Pharyngula

Posted by: Ric | January 2, 2008 5:10 PM

Nothing is beneath Sal "Im in yur interwebz minin yer quotez" Cordova. And let me say, from what I've read of Skatje's blog and facebook page, an irreligious future full of people like her would be just dandy.

Posted by: Ichthyic | January 2, 2008 5:13 PM

Holy Crap.

literally.

I always knew Slaveador was unhinged. didn't need further verification, myself. I hope by this time anybody who "knows" him doesn't either.

the man needs serious help.

Posted by: Ric | January 2, 2008 5:18 PM

It's also worth noting, PZ, that Sal thinks that being hated by "Darwinists" is a badge of honor and shows he's "on the side of what is right." So by that logic, disparaging your daughter and thus provoking a reaction from you is logical proof to Sal that he's been right all along.

http://www.youngcosmos.com/blog/archives/160 (comment 2)

Yes, that's an insight into his warped mind.

Posted by: Jordan | January 2, 2008 5:21 PM

I can see his next post already:

"...[M]y daughter isn't just ugly, it's[sic] vile and loathsome and despicable." - PZ Myers

Posted by: danley | January 2, 2008 5:21 PM

What a brainiac slimy shithead is.

Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | January 2, 2008 5:23 PM

"Unhinged" is probably understating the case, Ichthyic.

Posted by: Ichthyic | January 2, 2008 5:25 PM

I don't know about the accuracy of it though - is there any evidence that Cordova was ever hinged?

*thinks back 5 years*

good point.

but then, I never actually claimed he became unhinged, so I think I'm safe.

Posted by: Steve_C | January 2, 2008 5:38 PM

Skatje will decimate them in one blog post.

Posted by: Greg Peterson | January 2, 2008 5:45 PM

When the Islamists imprisoned and threatened a woman because she let her second-grade class name a teddy bear "Mohammed," I had to change my python's name to "Mohammed." And now to spite Sal I have to stick it up my bum. All's I can say is, spiting idiots is getting awfully hard on my snake.

Posted by: Mena | January 2, 2008 5:50 PM

Next year will he be going for the "Biggest Douchebag in the Universe" title?

Posted by: JanieBelle | January 2, 2008 5:54 PM

Yes, I'm aware it's a little early to hand out this award, but I am supremely confident that it will be next to impossible for anyone to stoop any lower...

...unless of course it's Sal himself.

Posted by: ERV | January 2, 2008 6:02 PM

Tyler had a great post up on Sals debating style.

(side note, Tyler, if you move your blog one more time, boy... *shakes fist threateningly*)

Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | January 2, 2008 6:29 PM

Yes Abbie, I shall obey. ;)

Posted by: CJO | January 2, 2008 7:09 PM

Why are you making Sal's acceptance speech, FTK?

He couldn't make it?

Posted by: Mister DNA | January 2, 2008 7:11 PM

Your daughter condones sex with animals as well as incestuous relationships. Sal and I pointed that out. So what. You blog continually about the horrors of religion and it's affect on society, so don't go nuclear when someone considers you're daughter's views and how they might affect society.

Tonight's episode of Righteous Indignation Playhouse is brought to you by the letters F, T and K. The secret word for the day is condones. Special Guest Star: The apostrophe.

Posted by: Janine | January 2, 2008 7:16 PM

FtK is outright lying here. At what point does she condones bestiality? Where? Prove your point.

What Sal did is casebook quote mining.

Also would suggest it is time for FtK to be tossed into the dungeon. This has moved well past creepy.

Posted by: dogmeatib | January 2, 2008 7:18 PM

Wow ...

Let's examine two possible futures:

One, future "A" we'll call it, a future full of FtK and people who agree with her.

The second, future "B," a future full of Skatje and people who share her "morals."

I'll take "B" in a landslide. I think I'd rather be a homeless person in future "B" than the wealthiest man in the world of future "A."

Posted by: FtK | January 2, 2008 7:25 PM

"FtK is outright lying here. At what point does she condones bestiality? Where? Prove your point."

From Websters dictionary:
Condone: TO FORGIVE OR OVERLOOK

Skatje's post:
Allow me to first tell you that I personally do not have an interest in bestiality. I don't support it being legal because I want to hump animals. You might ask, why even bother arguing for this position if it really doesn't actually matter to me. You're right. There's no point in me doing this, but since FTK made a comment and I replied asking why she's against bestiality, there's been a huge freak-out. So I feel the need to address this and clarify that I'm just arguing a rational stance and I'm not some sort of psychotic horse-raping weirdo.

The main argument people give to ban bestiality is that it's abusing the animal. I completely agree in some instances. Forceable penetrating a sheep is a bad, bad thing. In cases like that, there's frequently "ripping" on the part of the animal, as well as the human would be stopping the animal from moving or leaving. It's cruel. And this is what animal abuse laws are for. We don't need to ban bestiality to ban this sort of mistreatment.

Not all cases of bestiality are this way though. Animals can approach humans for sexual reasons too. Ever owned a dog? They'll come right up to you and start poking at your crotch. What if you don't have pants on at the time? And what if you maybe enjoy a little complication-free oral sex? You go to jail for it? It's not like you shoved your meat into their face and raped them. The animal isn't hurt, so animal abuse doesn't apply.

The second argument against zoophilia is that animals are unable to consent to have sex. That's complete crap. Animals understand what sex is and they CAN communicate it. Not in words, of course, but in action.

As Andrea Beetz said, "Animal owners normally know, what their own pets like or do not like. And as long as there is no sexuality involved people most probably would agree, that an animal moving away when petted, does not like it and does not consent to being petted, while an animal, that stays, pushes against the hand, and seems to enjoy it, gives consent to being petted. Owners know also other preference of their pets without having to use force."

I think it's incorrect to equate an animal with a human child. We'd agree that a young human could not understand the full meaning of what sex is and is incapable of giving consent for an adult to engage in it with them. While an animal is maybe about as smart (or less than) as a very young human, that has no bearing on its understanding of sex. Unless the zoophile is trying to engage in sex with a baby animal (which probably isn't a good idea anyway), the animal is sexually mature. Unlike a human child.

Sexual relationships between humans and animals come as such a shock to people, but it doesn't to me. There can be very deep, meaningful relationships between humans and their pets. Obviously they can't obtain the same level a deep human-to-human relationship, but loving your pets isn't anything unusual. People care for their pets, talk to them, spoil them, feel relaxed in their company, and mourn them when they die. This relationship is so underestimated. Why does it come as a surprise that when someone feels a deep connection to their pet, they might be interesting in doing something more expressive and intimate like we do in human-to-human relationships?

That said, I remind you that my position isn't based on my own personal wants. I just don't see any reason to ban it other than the same reason things like homosexuality and sodomy were banned: it's icky. I think it's bad practice to put social taboos into legislature when no actual logical argument can be made against it.

If that is not a post "condoning" bestiality, then I don't what is.

Posted by: Stanton | January 2, 2008 7:30 PM

There are two ways to tell when FtK is lying or otherwise is completely insincere: 1) her lips are moving, or 2) she's typing something

Posted by: Richard Wolford | January 2, 2008 7:33 PM

"If that is not a post "condoning" bestiality, then I don't what is.
Posted by: FtK"

Of course you don't, you're a fuckwit.

Posted by: Rachel I. | January 2, 2008 7:35 PM

Huh... I'm pretty sure there's a difference between thinking something shouldn't be legislated by the government and thinking something's a fine idea for people to practice.

But that sort of distinction is one of the more easily-lost ones among groups like Creationists. Oh well.

Posted by: Richard Wolford | January 2, 2008 7:42 PM

Are you really so ignorant or simply dishonest as to what quote mining is? I can't simply string together a bunch of quotes, taken out of context, to further my own agenda, then link back to the original article and claim innocence. That was nothing but a quote mine, the only real issue is whether it was done on purpose or if Sal is too stupid to understand the concept. I'm voting for the latter myself, considering the high quality of his thought processes. But I guess that's what home schooling does to you.

Posted by: T_U_T | January 2, 2008 7:46 PM

ftk, you seem to be reading something in the text that was not written there...

Posted by: Ichthyic | January 2, 2008 7:51 PM

You people are an interesting bunch, that's for sure.

you people.

that about says it all.

it's the dungeon for you, methinks.

Posted by: GDwarf | January 2, 2008 7:54 PM

FtK,

I'll grant you that one of the definitions of "condone" does work in your statement.

However, I have...difficulty in accepting that you didn't know that your sentence seems to be saying that Skatje is all for it.

Regardless, it is exceptionally clear that Sal's post all but outright states that Skatje engages in bestiality, and out-and-out says that she's all for it.

This is, in fact, now what the post he quoted says.

The fact that he mashed separate sentences together (without marking them as separate sentences) in a misleading manner is really all the proof you need that he's trying to impinge Skatje's character with a baseless claim.

I've also got to ask: Do you, ah, condone what he did? Would you be perfectly fine if PZ, or anyone, went around stating that all of your relatives had sex with animals, and "proved" this by lying?

I can only assume you'd be directly opposed to that, and with good reason.

So why on earth are you defending Sal doing this? It's no different.

Posted by: Richard Wolford | January 2, 2008 7:54 PM

FTK, you unfortunately don't seem to understand quote mining. Posting exact words is of little value, the meaning behind them is what matters. And again, you can't understand meaning by selectively pulling sentences and phrases from an original work. This is why you and your brethren are such jokes; the most basic academic concept is beyond your cognitive abilities.

Posted by: spurge | January 2, 2008 7:57 PM

Why not ask she if she condones bestiality?

Let her speak for herself.

Posted by: Ichthyic | January 2, 2008 8:02 PM

FTK, you unfortunately don't seem to understand quote mining

bah. she does; she just chooses to ignore it.

surely there isn't anyone here who thinks they will be able to convince her of anything?

sweet plastic jesus on my dashboard, just take a look at her cheerleading over on Sal's blog.

she's insane.

I can't figure out why PZ hasn't tossed her ass ages ago. He threatened to do so almost a year ago now - has she shown "better" behavior since??

the humor value was gone years ago.

Posted by: spurge | January 2, 2008 8:03 PM

She=her

Smacks head

Posted by: Ric | January 2, 2008 8:06 PM

Ftk said: "You'll have to try another angle to hang him on quote mining. Good luck."

How about post three from young cosmos blog entry I linked to where Sal says:

"One should also recognize the critics have a propensity to dish out beatings because it gives them a sense of power.

I beat a puppy, I believe, simply from enjoying the sense of power.

Charles Darwin

Comment by scordova --"

Surely even you recognize that as a quote mine of the worst sort. Or do you deny this?

The fact is Sal is a notorious quote miner.

Posted by: Skatje | January 2, 2008 8:08 PM

I don't tell people that it's a good thing to have sex with animals, nor a bad thing. I'm entirely apathetic about it.

Here's the fact: people tend to read "condone" as the strong opposite of "condemn." Yeah, you can find a definition in the dictionary like "accept," but people (and I'm guilty of this as well) tend to read condone as "support" or "encourage." I do not support bestiality.

Although that's what everyone's trying to make it look like I do. I guess squawking about "Those evil Darwinists will have all our children completely apathetic about bestiality! They won't even demand locking zoophiles up in prison!" doesn't sound as nice.

Posted by: Brachychiton | January 2, 2008 8:09 PM

If Sal-eazy Cordova gets to be Arsehole of the Year, can we nominate FtK as Haemorrhoid of the Year?

Posted by: Azkyroth | January 2, 2008 8:11 PM

FtK:

If you're too fucking stupid to recognize the difference between admitting that there's no good reason to outlaw something, and personally approving of that something, there's no hope for you.

Posted by: ftk | January 2, 2008 8:14 PM

Skatje, nobody is trying to make it look like anything. I provided your own words....nothing more. I have no idea what is wrong with my use of the word condone. The meaning is entirely accurate in this situation.

Posted by: Kristine | January 2, 2008 8:16 PM

I'm quoting facts here, Kristine. I don't hope to accomplish anything. I'm merely responding to PZ's accusation of quote mining. His daughter condones bestiality and incest. So what? Get over it.

Over it.

Bye bye.

Posted by: Ken Cope | January 2, 2008 8:17 PM

I notice that the only reason ftk is not in the dungeon is because she's listed as "on notice" for the following reasons:

A particularly contemptible creationist who specializes in smarm and ooze. As you might guess from the alias, she thinks she's acting out of concern for children. Not a frequent commenter, though, so I haven't done much about her yet; she's been trolling Skatje's blog, though. Skatje thinks she's creepy.

Does anybody think ftk is not creepy? Creepy is beyond charitable. My take on ftk and ftk's bff slimy sal is that if either of them were on fire, I can't think of anybody who would bother to piss on them to put them out.

Posted by: Bubba Sixpack | January 2, 2008 8:19 PM

FtK:

I am certain that kindly people, non-Christian or otherwise, will be interested to see your attitude and actions, too. Thanks for the ammunition to be used against you. Hope you enjoy.

Posted by: Ric | January 2, 2008 8:21 PM

I'd like to hear FTK respond to what I said in post 59, if she can and is brave enough.

Posted by: Azkyroth | January 2, 2008 8:22 PM

FtK:

Do you understand that the statements "I support x" and "I do not think x should be outlawed" are not equivalent?

Answer yes or no.

Posted by: KM | January 2, 2008 8:24 PM

Ric @ 75:

Responding requires some kind of rational thought. I think you're asking a bit too much of FTK.

Posted by: Sastra, OM | January 2, 2008 8:26 PM

PZ Myers condones creationism, pseudoscience, and Biblical literalism. He's actually written that it shouldn't be criminalized, nor the perpetrators put in jail. So let's photoshop his head onto a televangelist and all have a snicker. That's where it leads, that sort of condoning.

Posted by: Mena | January 2, 2008 8:27 PM

Isn't this the same mind set that makes these professional victims think that they will be rounded up because they are "christians"? They want to make everything that they don't like illegal or amend the constitution to forbid it and think that we will do the same thing. They don't seem to understand that not everyone is a nosy busy body. Put your jack boots away Ftk and try to enjoy life for a change.
By the way, FtK condones evolution:
Yes, yes, I know....I...support...Darwinists...the...theory falls in line with...scientific evidence...based on empirical evidence...rather than miracles or supernatural events.
What, me quote mining? Never. Silly little me doesn't even know what that is!

Posted by: Arden Chatfield | January 2, 2008 8:32 PM

Do you understand that the statements "I support x" and "I do not think x should be outlawed" are not equivalent?

Ah, but to FTK, 'condone' covers both cases, so that enables her to claim "Skatje condones bestiality!", convinced she's telling the truth.

Does FTK understand this? Less likely.

Posted by: flame821 | January 2, 2008 8:40 PM

I went over to Skatje blog, read her post and the comments.

I took away from it what a majority of the posters here (at least those who aren't clinging to their holy books and rending their garments) did.

Her post is actually what I would expect to see from a good lawyer, or better yet, judge. The 'ick' factor is NOT legally swaying evidence nor should it be. We are SUPPOSED to be a nation of laws, not a nation of superstitious goat herders who look to invisible gods, the zodiac or animal entrails to guide us and our society.

Give me a good LEGAL reason to ban it and we'll talk. Show me how it is detrimental to society and we'll talk. But it isn't, it is just 'icky' and while I may personally find it repulsive that does NOT give me the right to stop anyone else from performing it.

THAT is what I took away from her post. NOT that she approves or participates or 'condones' it.

Posted by: rrt | January 2, 2008 8:45 PM

You're missing the point, flame821. To FtK and her ilk, the ick factor IS legally swaying evidence and the mores of superstitious goat herders determines what's detrimental to society. FtK's comment shows her concept of a good judge's opinion.

Posted by: Sigmund | January 2, 2008 8:48 PM

This is the difference between scientists and creationists.
For creationists, the end justifies the means and if that means lying then so be it.
They truly believe that lives, indeed 'souls', are in mortal danger from the implications of evolution.
There's few of us who would insist on the truth in every situation if we thought innocent lives would be lost (for instance would you tell a drunk murderous wife beater with a gun where his family were hiding, if you knew?)
Its entirely understandable that you would lie in these circumstances.
Creationists live their lives with a similar mental dilemma.
Evolution to them is not possible to dispute in terms of the facts, yet the implications give them the license to lie.
Their intent is not evil, they are trying, misguidedly of course, to protect people.
This option isn't open to scientists. Resorting to lying once will end your career.
Scientists have really only one commandment - Thou shalt not lie. It is the principle that underlies the peer review process and is the ultimate reason creationists cannot overcome that barrier.
Whatever the intent, they are still liars, and we must call them on this whenever it happens.

Posted by: Kristine | January 2, 2008 8:57 PM

I do not support bestiality.

Skatje, we know, dear. But you know what? I just watched the film Passion in the Desert, a beautiful and tragic story of a man who falls in love with a tiger - and it's based on a story by Honoré de Balzac! So even if you were guilty of what they're accusing you of, you have a literary genius on your side.

But I'll go out on a limb and say, I'd sooner support love between a human and an animal than hatred between human beings, as Salvador Cordova does.

So lay into me now, Ftk. Do your worst. Leave Skatje alone.

Posted by: Venger | January 2, 2008 9:05 PM

I feel my IQ rising already. And is it just me or does it smell better today than yesterday?

Posted by: Kristine | January 2, 2008 9:10 PM

Yeah, I know. But she still reads here. Actually she'll probably drop the issue now - or pretend all this never happened.

Passion in the Desert is a great film BTW. I recommend it. (Sal, you reading this?)

Posted by: Janine | January 2, 2008 9:20 PM

I think the one thing we have learned here is that Skatje is able to stand up for herself against fools and idiots. I have not checked out her blog but I am beginning to think I should.

Posted by: Ichthyic | January 2, 2008 9:22 PM

Actually she'll probably drop the issue now - or pretend all this never happened.

actually, I'm not sure she isn't the one who started to begin with.

if you look underneath the picture of the peccary on Slaveador's post, you will see:

HT: FTK

seems likely that FTK herself was the one who gave Slaveador the idea to begin with.

it would explain why she fought so hard to defend it, both here and at other places.

Moreover, she ignored last week's thread that was a dig at Slaveador completely, but choose to jump all over this one.

perhaps the award for asshole of the year should be shared between them?

Posted by: Ichthyic | January 2, 2008 9:26 PM

I thought the good guys recognized that the answer to bad speech is good speech, not censorship.

*yawn*

allowing the same lies and deceits to be posted time and time again essentially could be viewed as condoning the behavior.

only people who either are ignorant of her behavior, or have an ulterior motive, would make this conclusion.

so which is it?

are you just ignorant of the many times she has repeatedly misbehaved on blogs (many blogs, btw, not just this one), or did you have some sort of ulterior motive?

sometimes, sweeping the dirt off your floor is just that.

Posted by: Colugo | January 2, 2008 9:28 PM

Peter Singer addressed the issue in 2001 ('Heavy Petting,' Nerve):
http://www.nerve.com/Opinions/Singer/heavyPetting/main.asp

"(T)he vehemence with which this prohibition continues to be held, its persistence while other non-reproductive sexual acts have become acceptable, suggests that there is another powerful force at work: our desire to differentiate ourselves, erotically and in every other way, from animals. ...

But sex with animals does not always involve cruelty. ... Who has not been at a social occasion disrupted by the household dog gripping the legs of a visitor and vigorously rubbing ... against them? The host usually discourages such activities, but in private not everyone objects to being used by her or his dog in this way, and occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop. ...

...(W)e are animals, indeed more specifically, we are great apes. This does not make sex across the species barrier normal, or natural, whatever those much-misused words may mean, but it does imply that it ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings."

That appears to be fairly reasonable. But the argument still fails. It is unacceptable, and hence should be illegal, for a human to have sex with an animal for the same reason that it is acceptable - under appropriate circumstances - to perform biomedical experiments on animals, to eat them, and to own them. Animals are both a) nonsapient and b) not us. The intermediates between human and animal are extinct. Nor are animals truly objects, in which case there would be no issue here. Rather they are nonhuman beings with highly restricted roles and protections, depending on species and context, within the human social sphere.

A nonsapient human is still one of us. A (hypothetical) sapient nonhuman would be entitled to rights, responsibilities and privileges. But an animal - that is, a nonsapient, nonkindred animal - cannot enter into social communion with us, except in a very limited way.

Posted by: Dave Carlson | January 2, 2008 9:31 PM

Concern trolling, Azkyroth? Not even close. In the Dungeon, PZ defines concern trolling as

A particularly annoying form of trolling in which someone falsely pretends to be offering advice to favor a position they do not endorse; a creationist who masquerades as someone concerned about the arguments for evolution as an excuse to make criticisms.

Now, I don't exactly agree with Jack's opinion about Ftk's relegation to the dungeon, but it certainly doesn't qualify in any way as "concern trolling." Frankly, I think that card gets played quite a bit more often than it is really warranted.

Posted by: Azkyroth | January 2, 2008 9:33 PM

You do realize that's a circular argument, right?

Posted by: Ichthyic | January 2, 2008 9:39 PM

a nonsapient, nonkindred animal - cannot enter into social communion with us, except in a very limited way.

yeah, I'm just in it for the sex, I don't want to marry 'em or anything. Heck, I don't even plan on introducing any constitutional amendments.

:p

Posted by: Azkyroth | January 2, 2008 9:41 PM

Err, the circular argument comment was directed at Colugo.

Concern trolling, Azkyroth? Not even close. In the Dungeon, PZ defines concern trolling as

A particularly annoying form of trolling in which someone falsely pretends to be offering advice to favor a position they do not endorse; a creationist who masquerades as someone concerned about the arguments for evolution as an excuse to make criticisms.

Now, I don't exactly agree with Jack's opinion about Ftk's relegation to the dungeon, but it certainly doesn't qualify in any way as "concern trolling." Frankly, I think that card gets played quite a bit more often than it is really warranted.

PZ's definition is a poor one; the meaning I have always understood it to have is that of a person, ostensibly well-meaning, insincerely offering very bad advice or expressing fabricated concern in the hopes that the side it's directed at will take their advice and in so doing weaken their position and ultimately ensure their own defeat, or at the very least that they will become divided over the advice. This is one, though not the only, plausible motive for a comment like Jack's. I agree that the label is overused, which is why I raised the possibility rather than running with it as I expected many other commenters would do.

Come to think of it if he's this years Asshole and last years Pussy can we give FtK the title of the region in between? I hereby pronounce Ftk as "Taint of the Year" or, given it's a sciencey-type place and all, "Perineum of the Year".

And as I posted on Janie's, if they turn out to be the same person, it can be the "horrifically botched episiotomy of the year." ^.^

Posted by: Azkyroth | January 2, 2008 9:43 PM

On the other hand, labeling Sal a "pussy" is just cruel.

...I *really* don't want to find myself thinking about him in about 4 hours... ;(

Posted by: Ric | January 2, 2008 9:46 PM

I agree with Dave Carlson. There was no concern trolling going on, and that term is tossed around too much here. I personally have felt the same way as Jack in some cases, and it's frankly because I've been so frustrated by the ridiculously stupid arguments posted at Uncommon Descent, and the heavy-handed censorship that goes on there, making it impossible to tell the IDiots that their arguments are so bad (I know, I am a masochist for still reading that site). I personally want Pharyngula to be as dissimilar to UD as possible. Hence my general resistance to banning here.

That doesn't make me a concern troll too, does it?

P.S. This case may be different. A man needs to defend his family.

Posted by: Damien R. S. | January 2, 2008 9:50 PM

You know, I basically agreed with Skatje's original post, but I'd have called that condoning (some) bestiality, just as CrypticLife said. Certainly legally condoning it! I don't know about this Sal guy, but I think FtK was right for once. A materialist worldview -- which Darwin supports -- does lead to a morality containing elements of anathema to Christians. And vice versa. This isn't exactly news, nor should I think it all that controversial -- unless one is an atheist who still has elements of Christian morality, and is thus uncomfortable with where a morality fully native to the materialist worldview can go.

Posted by: Azkyroth | January 2, 2008 9:52 PM

No one with real respect for the value of free speech would prevent someone else from exercising their free speech in a venue such as this.

It may not seem this way to you, but that's more or less equivalent to arguing that we're obligated to shuttle Fred Phelps and his scumbags around in our personal cars or host their meetings on our porches, in order to "let them exercise their freedom of speech."

Posted by: Azkyroth | January 2, 2008 9:54 PM

(Actually, there is a difference, but it's one of degree.)

Posted by: Jack | January 2, 2008 9:56 PM

For the record, I'm not criticizing PZ for giving Ftk the boot. I'd just rather it was more explicit: "You are attacking my daughter. You are not welcome here."

Posted by: Ichthyic | January 2, 2008 9:59 PM

The willfully ignorant intellectual cowards who moderate UD defend their actions with very nearly identical words.

actually, they don't.

I've spent a lot of time in the past watching who they ban and the reasons given, and they don't in any way resemble how and why FTK was banned.

sorry, your argument doesn't hold water.

if you mean it in rhetorical fashion, then you MIGHT have a point, but in reality, looking at how both blogs operate, you haven't made a reasonable point at all.

I wonder how long you will continue to draw attention to a factual non-issue?

Posted by: The Physicist | January 2, 2008 10:00 PM

Seriously, this has nothing to to do with God. Get the girl some help.

Posted by: truth machine | January 2, 2008 10:01 PM

banning participants is what the bad guys do on UD

They also breath air -- should we therefore not do so?

And it's hard to be more intellectually dishonest than the use of that phrase "banning participants" as if consistently banning anyone who is critical if ID is equivalent to rarely banning people who contribute nothing useful and are intentionally disruptive.

Posted by: Bride of Shrek | January 2, 2008 10:02 PM

Who is Icky, I don't rememeber them posting here?

Posted by: Jack | January 2, 2008 10:05 PM

Ichthyic :

The willfully ignorant intellectual cowards who moderate UD defend their actions with very nearly identical words.

actually, they don't.

Check out some of DaveScot's banning notices. He often uses phrases like "allowing the same lies and deceits to be posted time and time again."

Posted by: truth machine | January 2, 2008 10:06 PM

For the record, I'm not criticizing PZ for giving Ftk the boot.

For the record, you're a transparent liar.

Posted by: The Physicist | January 2, 2008 10:07 PM

Didn't PZ already warn you against posting when you're too drunk to read for comprehension?

Posted by: Azkyroth | January 2, 2008 10:00 PM

He can delete at will. I don't worry about the peanut gallery too much. I have never complained about him deleting a single post, this is his blog. If you are here to argue then make a a real point other than calling me drunk, or I won't respond.

Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | January 2, 2008 10:08 PM

"You are attacking my daughter. You are not welcome here."

That's essentially what PZ said in his courtesy post to FtK. There's an easy way to resolve the issue of whether FtK should've been banned: look at who owns the blog. PZ's the boss here, and it's never wise to insult the boss' family.

Posted by: truth machine | January 2, 2008 10:10 PM

The bottom line is that the cheering for Ftk being banned suggests a strong undercurrent of "Free speech for me but not for thee." that is inappropriate for people with supposedly liberal values.

The bottom line is that you're an ass.

Posted by: Laser Potato | January 2, 2008 10:11 PM

Shorter Jack: "WAH WAH WAH CENSORSHIP!!11!"

Posted by: Ichthyic | January 2, 2008 10:12 PM

Check out some of DaveScot's banning notices. He often uses phrases like "allowing the same lies and deceits to be posted time and time again."

there are so many DS banning notices, one could attribute any pattern to them just by chance alone.

and if you note the context in which he uses the ones you mention, you'll find that he is in fact, LYING. he uses that as an excuse to ban people who have only visited the site even once.

your concern about, and comparison to, UD is very much starting to suggest an ulterior motive.

your argument is a pale comparison to reality.

you're just making yourself look silly.

why?

I have no worries that dissenting voices are silenced here. you can pick any thread you like to see them over and over again.

now would you like to compare that to UD again, don quixote?

Posted by: Ichthyic | January 2, 2008 10:15 PM

I have never disputed that. I simply find the cheerful support of censorship by people who supposedly value free speech more than a little disturbing. How easily we justify in ourselves that which we hate in others.

repeating your argument doesn't make it any better or more relevant.

Posted by: Azkyroth | January 2, 2008 10:16 PM

I have never disputed that. I simply find the cheerful support of censorship by people who supposedly value free speech more than a little disturbing. How easily we justify in ourselves that which we hate in others.

For the moment, I'm going to have to side with Jack. The fact that a person "can" ("is allowed to") do something does not, in itself, make it right. There are better arguments in favor of PZ's position than coupling a circular argument to a naturalistic fallacy, which is what the "well, I have the right to" amounts to when it's deployed against criticism on moral grounds.

Posted by: Laser Potato | January 2, 2008 10:18 PM

Ahem.
http://rockstarramblings.blogspot.com/2007/06/doggerel-101-we-can-believe-whatever-we.html
http://rockstarramblings.blogspot.com/2007/05/doggerel-91-dont-force-your-views-on-us.html
http://rockstarramblings.blogspot.com/2006/05/doggerel-5-worldview.html
http://rockstarramblings.blogspot.com/2006/07/doggerel-22-persecution.html

Posted by: truth machine | January 2, 2008 10:19 PM

No one with real respect for the value of free speech would prevent someone else from exercising their free speech in a venue such as this.

No one with real respect for the concept of free speech would put forth such swill. Speech is only free in the commons. By your moronic reasoning, a horde of trolls could descend on this blog and post thousands of comments on any topic they choose, and it would be some sort of moral impropriety for PZ to prevent it.

Posted by: Jack | January 2, 2008 10:20 PM

Ichthyic:

your concern about, and comparison to, UD is very much starting to suggest an ulterior motive.

Why, because no one could actually value free speech to the extent that they would grant it to those with whom they disagree?

The rabidness with which the Pharyngula regulars attack any perceived criticism of their glorious leader doesn't compare favorably with the religious zealots you spend so much time deriding.

I'll leave you to it now, with the final note that you can simply take my words at face value. No ulterior motives. No support for the scumbag quoteminer or his sleazy sycophant. No trolling, concern or otherwise. Just a guy who values free speech. Imagine that.

Posted by: Ryan F Stello | January 2, 2008 10:24 PM

I dunno, Ric (153), Jack just seems all sorts of whiny.

Like this:

I simply find the cheerful support of censorship by people who supposedly value free speech more than a little disturbing.

I'd at first be tempted to respond to it with a rational speech on the limits of speech in society, but then I realize: "fuck it, Jack's made up his mind on how to play this by condemning a group based on unrealistic ideals."

He deserves the flambe.

Posted by: truth machine | January 2, 2008 10:27 PM

The rabidness with which the Pharyngula regulars attack any perceived criticism of their glorious leader

The truth outs.

Posted by: truth machine | January 2, 2008 10:29 PM

And I'll say again that the abuse Jack is getting here, agree with him or not, is undeserved.

You fail to note any specific response that was undeserved, and why it was.

Posted by: Bride of Shrek | January 2, 2008 10:29 PM

Anyone who has been here for a while knows that we eat our own young here on Pharyngula. Really, to counter argue against a common thread is tantamount to suicide unless you have clear, concise arguments to put up against the hoards. Then I think we give the arguee the respect they derserve and will listen and maybe learn. Try to wade in against the masses with poor arguments framed on ill concieved notions well,...we're likely to sic Truth Machine on you.

Posted by: Ichthyic | January 2, 2008 10:31 PM

Terrence Deacon, The Symbolic Species, 1997: "Biologically, we are just another ape; mentally we are a whole new phylum of organism."

i believe this to be a topic for a whole other thread.

whereupon I will be calling up the essence of Francis Collins to hit over the head repeatedly with large, blunt objects.

Posted by: Ichthyic | January 2, 2008 10:36 PM

If you are here to argue then make a a real point other than calling me drunk, or I won't respond.

so what kind of cheap liquor do you prefer?

Posted by: Ric | January 2, 2008 10:38 PM

Truth at 162: It's my impression that the first thing many people do around here is cry "concern troll" when a poster objects to something, like a banning or a user being called a fucking cockhat asslicker or some of the other language that flies out of some people's mouths first thing.

Look, man, I am as frustrated with the creationists and IDiots as much as the next guy, and I enjoy cursing as much as the next guy. I just think we ought to hear someone out before calling them an asshole. FtK has long ago had her say and has truly proven herself to deserve all the disparagement she got. YOu didn't hear me objecting to any of that. To my knowledge (and by now you might know that I read and post regularly), this "Jack" has not, and thus I was prone to give him the benefit of the doubt. I suppose this makes me a fuckwit concern troll too, right?

That being said...

Truth at 160: Good comment. I noticed that too, and it did indeed raise my hackles a bit, suggesting that maybe you guys detected something I initially didn't.

Posted by: truth machine | January 2, 2008 10:45 PM

It's my impression that the first thing many people do around here is cry "concern troll" when a poster objects to something

I think that's a bit hyperbolic, but no matter, I now understand what you meant by your unspecific charge "abuse". Note that I have not referred to Jack as a concern troll (but I did note in #160 where he seems to self-identify as one), so my calling him a liar and an ass don't come under your umbrella.

Posted by: Prazzie | January 2, 2008 10:49 PM

Greg Peterson, your snake comment had me laughing out loud.

"And now to spite Sal I have to stick it up my bum."

I greatly admire your dedication to the cause.

Posted by: The Physicist | January 2, 2008 10:50 PM

I love PZ, Don't really care what anyone says or thinks about me, be they Christian or Atheist. He is special in my own eyes (for whatever that is worth), with or without a God. Ya wanna know why? because he is honest with himself. He has his ax's to grind with religion, but tell me one one religion that doesn't disparage another. He makes no bones about it, and I would rather know where a man stands, than to never see a stance.

Posted by: Damien R. S. | January 2, 2008 10:54 PM

I think materialist ethics does lead in specific directions. As far as I know, pretty much any attempt to derive such ethics refers to social contracts, the golden rule, categorical imperatives, or utilitarianism. None of these readily allow banning incest between consenting and equal-power adults who active avoiding bearing an inbred child. All of them make it easy to defend, and hard to condemn, acts of bestiality where the animal does not seem to be in pain, and seems to be actively enthusiastic about the act, especially if a fluid barrier is involved to avoid inter-species disease transfer which might affect the rest of us. All of them make it easy to defend late-term abortion or even infanticide, modulo facts from neuroscience or and psychology.

And if you raise a child in a materialist worldview, and she thinks about morality without reference to her gut instinct or other people's traditions, she'll probably hit upon one of the bases I listed, and come to similar conclusions. I think we should be proud of it, proud that reason and observation tends to go in the same direction. Which isn't "anything goes" but "anything goes that doesn't cause pain to others." -- bestiality's an odd case because I think most liberals hew to the "animals can't give meaningful consent to sex" line, and Skatje's thing was to challenge that. But in general, while materialists might disagree about taxes or the death penalty, or judgments about the moral consequences of late fetal development, there's broad agreement about sex between consenting entities. Which leads to icky results by traditional standards, or even by our own gut reactions, but they/we can just suck it up.

Posted by: Moses | January 2, 2008 10:56 PM

And I'll say again that the abuse Jack is getting here, agree with him or not, is undeserved.

Posted by: Ric | January 2, 2008 10:18 PM

Pontificating from a logical fallacy (his argument is a variation of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy) tends not to fly well here. And if it Jack gets his nose bloodied, that's life. It's happened to many of us. You can't always be right. You screw the pooch, have a cigarette and a laugh then move on.

Posted by: Bride of Shrek | January 2, 2008 11:01 PM

Moses

We'll assume your "screw the pooch" was a deliberate pun ;-)

Posted by: Azkyroth | January 2, 2008 11:08 PM

I think there is a principle lurking. The reasons that PZ can ban people from speaking in his blog while the government cannot ban people from speaking in the commons undercut Jack's claim that this is a violation of free speech.

True, if Jack was attempting to argue that this was a violation of free speech. I read his argument as being that what he saw as PZ's failure to respect freedom of speech as a principle, even in a case where he wasn't required to do so by law, was inconsistent with PZ's stated values, which I don't think is an inherently fallacious position but, I think, definitely was in this case, especially given his inappropriate comparison to the moderation at UD.

Posted by: truth machine | January 2, 2008 11:12 PM

In my view no one who had "real respect" for the value of free speech" (there's that fallacy again) would allow that value to be tainted by such unmitigated buffoonery that the value of free speech became worthless.

Ah, but if it's a fallacy, you're now the one committing it.

Better to recognize that it's not a fallacy. :-)

Posted by: Ric | January 2, 2008 11:13 PM

Truth machine at 177:

"Uh, Ric, no one called him an asshole. I called him an ass ... in response to a specific comment, so I did 'hear him out'."

True, you only called him an ass. I was being a bit hyperbolic with my cursing in that post. Mostly I was trying to capture the tone of the responses, but partially I was having fun cursing, cause I'm posting from home and I usually post from work.

"Will your not being called that make any dent in your belief that that's what people do?"

Well, I've seen it enough and disagreed with it enough to have formed a belief that some people are prone to do it. Your not doing it is appreciated. If I see it happen a bit less, that will make a dent in my belief.

Posted by: Ric | January 2, 2008 11:18 PM

See, Damien, that's what I was getting at. My point was that ethics evolved and is very much gut instinct at its base level.

Posted by: Damien R. S. | January 2, 2008 11:34 PM

Ichthyic, did you have some sort of actual point or argument to make?

Ric, I don't think I get it. I argued that materialists who try to come up with universal ethics hit one of a few possible bases and go from there, tending to fairly similar conclusions. It's certainly possible that this is less about Universal Pure Reason and more about tapping some instinct about fairness which evolved and is thus common to the species, tapping it free of religious interference, but I don't think that would change my point that a materialist upbringing tends to certain moralities.

We still find some things naturally icky, but the trend is to not impose our judgments of ick if doing so contracts social contracts or maximum utility.

It's not universal or absolute, but neither are "genes for" lots of traits. And I don't see how a materialist can condemn gays or adult incest (with the usual qualifications) without ultimately appealing to a personal 'ick', as opposed to one of the bases for a universal morality.

Posted by: zyan | January 3, 2008 12:18 AM

Is this sick? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tRWRSfcDuQ

Possibly.

Should there be laws against it? Gimme a break - kitty-cat's loving it.

Cats have a highly sensitive pleasure center on their backs, just at the base of the tail. (Three guesses what kind of pleasure.) Imagine the shocked pet owners who'd end up on the registry of sex offenders because they unwittingly pleasured their pu..., er, cat.

Oh, and... BITE ME, FtK!

Posted by: Kseniya | January 3, 2008 12:45 AM

Good post, Avkid. The demise of PZ's tolerance of FtK is a far cry from the type of abuse of moderator privilege exemplified by DaveScot's capricious little power trips over at UhDuh.

Posted by: Bride of Shrek | January 3, 2008 12:55 AM

I also must say that I am impressed with the dignity and grace with which Skatje has held herself against the hysteria. Its a far cry fom how I would have reacted when I was 17 (which would have been to call the other side names, run home to mummy and cry under the covers for about 24 hours that no one liked me- not much different to now days really). PZ should be proud to have raised such a gracious daughter who seems to suffer fools a lot better than I do.

Posted by: Janine | January 3, 2008 1:32 AM

Here is the latest blast from Sal.

But why is PZ mad? I quoted Skatje's words accurately. Skatje articulated the Darwinist view of what humans are in relation to animals.

I already said I'm refraining from commenting on the morality of human-animal sex. I'm merely reporting what Darwinists believe.

If these inconvenient Darwinist beliefs puts Darwinism in a bad light, I think that's a good thing. PZ is probably mad that painted him and his fellow Darwinists in a bad light.

Not only is Darwinism bad science which originated from the feeble mind of math-challenged Darwin, but it's an icky ideology and view of humanity. [What? Darwinists don't like the fact that I point out Darwin was a bit dull mentally? My critics have no inhibition about making statements about my mental faculties. Ah the hypocrisy.]

But even apart from the issues of morality, which view of humanity will be more appealing? I'm merely exploiting the natural appeal of the idea that "humans are special". Too bad for the Darwinists if their worthless ideology is disgusting when taken to its logical conclusion.

I advocate the hypothesis of Intelligent Design versus Brainless Darwinism. I advocate the idea that humans, for all their flaws, are special in God's sight and live on a Privileged Planet.

Not only are the facts consistent with the idea that humans are special in God's sight, it is an idea people wish to ponder. Too bad for PZ, the majority of humanity would prefer to see themselves as special.

Thus, I'm quite happy to point out the disgusting aspects of Darwinism taken to its logical conclusion. PZ obviously despises this line of argumentation. Good. There will be more to come on why "Darwinism is Disgusting".

Comment by scordova

Sal, Sal, Sal, I do not need to believe in god to think I am special. The fact that I exist is enough. Also, despite being queer, an atheist and a materialist, I never felt a sexual desire for an other animal. And for those people who do feel that, I doubt it is because they buy into the truth of evolution.

Also, Sal ignoring what Skatje wrote about bestiality shows that he knows he took her words out of context. But instead of owing up to it, he is now trying to pass this off as "the logical conclusion of Darwinism". Which makes no sense what so ever if all species are out to reproduce.

Please Sal, keep going. If this is what your form of christianity is all about, it needs more sunshine. Then the slime can dry out leaving dust. And the wind can blow the dust away.

And one last thing, Skatje is intelligent enough to deal with the likes of you. For the people decrying Sal attacking her, I think there is nothing to worry about. She seems to be a very capable young woman.

Posted by: Kseniya | January 3, 2008 1:52 AM

I have to ask: why do we pay attention to this guy? He's intellectually shallow and can't even write a half-decent sentence. He presents no challenge beyond forcing his reader to balance two rather disparate needs (the need to laugh and the need to wretch) simultaneously. His "arguments" hang in the air like geese farts on a muggy day (though they lack even that much substance) and inspire nothing more or less than the desparate hope of a breath of fresh air. Do I paint an accurate picture? Or do I exaggerate?

Posted by: Janine | January 3, 2008 2:13 AM

Kseniya, here is my answer to your question. You do not say if you mean Sal or Vox Day but I think it will cover both. There are people who think they are fine people and believe what they have to say. If the comments at Vox Day are any indication, Sal's lie will not be going away soon. I am afraid PZ and Statje will hearing the echos for a long time to come. Best to know where they are coming from and why.

Posted by: windy | January 3, 2008 2:33 AM

Skatje, we know, dear. But you know what? I just watched the film Passion in the Desert, a beautiful and tragic story of a man who falls in love with a tiger - and it's based on a story by Honoré de Balzac! So even if you were guilty of what they're accusing you of, you have a literary genius on your side.

Here's another literary depiction of interspecies love, with a title somehow appropriate for this thread: Sinisalo's Troll - A Love Story.

Posted by: Farb | January 3, 2008 2:57 AM

Let's take a broader view here.

First of all, the entire objective of 'concern trolling' at blogs like these is to get the troll banned, after which they can wear the ban as a badge of honor among their like-minded cronys. To achieve that, they adopt the most outrageous anti-social behavior possible to exhaust the patience of those committed to civil discussion.

It matters not that they ban others (or even each other! FtK herself had a recent falling out with the Kansas Troll, and now they trade tirades at other forums.). They want to simulate credibility among their own imagined base, while using the bans themselves to attack those who made the ban. It's the never-ending cycle of abuse, translated into cyberspace.

But, secondly, even without the supernatural intervention these particular abusers alternatively invoke and pretend to conceal, they have a very real tendency to experience the exact curses they call down upon others. In real life, these 'warriors' often must deal with recurrent depression, substance addiction, family estrangement, even mental and physical abuse, leading them to find refuge in cyberspace, where they may right all injustice like costumed super-heroes, while all their underlying issues remain unresolved in reality.

Or, in simpler terms, isn't it interesting that a family unit as functional as yours, PZ, should inspire such vituperative (and repeated) efforts to discredit it? Doesn't it speak volumes about the psychological demons driving those discreditors?

Posted by: Azkyroth | January 3, 2008 4:11 AM

Yeah, I'd make plans to kidnap her in order to make her give ass-kicking lessons to my daughter in a few years, except that it wouldn't work, and if it did would defeat the purpose, I suppose. ;/

Posted by: truth machine | January 3, 2008 4:19 AM

Pharyngula allows dissent

Consider how many global warming deniers contributed to that 1200+ comment thread and how many were banned.

Posted by: bernarda | January 3, 2008 4:48 AM

Can you pick out Sal in the picture linked below?

http://www.streetneeds.com/uploads/twinturbonet/ASSHOLES.jpg

Posted by: Peter McGrath | January 3, 2008 7:49 AM

I suspect there's a bit of envy (as well as cowardice) behind the attacks: Skatje's smart as paint, constructs an argument and writes well. Sal and WtF are just farting in the bath and playing in the bubbles.

Posted by: Sastra, OM | January 3, 2008 9:16 AM

I understood Jack's point to be more along the lines of preventing open discussions, rather than a Free Speech issue as such. And, since I myself am not all that familiar with ftk -- and what I've seen from her has mostly been fairly polite and coherent (at least by fundy standards) -- I don't think his concern was 'concern troll' level. But since this is doing the nasty on Skatje, and I'm taking other people's word on ftk's usual m.o., I have no problem with PZ banning her either.

Skatje was exploring the concept of victimless crimes, and ftk and cordova really, truly don't seem able to separate this issue from whether evolution occurred, or whether God exists. If the animal is not being harmed, bestiality is like shoe fetishism or some other "perversion." Is it the state's business? Is it a legal concern?

And, even if God exists, would it necessarily be God's concern? Would it have to care, one way or the other, if nobody is actually being hurt? What if God felt that establishing the superior heirarchy of man over animal required that people have sex with them (after all, in their own religion man's dominion over women isn't somehow set all askew because they have sex together)? There's no clear line here separating which side has human dignity, and which does not. I think respecting choice has a dignity to it as well.

Posted by: windy | January 3, 2008 10:12 AM

Victimless crimes require consent. Animals use instinct, not consent. [...] She posted it online, don't act surprised to see people come out of the woodwork to hammer her for it.

Right, so every teenager who writes a post condoning, or worse, ADVOCATING horseback riding, deserves to be trolled. Or can animals consent to being ridden but not to being "ridden"?

Posted by: Steve_C | January 3, 2008 10:30 AM

Wow. This post really brought out the dipshit defenders.

Posted by: Kseniya | January 3, 2008 10:40 AM

I think the problem here is not hat FtK misused the word "condone" (she didn't) but that Sal quote-mined Skatje to imply that Skatje approves of or even advocates "crossing the species barrier", and that FtK supported Sal and denied the quote-mine.

(Oh, and Janine (#207), I meant Sal, not Vox. Vox can be a pain in the ass, but unlike Sal he's not walking around with a leaky bedpan balanced on his shoulders where his head should be.)

I wonder how many of those people who argue against bestiality on the grounds that an animal in incapable of giving consent are vegetarians.

Perhaps the strongest argument against necrophilia is not the health argument, but that the owner of the body is not available to give consent and that necrophilia is therefor a form of rape. The dead have their right to dignity, too.

Hmmm, maybe this comment belongs over on Skatje's blog...

Posted by: MyaR | January 3, 2008 11:03 AM

VD, you really have problems with thinking about morality as anything non-authoritarian, don't you? It's skeeery to think that WE, human beings, are the ultimate arbiters of human morality, not SkyDaddy, isn't it? And why you, Sal, and FtK still just don't get what Skatje was saying.

Posted by: windy | January 3, 2008 11:09 AM

Not designed for human/animal contact? Aaaw, but it works so well? It's almost as though some sort of design-UR wanted us to have, erm, "contact" with animals.

only if you are looking for a "help meet". No one night stands! :)

Posted by: JimC | January 3, 2008 11:18 AM

I will admit that Skatje's post made me uneasy. I understand her point was that of a legal argument but her line of reasoning that animals consent to sex with humans fell flat with me.

I just don't see it as a legit argument.

That being said I don't see the endorsement of animal sex either.

Posted by: VD | January 3, 2008 11:33 AM

Vox, are you presuming that children do not acquire any sense of morality from their parents?

Obviously not, hence the bit about where children derive their sense of "ick" from preceding generations. But adherence to traditional morals can vary from generation to generation; I don't know if PZ was raised by atheists or not, but in either case it would be interesting to learn whether PZ's view of the morality of bestiality is in accordance with his daughter or with the conventional Western theists.

And since PZ definitely isn't a libertarian, it would also be interesting to know the reasons underlying his opinion on its legal status as well.

Posted by: Sastra, OM | January 3, 2008 11:35 AM

VD #222 wrote:

Do you believe, like your daughter, that bestiality is not immoral?

That's addressed to PZ, but I'll bite. It's an interesting question, because there are levels and degrees to the concept "immoral." We make distinctions between how bad a wrong we do.

Is bestiality immoral ...like what? Like murder? Rape? Being rude? Being deliberately irrational? Being intellectually dishonest? Wasting a talent? Wasting someone else's talent? Violating taste? Violating decency? Violating dignity? Violating human rights or animal rights or the law?

As for me, I'd say bestiality is immoral, in the sense of violating dignity, taste, and decency (we're leaving aside the issue of harming the animal, and assuming a case such as Skatje brings up, where the animal is not only unhurt, but pleased). It's pretty disgusting.

However, I do not think these are legal issues; I recognize that there's subjective judgment involved; and, while bestiality can be argued against and discouraged, it should not be physically prevented. One condemns it, but recognizes that it only violates the human dignity of the person involved -- not me, or anyone else. Violating one's own human dignity is not like rape.

I give similar status to religious faith and pseudoscience. They violate human dignity, and are intellectually dishonest. But -- I 'condone' them ;)

Posted by: craig | January 3, 2008 12:16 PM

"I have never disputed that. I simply find the cheerful support of censorship by people who supposedly value free speech more than a little disturbing. How easily we justify in ourselves that which we hate in others."

I'll put this as politely as I can. Jack, you're a fucking moron.

You have no clue what freedom of speech means, no clue what censorship means.

Freedom of speech, as guaranteed in the constitution, means that the government can't punish you for your speech. Censorship means that you are prevented from speaking as you wish.

FTK has not been imprisoned. FTK can pot to her own blog, or a thousand of them. FTK can write a letter to the editor, publish a book, get out a megaphone and stand on a street corner, distribute leaflets, whatever the fuck she wants to do.

This blog belongs to PZ, he has to moderate it, he has to deal with the shitstorm it creates, and he in this space represents SciBlogs who has to pay for the hosting and bandwidth.

He no more has to let every asshole say anything they want about his family than the New York Times has to run Ann Coulter's death threats against them. No more than the Anti-Defamation League has to put up all the racist letters they get on their bulletin board.

Calling it censorship and anti-free speech is just fucking clueless and stupid, and when you do shit like that it actually undermines REAL free speech issues by helping to obscure what they are (and by making free-speech advocates look like whiny idiots.)

Posted by: Don | January 3, 2008 12:45 PM

I thought going after family was generally considered to be beyond the pale?

I believe in settling matters through rational debate, but some part of my brain thought of this,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8B4Yi_O0trM

Posted by: Brownian, OM | January 3, 2008 12:53 PM

Do you believe, like your daughter, that bestiality is not immoral?

I'd rather hear Vox D'uh use that Mensic brain of his to rationalise why he believes it's immoral (as opposed to unethical.) And if he believes it's immoral due to some sort of interpretation of Biblical text, then I'd like to hear his views on any number of behaviours not explicitly mentioned in God's Almanac.

Just kidding. The guy's dumb. I'm not interested in hearing any of his ad hoc rationalisations.

Posted by: Ken Cope | January 3, 2008 1:09 PM

Of course VD wants to splash around in the same cess pit with Slimy Sal and FtK; it's where he belongs. VD has demonstrated far too much dishonesty to have any standing in any discussion of morality. Rather than try to paraphrase it, here from his blog is VD's latest turd for the punchbowl:

The ironic truth is that Miss Myers is absolutely correct; once the basic concept of Natural Law is abandoned, there is no rational basis for banning anything from necrophilia to cannibalism other than a vague sense of "ickiness" inherited from preceding generations possessed of a more conventional morality. She is a far more rational atheist than most; it seems she is either too honest or too innocent to realize that a good moral parasite is supposed to coopt religious values, not openly admit that they make no sense sans their sky god source.

A religious hustler like VD, who ostensibly commemorates a bloody human sacrifice by symbolically drinking blood and eating flesh, isn't going to get away with accusing atheists of having no reason to abhor cannibalism. Claiming that atheists are moral only by virtue of having coopted religious values is backwards; morality, like religion, is a human invention. To arrogate morality to religion is obscene; it takes adherence to religion to condone the slaughter of two year olds if an imaginary god demanded it. George Carlin has the right take on this. Religion uses scary language designed to intimidate. "Religion has never really had a big problem with murder ... the more devout they are, the more they see murder as negotiable."

Skatje has demonstrated that using reason to make moral decisions rather than scary supernatural bullshit is a virtue impervious to the baseless accusations and feeble taunts of creeps like VD and the rest, who appear to regard morality as an abstraction, some sort of weapon to use to count coup against their enemies. When they can't land an honest blow, they're not above going after family.

Posted by: Don | January 3, 2008 1:20 PM

Evidence?

Posted by: Don | January 3, 2008 1:24 PM

'...does not subscribe to this principle, thus his family would be fair game...'

Even if the first assertion were true, how does the second follow?

Posted by: Damien R. S. | January 3, 2008 1:36 PM

See, well, nearly the whole fucking history of Western and Eastern philosophy for non-Natural Law rationalisations against nearly every possible behaviour, including necrophilia and cannibalism.

Some specific examples, por favor? Keeping in mind that in context, "Natural Law" covered both law as stated by some deity and natural moral law which somehow exists in the universe sans deity, and certainly something like karma.

Posted by: Janine | January 3, 2008 1:51 PM

Once more, I just want to point out, Skatje is not some innocent who must be coddled and protected. She appears to be an intelligent and capable young woman. The problem is quote mining in order to slander a person. In other words, open fire in the sick liars.

Posted by: Ken Cope | January 3, 2008 2:14 PM

Janine,

Skatje can point and laugh at those idiots, eviscerating them with style, obviously requiring no help from PZ or anybody else. It's the whole sorry spectacle of their efforts at twisting what she said, and why it matters to them that she said it, that so neatly showcases the dishonesty and hypocrisy of VD, FtK and SS. It looks to me like VD is working hard to get himself banned too, so he can point to the violence inherent in the system.

Posted by: Ric | January 3, 2008 2:29 PM

Maybe I'm not up on the annals of Sal's silly life saga, but the last thing i read from him, before this, was that he was going to retire from blogging for fear that his wingnut views would earn him censure. Thus my confusion when I see his stupider-and-more-offensive-than-ever posts on his own blog.

Posted by: guthrie | January 3, 2008 2:55 PM

Just to remind people, I think it worth pointing out that For the kids, spent many months at "After the bar closes" avoiding answering any questions about science and especially evolution. Moreover she flip flops between allowing honest debate and banning people who she disagrees with on her own blog.

As for vox and his dad, I had thought that vox was an adult, and therefore pretty much fair game. Skatje is not quite an adult yet in my opinion and I think those of many others, therefore she is not fair game the way that say Vox and his dad is. Should Vox turn out to be 16 of course, that would be different.

Posted by: Kseniya | January 3, 2008 3:15 PM

Ric, yeah. I guess we're on the same page. What he said was that he was going to stop posting under his own name - except on UD and on this own blog, I think - for fear of censure. No, that doesn't make a whole heck of a lot of sense to me, either, but there it is.

Honestly, I'd respect him more if he continued (continues?) to post cognito, but I suppose his being forced by the Darwinian Establishment freely choosing to hide behind a pseudonym feeds his standard-issue creationist persecution complex in just the right way.

Posted by: Damien R. S. | January 3, 2008 3:37 PM

Brownian: natural law far from rationality, right. But VD was talking about the realm of arguments outside natural law, anyway. I figure stuff like social contracts and utilitarianism are outside of natural law (maybe iffy in the latter case, with the maximum utility principle as candidate for being the putative natural law.) Positive law looks like "human-made law", which makes sense as a conception of law but leaves open the question of what laws we should make, which throws us right back to "should bestiality be illegal?"

A commenter on my LJ says bestiality was decriminalized in Sweden 60 years ago, and this was relatively late compared to other countries.

Posted by: Ichthyic | January 3, 2008 3:57 PM

Essentially, to make the claim VD (or, to use the more modern rendition of his name, STI) did

scrolling up from the bottom of the thread, I read this and thought:

Venereal Disease

and

Sexually Transmitted Infection

before I realized who you were actually talking about.

...and then thought there wasn't much difference in any case.

Posted by: Janine | January 3, 2008 4:09 PM

Ken Cope,

I completely agree with you. I guess I did not make myself more clear about the problem with the misrepresentation of her views.

gurthie, as far as I can tell, PZ did not misrepresent VD's father. Sal and later, VD, misrepresented Skatje. The difference is honesty. Those "defenders" of "christian morality" do not seem to be bothered by telling the truth about their "enemies".

Posted by: Jake Boyman | January 3, 2008 4:18 PM

First he finds "libertarians represent the worst of America" and calls them "My least favorite political/economic group". Which would mean he likes Nazis and racial separatists more. Now he seems to have taught his daughter a moral reasoning that finds incest and zoophilia morally acceptable.

With razor-sharp reasoning skills like this, we can understand why Brian gravitated to libertarianism.

Posted by: Ron Paul | January 3, 2008 4:21 PM

Odd, Jake, where does Brian call himself libertarian.

Or does any type of defense of them automatically make him one.

Posted by: Rey Fox | January 3, 2008 4:23 PM

It looks to me more like Brian has gravitated to crack cocaine.

Posted by: Kseniya | January 3, 2008 4:36 PM

Brian:

She seems to have no notion that getting oral sex from the dog might be wrong for some reason or another.

Since Skatje explicitly stated she's making a rational argument, not an argument from personal preference, then rationally, Brian, how do you counter? Why might it be wrong?

Posted by: zer0 | January 3, 2008 4:51 PM

They forget you didn't reciprocate if you say the words "outside, treat, or sit"

I got you...

Posted by: Steve_C | January 3, 2008 5:10 PM

'Complication free' oral sex with a dog?
It's a little over the top even as a rhetorical device, she's 17 so I'll cut her alot of slack but it is still a bit much.

I thought that it was funny.

You have to have a sense of humor about bestiality.

Posted by: Valmorian | January 3, 2008 5:19 PM

Looks like there's quite a few people who can't seem to tell the difference between finding something distasteful and finding something immoral.

Posted by: RamblinDude | January 3, 2008 5:43 PM

I thought that it was funny.

You have to have a sense of humor about bestiality.

Well, I for one don't see anything humorous about it. We need strong legislation disallowing any sexual contact between humans and animals.

Remember that episode of "King of the Hill" in which the dolphin kept trying to hump Hank? Well, that was based on real life, people!

Sure, like a good Christian man Hank was thoroughly embarrassed and outraged at the "immorality" of the act, but non-Christians would have willingly engaged in sex acts with that dolphin. You just know they would because they don't have any sense of "morals". Well, except for atheists like Brian Macker, who finds bestiality repugnant, and okay, me and I guess everybody I know, and, I'm guessing here, just about every person commenting on this blog or reading it. But somewhere out there is a person who wants to screw a dolphin. You can count on it because that's just human nature!

Also, women should be legally required to ride side saddle. Straddling a horse just gives them feelings that are sinful and makes them hysterical. (It should also be against the law for women to ride bicycles, and that's why we need legislation outlawing sexual contact with machines.)

Posted by: Colugo | January 3, 2008 5:48 PM

Is that your idea of a joke, truth machine? How reliable a survey of human behavior is some silly online forum (which includes a commenter purporting to be a dog)?

Anyway, Skatje is right about the flimsiness of conservative "repugnance" and liberal "consent" arguments. However, the utilitarian position (shared by Singer) is still faulty. Being nonsapient (lacking metacognition and routine use of symbols), nonhuman animals are incapable of entering into full social communion with people. Sapient social communion includes an integrated suite of mutual responsibilities and rights, including sexuality.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | January 3, 2008 5:54 PM

Essentially, to make the claim VD (or, to use the more modern rendition of his name, STI) did

scrolling up from the bottom of the thread, I read this and thought:

Venereal Disease

and

Sexually Transmitted Infection

before I realized who you were actually talking about.

...and then thought there wasn't much difference in any case.

Ichthyic, you interpreted my post correctly and there isn't.

Damien, in short, yes. But I wouldn't claim all appeals to natural law are irrational. That would make about as much sense as suggesting all claims for non-natural law are irrational, as GonorrheaVD suggests.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | January 3, 2008 6:03 PM

This thread brings up an interesting idea. Since women in the Bible (when they aren't actively causing normally God-fearing men to trespass) are little more than chattel, above other beasts but below men, one must conclude that any non-male-on-male sex fits some description of bestiality?

And more importantly, when do I get to call the stuff I make up Theology rather than stuff I make up?

Posted by: Kseniya | January 3, 2008 6:08 PM

Brian:

Then you ask "Why might it be wrong?" and I don't know what "it" refers to.

Oh really.

Never mind, then.

Posted by: ryana | January 3, 2008 6:13 PM

CJO: Whose going to waste the time penning a rational argument about a man and his minor daughter tag teaming creationists while writing about bestiality?

Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | January 3, 2008 6:18 PM

"2. Sexuality is a normal bodily function not exclusive to humans."

Fixed.

Posted by: Steve_C | January 3, 2008 6:22 PM

Yeah. Ryana isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Posted by: A Lurker | January 3, 2008 6:32 PM

Slimy Sal is a jerk, there can be no doubt. Going after the children of one's critics instead of the critics themselves is really low. If Skatje turns into a serial killer, it would not make any of PZ's writings about evolution wrong. And the attack on Skatje turns out to be dishonest quote mining by someone too cowardly to make the link to what he quoted. As others have pointed out, finding it difficult to find a reason to make something illegal is hardly support.

(No Slimy Sal, I am not suggesting that Skatje is going to become a serial killer: that is something that is far more likely for a religious nut cases.)

I might point out there might be a legit reasons to ban bestiality. I don't see how an animal can provide competent or informed consent to its owner's wish to have sex with it. There might be health reasons concern as well: are people involved with bestiality having "safe sex" and are they risking the health of future human sexual partners?

Posted by: ryana | January 3, 2008 6:40 PM

Later everyone. I'll be back next week to read PZ's latest posting on his daughter's menstrual cycle and masturbation techniques. I also always look forward to the witty ad hominem of Steve_C, someone who if you search his comments, says intelligent things like:
_______________
They're scummy.

FTK is a bitch. She's a liar too.

_______________

Skatje will decimate them in one blog post.

_______________

ftk is a liar.

and a bitch.

you can quote me.

_______________

Posted by: Brian Macker | January 3, 2008 6:43 PM

Windy,

"Then why do you accuse her of rationalization? Maybe that word does not mean quite what you think it means?"

Perhaps the word "accuse" or the phrase "sounds like" doesn't mean what you think it does.

"Right, if you are talking about ass-raping an infant. But how much jail time in your opinion for mothers who orgasm while breastfeeding, oh wise one?"

How about thigh fucking, something supposedly practiced by Muslims in imitation of Mohammed? I think that fits her criteria whereas ass raping doesn't. So too oral sex. Think it should be legal for the mother to achieve orgasm by placing baby food down below?

Try to lower your tone a little or I'm going to put you in the same slot as truth machine and ichthyic. Actually there are quite a few posters here of their caliber. Doesn't exactly reflect well on you.

Posted by: Brian Macker | January 3, 2008 6:46 PM

Colugo,

"It's not about consent; it's about rights and privileges. Animals have none."

So I used to think.

Posted by: Janine | January 3, 2008 6:46 PM

Methinks ryana completely missed how this sordid thread started. If we are talking about ryana's hypothetical topic, it will because Sal a new topic on his blog and lied about it.

Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | January 3, 2008 6:52 PM

Colugo,

"Generically, yes. Specifically human sexuality, no."

This is vague. What exactly is it about "specifically human sexuality" that engenders a moral distinction? There are aspects of food consumption that are pretty specific to humans as well, usually involving taking thorough pleasure in the experience. I don't see any morally compelling case for prohibiting pet owners from pampering their pets with food.

"And since animals have no such right, no human has a right to engage them in such activity."

This is a non-sequitor. Simply because animals lack rights doesn't mean that humans are reciprocally implicated in lacking them. Animals don't have a right to medical care, but a human has a right to provide it to their pets, for example.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | January 3, 2008 6:54 PM

It is possible to be sexually uninhibited but still have class. Furthermore, its far sexier.

I don't recall anyone asking you to adjudicate on what's sexy and what's not.

Posted by: truth machine | January 3, 2008 7:04 PM

While defending bestiality

Macker, being the mental midget that he is, cannot distinguish an empirical claim about how widespread a practice is with defending it. But as long as we're at it, yes, I have no problem defending women who let their dogs lick them.

Posted by: truth machine | January 3, 2008 7:14 PM

Jake Boyman: With razor-sharp reasoning skills like this, we can understand why Brian gravitated to libertarianism.

Ron Paul: Odd, Jake, where does Brian call himself libertarian.

Brian Macker: Certainly my political views are libertarianish.

Close enough.

Posted by: H. Humbert | January 3, 2008 7:18 PM

Colugo said:

It's not about consent; it's about rights and privileges. Animals have none.

Posted by: truth machine | January 3, 2008 7:29 PM

Animals cannot consent because they lack the mental faculties to properly weigh the decision.

They can't consent to anything ... like, say, going for a walk or having ball thrown at them.

Posted by: truth machine | January 3, 2008 7:39 PM

Then why did you cite it?

As an illustration and an example, moron; I labeled the link "getting licked by the dog", not "a reliable survey indicating what fraction of women get licked by their dogs" or "a reliable survey of people's attitudes toward women being licked by their dogs". Since I didn't say it was a survey, let alone a reliable one, you're a fool to complain that it isn't one. But if you go searching the internet, you will find that this is not the only example of people talking about engaging in such behavior (and other people telling them they will burn in hell for doing so).

Posted by: Norman Doering | January 3, 2008 7:46 PM

Of course, excuse me if this has already been said (too many posts here to read today), both Vox Day and Skatje Myers goofed.

When Vox said: "...there is no rational basis for banning anything from necrophilia to cannibalism other than a vague sense of "ickiness" inherited from preceding generations possessed of a more conventional morality."

And Skatje said, "I think it's bad practice to put social taboos into legislature when no actual logical argument can be made against it."

They both missed an important logical reason for discouraging bestiality, necrophilia and cannibalism and we can now see what our ancestors couldn't. Here is the logical reason to avoid sexual relations with animals: It could introduce new sexually transmitted diseases into human populations. In fact, it's believed by many that AIDS originally came from monkeys and that syphilis was originally spread by shepherds after having sex with their sheep before any alleged Christ was ever born, or even before any alleged Moses was born.

One of the things you need to think about when pondering what is and isn't morally wrong is how we got our moral inclinations and icky feelings in the first place. They are, by these two different viewpoints with the same error, either a product of evolution or god-design. They make much more sense as evolutionary in origin and if you try to read God's mind to figure them out you wind up with a really fucked-up God.

Our ancient ancestors didn't know about bacteria and virii and all they could do was make a general observation that populations that engaged in behaviors like bestiality, necrophilia and cannibalism suffered, perhaps, they might easily imagine, punished by some god for such behavior.

And I have more thoughts on that here:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/01/what-is-morality.html

Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | January 3, 2008 7:48 PM

Colugo,

"But sexuality is not only a sensory and cognitive experience but also a social one embedded in these aspects."

It only fits into the latter to a very limited extent (and not to reiterate excessively, but this extent also encompasses culinary practices and traditions). Sex is to a much larger extent an intimate exchange.

"You're right; I should distinguish between rights (or the lack thereof) in the sense of permissibility (or prohibitions) and entitlements (or the absence of entitlements)."

But that begs the question of why it is impermissible for humans to engage in such activities with animals in the first place. The sense I got from your argument was that the lack of entitlement entailed the conclusion, but it seems here that you are simply assuming that that the prohibition is valid.

H. Humbert,

"Right, but none of those things requires consent."

So if I just started randomly throwing balls at you, there'd be no legal ramifications?

Posted by: Norman Doering | January 3, 2008 7:53 PM

I don't see how an animal can provide competent or informed consent to its owner's wish to have sex with it.

Do you think anyone cares if they give informed consent to their owners before they are killed and eaten?

Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | January 3, 2008 7:54 PM

I'd like to say that even if I don't find the purely moralistic line of reasoning offered by, e.g., Colugo very compelling, I think Norm Doerings case is much more so. The epidemiological ramifications of human/animal sexual activity form a much better basis of argument than abstract principles.

Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | January 3, 2008 8:00 PM

"That is one logical reason to avoid it but not necessarily a logical reason to make it illegal (what Skatje was talking about), since we don't ban all unhealthy activities or those that could introduce new diseases (like keeping exotic animals)."

Not to speak for Norm, but I don't know if by "discourage" he necessarily meant "making it illegal". We discourage consumption of tabacco through public outreach, hefty taxation and also mitigate its effects by banning it in public places (.e.g., restaurants, bars, etc.) But it's not outright prohibited, nor do I think it should be.

Posted by: Carlie | January 3, 2008 8:05 PM

Oh, yeah, I had thought about the disease one and then promptly forgot it.

5. It can introduce some really nasty diseases.

Sure, but so do a lot of other activities that are not illegal. Keeping exotic pets, as mentioned, letting your pet lick your face, etc. To be honest, I'm not sure that it's even illegal to have sex with another person and knowingly introduce a disease to them. Can a person be prosecuted if they have syphilis and have sex with another person without telling them? Can a person be prosecuted for sneezing on another person? Is that f*ing idiot with the MDR TB being prosecuted for being a public health threat?
It's an argument that has some rational backing, but it's not consistent with the way we treat that same problem under other circumstances.

Posted by: Norman Doering | January 3, 2008 8:10 PM

Tyler DiPietro wrote:

Not to speak for Norm, but I don't know if by "discourage" he necessarily meant "making it illegal".

Well, I did say no to making laws on my blog, but that's because how could you ever know without invading people's privacy in a very invasive and expensive way? It's unenforceable.

Posted by: truth machine | January 3, 2008 8:15 PM

Here is another example of people discussing this subject. The comments run the gamut of views. I think this one makes a good point:

I doubt the dog knows that what he is doing is sexual... its just the human morals that are into play is a disgusting and shameful situation like this.

As for the following amusing comment, if animals can't consent, can they be demeaned?

Oh girl! Let me tell YOU!

I once let my dog lick my pussy. THEN he got seriously horny and mounted me! His c*ck was huge and it felt really good but he blew his load inside of me and I became pregnant!

Nine months later I gave birth to eight little puppy/humans! It was hideous! They had furry human bodies with puppy heads and they just kept barking and barking! I only have two nipples and it was difficult trying to feed them all at once.

Oh God! It was horrible!

Don't ever let your dog "lick" you! You'll end up like me and have mutant babies!

Seriously though sweetheart, it's demeaning to the dog, stop it.

Posted by: truth machine | January 3, 2008 8:21 PM

That is a requirement particular to sex.

Why?

It's the same reason why sexual congress with a corpse is prohibited, since the dead by definition cannot assent.

Defiling a corpse is illegal. Stop making such blatantly intellectually dishonest ad hoc arguments.

Sorry if you're the type who prefers neat little ethical rules applicable in all situations,

You're the one with the neat little "it's wrong because it's non-consensual sex" rule, jackoff.

No, you really don't.

Uh, right, you don't need arguments for your pronouncements. And no one need credit them.

Posted by: Kristin | January 3, 2008 8:27 PM

Well, unless I missed something, I didn't really see anything all that offensive. While I agree with your daughter, and Sal's argument is rather juvenile, I've seen much more horrid responses to people saying this sort of thing.

Posted by: truth machine | January 3, 2008 8:33 PM

I don't think letting your dog lick your face is as risky as genital penetration.

So who said it is? Perhaps you've noticed that I've been talking about dogs licking women's genitals.

But bringing sick birds home to care for them is probably the riskiest behavior.

So do you want to make it illegal? Or declare it immoral?

It's fine to talk about the historical source of various social sanctions, but it really doesn't help us settle whether we should accept them as moral prescriptions.

Posted by: truth machine | January 3, 2008 8:47 PM

Tyler, consent is always required from entities able to consent. Consent is sometimes required from those unable to consent, depending upon the act in question. There's no contradiction there.

You have failed to grasp the (obvious) contradiction, one which I already explicitly pointed out. The illegality of non-consensual sex between humans is due to it being non-consensual, not due to it being sex. There are no blanket laws against non-consensual sex between humans and non-humans; there is no legal principle that extends the illegality of non-consensual sex between humans to non-consensual sex between humans and non-humans -- that is simply a fabrication of yours to try to rescue your bogus argument. Humping your vacuum cleaner isn't illegal because the vaccuum cleaner can't consent. Your claim about corpses is patently ridiculous. The prohibition against humping corpses isn't because they can't consent or because it's sex, it's because they are corpses, which have special status, and must not be defiled.

Posted by: H. Humbert | January 3, 2008 8:59 PM

I realize I might not be communicating clearly, so let me rephrase.

When adults of sound mind are able to consent, then their consent is both required and sufficient.

When an entity (be it an incapacitated adult, a child, or an animal) is unable to provide consent, then consent is required from other adults of sound mind, in the form of the community which votes laws into effect. We, as a society, speak in place of those unable to speak for themselves. The law is merely the codification of what we'll allow and what we will not.

So, in any given case, inability to obtain consent doesn't mean consent isn't required, nor does it mean anything requiring consent is impermissible. It simply means you must obtain consent through another channel--namely the law.

Posted by: truth machine | January 3, 2008 9:05 PM

I realize I might not be communicating clearly, so let me rephrase.

You're communicating your fallacious argument (properly identified by Tyler DiPietro as special pleading) just fine. And the fact that you are unable to grasp that it is fallacious doesn't mean we aren't communicating clearly either.

Posted by: Norman Doering | January 3, 2008 9:17 PM

It's fine to talk about the historical source of various social sanctions, but it really doesn't help us settle whether we should accept them as moral prescriptions.

Moral prescriptions don't have to be laws, they just have to be advice, maybe stern advice. For the record, I don't say anywhere we should make laws about these things. On the other hand, I don't say we shouldn't. In some times and places, maybe. When talking about any form of sex it's always good to remember it's not necessarily the victimless crime we like to think it is.

Posted by: truth machine | January 3, 2008 9:28 PM

truth machine, the bottom line is that you're asking for a justification that no one has a duty to provide you.

Cut the bullshit. You've made a special pleading for sex always requiring consent, with no argument support it, and you have ignored the rebuttals. That's all there is too it.

Posted by: truth machine | January 3, 2008 9:43 PM

Sometimes it helps to go back and see what the context was:

This is silly. Animals cannot consent because they lack the mental faculties to properly weigh the decision. They may act compliant, just as a child may, but that is not sufficient to make the sex consensual.

This is a strawman. Regardless of whether the sex is consensual, the question is whether it is morally wrong. We know that lack of consent from animals, by itself, is not enough to make some action toward them immoral. So the claim that sex with animals is immoral needs some other justification than lack of assent. Claiming that no justification is needed is bad faith. In any case, there is no need for anyone to pay attention to unsupported pronouncements.

Posted by: truth machine | January 3, 2008 9:47 PM

BTW, there is a separate justification for declaring sex with children as immoral beyond the lack of consent, and that is that it's abusive. We aren't concerned with the psychological damage that can be done to a dog by encouraging it to lick someone's genitals, but we certainly are concerned with that in regard to children.

Posted by: truth machine | January 3, 2008 10:04 PM

Just one more:

It's not my arbitrary distinction, but the composers of the Constitution who placed primacy on individual rights.

Uh, yeah, primacy on individual animal rights.

Lose track of the point much?

Posted by: truth machine | January 3, 2008 10:20 PM

Your interpretation of the Constitution in this regard hasn't been ascendant throughout most of American history

More important, this was his argument for the inclusion of consent as a distinctive attribute in the context of... animal sex!

Posted by: Brian Macker | January 3, 2008 10:28 PM

There sure are a lot of assumptions flying around. Let me remind you that you have no idea what I find repugnant. Nor have I made any arguments that anything should be outlawed or is immoral merely because I or anyone finds it repugnant.

I'll give you a very abbreviated explanation of my moral philosophy. I'm not going to be too precise because that will take to long. Then within that framework I will explain why bestiality is immoral.

First you will need my definition of self. I believe the self encompasses not just your physical body. To properly understand morality you need to expand beyond what is normally referred to as the self to include all aspects that make up "you". This would include your genes, body, beliefs, family, friends, culture, language, race, nationality, etc.

I believe that morality is acting in ones enlightened self interest. Since every individual is different this may mean different things for different people. There are however commonalities between people and general principles that can be derived from these commonalities. As should be apparent this is neither a subjective nor objective theory of morality.

Immoral behavior can be classified into two categories.
1) Behaviors that work directly against our self interest.
2) Behaviors that work indirectly against our self interest.

Behaviors in both categories are complex and must take into account human nature. Fallibility, habit, maturity, finite knowledge, ability to learn, and other human attributes need to be considered in both categories. In the case of category two behaviors one must take into account the existence of others and their strategies for dealing with us. Such strategies include reciprocity, retribution, communication, reputation, habit, limited knowledge, etc.

An individuals well being is intimately influenced by others because we are a cooperative species that uses the strategy of division of labor. The ability of others to fail to cooperate or to even retaliate means that one must take these facts into account when deciding how to behave. Since humans are fallible and habitual creatures one cannot depend on ones ability to avoid detection in order to evade the consequences others will bear upon the self. Thus one should take others into account if one values the self.

Similarly we need to interact with animals and their behaviors with the knowledge of the lower capacities but still respecting their ability to act reciprocally, learn, retaliate, etc.

Immoral behaviors in category 1) and or category 2) may or may not be criminal. Not all vices are crimes. There are lesser and greater degrees of immorality to actions depending on circumstances, both individual and inter-subjective, and on the amount of harm caused or potentially caused by the actions.

Moral systems in general are competing systems of normative and ancillary beliefs. I do not believe that any, including my own belief system is a complete and fully accurate model of how to behave.

Why is beastiality immoral? Because it violates certain principles of moral law.
1) I unnecessarily endangers the self and others.
a. One can be harmed by an animal directly. For instance, it may not obey your "no" command if you should discovery it is hurting you.
b. It's possible to contract diseases with direct contact with animals. They are not exactly clean. Some animals tend to be far more promiscuous than humans and thus have higher levels of sexual disease.
c. A sexually habituated animal may:
i. Attempt to have sex with other people potentially molesting or harming them. This includes attacking individuals who may be less able to defend themselves from the animals advances.
1. A large male stallion can crush and suffocate a human. You may have taken safety precautions during your act that are not available to an unsuspecting victim.
ii. The animal may become jealous and possessive of their new sexual partner. It may harm other animals or people when they are shown affection.
d. Harming the animal is immoral.
i. A sexually abused animal may become vicious towards humans.
ii. The reciprocal symbiosis with some animals introduces a duty to return the behavior.
iii. The owner of the animal may not share your assessment of the harm you are causing the animal.
e. There is the potential to create and introduce a new strain of animal pathogen into the human population, thus harming others. This potential though small is not outweighed by any real benefit to the offender.

2) It damages the self directly.
a. It lowers the individual socially to the level of the animal. Thus reducing ones self esteem. One literally becomes a mating partner if not breeding partner of an animal.
b. It can become a substitute for a healthy relationship.
3) It socially endangers the self
a. Humans are habitual and fallible. There is a likelihood you will repeat the behavior until caught. The self is then damaged via the quite rational actions of others. Other people communicate, remember, judge, avoid, shame, retaliate, etc.
i. Your self esteem will surely be damaged if it becomes public.
ii. Your social standing will suffer making it harder to get cooperation from others.
iii. People won't trust you with their animals.
iv. One will most likely find it harder to find a sexual partner, marriage partner, friends, and so forth. All things that are good for the self.
v. It will have consequences for your family and friends. It may impact the reputations of other aspects of the self such as ones identity.
vi. People may come to associate your behavior with some group you belong to. Especially if your actions are repeated by others in your group. There may be a correlation and so this may be rational on their part. For instance, they may shun people you associate with because they too may share your interest.
4) Having sex with an animal without the owners permission is a form of theft of services.
a. This is straightforwardly a crime just like using someone's car without permission, or driving it somewhere they didn't want you to. O
b. Some people emotionally bond with their pets and livestock. They will justifiably view your trespass against their animal as a violation of a friend, companion, etc. This is true even though it is not the truly the same as a human friendship it is none-the-less a valid reciprocal relationship between individuals.
i. You are subject to retailiation.
c. If caught you will no longer be trusted with other types of property.

I think I have provided enough information. I've been working on my moral beliefs for a long time and it is not possible to impart all my reasoning in the comment section of a blog.

Now some of these reasons are not sufficient for making bestiality illegal. Morality should only be legalized when it involves harm to others and those reasons do not cross that threshold. Other reasons I listed are insufficient to outlaw bestiality outright but are sufficient to justify regulation. Sometimes where regulation is not practical it may make sense to use an outright ban.

For instance, if you are using horses for your sexual pleasure, it might just be reasonable for the law to require that you register such animals for this use and take extra precautions in maintaining such animals, such as stronger enclosures, signs, restrictions on other uses. I think it pretty clear that it is negligent and criminal behavior to be screwing a donkey and then to be using the same donkey for a children's game park.

Rhianna will be pleased to know that under my moral system homosexuality is not immoral. Well only immoral if you are not homosexual, and then only a minor issue.

Posted by: truth machine | January 3, 2008 10:29 PM

BTW, his nutty argument could be applied to justify preventing animals from having sex with each other because neither party consents. One could even, using his methods, support this by arguing that it's the same with children.

Posted by: JD | January 3, 2008 10:31 PM

I hate to say it, but despite our best intentions, Skatje will henceforth always be known as the "bestiality girl", by association (and perhaps even by "design"). Might even make it to one of those dreadful creationist magazines. I'm against waterboarding, but maybe in Sal's case...

Posted by: H. Humbert | January 3, 2008 10:38 PM

This argument is then distinct from any handwaving you did earlier about consent. I consider that particular argument defeated.

So it is your opinion, in other words, that bans on homosexuality didn't "unreasonably infringe individuals' rights"?

Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | January 3, 2008 10:46 PM

"Then you're missing the rational for why society gets to make the decision when ability to consent is not present."

I may have missed it, but I have not seen to offer any "rationale" for this at all. You just asserted the claim and said it was justified because most of society agreed with you on bestiality.

"Of course not, which is why I find bans on homosexual rights unethical. Bans on animal sex are not comparable."

But by the criteria you have set forth, you have no grounds on which to objects. Homosexuality was, to use your own words, "abhorrent to a majority of people" and most did not consider it an unreasonable violation of individual rights to ban it. You're just special pleading, over and over again.