(August 28, 2012 at 11:56 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: ....
And proponents of sexual freedom of the inter-species variety argue quite convincingly that in many cases, the animal giving consent is the HUMAN.
....
If they argue "quite convincingly," then what's problem exactly? If you say it's wrong because the "bible says" you lose because we're discussing the sexual ethics not based on the bible. We're proposing ethics based on reason and evidence, not on gut feelings and ancient superstition.
I mean don't get me wrong, I mostly if not 100 percent against beastiality, and certainly 100 percent against pedeophilia.
But saying "what if these creeps have good reasons therefore your ethic is wrong" is a fallacious argument (appeal to incredulity and or fear perhaps?). If they really have good arguments (which I doubt), and they're better than our own, then we should accept them.
My ignore list
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
