A beastly notion

[RabbiKnife]

Christians should have absolutely no concern for what public policy seems acceptable when viewed in light of Scripture

The word is objective moral truth…. The kingdom of God is not a populist democratic mob.

[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.

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.

As you say the consent issue is the crucial one here.

The so-called slippery slope argument wasn't an entirely appropriate response when discussing the (then) novel idea that two or more people of the same sex could consent to a physical and sexual relationship. The key issue there was that the people involved were freely consenting adults. Whatever we might think of what they are doing the reality is that consenting adults in private have the absolute right to ignore anyone else's opinion about what they are doing.The idea that if we allow two men to get it together now the next step will be something different is worth considering, but doesn't represent a valid argument against what consenting adults do in private.

Animals can't give consent, informed or otherwise. If we're supposed to get active consent before proceeding with sex with a human partner, what exactly are we supposed to do to secure consent from an animal? One moo for yes, two moos for no?

If we legally cross the line and allow sex acts with something that doesn't need to consent, where does a lack of consent stop? It's an unlawful thing to have sex with a female human without her consent but a female monkey just gets to deal with it? How long before unconsenting sex with humans becomes permitted because, you know, consent doesn't really matter?  And if consent doesn't matter, suddenly all that nasty stuff between priests and choirboys turns into a side note.

[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.

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.

That is fun imagery, that I haunt this place. I don't post so much that it makes sense to think I do it to the detriment of ever going outside, though I am an inside kid at heart. How about I post every now and again when I feel like it, and you guys treat my posts like you are under attack by the forces of evil just because evil cannot stand to see goodly folks in goodly fellowship. Besides we all seem to agree that when someone shows themselves to be ridiculous, a little mockery is in order right? take your medicine.

[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.

As you say the consent issue is the crucial one here.

The so-called slippery slope argument wasn't an entirely appropriate response when discussing the (then) novel idea that two or more people of the same sex could consent to a physical and sexual relationship. The key issue there was that the people involved were freely consenting adults. Whatever we might think of what they are doing the reality is that consenting adults in private have the absolute right to ignore anyone else's opinion about what they are doing.The idea that if we allow two men to get it together now the next step will be something different is worth considering, but doesn't represent a valid argument against what consenting adults do in private.

Animals can't give consent, informed or otherwise. If we're supposed to get active consent before proceeding with sex with a human partner, what exactly are we supposed to do to secure consent from an animal? One moo for yes, two moos for no?

If we legally cross the line and allow sex acts with something that doesn't need to consent, where does a lack of consent stop? It's an unlawful thing to have sex with a female human without her consent but a female monkey just gets to deal with it? How long before unconsenting sex with humans becomes permitted because, you know, consent doesn't really matter?  And if consent doesn't matter, suddenly all that nasty stuff between priests and choirboys turns into a side note.

That's exactly the thing, and this paper is aware of, say, the implications the discussion has for paedophilia (or did I mean "minor-attracted persons" in their lame rebrand?), but unconvincingly hand-waves them away because of notions of "harm" ( (children can consent, but they're always ever only harmed!). Yet in the same paper, those same notions of harm are basically dismissed (section 3) for reasons that you could dismiss them in other circumstances.

I know it's the journal of controversial ideas, but it's truly imbecilic, not merely controversial.

[ProDeo]

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?

For a society that has labeled themselves as enlightened sex with animals is quite bizarre. But maybe that's just woke. A little bird told me Singer's cat is planning a "Me too" campaign.

[tango]

I'm just wondering what combination of animal sounds mean "Not tonight, I have a headache".

[Sojourner]

Not surprisingly, most people disagree with Singer's view that the zoophilia paper is "thought-provoking", with most finding the idea of bestiality repulsive. The following question and answer was posted on his Facebook page:

Q: You posted an article indicating that sexual intercourse with animals is morally permissible. You've also in the past published a book arguing for veganism. That being the case, is it your official position that eating animals is not okay but having sex with them is?

A: I didn't write the article on the permissibility of zoophilia.  It was published in the Journal of Controversial Ideas, a journal that pushes back against "cancel culture" by providing an outlet for controversial ideas, which authors can publish under a pseudonym.  I am a founding co-editor of that journal. The fact that we judge an article worthy of publication does not indicate that I or my co-editors agree with the views contained in it.  We send articles submitted to us out for peer review, and if the reviewers consider that the article contains controversial ideas that are defended by argument of a sufficiently high standard to warrant publication, we publish the article. The Journal of Controversial Ideas is free and open access, for everyone to read.  We rely on donations from supporters of freedom of thought and discussion to sustain it.

You asked me whether it is my view that eating animals is not okay but having sex with them is. Here is one way of thinking about this question. 

Imagine that you are an animal locked up all of your life in a factory farm stall too narrow for you to even turn around, let alone walk a single step, so that you have nothing to do all day except stand up and lie down on a floor consisting of bare metal slats. Then you are crammed into a truck and driven for many hours to a place where you will be slaughtered. This is what happens to millions of pigs in the US today, and the lives of billions of other factory-farmed animals are no better.

Now imagine that you are an animal living with a person who cares for you and loves you in all the ways that most people love their companion animals, but in addition, this person sometimes has sexual contact with you, making sure that the contact does not hurt you, and leaving you free to move away if you don't like it. You live out your natural lifespan like this, and when you get old and terminally ill and are in distress, the person who cares for you, full of sadness, takes you gently to a veterinarian who puts you to sleep.
Which animal would you rather be?

Not much of a choice. He says he doesn't necessarily agree with the ideas published in the journal, but judging from his lame response, he doesn't necessarily disagree with this one. I also noticed a subtle intimation that unless the animal moves away, it is giving tacit consent.

[Fenris]

He says he doesn't necessarily agree with the ideas published in the journal, but judging from his lame response, he doesn't necessarily disagree with this one.

I think he's just trying to be "cool" and "edgy" by adopting a bizarre stance. Which is not "thought provoking", it's just plain childish.

[tango]

Not surprisingly, most people disagree with Singer's view that the zoophilia paper is "thought-provoking", with most finding the idea of bestiality repulsive. The following question and answer was posted on his Facebook page:

Q: You posted an article indicating that sexual intercourse with animals is morally permissible. You've also in the past published a book arguing for veganism. That being the case, is it your official position that eating animals is not okay but having sex with them is?

A: I didn't write the article on the permissibility of zoophilia.  It was published in the Journal of Controversial Ideas, a journal that pushes back against "cancel culture" by providing an outlet for controversial ideas, which authors can publish under a pseudonym.  I am a founding co-editor of that journal. The fact that we judge an article worthy of publication does not indicate that I or my co-editors agree with the views contained in it.  We send articles submitted to us out for peer review, and if the reviewers consider that the article contains controversial ideas that are defended by argument of a sufficiently high standard to warrant publication, we publish the article. The Journal of Controversial Ideas is free and open access, for everyone to read.  We rely on donations from supporters of freedom of thought and discussion to sustain it.

You asked me whether it is my view that eating animals is not okay but having sex with them is. Here is one way of thinking about this question. 

Imagine that you are an animal locked up all of your life in a factory farm stall too narrow for you to even turn around, let alone walk a single step, so that you have nothing to do all day except stand up and lie down on a floor consisting of bare metal slats. Then you are crammed into a truck and driven for many hours to a place where you will be slaughtered. This is what happens to millions of pigs in the US today, and the lives of billions of other factory-farmed animals are no better.

Now imagine that you are an animal living with a person who cares for you and loves you in all the ways that most people love their companion animals, but in addition, this person sometimes has sexual contact with you, making sure that the contact does not hurt you, and leaving you free to move away if you don't like it. You live out your natural lifespan like this, and when you get old and terminally ill and are in distress, the person who cares for you, full of sadness, takes you gently to a veterinarian who puts you to sleep.
Which animal would you rather be?

Not much of a choice. He says he doesn't necessarily agree with the ideas published in the journal, but judging from his lame response, he doesn't necessarily disagree with this one. I also noticed a subtle intimation that unless the animal moves away, it is giving tacit consent.

If sexual activity with animals is permissible then presumably the first animal might have something else to complain about. Stuck in a tiny box, barely able to do anything more than stand up and lay down, with extra violations thrown in periodically for good measure. Hey, it could have moved to the far end of the cage if it wanted.

In the case of the second animal it's curious to assume consent unless the animal moves away (maybe the choirboys should have just moved away from the priest?) while at the same time assuming the person assuming such consent will make sure that contact doesn't hurt the animal. If someone is venting sexual issues against animals one might question whether they would be too concerned about the well-being of the animal. Given the ready availability of a variety of inanimate objects that would perform a similar function, that don't introduce thorny issues of consent and are probably significantly cheaper than large livestock, one might wonder what rational reason could exist for seeking to copulate with animals.

Can you say "false dichotomy"?

[Sojourner]

I like how he equivocated and offered a choice between a miserable existence and a happy life--with a caveat. 

[Athanasius]

I'd rather die than have sex with Singer, so I think the choice is obvious.

[Sojourner]

Well if I was his dog, he'd get rid of me or have me put down after I bit him where it hurts most. Either would be  preferable to being his sex object.

[ProDeo]

Things like these remind me of what Jesus said - For nothing is hidden except to be made manifest; nor is anything secret except to come to light Mark 4:22

God created the universe with very special features at first glance unneeded.

1. Why did God created Earth with coal, oil and gas which enabled the industrial revolution.

2. Why did God created electricity, we got radio, television, internet.

3. Someone in a studio speaks into a microphone and we can hear it live on our radio, sound travels through the air, what a feature. Did God had a purpose with this feature He created?

4. Same for television, the base is electricity again, images magically travel through the air via satellites in space live on our screen. Why?

5. And last with not least the internet, while it's very young it has changed our lives. Need info? Check the internet, in a period of about 20 years you can almost find everything. Is there a divine purpose?

Well, one purpose I can see is that how mankind is exposed by the evil it commits. We are living in a very special time, information is on our fingertips and we can learn (that's how I see it, YMMV) the consequences the moment A&E insisted to know the difference between good and evil.

The use of oil, gas, coal, electricity is good in itself, many good things may come from it. The discovery of an airplane likewise until someone decided you can also throw bombs with it. The internet was a great invention till people started to share porn, child porn, fake news, conspiracies to undermine societies.

For nothing is hidden except to be made manifest; nor is anything secret except to come to light Mark 4:22

It's happening and we are witlessness.

[RabbiKnife]

True

[Oscar_Kipling]

Things like these remind me of what Jesus said - For nothing is hidden except to be made manifest; nor is anything secret except to come to light Mark 4:22

God created the universe with very special features at first glance unneeded.

1. Why did God created Earth with coal, oil and gas which enabled the industrial revolution.

2. Why did God created electricity, we got radio, television, internet.

3. Someone in a studio speaks into a microphone and we can hear it live on our radio, sound travels through the air, what a feature. Did God had a purpose with this feature He created?

4. Same for television, the base is electricity again, images magically travel through the air via satellites in space live on our screen. Why?

5. And last with not least the internet, while it's very young it has changed our lives. Need info? Check the internet, in a period of about 20 years you can almost find everything. Is there a divine purpose?

Well, one purpose I can see is that how mankind is exposed by the evil it commits. We are living in a very special time, information is on our fingertips and we can learn (that's how I see it, YMMV) the consequences the moment A&E insisted to know the difference between good and evil.

The use of oil, gas, coal, electricity is good in itself, many good things may come from it. The discovery of an airplane likewise until someone decided you can also throw bombs with it. The internet was a great invention till people started to share porn, child porn, fake news, conspiracies to undermine societies.

For nothing is hidden except to be made manifest; nor is anything secret except to come to light Mark 4:22

It's happening and we are witlessness.

Your post gets more and more interesting everytime I read it. When I think of the electromagnetic force, I think of it as one of the intrinsic forces that dictate the behavior of the universe, So if I were to wonder why God created the electromagnetic force it would be in order to enable or mediate  fundamental interactions like chemical bonds or doing all the stuff that light does and then like broadcast radio/ television and internet would be these edge cases that were not designed for so much as they are what you can get when you contrive and exert precise limitations on these natural phenomena. I guess this is one of those areas where it is unclear to me how much intention God is supposed to be credited with. Some believers have told me in effect that God didn't create lead so that Lee Harvey Oswald could assassinate president Kennedy, That was free will. In the same way, surely there is some argument to be made that WiFi is a consequence of free will and not a design goal of the electromagnetic force. but idk I guess there is just as compelling an argument that it was all done on divine purpose ...which I guess is ultimately why I don't find God to be super useful when considering the reasons for stuff. Anyway it was interesting to watch you moosh God into it.