were going to pretend that the article couldn't have been about 50 other things and you folks wouldn't have had the exact same reaction. The fact that you cannot, will not, hear it from me in this context actually is not a consequence of me or the context, it's a consequence of the fact that you won't hear it at all. I didn't choose this paper, you people did.

No no, go ahead. Defend Singer, the pseudonymous author, and the paper, since we are commenting exactly on this paper (which I have read, don't you worry), the author, and Singer. We aren't commenting on 50 other things, so please, be my guest.

Do go on and tell us why we should seriously entertain, rather than mock, the suggestion that sex between humans and animals should be legalised. You wanted to judge, so go for it and judge.

[Oscar_Kipling]

Oh yeah, Singer is an idiot. That paper is the exact opposite of thought provoking.

I disagree, I'd say this sort of thing is thought-provoking. Specifically we should be thinking about why we are giving such people a platform in the first place.

To mock them as they out themselves.

Oh idk guys, i'm sure they appreciate the platform you've generously given them, but I think they'd feel a bit betrayed if you just use it to make fun of them. I think they just wanted a place to talk to like minded individuals about how dumb and evil everyone else is without having to worry about being challenged on anything or be made fun of for their nonsense... doesn't everyone deserve a place to overestimate their own merit and underestimate everyone else's and complain about problems that they themselves are a major contributor to? ...you know, healthy fellowship I think its called.

Going to choose a paper that argues for legalising sex between humans and animals (with implications around consent that extend further than the immediate subject matter) as the moment for a little self-righteous rant?

Save it. No one's buying.

Oh, I didn't realize that we were going to pretend that the article couldn't have been about 50 other things and you folks wouldn't have had the exact same reaction. The fact that you cannot, will not, hear it from me in this context actually is not a consequence of me or the context, it's a consequence of the fact that you won't hear it at all. I didn't choose this paper, you people did.

No no, go ahead. Defend Singer, the pseudonymous author, and the paper, since we are commenting exactly on this paper (which I have read, don't you worry), the author, and Singer. We aren't commenting on 50 other things, so please, be my guest.

Do go on and tell us why we should seriously entertain, rather than mock, the suggestion that sex between humans and animals should be legalised. You wanted to judge, so go for it and judge.

I appreciate being permitted to judge, that is very generous of you. I will hereby judge the idea that the options here are to seriously entertain, or mock to be the kind of thinking that I was actually commenting on. I don't actually care if you seriously entertain Singer or not, because the absurd tendency to reaction to whatever it is you deem as evil, dumb or dumb and evil is what I was poking at. I don't expect you to even really try to understand though, because it is more your style to act like I care about the legality of beastiality because then I too am dumb or evil or dumb and evil.

[Athanasius]

Oh yeah, Singer is an idiot. That paper is the exact opposite of thought provoking.

I disagree, I'd say this sort of thing is thought-provoking. Specifically we should be thinking about why we are giving such people a platform in the first place.

To mock them as they out themselves.

Oh idk guys, i'm sure they appreciate the platform you've generously given them, but I think they'd feel a bit betrayed if you just use it to make fun of them. I think they just wanted a place to talk to like minded individuals about how dumb and evil everyone else is without having to worry about being challenged on anything or be made fun of for their nonsense... doesn't everyone deserve a place to overestimate their own merit and underestimate everyone else's and complain about problems that they themselves are a major contributor to? ...you know, healthy fellowship I think its called.

Going to choose a paper that argues for legalising sex between humans and animals (with implications around consent that extend further than the immediate subject matter) as the moment for a little self-righteous rant?

Save it. No one's buying.

Oh, I didn't realize that we were going to pretend that the article couldn't have been about 50 other things and you folks wouldn't have had the exact same reaction. The fact that you cannot, will not, hear it from me in this context actually is not a consequence of me or the context, it's a consequence of the fact that you won't hear it at all. I didn't choose this paper, you people did.

No no, go ahead. Defend Singer, the pseudonymous author, and the paper, since we are commenting exactly on this paper (which I have read, don't you worry), the author, and Singer. We aren't commenting on 50 other things, so please, be my guest.

Do go on and tell us why we should seriously entertain, rather than mock, the suggestion that sex between humans and animals should be legalised. You wanted to judge, so go for it and judge.

I appreciate being permitted to judge, that is very generous of you. I will hereby judge the idea that the options here are to seriously entertain, or mock to be the kind of thinking that I was actually commenting on. I don't actually care if you seriously entertain Singer or not, because the absurd tendency to reaction to whatever it is you deem as evil, dumb or dumb and evil is what I was poking at. I don't expect you to even really try to understand though, because it is more your style to act like I care about the legality of beastiality because then I too am dumb or evil or dumb and evil.

The word you're looking for is 'ridiculous', which, by the way, you're being.

Go outside Oscar, or go find some other place to haunt if you're so at odds with everyone.

[DavidGYoung]

Suppose I were to look at this from a Christian's perspective and say, as Sojourner does, 'God's judgement cannot be far off'. Why would this issue be so significant? The Overton Window has moved a lot over the last two thousand years, with numerous shifts also being seen as crossing the line. Is there something specific to bestiality which would cause a Christian to see it as a case apart from all before it?