So New York Magazine Interviewed A Zoophile

Got a question? We may have some answers!
Forum rules

1) This is a Christian site, respect our beliefs and we will respect yours.

2) This is a family friendly site, no swearing or posting offensive links, pictures, or signatures.

3) Please be respectful of others.

4) Trolls are not welcome and will be dealt with accordingly.

5) No racial comments, jokes or images

6) If you see a dead thread over 6 months old, let it rest in peace

7) No Duplicate posts
User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3480
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: So New York Magazine Interviewed A Zoophile

Postby ArcticFox » Wed Dec 17, 2014 3:23 pm

Good points.

One of the counter-arguments when it comes to pedophelia and bestiality is the matter of consent - if it can't be given, then it isn't morally justifiable. Well that makes sense, and I don't disagree, but it isn't the ironclad defense it might seem to be.

Consider that we do things to animals all the time that they don't consent to. My cat doesn't consent to eating dry cat food (as far as I know, considering how often the little monster steals food from the kids.) My tropical fish never gave consent to live in a 60 gallon aquarium. The chicken I ate for breakfast almost certainly didn't give consent before being slaughtered. My daughter drank milk from a cow who was never asked for permission before the milk was taken, and I've never heard of a racehorse giving consent to being ridden hard around a racetrack.

My point? When it comes to animals giving consent, we seem to pick and choose an awful lot. Not advocating bestiality here, just pointing out that our secular based moral defense against it isn't really all that powerful.

There's another argument in that regard about certain acts being enthusiastically performed by an animal who clearly IS giving consent, but I REALLY don't want to spend any time on it. I think we can sort of quietly take that for what it's worth and move on.

As for consent based on age... That's a relatively new idea in human history. I saw an interesting documentary that made a very convincing case that our modern idea of age of consent is linked to our modern ideas of education - people (girls especially) need to avoid becoming parents long enough to finish school before they're married off and become baby factories. It wasn't long ago at all that in the United States, a girl could be married off at the age of 14 and in some parts of the world, even today, younger than that. In those cases, either the person is considered old enough to give consent, or consent didn't matter to begin with. Again, the idea that consent is the end all and be all of the argument isn't really very robust, in historical terms.

So where does that leave us? As Brozilla points out, most arguments defending homosexuality can be used to defend just about anything you like, and to accept one as normal paves the way for acceptance of all sorts of other things.

Here's an interesting write-up on it.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
ChickenSoup
CCGR addict
Posts: 3286
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: the doomed ship HMS Sinkytowne

Re: So New York Magazine Interviewed A Zoophile

Postby ChickenSoup » Thu Dec 18, 2014 6:55 am

There's another argument in that regard about certain acts being enthusiastically performed by an animal who clearly IS giving consent, but I REALLY don't want to spend any time on it. I think we can sort of quietly take that for what it's worth and move on.
Haha, oh man. I never pictured this discussion occurring on these forums.

Anyway.
So where does that leave us? As Brozilla points out, most arguments defending homosexuality can be used to defend just about anything you like, and to accept one as normal paves the way for acceptance of all sorts of other things.
Well, is that really a reason to insinuate that it's horrible? That you could use similar logic to justify other, horrible acts?

Once again, you could use the same logical path to say that religious activity could very well lead to widespread acceptance of zealots, extremism, and even holy wars....except, that often happens. Actually, a lot of people would use that same argument to say that religion is a negative force in society--I'm not, but you get the point.

My point is that taking the most extreme example of a potential progression of actions and condemning any step in that direction is not the best way to evaluate an idea. And really, that goes both ways.

"You want to regulate business? I SUPPOSE YOU ALSO SUPPORT COMMUNISM?"
"You're gonna practice religion? I SUPPOSE YOU ALSO WANT TO BLOW UP A CAFE?"
"You support the gays? YOU THINK HORSE ORGIES ARE OKAY TOO?"
"You're a Cubs fan? ARE YOU A HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUT?"

One thing can, but not necessarily will, lead to the next.
My name is ChickenSoup and I have several flavors in which you may be interested

I also have a slightly PG-13 tumblr that you may not enjoy

User avatar
ChickenSoup
CCGR addict
Posts: 3286
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: the doomed ship HMS Sinkytowne

Re: So New York Magazine Interviewed A Zoophile

Postby ChickenSoup » Thu Dec 18, 2014 6:55 am

...and yes, this was mostly an elaborate Cubs joke setup. But my point stands :P
My name is ChickenSoup and I have several flavors in which you may be interested

I also have a slightly PG-13 tumblr that you may not enjoy

User avatar
Sstavix
CCGR addict
Posts: 2951
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:47 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Eastern Washington. Not the crazy side.

Re: So New York Magazine Interviewed A Zoophile

Postby Sstavix » Thu Dec 18, 2014 2:43 pm

Well, is that really a reason to insinuate that it's horrible? That you could use similar logic to justify other, horrible acts?

Once again, you could use the same logical path to say that religious activity could very well lead to widespread acceptance of zealots, extremism, and even holy wars....except, that often happens. Actually, a lot of people would use that same argument to say that religion is a negative force in society--I'm not, but you get the point.

My point is that taking the most extreme example of a potential progression of actions and condemning any step in that direction is not the best way to evaluate an idea. And really, that goes both ways.

"You want to regulate business? I SUPPOSE YOU ALSO SUPPORT COMMUNISM?"
"You're gonna practice religion? I SUPPOSE YOU ALSO WANT TO BLOW UP A CAFE?"
"You support the gays? YOU THINK HORSE ORGIES ARE OKAY TOO?"
"You're a Cubs fan? ARE YOU A HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUT?"

One thing can, but not necessarily will, lead to the next.
So you admit it! You want to legalize bestiality! You monster! :P

On a more serious note, you're right that it can be illogical to jump to a conclusion that makes little sense. However, when people are making the exact same arguments to support X, because it worked for Y, you have to wonder about it....

Let's look at pedophilia. Right now it's seen as a deplorable act, even though those that want to legalize it are making the same arguments that made gay marriage more commonplace. How will pedophiles be seen 10 years from now? 25? 100? Remember, homosexuality was seen as abnormal and a mental disorder in the 60s - look how it's considered today.

Sure it might not lead to that... but at the same time, it could. So sometimes it's better not to start down that road in the first place - you simply don't know where it leads.

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3480
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: So New York Magazine Interviewed A Zoophile

Postby ArcticFox » Thu Dec 18, 2014 2:45 pm

The problem is, we aren't really talking about taking it to a hypothetical extreme anymore. We're talking about actual issues that are coming up for serious discussion in a real world context. This thread exists precisely because one of those extreme cases is now being talked about in unpleasant detail in a mainstream magazine in a format that could just as easily have been an interview about happy childhood memories of the family beach house and cooking out on the grill. It isn't like this stuff is being plucked out of thin air and thrown around for the sake of fearmongering.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
ChickenSoup
CCGR addict
Posts: 3286
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: the doomed ship HMS Sinkytowne

Re: So New York Magazine Interviewed A Zoophile

Postby ChickenSoup » Thu Dec 18, 2014 9:57 pm

Let's look at pedophilia. Right now it's seen as a deplorable act, even though those that want to legalize it are making the same arguments that made gay marriage more commonplace. How will pedophiles be seen 10 years from now? 25? 100? Remember, homosexuality was seen as abnormal and a mental disorder in the 60s - look how it's considered today.
Look how it was considered thousands of years ago in Greece and Rome. This isn't anything new.
Sure it might not lead to that... but at the same time, it could. So sometimes it's better not to start down that road in the first place - you simply don't know where it leads.
I wouldn't impress that hyperinflated caution upon society, though.
The problem is, we aren't really talking about taking it to a hypothetical extreme anymore. We're talking about actual issues that are coming up for serious discussion in a real world context. This thread exists precisely because one of those extreme cases is now being talked about in unpleasant detail in a mainstream magazine in a format that could just as easily have been an interview about happy childhood memories of the family beach house and cooking out on the grill. It isn't like this stuff is being plucked out of thin air and thrown around for the sake of fearmongering.
A single magazine (focused on New York) featuring some guy boning a horse is a sign that bestiality is becoming accepted? Look, nasty things happen whether or not people talk about it. And honestly, how DO you want to talk about it? "This just in: a shell of a man, twisted and depraved, allows his most carnal and sinful desires to be performed in the most horrifying way possible!"

Then there's this sensationalist bit from the redstate.com link:
An essay titled What It’s Like to Date a Horse in New York Magazine is either the most epic bit of trolling in the history of the world or a sure sign we are in the End Times.
Yes, because none of this ever happened before. EVER. Except yes, yes it has. And if one outlet (that makes up news, by the way--see the "high schooler makes $72 million day-trading between classes" story) covers a story about it, that's a sign of changing attitudes? Seriously?

Also, specifically:
This thread exists precisely because one of those extreme cases is now being talked about in unpleasant detail in a mainstream magazine in a format that could just as easily have been an interview about happy childhood memories of the family beach house and cooking out on the grill.
I'm not going to provide links for obvious reasons and because I know you know how depraved the internet can be, but people chat about nasty things all the time. Like, all the time. Sometimes--well, frequently--as a joke, and sometimes in all seriousness. People are sexual creatures, and occasionally the darkest corners of every society get brought into the light of our awareness. The depravity of some guy who is into horses isn't because society decided that gays can live openly. THAT guy was going to do a horse whether or not society liked it. That's the thing with deep-set sexual depravity.

New York Magazine just happened to interview that guy because they're apparently into clickbait.
My name is ChickenSoup and I have several flavors in which you may be interested

I also have a slightly PG-13 tumblr that you may not enjoy

User avatar
Sstavix
CCGR addict
Posts: 2951
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:47 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Eastern Washington. Not the crazy side.

Re: So New York Magazine Interviewed A Zoophile

Postby Sstavix » Fri Dec 19, 2014 4:26 am

I don't think anyone is debating whether or not these acts happened in the past (see my previous post about "sample arguments people use to justify X"). It's the normalization of these acts that many of us have issues with. Sure, it might be shocking now, but a few decades down the road it could be dismissed with a shrug and a "hey, I was drunk and it was college experimentation." A few decades after that, people could be pushing for the legalization to marry their sister.

I am reminded of an episode of "Glee" (my wife watches it, or used to) where one of the teachers in the episode decided to take part in a marriage ceremony in order to marry... herself. The event was clearly played for laughs... this time. But it made me think of the classic movie "Some Like it Hot." In the climax, Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon dress as women in order to escape the mob. When the movie was released in 1959, this was funny. Nowadays, it could be dismissed as a "lifestyle choice," and I could see some gay rights activists taking issue with the movie - or attempts to remake it - because of the supposed depiction of homosexuals in the film.

This could be dismissed simply as another example of shifting trends in morality in today's society. After all, it's certainly not unusual to see women in pants these days, where that was quite scandalous 200 years ago. But as a moral, God-fearing people, should we be willing to take a stand for God's word and commandments? Or should we simply shrug dismissively and permit this kind of behavior in our lives and society, even with the knowledge that it's something that God frowns upon?

User avatar
ChickenSoup
CCGR addict
Posts: 3286
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: the doomed ship HMS Sinkytowne

Re: So New York Magazine Interviewed A Zoophile

Postby ChickenSoup » Fri Dec 19, 2014 5:57 am

I don't think anyone is debating whether or not these acts happened in the past (see my previous post about "sample arguments people use to justify X"). It's the normalization of these acts that many of us have issues with. Sure, it might be shocking now, but a few decades down the road it could be dismissed with a shrug and a "hey, I was drunk and it was college experimentation." A few decades after that, people could be pushing for the legalization to marry their sister.
Once again, I'm not that convinced. While homosexual behavior has become normalized, so to speak, there's no indication that people are starting to change their minds about relations with animals. As for legal sister marriage--well, once again, this has happened again and again through history. That... doesn't mean that it's okay, don't get me wrong, and it's arguable as to what degree incest has ever been considered "normal." But we're still going around the same circle: we don't know if people will want to marry their siblings, but homosexuality has no bearing on incest.
I am reminded of an episode of "Glee" (my wife watches it, or used to) where one of the teachers in the episode decided to take part in a marriage ceremony in order to marry... herself. The event was clearly played for laughs... this time. But it made me think of the classic movie "Some Like it Hot." In the climax, Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon dress as women in order to escape the mob. When the movie was released in 1959, this was funny. Nowadays, it could be dismissed as a "lifestyle choice"
Pssh, that's nothing. Bugs Bunny regularly cross-dressed and kissed men. That's like... promiscuity, transvestite behavior, and bestiality all in the same cartoon. Then the guy on M*A*S*H who tried to wear a dress to get discharged for insanity... it was all pretty hilarious. But anyway:
," and I could see some gay rights activists taking issue with the movie - or attempts to remake it - because of the supposed depiction of homosexuals in the film.
So what?
This could be dismissed simply as another example of shifting trends in morality in today's society. After all, it's certainly not unusual to see women in pants these days, where that was quite scandalous 200 years ago.
Women's rights were a fantasy 200 years ago as well. I'm glad we're getting to the point that women shouldn't have to feel that they wear almost whole-body covering in case men look at them with lust. Men can be held responsible for their own actions.
But as a moral, God-fearing people, should we be willing to take a stand for God's word and commandments? Or should we simply shrug dismissively and permit this kind of behavior in our lives and society, even with the knowledge that it's something that God frowns upon?
It's the opinion of our particular religious group that God frowns upon it. That viewpoint shouldn't be legislated for everyone else--a large percentage of the population--to follow.
My name is ChickenSoup and I have several flavors in which you may be interested

I also have a slightly PG-13 tumblr that you may not enjoy


Return to “Spiritual Matters”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests