(October 17, 2013 at 9:56 am)John V Wrote: You can take god to the Supreme Court... except- you're HUMAN, not a god.

Why would I take god to the Supreme Court? How is that even possible? I don't believe in god, John. And god isn't oppressing gay people; our society is doing that by taking the words of an old book of mythology literally.

Quote:IOW you're just digging your hole deeper.

If by my hole, you mean your sense that I am being a hypocrite because of my god-like status with my parakeets (which is pretty funny), then I'll make you a deal. I'll give my parakeets back their bell if you embrace the gay marriage movement. Deal?

---

(October 17, 2013 at 10:23 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(October 17, 2013 at 10:18 am)John V Wrote: Just pointing out that zaz thinks similarly to the god of the Bible in this regard.

Or that maybe he's capable of discerning between a uniform right that all people should be able to partake once they've reached maturity- like being able to engage in a consensual sexual relationship- and a vestigial add on that one can choose to bring into things, like sex toys.

[/quote]
I'm female.
And I don't equate parakeet sexual rights with human sexual rights, oddly enough.

Quote: If a human was using a vibrator that sounded like a jackhammer, they'd be subject to noise complaints too, because sex toys are not covered under human rights.

Maybe I should just call 911 on the keets as I would on a very loud neighbor? I'd love to see the cop's face.

Quote:Gotta say, I never thought a conversation about birds would lead me down this path...

A fun fact: I looked and looked for parakeet penises during all the sexy stuff, but couldn't see one. So I researched it and... the only birds with penises are waterfowl. Interesting, no? So in John's analogy, I really AM like the pervy spying god watching everyone's sexual behavior.

(October 17, 2013 at 10:23 am)Zazzy Wrote: Why would I take god to the Supreme Court? How is that even possible?

Yes, that was my point. You dismissed the desires of parakeets with sarcastic suggestion that they do something impossible.

(October 17, 2013 at 10:36 am)John V Wrote:

(October 17, 2013 at 10:23 am)Zazzy Wrote: Why would I take god to the Supreme Court? How is that even possible?

Yes, that was my point. You dismissed the desires of parakeets with sarcastic suggestion that they do something impossible.

Please tell me you're fucking with me, John. This is too ridiculous for words. With the very minor caveats that I am demonstrably real (but am I? I could BE god, or a bot), and that the sexual rights of parakeets aren't analogous to the sexual rights of humans in any meaningful way (although you could start a movement to end sexual oppression of parakeets everywhere), and that I don't object to parakeet sexual behavior as long as it isn't really loud all day long...

Other than these few things, I am indeed like god to my parakeets.

Now, how about that deal I proposed?

(October 17, 2013 at 10:55 am)Zazzy Wrote: Please tell me you're fucking with me, John. This is too ridiculous for words. With the very minor caveats that I am demonstrably real (but am I? I could BE god, or a bot), and that the sexual rights of parakeets aren't analogous to the sexual rights of humans in any meaningful way (although you could start a movement to end sexual oppression of parakeets everywhere), and that I don't object to parakeet sexual behavior as long as it isn't really loud all day long...

Other than these few things, I am indeed like god to my parakeets.

Now, how about that deal I proposed?

No, I'm not kidding. I've made a similar argument regarding genocide a number of times here. This is the first time that someone walked into the same principle regarding sexuality, but it works the same. Also note that you had no problems speaking hypothetically of god when you thought you had a good point.

(October 17, 2013 at 12:49 pm)John V Wrote: No, I'm not kidding. I've made a similar argument regarding genocide a number of times here. This is the first time that someone walked into the same principle regarding sexuality, but it works the same.

John, you have made no point at all here except that to parakeets, I am god-like, and that you equate the rights of pet birds to the rights of oppressed human beings.

Quote: Also note that you had no problems speaking hypothetically of god when you thought you had a good point.

I always speak hypothetically of god, and I still am, because he's a fictional character. I'm NOT god, John, and your analogy is still a bad one for the points I listed above, which you conveniently ignored. What point is it that you thought I was making, because I was simply pointing out that homosexual behavior is a natural phenomenon.

(October 17, 2013 at 12:56 pm)Zazzy Wrote: John, you have made no point at all here except that to parakeets, I am god-like, and that you equate the rights of pet birds to the rights of oppressed human beings.

The comparison isn't even valid to begin with! Again, even human beings don't have an automatic right to keep disruptive sex toys.

(October 17, 2013 at 12:56 pm)Zazzy Wrote: John, you have made no point at all here except that to parakeets, I am god-like, and that you equate the rights of pet birds to the rights of oppressed human beings.

My point is that you in principle think that it's acceptable to prohibit sexual behavior which you find annoying in lesser beings. If god exists, he should likewise be allowed to make rules regarding human sexuality, as he is the greater being.

Quote:I always speak hypothetically of god, and I still am, because he's a fictional character. I'm NOT god, John, and your analogy is still a bad one for the points I listed above, which you conveniently ignored. What point is it that you thought I was making, because I was simply pointing out that homosexual behavior is a natural phenomenon.

I know that was your intent, but it backfired. And it wasn't a good analogy anyway, except maybe to prisons or similar situations. I'm guessing your budgies would bang a girl budgie if one were available.

(October 17, 2013 at 1:03 pm)John V Wrote: My point is that you in principle think that it's acceptable to prohibit sexual behavior which you find annoying in lesser beings.

Except that Zazzy had no issues with the sexual behavior but instead with the noise it made, and the fact that it was causing demonstrable harm to the bird, two things you seem to have missed in your mad dash to make the most simplistic and invalid comparison you possibly could.

Second, as I've pointed out before, humans don't have an automatic right to sex toys either, especially if they're disruptive. But they do have that right to sex, assuming it's consensual.

Quote: If god exists, he should likewise be allowed to make rules regarding human sexuality, as he is the greater being.

Given that the first premise is wrong, the conclusion cannot be correct, and you were making a lot of assumptions in the formulation of it to begin with, regarding Zazzy's thoughts about being a greater being to her birds. But you'd still need to prove your god exists before the conclusion became valid, too.

(October 17, 2013 at 1:03 pm)John V Wrote: My point is that you in principle think that it's acceptable to prohibit sexual behavior which you find annoying in lesser beings. If god exists, he should likewise be allowed to make rules regarding human sexuality, as he is the greater being.

I am DEMONSTRABLY REAL. And the sexual rights of pet birds do not equate in any meaningful way to the rights of human beings. And even if the analogy held, as Esquilax keeps rightly pointing out, a human being would NOT have a right to make loud noises with a sex toy in my living room.

Quote:

Quote: I was simply pointing out that homosexual behavior is a natural phenomenon.

I know that was your intent, but it backfired.

Ah, no it didn't. You have consistently refused to address the points I have made about why your analogy is a really bad one.

Quote:And it wasn't a good analogy anyway, except maybe to prisons or similar situations. I'm guessing your budgies would bang a girl budgie if one were available.

Yet the behavior is still there. If it wasn't "natural" for them to do it, they wouldn't do it. Would they prefer a female? Probably, although it's not an experiment I'm up to. But they are still engaging in the behavior- and I'm fine with it, although I was caught off guard the other day when my 6-year-old niece asked me what they were doing.

*edited for spelling

(October 15, 2013 at 4:17 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: If you last more than 10 posts at CF.com you'll be doing well.

Do I get to count all the ones they deleted or otherwise censored in my score?