# "Wet Goddess" - Man publishes recount of nine-month relationship with dolphin



## BRN (Sep 28, 2011)

- and quickly received numerous five-star ratings, most surprisingly on Amazon.com.

The memoire of bestiliaty advocate Malcolm Brenner describes an avatar's nine-month-long relationship with "Ruby", a captive female dolphin.

Naturally, the controversial topic covered has garned a media s h i tstorm, though opinion seems split; with people on both sides of the question of morality; some praising the book as a strike against taboo, whereas other people condemn the book on ethical grounds - others still even calling for retribution against Malcolm. 

Even so, the author's website has surged in hits, and although there aren't any sale figures released, Malcolm describes them as "suddenly substantial". 

The release has also brought Dragon-wolfe Dolphinn [sic] back into light, with his 1996 release of a 'dolphin sex manual' garnering a similar amount of controversy; likewise, the 'marriage' of Sharon Tendler to her boyfriend of 15 years - a dolphin.

Statistics indicate the incidence rate of delphinic zoophilia at about 2-11%.

Controversial as the topic is, one would think there would have been plenty more fish in the sea for the guy.


----------



## Evan of Phrygia (Sep 28, 2011)

SIX said:


> Controversial as the topic is, one would think there would have been plenty more fish in the sea for the guy.



Oh, you're so clever with that.

Except dolphins are mammals. What now, bitch?! >:V

On topic...

well, no. not on topic. I'm completely avoiding this subject :/


----------



## Xenke (Sep 28, 2011)

Whatever legal issues are relevant for wherever this took place should be enacted. That's one of the first things that comes to mind. Then again, I can't judge what exactly is implicated in this book, seeing as I've neither read it nor ever plan to.

Seems like a dumb thing to publish, honestly.

Other than that, I don't really care. Seems like he isn't the brightest bulb in the box.


----------



## TreacleFox (Sep 28, 2011)

Amazon is good at selling controversial books. :S


----------



## Ikrit (Sep 28, 2011)

this reminds me of the time when people wanted to have sex with buildings


----------



## ramsay_baggins (Sep 28, 2011)

If he doesn't end up court over this I am going to be peeved. It's like publishing a book all about how you broke the law and how you don't care and you're going to flaunt it in every way. Idiot.


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 28, 2011)

ramsay_baggins said:


> If he doesn't end up court over this I am going to be peeved. It's like publishing a book all about how you broke the law and how you don't care and you're going to flaunt it in every way. Idiot.



in his eyes its not a crime though. for him its just love, for others its perverted.


----------



## Blutide (Sep 28, 2011)

SIX said:


> - and quickly received numerous five-star ratings, most surprisingly on Amazon.com.
> 
> The memoire of bestiliaty advocate Malcolm Brenner describes an avatar's nine-month-long relationship with "Ruby", a captive female dolphin.
> 
> ...



You know, this for some reason doesn't surprise me / phase me. I have known people like this where out there and I also have known, in a small way, they be dumb enough to let the masses know.


----------



## Cyril (Sep 28, 2011)

Oh hey, a stupid book published by a stupid person who is being trolled by the internet.
But yeah, he's screwed. Oh how the tables have turned, eh?


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Sep 28, 2011)

Perfect advertising for Dolphin Tale, amirite?

Fucking sickos.

EDIT:  AND FUCKING LOL I JUST READ HIS JUSTIFICATION.  SHE WAS "ASKING FOR IT" LOL


----------



## ramsay_baggins (Sep 28, 2011)

CaptainCool said:


> in his eyes its not a crime though. for him its just love, for others its perverted.



It doesn't matter if he doesn't see it as a crime. I'm sure there are plenty of people who think speeding isn't a crime, but that doesn't mean they're above the law. He should get prosecuted for this. It is against the law. Regardless of whether he thinks it should be or not.


----------



## BRN (Sep 28, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Whatever legal issues are relevant for wherever this took place should be enacted. That's one of the first things that comes to mind.





ramsay_baggins said:


> If he doesn't end up court over this I am going to be peeved. It's like publishing a book all about how you broke the law and how you don't care and you're going to flaunt it in every way. Idiot.


Technically he broke no law, as while bestiality isn't specifically legalised, it's not criminalised/wasn't criminalised where it happened - so there won't be any legal penalties for the confession.





> Then again, I can't judge what exactly is implicated in this book, seeing as I've neither read it nor ever plan to.


There's a sample chapter of the story here, and it's surprisingly well written. Your choice. :V


----------



## Tycho (Sep 28, 2011)

Oh awesome, I read this after I eat my breakfast so I can feel ill and vomit toast and jam, instead of seeing it before and just not eating breakfast at all


----------



## Aetius (Sep 28, 2011)

...and people like him should be sent to a mental institution.


----------



## Aden (Sep 28, 2011)

> Realm of the Wet Goddess



oh my god that website is too much
hahahaha


----------



## Ad Hoc (Sep 28, 2011)

SIX said:


> Statistics indicate the incidence rate of delphinic zoophilia at about 2-11%.


Can you clarify this please? 2% - 11% of what? The general population, the zoophile population? Not being snarky, it's just not very clear.


----------



## LizardKing (Sep 28, 2011)

Haha, I almost choked on my sandwich when I saw the thread title. Dolphins are murderous little rape machines anyway, so I can't say I'm all that surprised.


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 28, 2011)

My headache just got worse...


----------



## Lomberdia (Sep 28, 2011)

CaptainCool said:


> in his eyes its not a crime though. for him its just love, for others its perverted.


All the pedophiles in the world would love you! "..but I love him/her. I wasn't breaking the law officer, really! You just don't understand the love I have for children!"

Edit: forgot the :V


----------



## Deo (Sep 28, 2011)

ramsay_baggins said:


> If he doesn't end up court over this I am going to be peeved. It's like publishing a book all about how you broke the law and how you don't care and you're going to flaunt it in every way. Idiot.


It took place in the 70's the statute of limitations has long expired. There is no way to prosecute him unless he has raped/abused more animals in recent years.


----------



## Smelge (Sep 28, 2011)

ramsay_baggins said:


> If he doesn't end up court over this I am going to be peeved. It's like publishing a book all about how you broke the law and how you don't care and you're going to flaunt it in every way. Idiot.



Like O.J. Simpson and is "If I did it" book about how he would have murdered his wife if he had actually done it, which he blatantly did do because he wrote a fucking book about it.


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Sep 28, 2011)

This. is. sick.
I hope that guy gets thrown to a mental institution.


----------



## Mooda (Sep 28, 2011)

Humanity never ceases to amaze me. We've conquered the world, we've built great monuments that have stood the test of time, we've created machines that can go faster than the speed of sound, we can move whole mountains, we've landed on the moon, and now we've created this.

Once more, humanity amazed me.


----------



## RedSavage (Sep 28, 2011)

Why am I _utterly_ unsurprised that this ended up on FAF?


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 28, 2011)

ramsay_baggins said:


> It doesn't matter if he doesn't see it as a crime. I'm sure there are plenty of people who think speeding isn't a crime, but that doesn't mean they're above the law. He should get prosecuted for this. It is against the law. Regardless of whether he thinks it should be or not.


 
of course it is and rightfully so!^^ (well in many places at least)
it IS animal cruelty. you wreck the poor critter forever in most cases like that.
although dolphins are a weird case... they are sexaddicts by nature. they rape each other and can get pretty violent when their victim doesnt comply... they even rape other species! XD
so dolphins might probably be intelligent enough to actually understand whats going on and are sexcrazed enough to actually WANT to have sex with a human  i mean, it could just swim away and they are definitely big, strong and slippery enough to shake you off with ease.
not that im saying that it should be legal! im sticking to humans thank you very much XP



Lomberdia said:


> All the pedophiles in the world would love you! "..but I love him/her. I wasn't breaking the law officer, really! You just don't understand the love I have for children!"
> 
> Edit: forgot the :V



i didnt state my opinion on the matter^^ i simply pointed out how the author sees it.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Sep 28, 2011)

CaptainCool said:


> of course it is and rightfully so!^^ (well in many places at least)
> it IS animal cruelty. you wreck the poor critter forever in most cases like that.
> although dolphins are a weird case... they are sexaddicts by nature. they rape each other and can get pretty violent when their victim doesnt comply... they even rape other species! XD
> so dolphins might probably be intelligent enough to actually understand whats going on and are sexcrazed enough to actually WANT to have sex with a human  i mean, it could just swim away and they are definitely big, strong and slippery enough to shake you off with ease.
> not that im saying that it should be legal! im sticking to humans thank you very much XP


I might agree with this, except that the author's "relationship" was with a captive animal. Still a powerful animal that could seriously hurt a human, but who knows if she had developed some kind of cetacean Stockholm Syndrome sort of a thing.


----------



## VoidBat (Sep 28, 2011)

I'm feeling a bit queasy now. 
I guess he has succeeded with stirring up the cauldron, now I can only hope that he suffers from some unfortunate consequences.


----------



## Unsilenced (Sep 28, 2011)

SIX said:


> Statistics indicate the incidence rate of delphinic zoophilia at about 2-11%.


...

2-11% of what? 


Legally speaking there's shit-all they can do as far as I can tell. At not just based on the book alone. If they investigated the book and found details that could be traced to actual evidence of a real-life crime, then maybe they could get somewhere. Like if he described a certain location a bit too well, and they found a real life match, and then they found someone there that could testify that he totally did the things he wrote about, then they could start building a case. 

But they're not going to do that. If he wrote vividly about murdering someone they might think about looking into it, but honestly nobody is going to launch that sort of investigation for what essentially amounts to an animal abuse charge.


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 28, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> I might agree with this, except that the author's "relationship" was with a captive animal. Still a powerful animal that could seriously hurt a human, but who knows if she had developed some kind of cetacean Stockholm Syndrome sort of a thing.


yes, could be. as far as i know its proven that dolphins that live in captivity are not as smart as their wildlife counterparts. which would make sense to me, jumping through hoops all the time cant be exactly stimulating for the old noggin...
but dolphins do try to rape humans sometimes as well although thats kinda rare as far as i know


----------



## Rilvor (Sep 28, 2011)

Personally, I feel the publisher who allowed this should be taken down.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 28, 2011)

CoyoteCaliente said:


> Why am I _utterly_ unsurprised that this ended up on FAF?


 Inb4 our resident white knight comes on


Rilvor said:


> Personally, I feel the publisher who allowed this should be taken down.


What I'm wondering is who the hell would publish this in the first place?


Ikrit said:


> this reminds me of the time when people wanted to have sex with buildings


"Oh bby you like it when I touch your support beams don't you?  I'm going to ride up and down your elevator all night long"


OP if that's true about 2% of population being into that, and half of that is women, then we're going to have 1% of the population dying from it.  In case you don't know what I mean, a woman died when the male dolphin ruptured her intenal organs, that woman should have won a darwin award.

And folks that is why bestiality is a bad thing, you can die.


----------



## Unsilenced (Sep 28, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> What I'm wondering is who the hell would publish this in the first place?



Why not? I'm not sure what the legal issues would be, but even if something happened to the author I doubt it was high-risk for the publisher. They could have some concern about their reputation, but some publishers make their business on the fact that they simply do not give a fuck. There's a market for that. Basically they just thought it would sell, and apparently it did. 



> And folks that is why bestiality is a bad thing, you can die.


Only reason. :v


----------



## Jashwa (Sep 28, 2011)

I hope more people try to have sex with dolphins and get murdered by them as a result of this. Maybe we'll finally be able to shake that "DOLPHINS ARE LIKE THE HUMANS OF THE SEA" image and replace it with...oh wait, dolphins ARE the humans of the sea, just not the romanticized 'do no wrong' version.


----------



## BRN (Sep 28, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> ...
> 
> 2-11% of what?
> 
> ...



As I said earlier in the thread, the author admits sexual relationships with a dolphin named Ruby in the 1970's. The book is an interpretation of his own story; he freely admits it. However, there is no legal case because bestial relationships were not illegal at the time and in the state that he was in. It's only since been criminalised.


----------



## Unsilenced (Sep 28, 2011)

Oh. It sounded like he only kinda-sorta confessed. 

There's still not a legal case though. And I still want to know what that 2-11% is.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 28, 2011)

Jashwa said:


> I hope more people try to have sex with dolphins and get murdered by them as a result of this. Maybe we'll finally be able to shake that "DOLPHINS ARE LIKE THE HUMANS OF THE SEA" image and replace it with...oh wait, dolphins ARE the humans of the sea, just not the romanticized 'do no wrong' version.


They'd have to set a limit to the number people into bestiality on the darwin awards and give it different categories.
Best death by dolphin.
Best death by lions.
Best death by grizzly bears.


----------



## BRN (Sep 28, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> There's still not a legal case though. And I still want to know what that 2-11% is.



Psychiatrist estimate of delphilia incidence, extrapolated from a sample of experiments. For comparison, incidence rate of general zoophilia was 10-15% in the same experiments, and 55% in a control group of sufferers of mental conditions. That's what I remember, anyway. I can't find the source again. x.x

ED: Oh wait, yes I can. Here's one of them.

ED2:





CannonFodder said:


> OP if that's true about 2% of population being into that, and half of that is women, then we're going to have 1% of the population dying from it.  In case you don't know what I mean, a woman died when the male dolphin ruptured her intenal organs, that woman should have won a darwin award.
> 
> And folks that is why bestiality is a bad thing, you can die.



philia != penetration

But yes. It's 'medically advised' not to take a dolphin. Or a horse, for that matter. People still attempt to do what they want, though.


----------



## Unsilenced (Sep 28, 2011)

SIX said:


> Psychiatrist estimate of delphilia incidence, extrapolated from a sample of experiments. For comparison, incidence rate of general zoophilia was 10-15% in the same experiments, and 55% in a control group of sufferers of mental conditions. That's what I remember, anyway. I can't find the source again. x.x



So... 

Ok. They took a (hopefully) random sample of people, performed some sort of zoophilia test, and got a positive result on 10-15% of the subjects. Using some other statistics they found that 2-11% of the population had sexual feelings for dolphins? 

...

Not impossible I guess, but maybe not as meaningful as it looks. 

And a group that suffers from mental conditions is probably not a "control..."


----------



## RedSavage (Sep 28, 2011)

Of course, it doesn't occur to anyone that sex with animals is wrong simply because it's kinda gross and weird.


----------



## BRN (Sep 28, 2011)

CoyoteCaliente said:


> Of course, it doesn't occur to anyone that sex with animals is wrong simply because it's kinda gross and weird.



I suppose that's a matter of perspective. I can't see someone, who's not attracted to the idea, attempting it without coercion - so I figure zoophiles have some sort of positive emotional response; else, there wouldn't be a motive.


----------



## LizardKing (Sep 28, 2011)

CoyoteCaliente said:


> Of course, it doesn't occur to anyone that sex with animals is wrong simply because it's kinda gross and weird.



Like lutefisk


----------



## RedSavage (Sep 28, 2011)

SIX said:


> I suppose that's a matter of perspective. I can't see someone, who's not attracted to the idea, attempting it without coercion - so I figure zoophiles have some sort of positive emotional response; else, there wouldn't be a motive.



The main motive I can see is that a long dry spell + a nearby animal with a vagina + an unwillingness to just jerk it to porn = sexy time with animals. 

I suppose there can be deeper inclinations, such as having a stronger emotional connection with animals rather than the human species can be attributed, but now I guess we're delving into the realms of psychology. 

Still, though, nasty business, all of it, imho.


----------



## LizardKing (Sep 28, 2011)

CoyoteCaliente said:


> I suppose there can be deeper inclinations, such as having a stronger emotional connection with animals rather than the human species can be attributed, but now I guess we're delving into the realms of psychology.



You mean like dragons?

>_>

<_<


----------



## RedSavage (Sep 28, 2011)

LizardKing said:


> You mean like dragons?
> 
> >_>
> 
> <_<



HAHAHAHA

oh man

alright

touche, but at least dragon's are fiction :V


----------



## Unsilenced (Sep 28, 2011)

CoyoteCaliente said:


> Of course, it doesn't occur to anyone that sex with animals is wrong simply because it's kinda gross and weird.



That's actually probably the most common reason. It's just not good for an argument or debate. 

Note: That's not to say it isn't a good reason mind you. You shouldn't necessarily just let something go when you have a strong gut feeling against it, but as legal precedent goes it kind of sucks.

Inb4 accusations of defending zoophilia.


----------



## RedSavage (Sep 28, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> That's actually probably the most common reason. It's just not good for an argument or debate.
> 
> Note: That's not to say it isn't a good reason mind you. You shouldn't necessarily just let something go when you have a strong gut feeling against it, but as legal precedent goes it kind of sucks.
> 
> Inb4 accusations of defending zoophilia.



No need to clarify man, I think it's all pretty much understood that Common-fucking-Sense is not a major staple of the US Court System.


----------



## LizardKing (Sep 28, 2011)

CoyoteCaliente said:


> touche, but at least dragon's are fiction :V



One day, SCIENCE shall prevail.


----------



## Jashwa (Sep 28, 2011)

And then scalies will be wiped from the planet as dragons eat them. 

and I bet a lot would enjoy it.


----------



## Riley (Sep 28, 2011)

While I'm on board with calling this weird and gross and the like, I do have a question:

What happens if dolphins can be proven sapient?

We already know it's highly likely, but what would have to be done to existing bestiality laws if it turns out another species is just as intelligent and evolved as us?  Do we still say "no nonhumans," or say "okay, well now that it's proven that other sapient species exist, let's say only humanoids.  Bipedal, fingers, etc."  Or will it just turn into a Niven-esque literal clusterfuck where "rishathra" exists as a means of instilling trust between species by exchange of sexual interaction?  

Dude's still weird.


----------



## RedSavage (Sep 28, 2011)

Jashwa said:


> And then scalies will be wiped from the planet as dragons eat them.
> 
> and I bet a lot would enjoy it.



*shudders*

You are overtly aware of what real life atrocities turn on certain furries, and it scares me. :V



Riley said:


> While I'm on board with calling this weird and gross and the like, I do have a question:
> 
> What happens if dolphins can be proven sapient?



Do you mean *sentient*?


----------



## LizardKing (Sep 28, 2011)

Whoah. I just remembered this guy I used to know on another forum. He had a fetish for neoprene and dolphins, which he probably indulged fairly regularly, being a marine biologist. He probably has a neoprene version of a murrsuit by now.


----------



## Jashwa (Sep 28, 2011)

No, he means sapient.


----------



## RedSavage (Sep 28, 2011)

Jashwa said:


> No, he means sapient.



Hot damn, you learn something new every day. 

Anyhow, to be more on topic for the recent question, one of the leading arguments against Bestiality is that there's no way for an animal to show proper consent. Therefor, _sapience_ would probably allow for that, knocking that bit of argument out. 

It'd still be kinda weird, though, but then who am I to break up such a true love between two consenting, sapient beings? :V


----------



## LizardKing (Sep 28, 2011)

CoyoteCaliente said:


> Anyhow, to be more on topic for the recent question, one of the leading arguments against Bestiality is that there's no way for an animal to show proper consent.



One bark for yes, two barks for no.

And a great deal of people would disagree with you on that. Well, a few on here at least. But shhhh let's talk about something else before all hell breaks loose.


----------



## RedSavage (Sep 28, 2011)

LizardKing said:


> One bark for yes, two barks for no.
> 
> And a great deal of people would disagree with you on that. Well, a few on here at least. But shhhh let's talk about something else before all hell breaks loose.



Haha, well, let 'em disagree. As of now, human's are the only sapient species on this planet. That said, only humans can give full and crystal clear consent to sex and the likes, otherwise it's known as rape.


----------



## BRN (Sep 28, 2011)

Riley said:


> While I'm on board with calling this weird and gross and the like, I do have a question:
> 
> What happens if dolphins can be proven sapient?
> 
> ...



Imho we're already aware that dolphins carry considerable intelligence - even more than us - and show similar social roles to us, play, emote, learn... they're sapient in all but scientific definition. I'd say we're unwilling to classify until some form of objective proof shows itself; not least in part because it brings about those very questions you just listed.



CoyoteCaliente said:


> Haha, well, let 'em disagree. As of now, human's are the only sapient species on this planet. That said, only humans can give full and crystal clear consent to sex and the likes, otherwise it's known as rape.



To other humans, perhaps. Animals arguably show consent to each other, and sex takes place outside of reproductive urges [homosexual, oral]. Thus, it's the language barrier between species, not an animal incapacity, that marrs consent.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Sep 28, 2011)

CoyoteCaliente said:


> That said, only humans can give full and crystal clear consent to sex and the likes



I'd say even that is debatable. We're not a very bright species.


----------



## LizardKing (Sep 28, 2011)

SIX said:


> Imho we're already aware that dolphins carry considerable intelligence - even more than us - and show similar social roles to us, play, emote, learn... they're sapient in all but scientific definition.... Thus, it's the language barrier between species, not an animal incapacity, that marrs consent.



Give it time.


----------



## Heliophobic (Sep 28, 2011)

Ikrit said:


> this reminds me of the time when people wanted to have sex with buildings



i dont even


----------



## Ad Hoc (Sep 28, 2011)

I don't think it's really possible to rape a dolphin in open water. Shy of netting them, they're the ones in control. Dolphins are incredibly fast and powerful, and there's no easy way to restrain them. If a dolphin doesn't want it, they can easily flee--alternatively they could attack. Dolphin attacks are rare but they can kill people, easily. (Beating them to death or drowning them.) They're also known to engage is bestiality themselves. They've been observed engaging in sexual acts with sharks, turtles, eels, other cetacean species, etc., with no apparent ill effects. I don't think adding humans to that list is going to add a lot of _direct_ harm to the dolphin. (That is, if it's not a captive dolphin. That's another can of worms I think.)

That doesn't mean it doesn't do some harm, though. I don't really think human-on-dolphin rape is an issue (in the wild), but dolphin-on-human rape could be a serious, serious problem. It's kind of a "don't feed the bears" thing. Just because you enjoy happy-fun-sexy time with dolphins doesn't mean the next random tourist that dolphin finds will, and dolphins are a very rape happy species. Then you're potentially hurting a lot of people, and getting dolphins killed for being menaces.


----------



## RedSavage (Sep 28, 2011)

SIX said:


> To other humans, perhaps. Animals arguably show consent to each other, and sex takes place outside of reproductive urges [homosexual, oral]. Thus, it's the language barrier between species, not an animal incapacity, that marrs consent.


 
Complex language beyond "I'm hungry" and "It's the opportune time for me to have sex" and the ability to comprehend, or at least discuss, abstract ideas such as "love" and "hope" are staples of a Sapient/Sentient species (or whatever term is going to be more appropriate.) We can translate, to a degree, what certain sounds and body language of certain animals mean, but until I can hold a conversation about such abstract ideas with an animal, I consider them unfit for the label of "sapient".



Hakar Kerarmor said:


> I'd say even that is debatable. We're not a very bright species.



On the contrary, I say humans are one of the most incredible species out there. Lock us up with our fears and distastes--give a human no option except to deal with it. And we adjust. It's our superpower. Human is Superhuman.


----------



## Mallard (Sep 28, 2011)

EDIT: Okay since I'm now not really happy with the way I put this I'm going to change it up. The complete original post is quoted below if you want to see my original haphazard wording and why I spurned some distasteful looks :v

I'm not really on board with calling any of it gross or weird myself as those are entirely non descriptive and subjective terms. :V People have described homosexuality as "gross and weird", as have people the furry fandom. It's an entirely subjective phrase and could be applied to any number of things that have since become socially acceptable, and it feels to me like a bit of a moot point to make. 

As for the content of the book, to put it extremely bluntly, this is how I see it:


Dolphins love sex, and are sapient intelligent creatres who are quite promiscuous amongst themselves.
Blokes do too.
 Dolphins are pretty sleek nice things.
The parts fit together.
If a great lumbering sea mammal that can swim away and gnaw your arm off faster than you can say "holy beastiality, batman!". No one has any chance at rape
From the perspective of someone who doesn't really find any of this gross, (Too much time spent burning my eyes out at 4chan, most likely) and taking an entirely objective view on the matter, I find it hard to find a faul

On a more general note, all of those saying they support a free press yet think this is TOO FAR should be ashamed of themselves. There is no too far, granted that you're not shoving anything in anyone's faces, a-la-westboro baptist church. I can't remember who it was who said something along the lines of "I may hate your opinions, but I will fight to the death for your right to hold them" had the right idea.

Double standards!


----------



## RedSavage (Sep 28, 2011)

Mallard said:


> I'm not really on board with calling any of it gross or weird myself as those are entirely non descriptive and subjective terms. :V I thought gays were meant to be weird and gross too. Hey, arn't all us furries here gross and weird?
> 
> As for the content of the book, to be honest, Dolphins love sex. Blokes do too. Dolphins are pretty sleek nice things. The parts fit together. I don't see the problem here, officer. From the perspective of someone who has no inclination to recoil and say ew at this kind of thing on an instinctual basis like most people seem to, I can't honestly see a problem wi' any of this.
> 
> ...



I don't think anyone here is debating that this should have never been published. Free speech is free speech, and if _Mein Kampf_ and _The Anarchist's Cookbook_ can get away with being on the shelves, I think this is no exception. 

But just because we're furries and some of us are gay, that doesn't mean we're obligated to acknowledge Bestiality as a morally just thing. In fact, I'd say it's a fucking pretentious and degrading idea, and I don't feel ashamed in the slightest to say so, both as a furry and a bisexual. 

So do kindly fuck off with all your double-standard bullshit. Just because something is fuckable, it doesn't mean you should fuck it.


----------



## Mallard (Sep 28, 2011)

CoyoteCaliente said:


> I don't think anyone here is debating that this should have never been published. Free speech is free speech, and if _Mein Kampf_ and _The Anarchist's Cookbook_ can get away with being on the shelves, I think this is no exception.
> 
> But just because we're furries and some of us are gay, that doesn't mean we're obligated to acknowledge Bestiality as a morally just thing. In fact, I'd say it's a fucking pretentious and degrading idea, and I don't feel ashamed in the slightest to say so, both as a furry and a bisexual.



I'm just not keen on the teminology being used here, as it's inaccurate and juvenile. :v I was never suggesting that everyone must fall in line with my view that there's no problem wi' it, but calling things "weird and gross" just degrades the whole debate down to a playground level. 

And I've certianly noticed a post or two in this thread suggesting that this book should be pulled from the "shelve" so to speak. Silly!


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Sep 28, 2011)

Mallard said:


> but calling things "weird and gross" just degrades the whole debate down to a playground level.



Well, you _are_ on an internet forum...


----------



## Ad Hoc (Sep 28, 2011)

Mallard said:


> I'm not really on board with calling any of it gross or weird myself as those are entirely non descriptive and subjective terms. :V I thought gays were meant to be weird and gross too.


Mmmm please don't make that comparison. Gay sex/relationships are typically between two individuals that can clearly communicate consent. Not always so with bestiality, which is the main issue. 

"It's gross and weird" is a bad argument though, I'll agree.


----------



## RedSavage (Sep 28, 2011)

Mallard said:


> I'm just not keen on the teminology being used here, as it's inaccurate and juvenile. :v I was never suggesting that everyone must fall in line with my view that there's no problem wi' it, but calling things "weird and gross" just degrades the whole debate down to a playground level.
> 
> And I've certianly noticed a post or two in this thread suggesting that this book should be pulled from the "shelve" so to speak. Silly!



I think if the terminology fits then it's perfectly fine, and it's neither juvenile nor unfounded. Gross: To fill with disgust; nauseate. Weird: Of a strikingly odd or unusual character; strange.

Sticking your dick or taking the dick of something outside of your own species: Weird and gross, aka going against the fact that each species is designed to mate within their own kind. Also, the fact that animals are not sapient nor sentient, while humans are, takes a stretch of stooping below the level of higher thought simply to get your jollies off with another creature. 

That, I find, is quite unacceptable. So no, "weird and gross" are not arguments, but merely opinions. The reasons behind attributing such terms to the act, however, are not entirely unfounded. 

And as for the "post or two", do kindly address each of the posts instead of claiming everyone who's not impressed with this publishing endeavor to be anything less than a hypocrite.


----------



## Mallard (Sep 28, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> Mmmm please don't make that comparison. Gay sex/relationships are typically between two individuals that can clearly communicate consent. Not always so, with bestiality, which is the main issue.
> 
> "It's gross and weird" is a bad argument though, I'll agree.



Yeah, its the terminology I was getting at, sorry if that was misunderstood.  They're words that appeal to base emotions rather than logical faculties, and I don't think that's appropriate! Admitedly, it may well have been a bad comparison to make

I knew it would probably be a bad idea for me to pipe up my opinion on this issue, as I'm not really the argumentative type and this is quite the controversial little topic.


----------



## Riley (Sep 28, 2011)

CoyoteCaliente said:


> Do you mean *sentient*?


No, I mean-


Jashwa said:


> No, he means sapient.


Oh, thank you.


SIX said:


> Imho we're already aware that dolphins carry considerable intelligence - even more than us - and show similar social roles to us, play, emote, learn... they're sapient in all but scientific definition. I'd say we're unwilling to classify until some form of objective proof shows itself; not least in part because it brings about those very questions you just listed.



Right, we basically know they're intelligent creatures and have a sense of actual language/dialects and individuality (mirror test, etc), plus those same social aspects.  So what happens if in a couple years or whatever, that dolphin translator thing manages to work, and Flipper over there comes up and says "Yeah bro, we're totally smart.  Can you move the TVs in the lobby a bit closer, we like to watch the game."  

Oh man, would dolphins living in aquariums need to get citizenship?  Little waterproof wallets to keep their passports in?  That would be sweet.


----------



## Jashwa (Sep 28, 2011)

LizardKing said:


> One bark for yes, two barks for no.


No, LK, two barks means double yes.


----------



## BRN (Sep 28, 2011)

Riley said:


> Right, we basically know they're intelligent creatures and have a sense of actual language/dialects and individuality (mirror test, etc), plus those same social aspects.  So what happens if in a couple years or whatever, that dolphin translator thing manages to work, and Flipper over there comes up and says "Yeah bro, we're totally smart.  Can you move the TVs in the lobby a bit closer, we like to watch the game."
> 
> Oh man, would dolphins living in aquariums need to get citizenship?  Little waterproof wallets to keep their passports in?  That would be sweet.



Haha, that's bloody cute :3c

But yeah, I'd say... dolphins have no concept of televisions, but they're capable of using mirrors to look and check _themselves_, have a varied language believed to be constructed of propositions and concepts (like us!), and they're even able to use mechanisms to achieve goals. It's believable that they'd learn to understand what an underwater TV would be.


----------



## RedSavage (Sep 28, 2011)

Riley said:


> Right, we basically know they're intelligent creatures and have a sense of actual language/dialects and individuality (mirror test, etc), plus those same social aspects.  So what happens if in a couple years or whatever, that dolphin translator thing manages to work, and Flipper over there comes up and says "Yeah bro, we're totally smart.  Can you move the TVs in the lobby a bit closer, we like to watch the game."
> 
> Oh man, would dolphins living in aquariums need to get citizenship?  Little waterproof wallets to keep their passports in?  That would be sweet.



Suddenly I'm gettin' a _heavy_ Douglas Adams vibe here....


----------



## LizardKing (Sep 28, 2011)

Riley said:


> "Yeah bro, we're totally smart.  Can you move the TVs in the lobby a bit closer, we like to watch the game." .



"Yo, that performer who works on Wednesday and Friday nights is totally hot, is she into dolphins? Does she do groups?"


----------



## Mallard (Sep 28, 2011)

CoyoteCaliente said:


> I think if the terminology fits then it's perfectly fine, and it's neither juvenile nor unfounded. Gross: To fill with disgust; nauseate. Weird: Of a strikingly odd or unusual character; strange.
> 
> Sticking your dick or taking the dick of something outside of your own species: Weird and gross, aka going against the fact that each species is designed to mate within their own kind. Also, the fact that animals are not sapient nor sentient, while humans are, takes a stretch of stooping below the level of higher thought simply to get your jollies off with another creature.
> 
> ...





Rilvor said:


> Personally, I feel the publisher who allowed this should be taken down.



I certainly noticed this on the way down.  There was also plenty of it on the reviews on Amazon, but I guess that's somewhat irrelevant.

To be honest, I'm not really the type to debate that you're wrong in your opinion that it's morally unjust, I'm well aware that my views are somewhat outspoken and am happy to agree to disagree, since it's the sort of situation where neither side is ever going to truely convince the other. The only objective criticism I could make in the thread is in the method of debate being employed, and the tendandcy for one to appeal to emotion and groupthink rather than reason in such debates. Hence why I was perhaps somewhat blunt in the initial manner in which I expressed my view. I like to take things right down to the point!

I believe dolphins in paticular have enough sapience to consent, and certainly enough physical strength to say no. Whether it's actually a good idea? That's up to how crazy you are.


----------



## Riley (Sep 28, 2011)

CoyoteCaliente said:


> Suddenly I'm gettin' a _heavy_ Douglas Adams vibe here....


It's actually a recurring theme in a lot of science fiction to have dolphins living and working alongside humans.  Anne McCaffery has an entire series where that's a thing, and Larry Niven wrote a couple of stories where he mentioned that dolphins on spaceships have their own cabins and cockpits that are filled with water so they can help pilot and stuff.

But yeah, Adams definitely had the most memorable dolphin-related stuff.


----------



## LizardKing (Sep 28, 2011)

Mallard said:


> I believe dolphins in paticular have enough sapience to consent, and certainly enough physical strength to say no. Whether it's actually a good idea? That's up to how crazy you are.



As do many animals. The problem is not that they said no, but that they didn't say yes. Not saying no != yes, it could equally be, "I don't care", "What are you doing? Oh my goodness!", "ohgodpleasedon'thurtme", "Well you're the alpha male here so I guess I'd better let you do what you want". I do think trying it with a wild dolphin would pretty much result in a yes/no situation (where no is swimming away or wrecking your shit), but I wouldn't be so sure about a captive dolphin. It not like they have anywhere to go.


As for publishing the book? Why the fuck not. Yeah it's weird, but what real reason is there not to print it? It's not like people are going to go to SeaWorld and try it just because they read about it in this book.


----------



## Jashwa (Sep 28, 2011)

LizardKing said:


> It's not like people are going to go to SeaWorld and try it just because they read about it in this book.


You have too much faith in people. 

Also, publisher shouldn't have any consequences. They're out to make money and controversy sells. You have to hold the developer/author/artist responsible for something that gets sold with questionable content, not the person that spread it around. That's just my opinion, though.


----------



## LizardKing (Sep 28, 2011)

Jashwa said:


> You have too much faith in people.



In many cases I would agree, but I think dolphinsex is pushing the boat out a little too far. Ho ho ho.


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Sep 28, 2011)

LizardKing said:


> "Yo, that performer who works on Wednesday and Friday nights is totally hot, is she into dolphins? Does she do groups?"



Somehow, that wouldn't surprise me if that's what they're saying to each other.


----------



## LizardKing (Sep 28, 2011)

Shark_the_raptor said:


> Somehow, that wouldn't surprise me if that's what they're saying to each other.



"Hey dude, did it work? Did they understand?"

"Nah man, just this bloody fish again."


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Sep 28, 2011)

LizardKing said:


> As do many animals


No, you're wrong. GOD created us in His glorious image. All other creatures are soulless automatons that don't really think or feel; they only exhibit reflexes in response to stimuli. Cogito ergo sum! :V :V :V


----------



## Mallard (Sep 28, 2011)

LizardKing said:


> As do many animals. The problem is not that they said no, but that they didn't say yes. Not saying no != yes, it could equally be, "I don't care", "What are you doing? Oh my goodness!", "ohgodpleasedon'thurtme", "Well you're the alpha male here so I guess I'd better let you do what you want". I do think trying it with a wild dolphin would pretty much result in a yes/no situation (where no is swimming away or wrecking your shit), but I wouldn't be so sure about a captive dolphin. It not like they have anywhere to go.
> 
> 
> As for publishing the book? Why the fuck not. Yeah it's weird, but what real reason is there not to print it? It's not like people are going to go to SeaWorld and try it just because they read about it in this book.



Yeah actually, I guess that's true. They could still tear you a new one. But I've certainly read about cases of wild dolphins consenting to sex with humans (People link me crazy things okay ;A; ), on the back of such evidence, I'm willing to believe consent could well happen even in a captive situation though of course, it becomes entirely subjective, which is the crux of this whole problem. :T There's just no way to know for sure, but I'm of the opinion that bestiality isn't an intrinsically harmful act, it's just one that works out to be in a lot of cases.

(This is a hypothetical)
On the flipside, if we're arguing that Dolphins aren't inteligent enough to consent or not consent, does it matter either way? Nothing is being done to actually hurt the animal, and we must remember that they don't attach the same sort of emotional significance to the act that us humans do. If we're arguing that they're not intelligent enough for such higher emotions, surely it follows that it's no real big deal to them as long as no physical harm is done?

But hey. That's just like, my opinion man. [/thedude]


----------



## BRN (Sep 28, 2011)

Interesting article on dolphin language.


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Sep 28, 2011)

LizardKing said:


> "Hey dude, did it work? Did they understand?"
> 
> "Nah man, just this bloody fish again."



"I DON'T LIKE SALMON, WOMAN!"


----------



## Riley (Sep 28, 2011)

SIX said:


> Interesting article on dolphin language.



Interesting read, but this part stuck out to me instantly:



> Dr. Lilly planted electrodes in the dolphins' brains and found a spot  that gave them exquisite pleasure when it was stimulated by a feeble  pulse of electricity. Their eyes lit up and the muscles around their  blowholes "smiled." They became addicted to electrical delight and  worked hard to get more of it.



http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=207

Uh oh.


----------



## Mallard (Sep 28, 2011)

Riley said:


> Interesting read, but this part stuck out to me instantly:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ruh-oh. Reminds me of that episode of batman of the future where people become addicted to virtual reality machines in which they can live their perfect life, but otherwise fucks with their minds :V


----------



## Aetius (Sep 28, 2011)

My General reaction to the links and this "Wet Goddess" guy in particular.


----------



## Tewin Follow (Sep 28, 2011)

Prawno movie! Hot salmon on mackerel action!
[/contribution to thread]


----------



## Mallard (Sep 28, 2011)

Mfw every debate I participate in

All hail the dude


----------



## RedSavage (Sep 28, 2011)

Mallard said:


> Mfw every debate I participate in
> 
> All hail the dude



Haha I remember when I used to respond like that. 

And then I got over myself. :V


----------



## Heimdal (Sep 28, 2011)

It's gross and weird.

This is a more-than-adequate counter to people who fuck animals simply because they're horny and they can. Sure, it evolves into arguments about consent, arguments on whether it's love (because you have to fuck everything you love?), and arguments relating it to other 'deviant-seeming things' like 'homosexuality'. Unfortunately, all of those arguments appeal to emotion anyways, and fucking a dolphin has more in common with fucking a hole in the wall than same-sex relationships.

It's nasty, because every argument I see promoting bestiality reeks of some twisted sense of human entitlement.


----------



## Commie Bat (Sep 28, 2011)

I'm waiting in so much anticipation for part two; (I can see it now)
It will be titled: Zoophile Gets What He Deserves
The main story line will be him getting the crap beat out of him, by an angry mob, then getting barbed wire shoved up his anus.

It will be a NewYork Times best seller; or at least in my world.


----------



## BRN (Sep 28, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> It's gross and weird.
> 
> This is a more-than-adequate counter to people who fuck animals simply because they're horny and they can. Sure, it evolves into arguments about consent, arguments on whether it's love (because you have to fuck everything you love?), and arguments relating it to other 'deviant-seeming things' like 'homosexuality'. Unfortunately, all of those arguments appeal to emotion anyways, and fucking a dolphin has more in common with fucking a hole in the wall than same-sex relationships.
> 
> It's nasty, because every argument I see promoting bestiality reeks of some twisted sense of human entitlement.



Zoophilia in general perhaps, but there's two specific things I think are different about delphilia that I think are worthy of discussion. Primarily, their intelligence - they aren't led by social heirachy and such as dogs are - and capacity for reasonable thought and emotion, and secondly, their ability to wreck your shit if you mess with them. It certainly immediately raises several questions of ethics that are quite different to those of a general bestiality case.


----------



## Mallard (Sep 28, 2011)

CoyoteCaliente said:


> Haha I remember when I used to respond like that.
> 
> And then I got over myself. :V



I don't think it's a matter of getting over yourself, I really  quite passive about what other people's views on matters such as this one where there is no one right answer, only opinions, justifications and speculation. "That's just like, your opinion man" is something of a mantra of mine, I won't lie. People disagree on things all the time, and I'm all for agreeing to disagree. 

I'm starting to wonder why I even took part in this. x_o I'm quite clearly not the debating type and this really isn't my turf.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Sep 28, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> EDIT:  AND FUCKING LOL I JUST READ HIS JUSTIFICATION.  SHE WAS "ASKING FOR IT" LOL


Dolphins are such sluts.


----------



## Bliss (Sep 28, 2011)

CoyoteCaliente said:


> We can translate, to a degree, what certain sounds and body language of certain animals mean, but until I can hold a conversation about such abstract ideas with an animal, I consider them unfit for the label of "sapient".


Dolphins can't speak the way humans do. You, sire, are a RACIST.



Commie Bat said:


> I'm waiting in so much anticipation for part two; (I can see it now)
> It will be titled: Zoophile Gets What He Deserves
> The main story line will be *him getting the crap beat out of him, by an angry mob, then getting barbed wire shoved up his anus.*


I see you work for the militsiya. :V


----------



## Heimdal (Sep 28, 2011)

Mallard said:


> where there is no one right answer, only opinions, justifications and speculation. "That's just like, your opinion man" is something of a mantra of mine,



We are mankind. We have conquered the world, and have entitled ourselves to oversee all of it within the reach of our power. This station requires mankind to draw it's lines of entitlement for itself, because nothing else is going to. When someone essentially spouts on about how they're entitled to stick their dick in any lower creature they want, that's as 'wrong' as 'wrong' gets.

Am I standing on a bit of a moral pedestal when I say this? I guess so, but it's a pretty damn simple pedestal, and I don't think I could take any opposition seriously.


----------



## BRN (Sep 28, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> We are mankind. We have conquered the world, and have entitled ourselves to oversee all of it within the reach of our power. This station requires mankind to draw it's lines of entitlement for itself, because nothing else is going to. When someone essentially spouts on about how they're entitled to stick their dick in any lower creature they want, that's as 'wrong' as 'wrong' gets.
> 
> Am I standing on a bit of a moral pedestal when I say this? I guess so, but it's a pretty damn simple pedestal, and I don't think I could take any opposition seriously.



The assumption here is that creatures other than humans are 'lower'. The implication is some sense of superiority or -as you put it, a disgusting sense of human entitlement. John Stuart Mill said it himself that every age has held opinions that succeeding ages have viewed as not just erronous, but absurd; it may be that such assumptions are incorrect.


----------



## Bliss (Sep 28, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> We are mankind. We have conquered the world, and have entitled ourselves  to oversee all of it within the reach of our power. This station  requires mankind to draw it's lines of entitlement for itself, because  nothing else is going to. When someone essentially spouts on about how they're entitled to stick their dick in anylower creature they want, that's as 'wrong' as 'wrong' gets.


To speak of entitlement...



> Am I standing on a bit of a moral pedestal when I say this? I guess so, but it's a pretty damn simple pedestal, and I don't think I could take any opposition seriously.


Good luck while it crumbles.


----------



## Jashwa (Sep 28, 2011)

I wonder if dolphins will have this same debate one day once they rise up and enslave humanity?


----------



## Ad Hoc (Sep 28, 2011)

Jashwa said:


> I wonder if dolphins will have this same debate one day once they rise up and enslave humanity?


Psh no. Dolphins love fuckin'. The ones that have a problem with it will be like the vegetarians of our society. Any one of them that brought it up would be greeted with a chorus of: 

"If we weren't supposed to have sex with humans, they wouldn't be so sexy!"
"For every human you don't fuck, I'll fuck three!"
"Dolphins for the Ethical Treatment of Apes? More like _Dolphins for the Erotic Touching of Apes_!"
cacklecackle


----------



## Conker (Sep 28, 2011)

Reminds me of this copypasta I saw on 4chan a long time ago about how to have sex with a dolphin. 

I don't have much else to say, though I won't be reading THIS (can't say the same about that copypasta, I read that :[)


----------



## RedSavage (Sep 28, 2011)

SIX said:


> The assumption here is that creatures other than humans are 'lower'. The implication is some sense of superiority or -as you put it, a disgusting sense of human entitlement. John Stuart Mill said it himself that every age has held opinions that succeeding ages have viewed as not just erronous, but absurd; it may be that such assumptions are incorrect.



If the guy next to me can run 100 yards faster than me, then my running skills are inferior. 

If I can write better than somebody whose forte is in Math, then I am better than him at writing as he's better than me in Math. 

That said, if Man can build a society, destroy society, rebuild society, drive some species to extinction, bring some *back* from the edge of extinction, take advantage of the world around us more efficiently than any non-sapient animal does,(whether it be harmful or not), invent and understand abstract terms such as "love", "hate", and "compassion", and _still_ be able to objectively accept, deny, or argue the fact that these things may or not make us better than animals around us that have no concept of pride or morals, then, well...

Doesn't that say _something_ about the species we are? I think so, yes. We _are_ a higher species of life form. Not in a ethical sense, but a logical sense. And you know what? The day another species comes along and shows us life on a level of existence that we cannot immediately understand nor comprehend, then we ourselves will have become a lower species. But until then, I say hell to it. We're at the top of the food chain, both literally and mentally. Let's damn well act like it.


----------



## BRN (Sep 28, 2011)

CoyoteCaliente said:


> If the guy next to me can run 100 yards faster than me, then my running skills are inferior.
> 
> If I can write better than somebody whose forte is in Math, then I am better than him at writing as he's better than me in Math.
> 
> ...



Simultaneously accepting that 'pride' and 'morality' are human constructs, and then arguing that animals are lesser because they don't have these constructs _that are by definition human_ is silly for obvious reasons.

Primarily, because animals do indeed have a concept of morality. Morality is a term that we give to the abstracted 'codes of society'; social pressure and rules, those things that all essentially mean "don't do to others what you want others to do to you". And yes, frankly, animals - and dolphins particularly - have that concept. 

 En plus, human beings, as animals themselves, are capable of breaching common morality just as easily as the wind changes, on an opportunistic basis, exactly as animals are. We commonly accept that soldiers sent to war are heros, when from an objective standpoint the statement "A man who kills another man based on their political standing" leads to the judgement that the man's actions are immoral. 

Human action is fraught with doublethink and inconsistency, _especially_ in the areas of pride and morality. We're top of the food chain; by every perspective, we should be at the bottom. A random whim of evolution gave us a head start on intellectual development; it was enough to keep our species alive. We don't have natural armament. We don't run fast. We can't protect ourselves, we don't fight well. Every single predatious animal could extremely easily beat us in any natural contest. Hell, it takes fourteen _years_ for us to become capable of reproduction and the kids we produce taking pretty much half that again just to gain even the beginnings of independence.

he only thing we have that makes us superior as a species to any other is a natural intellect. And even then, dolphins are superior to us in that sense.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Sep 28, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> It's gross and weird.


 
Personal distaste has never been a good counter argument for anything, especially legislation based off it. :V



SIX said:


> We don't have natural armament. We don't run fast. We can't protect ourselves, we don't fight well. Every single predatious animal could extremely easily beat us in any natural contest


 
We are, however, highly social and are one of the best endurance runners out of any animal, which also count for something.


----------



## Unsilenced (Sep 28, 2011)

SIX said:


> he only thing we have that makes us superior as a species to any other is a natural intellect. And even then, dolphins are superior to us in that sense.



Yeah I'm going to have to say no.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Sep 28, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> We are, however, highly social and are one of the best endurance runners out of any animal, which also count for something.


It does, but it's still hard to objectively weigh the value of one animal over another. Which is better, the cheetah because it runs the fastest, or the crocodile because it bites the hardest? Whatever skill an animal may have, there is always another that outshines it in another area. How do you decide which to give precedence? We naturally think the adaptations which have serve us the most are the most important, but last I checked we're still outnumbered by rats and helpless to stay their population. 

Honestly I think the only particularly safe criterion is the longevity of a species. For all of our intelligence, humans may die out in a few centuries, after only about 10,000 years of existing s we do now. Meanwhile, the shark's evolution is so successful that it's been around 420 million years, clearly they're doing something right. Until we've exceeded that, we haven't really proven our mettle as a species. We're a flash in the dark.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Sep 28, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> How do you decide which to give precedence?


 
By which is the best for the given situation. :V Sure you may have an armored shell, but this is a pole-vaulting contest, brah.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Sep 28, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> Meanwhile, the shark's evolution is so successful that it's been around 420 million years, clearly they're doing something right.



Steady diet of license plates and children.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Sep 28, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> By which is the best for the given situation. :V Sure you may have an armored shell, but this is a pole-vaulting contest, brah.


Well here's our situation: Surviving on Earth. Or the universe in general. 

You're measuring individual skill instead of the organism as a whole.


----------



## RedSavage (Sep 28, 2011)

SIX said:


> Simultaneously accepting that 'pride' and 'morality' are human constructs, and then arguing that animals are lesser because they don't have these constructs _that are by definition human_ is silly for obvious reasons.



No, that's not silly. I argue that any creature of significant thought will start to develop in both spoken and written language ideas and terms that cannot be expressed in the purest, most minimalistic sense. Like, what is hate? I _hate_ that Bot 'O Honey Candy. I _hate_ racists and religious zealots who kill to get their points across. But without a higher thought process, I cannot differentiate all the forms of hate and everything that goes with it. Even the idea that I, and many people around me, use the term 'hate' often lightly when it's true meaning is dissected, is a thought process that can only come after significant evolution of the mind has come into play.



SIX said:


> Primarily, because animals do indeed have a concept of morality. Morality is a term that we give to the abstracted 'codes of society'; social pressure and rules, those things that all essentially mean "don't do to others what you want others to do to you". And yes, frankly, animals - and dolphins particularly - have that concept.



Now, I think you're confusing morality with simple constructs needed for the survival of a species. Like, an animal knows "I should not kill my mate because he/she is needed for survival", but even so, that's up for grabs, as some species of animal will . Yeah, we do the same, but as a species, we've moved beyond "Thou shall not kill" because it hurts the gene pool, and onto "Thou shall not kill _cause it's just wrong._ It may have been derived from the animalistic sense of survival, once upon a time, but we've evolved, moved past that, and have become something more than just the average animal. 




SIX said:


> En plus, human beings, as animals themselves, are capable of breaching common morality just as easily as the wind changes, on an opportunistic basis, exactly as animals are. We commonly accept that soldiers sent to war are heros, when from an objective standpoint the statement "A man who kills another man based on their political standing" leads to the judgement that the man's actions are immoral.



If an animal challenges another animal for a mate, and the failing suitor _dies_, that's just the way of nature. Survival of the fittest. If it happens in the human world, that my friends, is called a Love Triangle, and is considered murder. An animal has no concept of "murder", only survival. 



SIX said:


> Human action is fraught with doublethink and inconsistency, _especially_ in the areas of pride and morality. We're top of the food chain; by every perspective, we should be at the bottom. A random whim of evolution gave us a head start on intellectual development; it was enough to keep our species alive. We don't have natural armament. We don't run fast. We can't protect ourselves, we don't fight well. Every single predatious animal could extremely easily beat us in any natural contest. Hell, it takes fourteen _years_ for us to become capable of reproduction and the kids we produce taking pretty much half that again just to gain even the beginnings of independence.



But you see, that's _exactly_ what makes us a higher species. We're able to move _outside_ our normal physical abilities via intellect and innovation. We can fly higher than any bird and go faster than any creature alive because our minds _are_ our natural armament. Quirk of evolution? Hell, why not? It doesn't matter _how_ it came about, only that it _is_. Just because we're all made of the same flesh and blood doesn't make us all on the same level of being. If you were to argue that just because we're all flesh and blood that it doesn't make me better, species wise, than a sea cucumber that merely able to eject half of its internal organs to escape a predator, then I could argue that I'm no better than a mushroom because we're all made of the same atoms and molecules.



SIX said:


> The only thing we have that makes us superior as a species to any other is a natural intellect. And even then, dolphins are superior to us in that sense.



Yes to the first (when you entail ALL that higher thinking allows us to do socially, physically, and culturally) and no to the second. Simply as that.


----------



## RedSavage (Sep 28, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> It does, but it's still hard to objectively weigh the value of one animal over another. Which is better, the cheetah because it runs the fastest, or the crocodile because it bites the hardest? Whatever skill an animal may have, there is always another that outshines it in another area. *How do you decide which to give precedence?* We naturally think the adaptations which have serve us the most are the most important, but last I checked we're still outnumbered by rats and helpless to stay their population.
> 
> Honestly I think the only particularly safe criterion is the longevity of a species. For all of our intelligence, humans may die out in a few centuries, after only about 10,000 years of existing s we do now. Meanwhile, the shark's evolution is so successful that it's been around 420 million years, clearly they're doing something right. Until we've exceeded that, we haven't really proven our mettle as a species. We're a flash in the dark.



The bolded question is what I think this argument hinges on. In my personal opinion, I think that physical traits are more or less nonexistant in my opinion of a "higher species". I entail a Higher Species to be one that actively uses and exhibits *Higher Thought*, something that NO other species on Earth has been able to consistently and effectively display. 

I define "Higher Thought" by being able to create, understand, and communicate abstract ideas that go outside the normal template of mere survival.


----------



## Heimdal (Sep 28, 2011)

I come back and you guys are arguing the semantics of what I said? What the hell?

I don't care about abstract tree-hugger philosophy. We have the power to kill any other species on the planet to an extent that they cannot possibly reciprocate. Our mercy has kept species' alive, and lack thereof has destroyed other species. We hold the control and the power over other creatures on this planet. They are 'lower' than us in the hierarchy of power, which is the only thing I was even talking about when I said "lower".

Maybe we're not "better" than other species, but we hold the power. This is exactly WHY we are responsible to draw the line, instead of thinking we can stick our dicks in anything we want!



			
				Lizzie said:
			
		

> Good luck while it crumbles.



We're talking about fucking dolphins. The pedestal is at ground level. That's what makes this whole thing so fucking sad.


----------



## RedSavage (Sep 28, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> I come back and you guys are arguing the semantics of what I said? What the hell?



We're just good like that, I guess. :V


----------



## Tycho (Sep 28, 2011)

so this guy is on a banlist for Sea World and pretty much every other aquatic animal park, I'm guessing

DOLPHIN FUCKER (watching a trainer show): "DAMN she is fucking hot.  Look at that body.  I would fuck her."
SOME DUDE (looking at the trainer): "Yeah, she's got an awesome pair of tits, I would h-"
DOLPHIN FUCKER: "...Huh? Who the fuck are you talking about?"
SOME DUDE: "...Who the fuck are YOU... oh god you're that guy.  SECURITY!"


----------



## RedSavage (Sep 28, 2011)

Tycho said:


> so this guy is on a banlist for Sea World and pretty much every other aquatic animal park, I'm guessing
> 
> DOLPHIN FUCKER (watching a trainer show): "DAMN she is fucking hot.  Look at that body.  I would fuck her."
> SOME DUDE (looking at the trainer): "Yeah, she's got an awesome pair of tits, I would h-"
> ...



DOLPHIN FUCKER: "CAN YOU NOT HEAR HER SQUEAKS? OBVIOUSLY, THE BITCH IS COMING ONTO ME! NOW I'M GONNA GIVE THAT BITCH SOME INTERSPECIES ROMANCE. BITCHES LOVE INTERSPECIES ROMANCE."


----------



## Ad Hoc (Sep 28, 2011)

CoyoteCaliente said:


> The bolded question is what I think this  argument hinges on. In my personal opinion, I think that physical traits  are more or less nonexistant in my opinion of a "higher species". I  entail a Higher Species to be one that actively uses and exhibits *Higher Thought*, something that NO other species on Earth has been able to consistently and effectively display.
> 
> I define "Higher Thought" by being able to create, understand, and  communicate abstract ideas that go outside the normal template of mere  survival.


The trouble is, is that your opinion is just as you described it, an opinion. It's totally subjective. _Why_  is higher thought so important, other than being "higher?" What's the  long term value of it? We've only really existed as we do for about  10,000 years, which is a blink. For all we know, we'll burn ourselves  out for it. 

Just so you know, I'm not some kind of derp that  thinks animals are better than humans (actually that's almost the  opposite of what I'm arguing) or something, I raise and kill my own  animals. I just find this idea of there being a hierarchy of species to  be rather silly outside of very specific situations. (I'm also not  really in favor of bestiality.) 




Heimdal said:


> I come back and you guys are arguing the semantics of what I said? What the hell?
> 
> I don't care about abstract tree-hugger philosophy. *We have the power to kill any other species* on the planet to an extent that they cannot possibly reciprocate. Our mercy has kept species' alive, and lack thereof has destroyed other species. We hold the control and the power over other creatures on this planet. They are 'lower' than us in the hierarchy of power, which is the only thing I was even talking about when I said "lower".
> 
> Maybe we're not "better" than other species, but we hold the power. This is exactly WHY we are responsible to draw the line, instead of thinking we can stick our dicks in anything we want!


Are you so sure about that? From what I'm seeing, we're still having huge issues with rats, cockroaches, kudzu, malaria, etc., . . . At least a few species have managed to pretty nimbly out-evolve us. 

Also, sorry that the conversation went in a direction you didn't want.


----------



## Heimdal (Sep 28, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> Are you so sure about that? From what I'm seeing, we're still having huge issues with rats, cockroaches, kudzu, malaria, etc., . . . At least a few species have managed to pretty nimbly out-evolve us.
> 
> Also, sorry that the conversation went in a direction you didn't want.



There are exceptions. And I fully support pro-bestiality people sticking their dicks in malaria.


----------



## Bliss (Sep 28, 2011)

CoyoteCaliente said:


> The bolded question is what I think this argument hinges on. In my personal opinion, I think that physical traits are more or less nonexistant in my opinion of a "higher species". I entail a Higher Species to be one that actively uses and exhibits *Higher Thought*, something that NO other species on Earth has been able to consistently and effectively display.
> 
> I define "Higher Thought" by being able to create, understand, and communicate abstract ideas that go outside the normal template of mere survival.


From a dolphin's point of view we might not create, understand or communicate abstract ideas. :V



Heimdal said:


> *We have the power to kill any other species on the planet to an extent that they cannot possibly reciprocate.* Our mercy has kept species' alive, and lack thereof has destroyed other species. *We hold the control and the power over other creatures on this planet.* They are 'lower' than us in the hierarchy of power, which is the only thing I was even talking about when I said "lower".


Source, please.



> This is exactly WHY we are responsible to draw the line, instead of thinking we can stick our dicks in anything we want!


Responsible by what? You are not very good at this 'argument' thing, are you?

If _I_ have to suggest you to calm down this is getting ridiculous. D:



Ad Hoc said:


> We've only really existed as we do for about  10,000 years, which is a blink.


I was so sure it was 200,000 years.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Sep 28, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> There are exceptions. And I fully support pro-bestiality people sticking their dicks in malaria.


Thank goodness I'm not pro-bestiality. (I just argue against it on a stronger platform than "it's wrong because it's gross.")



Lizzie said:


> I was so sure it was 200,000 years.


Well, society as we know it cropped up about 10,000 years ago, yeah the species itself is a little older I suppose, I'll concede to that. Still nuthin' on the shark's 420 million though and still a blink of an eye in the history of life on Earth.


----------



## Commie Bat (Sep 28, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> I see you work for the militsiya. :V



You mean the politsiya?  No, I just hate zoophiles with a passion, and I feel it's fair treatment; and I'm the LAW  :V
Besides they were our subordinates



Ad Hoc said:


> (I'm also not  really in favor of bestiality.)



I agree with your whole post, except this.
I just don't want to lose you man! Your not a complete sociopath, like some people.

Anyway the "this" button won't work, so once again nice post.


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 28, 2011)

Should I be happy that you all are not talking about dogs?


----------



## Commie Bat (Sep 28, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Should I be happy that you all are not talking about dogs?



I don't know; are dolphins better?


----------



## Heimdal (Sep 28, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Source, please.



Overhunting and overfishing leading to endangered species. I also hear nuclear weapons aren't good for the environment. There was a big environmental issue with an oil rig some time ago, wasn't there? For further information, ask anyone you know in touch with reality. Or simply click on any of the 6.5 million search results Google will provide you with.



> Responsible by what? You are not very good at this 'argument' thing, are you?



By ourselves. That's why I said "we". The kangaroos aren't going to stop us from fucking the dolphins.



			
				Ad Hoc said:
			
		

> (I just argue against it on a stronger platform than "it's wrong because it's gross.")



Has it succeeded? I've heard the 'stronger' reasonings, and what's the point? Society has already decided, to a rather uniform degree, that this stuff is gross. However, I've never once seen anyone into it be swayed by even the hardest arguments against it. Of course I'm not going to pass legislation with the "Stuff is icky" Bill, but in discussing it with pro-bestiality people it's good enough, because that's all they let themselves hear anyways.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Sep 28, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> Well here's our situation: Surviving on Earth. Or the universe in general.
> 
> You're measuring individual skill instead of the organism as a whole.


 
What does that even mean? As I said, an ability only matters in the contexts of the events that occur to the organism as caused by its environment- "Survival" is in and itself a series of events. "Find food." "Avoid death- Diseases, accident, predators, territory fights..." "Find mate.". The wide variety of situations these cover is staggering, and are the reasons life evolved to be as varied as it is now.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Sep 28, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> *I agree with your whole post, except this.*
> I just don't want to lose you man! Your not a complete sociopath, like some people.
> 
> Anyway the "this" button won't work, so once again nice post.


Wait I'm confused. You disagree with the part where I said that I'm not pro-bestiality? You've been pretty anti-bestiality yourself here my friend, I think there's been a miscommunication.

Other than that, fist bumps. 



Mojotech said:


> What does that even mean? As I said, an ability only matters in the contexts of the events that occur to the organism as caused by its environment- "Survival" is in and itself a series of events. "Find food." "Avoid death- Diseases, accident, predators, territory fights..." "Find mate.". The wide variety of situations these cover is staggering, and are the reasons life evolved to be as varied as it is now.


You're basically saying the same thing I'm trying to communicate, I apologize for not getting it across clearer. Trying to say that one organism is objectively better than another organism based on the fact that it can do one thing really well is erroneous, because no matter how well it can do that one thing, that single adaptation isn't going to be ideal for every situation. (Granted, intelligence is great for _a lot_ of situations [can't run fast? build car! can't fly? build plane!], but still not all of them, and there are still some creatures that consistently outmaneuver our attempts at eradication or control.) So measuring objective superiority is very difficult. 

I think we're in agreement but ended up arguing because FAF. Or because Ad Hoc.


----------



## Bliss (Sep 28, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> Well, society as we know it cropped up about 10,000 years ago, yeah the species itself is a little older I suppose, I'll concede to that. Still nuthin' on the shark's 420 million though and still a blink of an eye in the history of life on Earth.


Agriculture developed 10,000 years ago. 'Behavioural modernity' supposedly happened about 50,000 ago, but that is because abundance of human artifacts came after that.



Commie Bat said:


> You mean the politsiya?


No, I'm pretty sure I mean the militsiya. :V



> No, I just hate zoophiles with a passion, and I feel it's fair treatment; and I'm the LAW :V
> 
> I just don't want to lose you man! Your not a complete sociopath, like some people.


Zoophilia does not equal sociopathy. I really hope you do not acquire political power more than your vote. I'd be appalled by such reactionist tendencies.



Heimdal said:


> Overhunting and overfishing leading to endangered species. I also hear nuclear weapons aren't good for the environment. There was a big environmental issue with an oil rig some time ago, wasn't there? For further information, ask anyone you know in touch with reality. Or simply click on any of the 6.5 million search results Google will provide you with.


_None_ of those wipes out all species.



> By ourselves. That's why I said "we". The kangaroos aren't going to stop us from fucking the dolphins.


You said a line has to be drawn. By what criteria is this line drawn and who does it? Humanity is not a collective being.


----------



## Commie Bat (Sep 28, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> Wait I'm confused. You disagree with the part where I said that I'm not pro-bestiality? You've been pretty anti-bestiality yourself here my friend, I think there's been a miscommunication.
> 
> Other than that, fist bumps.



No i'm way beyond anti-animal rape. I'm an extreamist.
You just said


Ad Hoc said:


> (I'm also *not really in favor of bestiality*.)



It was more of a bad joke within my agreement.  Though I always thought bestality was a black or white issue, you can't really lean any one way about this topic.
But yeah it was more of a misunderstanding.

YAY for friendship and funny pictures.



Lizzie said:


> No, I'm pretty sure I mean the militsiya. :V
> 
> Zoophilia does not equal sociopathy. I really hope you do not acquire political power more than your vote. I'd be appalled by such reactionist tendencies.



They were a sad joke in the later years, and are now disbanded.  And was never my job.  
Should I be sad you would assume such a thing? :V

Part two was more of a joke and shouldn't be taken seriously.
I do not try to aquire politcal power since we already own it all.  :V


----------



## Aetius (Sep 28, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Should I be happy that you all are not talking about dogs?



I guess.... That's a slight improvement : /


----------



## Xeno (Sep 28, 2011)

Wait, so this guy screws a dolphin? o.o


----------



## Commie Bat (Sep 28, 2011)

Mike the fox said:


> Wait, so this guy screws a dolphin? o.o



Yep, and it's pretty disturbing.
There is a reason why it's called a blowhole after all. :V


----------



## Xeno (Sep 28, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Yep, and it's pretty disturbing.
> There is a reason why it's called a blowhole after all. :V


Yea, that is pretty disturbing....
He must be pretty desperate if he has to screw a dolphin to "get some."


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Sep 28, 2011)

Also funny coincidence about the topic. I was just playing Ecco on the Genesis the other day.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Sep 28, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> There is a reason why it's called a blowhole after all. :V


Ahahaha. Fun fact: Dolphins actually have blowhole sex. It's the only known instance of nasal intercourse. (As the blowhole is basically a nostril.) 

Dolphins, man.


----------



## Commie Bat (Sep 28, 2011)

Mike the fox said:


> Yea, that is pretty disturbing....
> He must be pretty desperate if he has to screw a dolphin to "get some."



Desperate or fucked in the head; it's so hard to tell with these sort of people.



Ad Hoc said:


> Ahahaha. Fun fact: Dolphins actually have blowhole sex. It's the only known instance of nasal intercourse. (As the blowhole is basically a nostril.)
> 
> Dolphins, man.



Fact of the day right there!  LOL
Also how in the world do you know this?  Just asking.


----------



## Tycho (Sep 28, 2011)

Mike the fox said:


> Yea, that is pretty disturbing....
> He must be pretty desperate if he has to screw a dolphin to "get some."



Actually, human poon would have been easier to get than dolphin, if it weren't for the special circumstances that allowed him access to the dolphin.


----------



## Bliss (Sep 28, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> They were a sad joke in the later years, and are now disbanded.  And was never my job.
> Should I be sad you would assume such a thing? :V


Yes.



> Part two was more of a joke and shouldn't be taken seriously.
> I do not try to aquire politcal power since we already own it all.  :V


Nonsense. Our president is screwing yours; all the power. :Vc


----------



## Commie Bat (Sep 28, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Yes.
> 
> Nonsense. Our president is screwing yours; all the power. :Vc



You Finns are soft hearted, and you hurt my nonexistent feelings.  I'll go cry tears of dust now.  :V

It all depends upon who is dominate.  I'd say you guys just got screwed over by the KGB.  :V
Putin isn't our president; sort of.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Sep 28, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Fact of the day right there!  LOL
> Also how in the world do you know this?  Just asking.


I used to have a big book of weird facts, and that was under the animal section. I googled it before posting it to make sure, though, and rather wish I hadn't.


----------



## Commie Bat (Sep 28, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> I used to have a big book of weird facts, and that was under the animal section. I googled it before posting it to make sure, though, and rather wish I hadn't.



If any images popped up, you shall have my full sympathy.  As that would be scarring and quite akward/disturbing.


----------



## Bliss (Sep 28, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> It all depends upon who is dominate.  I'd say you guys just got screwed over by the KGB.  :V


Who do you think is on top? This or THIS? >:V



> Putin isn't our president; sort of.


He was and he will be.


----------



## Cain (Sep 28, 2011)

Whoohoo!

Now when can we look forward to seeing a book of Memoirs by a NAMBLA member?


----------



## Commie Bat (Sep 28, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Who do you think is on top? This or THIS? >:V
> 
> He was and he will be.



I'm sorry to say this and please don't get upset:  I have come to the conclusion that your president is a genetic mutation experiment gone wrong, crossed with a robot, judging by those pictures or a man.  If it is the latter it would create a paradox.  :V

Most likely as it all depends on the KPRF (communist party)  which will probably lose by a large margin.


----------



## Perception (Sep 28, 2011)

I know this mightn't be the place to discuss this, but is bestiality a mental disease or is it just someones preference (Like gay people)?


----------



## Commie Bat (Sep 28, 2011)

Ajsforg said:


> I know this mightn't be the place to discuss this, but is bestiality a mental disease or is it just someones preference?



Either way my friend, it is still just as nasty.


----------



## Bliss (Sep 28, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> I'm sorry to say this and please don't get upset:  I have come to the conclusion that your president is a genetic mutation experiment gone wrong, crossed with a robot, judging by those pictures or a man.  If it is the latter it would create a paradox.  :V


She was also a leftist radical and the chairwoman of a gay rights organisation in the 80s.

No wonder they get along! :-D


----------



## Commie Bat (Sep 28, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> She was also a leftist radical and the chairwoman of a gay rights organisation in the 80s.
> 
> No wonder they get along! :-D



In Russian politics, you only have different degrees of left, and shades of red.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Also I'm pretty sure Putin is a furry, do to his favorite art going about.

Except, they'll argue about gay rights since Putin started a long tradition, of banning gay pride parades.


----------



## Bliss (Sep 28, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Except, they'll argue about gay rights since Putin started a long tradition, of banning gay pride parades.


*cough*Closet fag*cough*


----------



## Commie Bat (Sep 28, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> *cough*Closet fag*cough*



Who me or Putin?

If me: your sadly mistaken on that one.  And I cant be a fag as I'm neither homosexual or a cigarette.

If Putin: I verily, highly doubt that as he is too religious, gets easily annoyed be homos, and he would completely lose the next election.


----------



## Aetius (Sep 28, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> *cough*Closet fag*cough*



Maybe Medvedev 

BUT NOT PUTN >:C


----------



## Commie Bat (Sep 28, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> Maybe Medvedev
> 
> BUT NOT PUTN >:C



Yeah since Medvedev has a wierd/feminine smile.

Which goes against the standard stereotypical Russian: we can't ever smile.


----------



## Bliss (Sep 28, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> If Putin: I verily, highly doubt that as he is too *religious, gets easily annoyed be homos, and he would completely lose the next election.*





Crusader Mike said:


> Maybe Medvedev
> 
> BUT NOT PUTN >:C


People like that, especially politicians, tend bear a _seeecreeet_...


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Sep 29, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> You're basically saying the same thing I'm trying to communicate, I apologize for not getting it across clearer. Trying to say that one organism is objectively better than another organism based on the fact that it can do one thing really well is erroneous, because no matter how well it can do that one thing, that single adaptation isn't going to be ideal for every situation. (Granted, intelligence is great for _a lot_ of situations [can't run fast? build car! can't fly? build plane!], but still not all of them, and there are still some creatures that consistently outmaneuver our attempts at eradication or control.) So measuring objective superiority is very difficult.
> 
> I think we're in agreement but ended up arguing because FAF. Or because Ad Hoc.


 
Basically yeah. There's no one "Best" thing, just "Best at X thing, for varying circumstances". Sure a cheetah is fast on land, and a shark is fast in water, but swap their locations...


----------



## Commie Bat (Sep 29, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> People like that, especially politicians, tend bear a _seeecreeet_...



Maybe they do in Northern Europe but the East is a whole other playing field.
And your stepping on my court. :V


----------



## Trpdwarf (Sep 29, 2011)

Is it too late to point out that humans were responsible for the extinction of the Dodo, the Tazzy Tiger, and currently we are very close to wiping out tigers and certain smaller bodied narrow muzzled crocodiles into extinction so they only exist in zoos and breeding programs? Just something because someone asked for proof regarding humans and their effect to the environment. The Dodo btw was literally obliterated by humans and mostly humans alone being absolutely retarded.

We may see in the future an extinction of some species of shark, and turtles in the near future due to our inability to stop stupidly eating animals into unhealthy population declines. Humans have the ability to drive animals into extinction willfully not only by competing and transforming the planet but also by simply having stupid eating habits and choices. When you race has that kind of power it's a not a bad idea to draw a line somewhere.

Also I don't understand why people get so desperate or pathetic that they want to engage in dangerous sex with animals like Dolphins. I suppose it will be good material for the various offshoots of ED when some idiot has sex with a dolphin and suffers a Mr. Hands type death.


----------



## Xenke (Sep 29, 2011)

I keep misreading the title as "Wet Goodies", which makes it so much worse. :\


----------



## Ames (Sep 29, 2011)

People do stupid shit.  It's the way the world works.


----------



## Bliss (Sep 29, 2011)

Trpdwarf said:


> Is it too late to point out that humans were responsible for the extinction of the Dodo, the Tazzy Tiger, and currently we are very close to wiping out tigers and certain smaller bodied narrow muzzled crocodiles into extinction so they only exist in zoos and breeding programs? Just something because someone asked for proof regarding humans and their effect to the environment. The Dodo btw was literally obliterated by humans and mostly humans alone being absolutely retarded.
> 
> We may see in the future an extinction of some species of shark, and turtles in the near future due to our inability to stop stupidly eating animals into unhealthy population declines. Humans have the ability to drive animals into extinction willfully not only by competing and transforming the planet but also by simply having stupid eating habits and choices. When you race has that kind of power it's a not a bad idea to draw a line somewhere.


This by far doesn't mean that _"humans have the power to kill any other species on the planet"_. That is absolute hogwash.


----------



## Unsilenced (Sep 29, 2011)

Human beings have the potential to kill every species. 

It's getting specific that's the hard part.


----------



## Bliss (Sep 29, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> Human beings have the potential to kill every species.


Source, please. :V


----------



## Trpdwarf (Sep 29, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> This by far doesn't mean that _"humans have the power to kill any other species on the planet"_. That is absolute hogwash.



We may not have the ability to kill every species but we certainly have the ability to wipe specific species out. We have already and it is well documented...wiped out a species of bird called the DoDo. In doing so we doomed a species of plant that depended entirely on DoDo to eat it's seeds and poop them out. The stomach of the bird actually weakened the seed coat and set it up for germination.

We have also due to our travels introduced non native species that have in turn come close to wiping out specialized animals. If you do not understand biology you do not belong in this thread asking for evidence. These things are so obvious and real that you have to be willingly ignorant to try to state otherwise.

http://www.kidzworld.com/article/353-history-the-dodo-bird

There is another bird that humans wiped out completely in the Americas but I can't quite remember the name. It was over hunted to the point of extinction. People saw these huge flocks of bird and...thought it was endless until there were none left. Even from the beginning we put a lot of pressure on animal populations and the effect is that in some smaller islands where humans landed certain fauna went completely extinct.

We have the power to over hunt many species into extinction. We have done that before and we can easily be doing it now and with some animals are in the process of doing that. We have the ability to also completely destroy natural habitat which in turn can and will lead to species extinction if we don't preserve enough space. So uh...don't give me any bull shit about this topic. We have the ability to wipe out a good number of species on this planet and when you start seeing the apex predators fall it all goes to shit.

EDIT: Other examples of species we've wiped out are the Moa, and the Quagga.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_extinctions : something interesting to check out.


----------



## Lunar (Sep 29, 2011)

This really hurt me to read.  More physical than emotional, though.  
I've heard of worse stuff than this, though.  Honestly it doesn't surprise me that people do this.  I've heard of a form of suicide where you go out to a horse farm/field thingie, basically moon the thing, and the sheer size of it is supposed to kill you.  There's some sick people in this world.


----------



## BRN (Sep 29, 2011)

Trpdwarf said:


> We may not have the ability to kill every species but we certainly have the ability to wipe specific species out. We have already and it is well documented...wiped out a species of bird called the DoDo. In doing so we doomed a species of plant that depended entirely on DoDo to eat it's seeds and poop them out. The stomach of the bird actually weakened the seed coat and set it up for germination.We have also due to our travels introduced non native species that have in turn come close to wiping out specialized animals. If you do not understand biology you do not belong in this thread asking for evidence. These things are so obvious and real that you have to be willingly ignorant to try to state otherwise.http://www.kidzworld.com/article/353-history-the-dodo-birdThere is another bird that humans wiped out completely in the Americas but I can't quite remember the name. It was over hunted to the point of extinction. People saw these huge flocks of bird and...thought it was endless until there were none left. Even from the beginning we put a lot of pressure on animal populations and the effect is that in some smaller islands where humans landed certain fauna went completely extinct.We have the power to over hunt many species into extinction. We have done that before and we can easily be doing it now and with some animals are in the process of doing that. We have the ability to also completely destroy natural habitat which in turn can and will lead to species extinction if we don't preserve enough space. So uh...don't give me any bull shit about this topic. We have the ability to wipe out a good number of species on this planet and when you start seeing the apex predators fall it all goes to shit.EDIT: Other examples of species we've wiped out are the Moa, and the Quagga.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_extinctions : something interesting to check out.


 So human beings have the capacity to, and frequently do, wipe species out. As do other animals. It's a truism called 'survival of the fittest', and was _the_ cause of evolution; things die and times change. It is the root destabiliser of stagnation within the biosphere. The only qualm we have with it is human guilt, and frankly, I don't see how "humans have the power to do things" that even animals can do and have done leads us to the conclusion that humans are an objectively better species, when the power we weild is neither unique to us nor complete nor in our control as a species entire.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Sep 29, 2011)

I think it's good. It encourages people to think more about the ideas. If you read various philosophical essays you'll find that the arguments the public generally expresses against bestiality simply aren't considered worthwhile at the higher levels of thinking. Some philosophers have pretty much done everything except said straight out that it's acceptable. I'd actually say that because furries get wrongly confused with zoophiles that furries are actually far more against bestiality and zoophilia than non-furs. 

In any case this isn't the only bestiality book released this year. The Evolution of Bruno Littlemore was released at the beginning of the year. It tells a fictional story about a chimpanzee who learns English and falls in love with his caretaker. Later in the book she suffers an illness that leaves her unable to speak and explores how the two are different, if at all. It even has explicit scenes of bestiality, something which the reviews I read didn't seem too worried about and it even got a good review in the New York Times.


----------



## Bliss (Sep 29, 2011)

Trpdwarf said:


> If you do not understand biology you do not belong in this thread asking for evidence. These things are so obvious and real that you have to be willingly ignorant to try to state otherwise.


Oh, stop barging in and treating me like I am Rukh. :V

I don't think you follow the matter at hand, which happened to be Heimdal's belief that humanity could wipe all species out if it wanted. No extinction cycle has done so and not one will, at least until Earth's biosphere at long last fails to support life. That might happen during an abrupt greenhouse effect, and without a doubt when the Sun does her red giants.

So, indeed, it is obvious and real... and you missed the big picture.



> So uh...don't give me any bull shit about this topic.


I have not once implied that humanity does not modify environment to a great extent and in process, either deliberately or pointlessly, put certain species to an end. As that seems to be the _assumption_ you hold.


----------



## Aden (Sep 29, 2011)

SIX said:


> So human beings have the capacity to, and frequently do, wipe species out. As do other animals. It's a truism called 'survival of the fittest', and was _the_ cause of evolution; things die and times change.



Yes, survival of the fittest is a fact of nature, but I think we've quite established that we are the dominant large organism on the planet. It's not like we need to kill off other species to survive anymore. Since we're so comfortably at the top by a _very_ wide margin, why not work to preserve what we can?


----------



## Heimdal (Sep 29, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> I don't think you follow the matter at hand, which happened to be Heimdal's belief that humanity could wipe all species out if it wanted.



Is this really the "matter at hand"? That the semantic argument of how many species we are exactly able to wipe out is more important than the fact that we can wipe out a lot of things? Lets argue about how I didn't put an "m" in front of "any" because somehow that ruins the actual point of what I was leading into (note: it doesn't).

Next time I'll consider writing out a massive list of the things we can actually wipe out if humanity wanted to, so that we don't risk anyone dwelling on a semantic that's irrelevant. On the other hand, now I know an effective way to troll a retarded derailment of a topic here.


----------



## Unsilenced (Sep 29, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Source, please. :V



Bioengineering, nuclear weapons, etc. 

If the combined industrial effort of the entire human race were put to the task I have no doubt we could find a way to completely fuck the planet.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Sep 29, 2011)

SIX said:


> So human beings have the capacity to, and frequently do, wipe species out. As do other animals. It's a truism called 'survival of the fittest', and was _the_ cause of evolution; things die and times change. It is the root destabiliser of stagnation within the biosphere. The only qualm we have with it is human guilt, and frankly, I don't see how "humans have the power to do things" that even animals can do and have done leads us to the conclusion that humans are an objectively better species, when the power we weild is neither unique to us nor complete nor in our control as a species entire.



It may be true that animals do wipe out other animals. That does not justify to what extent we do it. In the natural world extinction is often more gradual(unless you see a catastrophic event). You see animals over a period of time compete, some can't keep up and die out. What we have going on here today is nothing like what you see in the wild. Wild animals don't transport exotic species all over the world and dump them in places where normally they would never end up and start unintentional breeding populations that threaten that area and it's ecosystem. They don't usually hunt entire prey animals into extinction like we do. They don't change and destroy territory to the point that we do that it jeopardizes entire regions like we do. They don't transport building materials all over the world spreading disease to plants and changing forest ecology quite like we do



Lizzie said:


> Oh, stop barging in and treating me like I am Rukh. :V
> 
> I don't think you follow the matter at hand, which happened to be  Heimdal's belief that humanity could wipe all species out if it wanted.  No extinction cycle has done so and not one will, at least until Earth's  biosphere at long last fails to support life. That might happen during  an abrupt greenhouse effect, and without a doubt when the Sun does her  red giants.
> 
> ...



I am following the current line well enough. It would seem to me that some of you are all trying to pick a fight over semantics, don't get upset when someone does the same to you. Either way semantics bull shit aside as people as a species have a disturbing impact upon this planet. It is not necessary to continue to wipe out so much of our natural resources. There is no reason why we can't draw some lines and boundaries when it comes to how we treat our fellow animals on this planet. If we won't be responsible we won't be around to our fullest potential.

Somehow using animals as sex toys doesn't seem to be an intelligent way to go considering the risks and problems associated with it. That said I refuse to get into that specific topic again. It's beaten to death topic wise and no one changes sides.


----------



## Bliss (Sep 29, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> Next time I'll consider writing out a massive list of the things we can actually wipe out if humanity wanted to, so that we don't risk anyone dwelling on a semantic that's irrelevant.


Do that. It will amount more than preaching from a pedestal. :V



Trpdwarf said:


> Somehow using animals as sex toys doesn't seem to be an intelligent way to go considering the risks and problems associated with it. That said I refuse to get into that specific topic again. It's beaten to death topic wise and no one changes sides.


Rhetorics. Assuming this man used a dolphin as a sex toy... something that is said, too, of consent human relations.

It has not been this 'side' of discussion that constantly refuses to go deeper than "eww, this is so because I said so, is it not obvious!".


----------



## Waffles (Sep 29, 2011)

Just more food for thought on the whole "beastiality" and "ethical" side of things:
-Ethics =/= laws
-Ethics =/= religion
-Ethics should not be mixed with EMOTION (how you personally feel about it)
-Ethics change over time 
-Ethics are nowhere near culturally accepted norms
-Ethics tend to have 6 sides to each one; 6 truths for every roll. Ethics are subjective and separate, different from each person. Each decision you make is based on ethics, which is why different people do different things.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Sep 29, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Do that. It will amount more than preaching from a pedestal. :V
> 
> Rhetorics. Assuming this man used a dolphin as a sex toy... something that is said, too, of consent human relations.
> 
> It has not been this 'side' of discussion that constantly refuses to go deeper than "eww, this is so because I said so, is it not obvious!".



Could I get some clarification on what you mean to say with that last line?


----------



## Bliss (Sep 30, 2011)

Trpdwarf said:


> Could I get some clarification on what you mean to say with that last line?


No. 

I am unable to do it. :smile:


----------



## Corto (Sep 30, 2011)

*IT'S BEEN 132 0 DAYS SINCE OUR LAST THREAD ABOUT MOLESTING ANIMALS*


----------



## Bliss (Sep 30, 2011)

Corto said:


> *IT'S BEEN 132 0 DAYS SINCE OUR LAST THREAD ABOUT MOLESTING ANIMALS*


How many days has it been since our last thread about molesting Corto? :V


----------



## Rilvor (Sep 30, 2011)

Here's a thought:

If you're going to attribute a higher degree of mental faculty to these creatures, that also means you're keeping creatures of such mental faculty locked up in enclosures. Food for thought.

Edit: In fact, people like this author keep them locked up in enclosures while using them for sexual favors.


----------



## Bliss (Sep 30, 2011)

Rilvor said:


> Here's a thought:
> 
> If you're going to attribute a higher degree of mental faculty to these creatures, that also means you're keeping creatures of such mental faculty locked up in enclosures. Food for thought.
> 
> Edit: In fact, people like this author keep them locked up in enclosures while using them for sexual favors.


True. That is a problem regardless if you bang a dolphin or not.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Sep 30, 2011)

Rilvor said:
			
		

> Here's a thought:
> 
> If you're going to attribute a higher degree of mental faculty to these  creatures, that also means you're keeping creatures of such mental  faculty locked up in enclosures. Food for thought.
> 
> Edit: In fact, people like this author keep them locked up in enclosures while using them for sexual favors.



Which is why the way animals are kept in zoos and such as been constantly improving to better reflect their natural habitat and to provide toys for mental stimulation. It's also why all experiments on animals now require approval from an ethics committee. It's also why there is a movement to afford rights to the other great apes. These facts haven't been overlooked, except by the general public.


----------



## Aden (Sep 30, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> How many days has it been since our last thread about molesting Corto? :V



...sure hope the mod forums don't get leaked again :V
I work with creepy people help


----------



## Corto (Sep 30, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> How many days has it been since our last thread about molesting Corto? :V



Two.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Sep 30, 2011)

Rilvor said:


> Here's a thought:
> 
> If you're going to attribute a higher degree of mental faculty to these creatures, that also means you're keeping creatures of such mental faculty locked up in enclosures. Food for thought.
> 
> Edit: In fact, people like this author keep them locked up in enclosures while using them for sexual favors.


In the modern day, most captive cetaceans are not randomly captured for shits and giggles. Typically they're found sick, injured, or orphaned and taken in for rehabilitation. Some can be released afterward and some can't, depending on the nature of the disease, or if they have a pod to go back to, or if they were capture too young and lost basic wild survival skills. So the choice becomes, keep them captive, or let them die horribly. I think most people can agree that the former is preferable. (Though some are bred in captivity, which personally I think is wrong.) ***

I do agree that it is reprehensible to engage in bestiality with a captive animal, however. A wild dolphin could theoretically give consent, because in open water it has all the control. (But that should be avoided for other reasons anyway, like the "don't feed the bears" analogy I made earlier.) A captive dolphin essentially has no control over its situation, and may suffer unknown emotional damage (like Stockholm's) no matter how careful we are to keep them happy and healthy.


***I heard it from someone who works with SeaWorld, but upon a Google  check after posting, I can't actually confirm that this is true. I can't  confirm that it's not true either, though, as most of the information  against it comes from sources that may be stretching the truth or  sensationalizing. Both sources are pretty unreliable. I'm leaving it up, but don't take it as Gospel truth.


----------



## Volkodav (Sep 30, 2011)

>captive

My thoughts here are proven

I hope this thing turns out like that guy who wrote the pedo book



SIX said:


> Technically he broke no law, as while bestiality isn't specifically legalised, it's not criminalised/wasn't criminalised where it happened - so there won't be any legal penalties for the confession.There's a sample chapter of the story here, and it's surprisingly well written. Your choice. :V


Uhmmm not entirely true. There was a dude who was from Canada and went to Buttfuck, Nowhere to fuck little girls and they tracked his ass down and threw him in jail


----------



## Corto (Sep 30, 2011)

That could be because what he did was a crime in Canada, therefore he could be judged there as a Canadian Citizen. Sort of like the German Neonazi that was judged in Germany even though he lived in some other country and made a neonazi site hosted in yet another country. It isn't unheard of for countries to give themselves this kind of jurisdiction when dealing with more important crimes (such as hate crimes, pedophilia, crimes against humanity, etc).
 I don't know jack about Canadian law though, but that seems like the logical explanation.

If dolphin fucking wasn't penalized when this guy did it, then he's in the safe. Nullum crime nullum pena sine lege, there can't be a crime without a law describing it (at least in rechstaat systems, which basically means "any democracy").


----------



## Volkodav (Sep 30, 2011)

Corto said:


> That could be because what he did was a crime in Canada, therefore he could be judged there as a Canadian Citizen. Sort of like the German Neonazi that was judged in Germany even though he lived in some other country and made a neonazi site hosted in yet another country. It isn't unheard of for countries to give themselves this kind of jurisdiction when dealing with more important crimes (such as hate crimes, pedophilia, crimes against humanity, etc).
> I don't know jack about Canadian law though, but that seems like the logical explanation.
> 
> If dolphin fucking wasn't penalized when this guy did it, then he's in the safe. Nullum crime nullum pena sine lege, there can't be a crime without a law describing it (at least in rechstaat systems, which basically means "any democracy").



yeah, they were saying "it wasnt illegal where he fucked the dolphin hrrrr"


----------



## Fay V (Sep 30, 2011)

Waffles said:


> Just more food for thought on the whole "beastiality" and "ethical" side of things:
> -Ethics =/= laws
> -Ethics =/= religion
> -Ethics should not be mixed with EMOTION (how you personally feel about it)
> ...


What exactly are you using to define ethics? That isn't really true for any of major theories.

Anyway I think a lot of this is "it's gross" but it also goes to the value of sentience. For a long time the idea of Love has been entwined with an idea of true intelligence and rationality. In order to really be loved, and love us back something must have sentience equal to that of a full grown average human, and this is something other species do not have. 
Yes dolphins can be smart, yes crows can be smart and make tools, but they are not on the same level of mental capacity as an adult human. 
This sentience thing is why people will look over interspecies relationships in scifi. If captain handsome fucks a green girl, it's not that big a deal if she is at least equally intelligent. When Brian, in family guy, goes after women, it's not that creepy because he is sentient, but it's awkward when he goes after dogs. 

Sentience is important to love, in order to love both parties must understand one another. we're not exactly incredibly accepting of loveless sex...more or less. If a woman sleeps around she's a slut. If a guy does it he's a perv...often enough. Sometimes it is accepted, he is a stud and obviously his sexual prowess is impressive, or something blah blah

Anyway with animals, they don't have the sentience for love in the way I described before. So automatically any act is associated with a quick bang rather than a real romantic connection. Which is why it's not exactly just "this is gross" but a higher form of thought dealing with more abstract concepts. 

As for my own opinion. Personally I do think it is taking advantage of animals in the same way it would be taking advantage of kids. I also think that this is the way that awful diseases arise.


----------



## BRN (Sep 30, 2011)

Clayton said:


> yeah, they were saying "it wasnt illegal where he fucked the dolphin hrrrr"



And this is the truth. There was no law against what he did, at the time and at the place that he did it, so no charge of a lawful nature can be brought against him.



Fay V said:


> Anyway I think a lot of this is "it's gross" but it also goes to the value of sentience. For a long time the idea of Love has been entwined with an idea of true intelligence and rationality. In order to really be loved, and love us back something must have sentience equal to that of a full grown average human, and this is something other species do not have.
> Yes dolphins can be smart, yes crows can be smart and make tools, but they are not on the same level of mental capacity as an adult human.
> This sentience thing is why people will look over interspecies relationships in scifi. If captain handsome fucks a green girl, it's not that big a deal if she is at least equally intelligent. When Brian, in family guy, goes after women, it's not that creepy because he is sentient, but it's awkward when he goes after dogs.
> 
> ...



It's commonly accepted that dolphins possess a similar level of intelligence as a human [intelligence here defined as 'capacity to solve a logical problem', measured by IQ] and they have been observed making and utilising tools from their environment aswell as having the capacity to learn from each other via cultural transmission and the ability to learn and understand foreign language. Arguably, this is sentience on par with humanity, merely minus the numerous concepts that can only arise from being part of a land-dwelling and humanoid culture (buildings, capitalism). 

They also, as far as it is possible to tell, have emotional response, which makes it likely they have the capacity to love and lust.

Regarding the statement about diseases, although there are arguably few willing sources, self-outed delphiles have given evidence that common diseases such as the cold and flu can be spread, but harder diseases - to be frank, STDs - appear intransmissable. Reference: the 1996 article I mentioned earlier, NSFW


----------



## Fay V (Sep 30, 2011)

SIX said:


> And this is the truth. There was no law against what he did, at the time and at the place that he did it, so no charge of a lawful nature can be brought against him.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Adult human. The problem with IQ tests with animals is it often will be slightly adjusted and the tests are designed for human intelligence, which is admittedly different. Some animals are much better at solving certain problems. 
I'm not saying that dolphins don't solve problems and aren't smart creatures. they can make tools and they have a rough understanding of grammar. 
My only point was that they are not at the intellectual level of an adult human. They can not understand complex grammar, and it's not just "well they don't speak english" because a that's something that foriegn speakers will gain as well. It's a matter that they don't understand all the parts of a sentence. 
A dolphin can make tools but not at the complex level an adult human can. 

They are similar, in fact they may be on par with a child. That is the problem though, they aren't equal. Children are smart, children can love and lust, but I personally feel it is taking advantage of the animal because it is not the intellectual equal, it's not close enough.


----------



## Volkodav (Sep 30, 2011)

SIX said:


> And this is the truth. There was no law against what he did, at the time and at the place that he did it, so no charge of a lawful nature can be brought against him.


 
You're missing what I said.
You didn't read my post about a Canadian guy who went and fucked underage sex slaves/prostitutes or some shit did you?


Also, understanding sexual acts/relationships =/= "I do this because it feels good"
A good example would be a dog or a cat licking up antifreeze. Yum, it's tasty! It's tasty so I want to drink it. I don't know that it is actually harmful for me though! So I will continue to drink it.
Zoophile logic would be handing a dog a bowl of antifreeze.

But I digress. I'm not getting sucked into this dolphin-porking abuse nonsense. Have a nice day CHUMPS


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Sep 30, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> ***I heard it from someone who works with SeaWorld, but upon a Google check after posting, I can't actually confirm that this is true. I can't confirm that it's not true either, though, as most of the information against it comes from sources that may be stretching the truth or sensationalizing. Both sources are pretty unreliable. I'm leaving it up, but don't take it as Gospel truth.



There is a "Dolphin Nursery" right on their map of attractions; I have stood right in front of it.


----------



## BRN (Sep 30, 2011)

Fay V said:


> Adult human. The problem with IQ tests with animals is it often will be slightly adjusted and the tests are designed for human intelligence, which is admittedly different. Some animals are much better at solving certain problems.
> I'm not saying that dolphins don't solve problems and aren't smart creatures. they can make tools and they have a rough understanding of grammar.
> My only point was that they are not at the intellectual level of an adult human. They can not understand complex grammar, and it's not just "well they don't speak english" because a that's something that foriegn speakers will gain as well. It's a matter that they don't understand all the parts of a sentence.
> A dolphin can make tools but not at the complex level an adult human can.
> ...



I contend that dolphins are as able to make tools as an adult human is, but the applications of those tools are limited by the physical capacity of a dolphin to use them - lacking opposable thumbs, or many tools of manipulation - and the resources available to them in their environment. They've proven themselves as having the mental capacity to adjust items around them to suit use, but they lack a physical method of manipulation, which is a physical restraint rather than a mental one. A crippled man is just as mentally capable as making a tool as any other human of similar intellect, but his incapacity prevents him. Is he thus less capable?

A child, even one who will grow up to be a prodigy, cannot grasp complex grammar when young. Linguistic experiments with dolphins haven't been running for long enough for us to be able to fairly declare the limit of delphinic mental understanding of language, and again, they lack a physical incapability to "speak".



Clayton said:


> words and doublethink



Simply put, again, what the man did was not illegal. No crime was committed. That is not "my understanding", it is a truth.


----------



## Fay V (Sep 30, 2011)

SIX said:


> I contend that dolphins are as able to make tools as an adult human is, but the applications of those tools are limited by the physical capacity of a dolphin to use them - lacking opposable thumbs, or many tools of manipulation - and the resources available to them in their environment. They've proven themselves as having the mental capacity to adjust items around them to suit use, but they lack a physical method of manipulation, which is a physical restraint rather than a mental one. A crippled man is just as mentally capable as making a tool as any other human of similar intellect, but his incapacity prevents him. Is he thus less capable?
> 
> A child, even one who will grow up to be a prodigy, cannot grasp complex grammar when young. Linguistic experiments with dolphins haven't been running for long enough for us to be able to fairly declare the limit of delphinic mental understanding of language, and again, they lack a physical incapability to "speak".
> 
> ...



If a child can grow up to understand language that's fine, they're still not capable of it at the moment. All of the data thus far has shown that dolphins are highly intelligent, even as intelligent as a human child. 
However my point is that they aren't as intelligent as the average adult human, and I haven't seen proof that they have demonstrated that. So as of now I feel that having sex with a dolphin is equivalent of having sex with a kid.


----------



## BRN (Oct 1, 2011)

Fay V said:


> If a child can grow up to understand language that's fine, they're still not capable of it at the moment. All of the data thus far has shown that dolphins are highly intelligent, even as intelligent as a human child.
> However my point is that they aren't as intelligent as the average adult human, and I haven't seen proof that they have demonstrated that. So as of now I feel that having sex with a dolphin is equivalent of having sex with a kid.


It's a fair conclusion based on the evidence we have, but as no conclusive results have been presented yet and all evidence says that their intelligence is yet to be properly quantified, it might be fairer to say that no conclusion at all can be made yet, as we're still in the process of teaching. That leaves only with personal beliefs to judge actions on from this particular line of argument.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 1, 2011)

SIX said:


> It's a fair conclusion based on the evidence we have, but as no conclusive results have been presented yet and all evidence says that their intelligence is yet to be properly quantified, it might be fairer to say that no conclusion at all can be made yet, as we're still in the process of teaching. That leaves only with personal beliefs to judge actions on from this particular line of argument.


Wouldn't it be better to er on the side of caution then? It's like pascal's wager, but with less faith and more possible bestiality. 
At the moment We have the possibility that dolphins are sentient and equals, or they have an intelligence which is at best, that of a human child. 
So if the first is true and you have sex with a dolphin you shared a meaningful moment, if you don't have sex with a dolphin...well that's just another thing you haven't had sex with, pretty much like 6.2 billion other people in the world. 

If it isn't sentient then having sex with a dolphin is taking advantage of it much in the same way as pedophilia. Which does psychological damage. So if you do have sex with a dolphin you could do major harm, and if you don't, nothing is lost. 
So if you don't have clear data showing that a dolphin can understand and be an intellectual equal, it seems better to just not have sex with a dolphin.


----------



## BRN (Oct 1, 2011)

Fay V said:


> Wouldn't it be better to er on the side of caution then? It's like pascal's wager, but with less faith and more possible bestiality.
> At the moment We have the possibility that dolphins are sentient and equals, or they have an intelligence which is at best, that of a human child.
> So if the first is true and you have sex with a dolphin you shared a meaningful moment, if you don't have sex with a dolphin...well that's just another thing you haven't had sex with, pretty much like 6.2 billion other people in the world.
> 
> ...



I'd agree. Delphiles who've successfully mated with dolphins have jumped the gun on ethical debate and have made an assumption about their partners that isn't yet scientifically verified. However, it is an assumption, and not yet proved to be a self-deception; the action itself is not yet immoral. Whereas you're arguing for look before you leap, these people leapt before they looked; in terms of morality, they have no idea where they end up.

However, it isn't quite a Pascal's Wager. We're not betting on a head nor a tail for a game of chance that will never be resolved, we're promoting ethics based on an assumption of superiority or delphinic inferiority. One has to disregard both the assumption that a dolphin is inferior and that a dolphin is equal before the action itself can be judged fairly, and in that case it becomes only the delphiliac's assumption that can be questioned, and if we question it, we still only end up with the unresolved question of "how smart _are_ dolphins?". 
While the wager remains unresolved, I'd advise on the side of caution. But not on the grounds that dolphins as a species aren't yet scientifically shown to have equal intellect to a human, more that the assumption needs to be verified before an action takes place. If one delphile finds evidence or proof that one dolphin shows intellect equal to his own, at that point I would have to say that taking action is OK. Likewise, if one delphile cannot find such evidence, the assumption would be a manifestation of false hope and such a person is then immoral in their action.

ED: I should have verified. If evidence is found by a delphle _that can be verified_ by unbiased sources of a dolphin's intellect, then the Wager is resolved for that individual dolphin. I speak of individuals because evidence shows dolphins have the same individuality we do.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 1, 2011)

I'm not sure you understand what Pascal's wager is. Nevermind that. 

I think it is immoral to act when you are aware of the consequences but don't have the data to back up a good guess. 
In a very simplistic way, say you have a button. There's a 50/50 chance that it will either kill someone, or give you a nice evening. Is a person immoral for risking the lives of others for possible pleasure. YES. 

If you argue that dolphins are not inferior then you must grant them moral agency, that means when you are determining the morality of your actions you need to factor in the weight of the dolphins rights. In most moral theories it absolutely is unacceptable to weigh personal pleasure over the well being of a moral agent. 

If it is unclear if dolphins are intelligent, then it is immoral to act with the possibility of harming their well being. 

Now you might say that the dolphin lover had proof that the particular dolphin was as intelligent as them, but without any replication their testimony is easily corrupted. We already know that moral judgements are highly influenced by emotion, whether we believe it or not, the brain usually turns to emotion before rationalizing the issue. We are also aware of the issue of the "left brain interpreter" 
Basically what this is, is the right "non-vocal" hemisphere will have made a decision that the body is acting one. The left brain then tried to interpret that decision and vocalize a rational reason behind the action. the results have been repeated for decades now, that the left brain can be wrong in the interpretation and try to rationalize an illogical action. For instance a person will give a list of reason for why one type of pantyhose is better, when in reality they are the same pair, but the subject prefers the right side. 

So what this all means is, in terms of morality, the personal individual view is irrelevant. It's untrustworthy. 
So if there is no current idea for the level of dolphin intelligence, then to have sex with a dolphin is to gample doing harm against their well being. As long as dolphins are moral agents and we don't have conclusive proof of their intelligence then having sex with dolphins is absolutely immoral in numerous different areas of theory. 

So yes, it is immoral to leap before you look. It is immoral, at this moment, to have sex with dolphins.

*The left brain interpreter is primarily a subject of Gazzaniga's split brain research
*emotionality in moral reasoning is from the work of Joshua Greene. The fMRI studies of Greene's "Trolley Problem" show the emotional reactions that must be overcome before a rational answer is given
*Greene also did work with left brain interpretation. He ran psych tests on subjects and this is where the panty hose example comes from, though I don't remember the name of this particular study.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Oct 1, 2011)

Fay V said:
			
		

> For a long time the idea of Love has been entwined with an idea of true  intelligence and rationality. In order to really be loved, and love us  back something must have sentience equal to that of a full grown average  human, and this is something other species do not have.



Wait, what? Children don't really love their parents? There also seems to be pretty good evidence that other species have emotions, including love.



			
				Clayton said:
			
		

> A good example would be a dog or a cat licking up antifreeze. Yum, it's  tasty! It's tasty so I want to drink it. I don't know that it is  actually harmful for me though! So I will continue to drink it.
> Zoophile logic would be handing a dog a bowl of antifreeze.



That's only relevant if bestiality is harmful. Yes, I know you're going to say it is and link to all sorts of anecdotal pages and everything but an objective study so you can skip that step.



			
				Fay V said:
			
		

> If it isn't sentient then having sex with a dolphin is taking advantage  of it much in the same way as pedophilia. Which does psychological  damage. So if you do have sex with a dolphin you could do major harm,  and if you don't, nothing is lost.
> So if you don't have clear data showing that a dolphin can understand  and be an intellectual equal, it seems better to just not have sex with a  dolphin.



That's not a correct comparison as children are known to be sentient. If dolphins are not sentient then they are not capable of being harmed any more than you can harm a computer and as such they are removed from any moral consideration. In any case the damage caused to children is not due to a lack of sentience and even in cases when there is no harm to children paedophilia is still wrong as a child cannot consent. What is interesting is what conditions are required for consent to even be valid. I'd say probably sentience so again if a dolphin is not sentient then consent isn't an issue. But I do maintain dolphins are sentient, so they can be harmed and consent is important. But the consent of a dolphin and the consent of a child are not the same for two reasons (they are related so maybe one reason). 

Dolphins are physically and emotionally mature for dolphins, children are not. A child's brain is still developing so they are unable to make decisions correctly. Dolphins are mature for dolphins so at their level they can make decisions correctly. You might argue they are not as intelligent as an adult human but that is immaterial. You can't judge a non-human on criteria developed for humans, it's a comparison across types which can't give you any meaningful answer. You can't say an apple is bad because it isn't curved enough to be a banana. We also know dolphins are capable of giving consent to members of their own species, so they have a certain level of consent that is relevant and sufficient for their type. A child's consent at the same level as a dolphin is insufficient because the child has not reached psychological maturity for it's type. If a child makes a decision it cannot be said that the same decision would've been made when the child had it's full mental capabilities. Animals are at their full mental capabilities so cannot be in a situation where they later are better able to make decisions and can regret the decisions they made, or to put it another way at no point in the future will an animal be in a position to make a better decision. As such the level of consent an adult animal can provide is sufficient for that animal.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Oct 1, 2011)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Wait, what? Children don't really love their parents? There also seems to be pretty good evidence that other species have emotions, including love.



I think it's pretty obvious they were talking about a different kind of love.



Rakuen Growlithe said:


> If dolphins are not sentient then they are not capable of being harmed any more than you can harm a computer and as such they are removed from any moral consideration.



Does this mean I can torch a nest of kittens without harming them, since they are not sapient? (I'll keep using that word)


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Oct 1, 2011)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> I think it's pretty obvious they were talking about a different kind of love.


The point still stands. And this is Rakuen, which is surprising.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 1, 2011)

Not really. 
I suppose I ought to clarify that I mean "sexual love" except not really. There is a concept of love which is two equals being one. Children can love, children can have emotions, but a child can not fully comprehend the complexities of a romantic relationship. 
Hell most adults can't 

First of all, humans don't reach a point where they just have the same set knowledge. An 18 year old might think it's fine to go bang a druggie rock star, a 30 year old would realize the problems with that. Yet both are able to legally consent. Consent isn't about a point where you're just going to not make any better decisions, human beings learn with experience. Consent is based on being mentally developed enough that you understand the implications of what you are doing. 

It doesn't matter that an adult dolphin is fully developed. What matters is if they are intelligent enough to understand what is happening. A dolphin can consent to it's own species, but that's like saying an apple understands what it is like being with other apples. 
When you have interspecies sex, to have real consent then the animal and human must understand what it is like to be an apple with a banana. If the species is not mentally capable of fully understanding the situation. It isn't moral. 

A 15 year old kid can consent to sex, she can say she totally wants it. However she still is not able to really consent as she does not have the capability to fully understand the situation. It isn't based on "she might make a different decision later" It is that she doesn't have the capability now. 
It doesn't matter if dolphins will never develop more, they still don't have that capability now.

*Edit. I need to correct myself. I meant sapience, not sentience. My bad.


----------



## Neuron (Oct 1, 2011)

I don't generally agree with bestiality because a non-sapient animal can't communicate their consent and etc.

But dolphins are a different case. I'm more so pissed off at them being held captive because they are far too intelligent to handle it well. It's not unheard of for wild dolphins to initiate sexual relationships and I'm not sure I really care because out of morbid curiosity I've read dolphin bestiality tales and they seem to be the one animal that gives a considerable indication of what can probably be called consent. They even seem to enjoy inter-species relationships on the same fucked up level we do.

Instances of dolphin humpin is probably too rare to be rounding up all the dolphin boning folks in any case.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Oct 1, 2011)

Fay, your 'apples/oranges' analogy has its merit; in the sense of empathy, we can't expect to understand dolphins any better than they understand humans.

And it REALLY pisses me off when what I think is an orange peels into a fuckin' apple.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 1, 2011)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Fay, your 'apples/oranges' analogy has its merit; in the sense of empathy, we can't expect to understand dolphins any better than they understand humans.


This is pretty much what bothers me most about it. We actually know with humans that you can be part of the same culture, even the same generation, but being in a different stage in life is extremely harmful in a relationship. Stages in life being things like, a college grad, being able to support yourself fully, that sort of thing. 
Our biggest answer to relationship issues is communication. And I know someone will say "but dolphins can't talk" but it's more than that. I have every bit of faith that two sapient species can learn to understand each other. 
The point is right now the two species can't effectively communicate, can't fully comprehend the action, and as I stated before, if we grant dolphins moral agency, it is immoral to act when there is a good chance of harming their well being.


----------



## BRN (Oct 1, 2011)

Fay V said:


> I'm not sure you understand what Pascal's wager is. Nevermind that.
> 
> I think it is immoral to act when you are aware of the consequences but don't have the data to back up a good guess.
> In a very simplistic way, say you have a button. There's a 50/50 chance that it will either kill someone, or give you a nice evening. Is a person immoral for risking the lives of others for possible pleasure. YES.
> ...



The point I was making about the difference between a Pascal's Wager scenario and this scenario is that Pascal's Wager deals explicitly with the _unknowable_ and only in a binary sense ("God exists or he does not, but to which side shall we incline"), when what we're discussing here deals with what is _as yet unknown_ and the answer lies on the spectrum that is IQ, or morality, or whichever concept we wrestle with at the time.

In the maths of mechanics, it is common to model a body as a particle - a single point in space - rather than as the body it is, to simplify things. A cube sliding down a ramp has varying frictional forces all along the surface of contact, and in truth is likely to not be a perfect cube, with bumps and imperfections on levels that change many things about its journey. However, when modelled as a particle, the system becomes a group of equations with deterministic outcome. 

 What I'm saying is that your arguments models the dolphin as an object which a human acts upon, with the binary outcomes of moral or immoral based on some as-yet scientifically unquantified factor. The truth remains, however, that a dolphin is an individual in itself. With the intellect it seems to possess, precise quantification nonwithstanding, it appears entirely likely that we must apply similar understanding of the situation to the dolphin's perspective aswell.  We cannot model the dolphin into a simple state and plug it into the philosophical 'equations' of necessity and sufficiency that Pascal's Wager requires.

Focusing entirely on the human perspective in this case models the dolphin as a particle for which a set of logical principles brings us to a deterministic response based on the particular factors of whether the pleasure of the moment is worth the potential for harm to the other party. 

 However, this is a valueless perspective. 

Primarily, the question of how harm might be brought to the other party at all, considering the context - a dolphin is no mere happily domesticated animal in a social heirachy and subject to the whims of humanity, it is a highly powerful and highly dangerous but typically docile creature that, in any environment even similar to its natural one, has every possible advantage. Simply put, it becomes impossible to visit harm on a dolphin in this scenario without critical harm being received in turn.
Of course, this leads us only to the conclusion that in all successful cases of delphilia, the dolphin itself *did not seek to harm* the human involved, or else *harm would have been done*. The implications of that statement I'll leave to you.

 And secondly, by ignoring the dolphin's perception in the matter, you also reduce the moral complications to one side of the argument. If it is always immoral based on the fact that it is possibly immoral, then what happens when a delphile, willing to consent but conscious of that moral argument, turns down an equally willing partner who is proposing _to_ the delphile? 
Both parties lose out, when an equally equitable solution might be found, because of a dogma which is itself based on rationalisations that appear to create or display no real understanding of the situation.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 1, 2011)

SIX said:


> long


I am proposing that if we treat dolphins as moral agents we have to treat them equal to humans. 
Is it immoral to have sex with a minor, even if the minor is consenting, YES. The minor does not/ can not understand the situation. 
Is it immoral to have a consenting adult believe you are going to have a relationship and just use them for a one night stand, yes. 
Is it immoral to fuck a very drunk girl/guy? yes. 

A sexual act is immoral if both the parties are not able fully understand the situation and the intentions of the other "person". Which right now we can't do with other species. 

For the most part I do believe the moral burden is on the human. While the moral capability of the dolphin is in question, the capability of the human is not. The human will know that absolute understanding consent is not achieved and is responsible for her actions. 
With a dolphin the level of understanding is unclear. This A. makes true consent impossible since you need to be confident that one understands, and B. It means the moral responsibility is in question. A child is a moral agent but is less responsible than an adult. 
You might argue that my idea of "understanding" is anthropocentric, but really that proves my point. If we can't even understand concepts between species how the hell could we hope for real consent?
I'm fairly confident that one day we will understand the level of intelligence of dolphins and other species. But as of now we don't, and because of that I believe bestiality to be immoral. 

By the by it is not impossible to enact harm on a creature without being harmed in return. Look at domestic abuse cases, or relationships with mental abuse. A grown man is generally physically stronger than a woman, yet there are plenty of cases where women are abusive mentally and physically to men and even rape them. 
Just because a dolphin might be physically capable does not mean that every action gets a free pass.


----------



## CrazyLee (Oct 1, 2011)

I can't believe we're at 9 pages of arguing over dolphin sex.

Because Furries.


----------



## Kaizy (Oct 1, 2011)

I disappear for 2 months and decide to check out the forum, see whats goin on with all the furries around here

THIS IS THE THREAD THAT GREETS MY ARRIVAL


----------



## Ames (Oct 2, 2011)

Kaizy said:


> I disappear for 2 months and decide to check out the forum, see whats goin on with all the furries around here
> 
> THIS IS THE THREAD THAT GREETS MY ARRIVAL



What, you expected any better of us?


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Oct 2, 2011)

Hakar Keramor said:
			
		

> I think it's pretty obvious they were talking about a different kind of love.



Yeah, I know. But it's also something that is up for interpretation which is just bad form when you are trying to make a point. There's no qualification on the type of love and in a later post he says children can love. There's nothing stated outright that differentiates between the two and that should be done. 



			
				Fay V said:
			
		

> First of all, humans don't reach a point where they just have the same  set knowledge. An 18 year old might think it's fine to go bang a druggie  rock star, a 30 year old would realize the problems with that. Yet both  are able to legally consent. Consent isn't about a point where you're  just going to not make any better decisions, human beings learn with  experience. Consent is based on being mentally developed enough that you  understand the implications of what you are doing.
> 
> It doesn't matter that an adult dolphin is fully developed. What matters  is if they are intelligent enough to understand what is happening. A  dolphin can consent to it's own species, but that's like saying an apple  understands what it is like being with other apples.
> When you have interspecies sex, to have real consent then the animal and  human must understand what it is like to be an apple with a banana. If  the species is not mentally capable of fully understanding the  situation. It isn't moral.
> ...



Consent has nothing to do with knowledge. The difference between not allowing a child to consent or make major decisions and allowing an adult to do so is whether or not they have matured. A child cannot consent because their brain has not finished developing yet. As such any decision they make is impaired with respect to their potential decision making capabilities and is postponed until they are in such a position as they can use their full abilities. An adult animal is fully developed and therefore its decisions are at its full capacity and there is no need to delay them. You cannot use understanding of the implications as the standard for consent except in an idealised case. Humans are not all-knowing and probably never understand the implications of what they are doing. That doesn't prevent them from consenting. If you back 500 years people will still be able to consent but they will have even less understanding of the implications of their actions than children do today. The difference increases as you back in time but we don't say that 1 000 years ago people were unable to consent. Mental maturity is different from knowledge and understanding of implications.

You can imagine if one day we were to discover aliens that were even more intelligent than we were. For them too it would be taboo to have sex with their children even if their children were smarter than any of our adults. Using your logic they would say it would be impossible for us to consent as we would have an incredibly impoverished understanding of our actions from their point. However we already have accepted that we are able to consent so that consent has to be divorced from actual understanding and is instead dependant on our development and ability to make decisions to the best of our abilities.

A 15-year-old could fully understand the situation, even better than some adults, but can't consent because her brain is not developed yet. The point is the later increase in capability. That is why we would say humans from our past can consent even as we know we have been continually increasing in intelligence. And it's the later increase in capability, or the lack thereof, that means we can still consent even if there are more comprehending individuals in the universe. There is no way of measuring a level of understanding and saying that that is the level at which you can consent. It's not possible for us to make such a level because we are not fully capable of understanding no matter who we are.



			
				Fay V said:
			
		

> Is it immoral to have sex with a minor, even if the minor is consenting,  YES. The minor does not/ can not understand the situation.
> Is it immoral to have a consenting adult believe you are going to have a  relationship and just use them for a one night stand, yes.
> Is it immoral to fuck a very drunk girl/guy? yes.
> 
> A sexual act is immoral if both the parties are not able fully  understand the situation and the intentions of the other "person". Which  right now we can't do with other species.



We can't fully understand the intentions of other people no matter what our condition. We just can't read minds.
Your middle situation isn't an issue of ability to consent, that's about the morality of deceiving someone. The other two situations though are issues of consent and in both situations the inability to consent is due to a reduced mental capacity as measured relative to their full potential.


----------



## Bliss (Oct 2, 2011)

Fay V said:


> A 15 year old kid can consent to sex, she can say she totally wants it. However she still is not able to really consent as she does not have the capability to fully understand the situation.





Rakuen Growlithe said:


> A 15-year-old could fully understand the situation, even better than some adults, but can't consent because her brain is not developed yet.


What is this and how could I guess our imaginary 15-year-old is girl? >:V

I don't think it has anything to do with judgement at that age but inequal power in the relationship.


----------



## LizardKing (Oct 2, 2011)

9 pages, 4 stars, no lock.

I don't know if to be amazed, disturbed, surprised or plain baffled, so I'll just be amasturprifled instead.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Oct 2, 2011)

LizardKing said:


> 9 pages, 4 stars, no lock.
> 
> I don't know if to be amazed, disturbed, surprised or plain baffled, so I'll just be amasturprifled instead.



I know, let's whine about furries some more. :V


----------



## General-jwj (Oct 2, 2011)

Maybe I'm overstepping some boundaries here, but I'll just throw this out there for you to consider : I wouldn't sex a dolphin.

Phew, I'm glad to have that off of my chest. :V


----------



## Tycho (Oct 2, 2011)

LizardKing said:


> 9 pages, 4 stars, no lock.
> 
> I don't know if to be amazed, disturbed, surprised or plain baffled, so I'll just be amasturprifled instead.



That word sounds dirty.


----------



## Heimdal (Oct 2, 2011)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Consent has nothing to do with knowledge. The difference between not allowing a child to consent or make major decisions and allowing an adult to do so is whether or not they have matured. A child cannot consent because their brain has not finished developing yet. As such any decision they make is impaired with respect to their potential decision making capabilities and is postponed until they are in such a position as they can use their full abilities. An adult animal is fully developed and therefore its decisions are at its full capacity and there is no need to delay them. You cannot use understanding of the implications as the standard for consent except in an idealised case.



A child cannot consent because A: If they don't understand, they can't consent, or B: If they do understand their own physical maturity level, social standards, the legalities, etc, their only appropriate response would be to not consent anyways.

If you travel to the past, and/or to some low-tech tribal culture, and use your immensely superior knowledge/understanding to manipulate them to worship you as their new god, is this moral?
Actually, this hypothetical isn't even necessary. The big question is: is being a con-artist a moral pursuit?


----------



## BRN (Oct 2, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> A child cannot consent because A: If they don't understand, they can't consent, or B: If they do understand their own physical maturity level, social standards, the legalities, etc, their only appropriate response would be to not consent anyways.
> 
> If you travel to the past, and/or to some low-tech tribal culture, and use your immensely superior knowledge/understanding to manipulate them to worship you as their new god, is this moral?
> Actually, this hypothetical isn't even necessary. The big question is: is being a con-artist a moral pursuit?



You didn't understand the argument. 

The idea was that the fact we don't allow a child to have legally-recognised consent because they are not in the maturity of their faculties nor at their full potential to comprehend. Rakuen argues that the example of 'the child' is is not a valid predicate for evaluating the value of an animal's consent, because the adult animal _is_ both in the maturity of their faculties and at their full potential to comprehend.

The point regarding cultures of differing potential is an example that shows that despite different levels of knowledge, standards remain similar, and that therefore we cannot suggest that "level of knowledge" can be anything to do with "value of consent".



Fay V said:


> I am proposing that if we treat dolphins as moral agents we have to treat them equal to humans.
> Is it immoral to have sex with a minor, even if the minor is consenting, YES. The minor does not/ can not understand the situation.
> Is it immoral to have a consenting adult believe you are going to have a relationship and just use them for a one night stand, yes.
> Is it immoral to fuck a very drunk girl/guy? yes.
> ...



In the case of the delphile the dolphin is neither deceived - since the transmission of false propositions is impossible, due to the language barrier - nor, most likely, drunk. We can treat dolphins as moral agents; however, to take our conceptual scheme of morality and project it onto them, and then base our debate about morality on that projected morality, will not give very valid results - especially regarding your case about one-night-stands, dolphins are practitioners of casual sex, and do not appear to give it the same sentimental value that we do. It's a social tool that varies from showing affection, to showing friendship, to just plain "I'm horny".

However, merely facing a creature that doesn't share our conceptual schemes does not invalidate any possibility of understanding. One individual animal can understand and fulfill the needs of another, human or not, regardless of whether or not that species entire understands entirely the other species.

Copulation is an act of the individual, and is _not_ a merger of two species. Granting dolphins the sapience they display, the intellect they show, and the personality each has, instead of reducing the argument to an anthropocentric viewpoint, and it becomes clear that individual dolphins are capable of displaying valid consent and propositioning. Your argument does not allow for this case, and I argue that in this case, the delphile is _more_ immoral in rejecting the offer based on that dogma than they would be to - as I said before - complete a mutually fulfilling and mutually consensual action.

Regarding the point about harm, you removed the context from your argument. In the water, one 400kg dolphin has every advantage. Domestic abuse cases take place between couples in a relationship with a similar imbalance of power, but using this metaphor, the _human_ can only be in the position of the _abused_, lacking any sort of natural advantage that might be used to show any case in which they might be shown to be the metaphorical abuser. Any case in which such an advantage is created must have been created either artifically (such as restraining the dolphin or removing them from the water) or surrounds an individual dolphin (crippled/incapacity). Obviously, both of these cases become immoral due to the forced human advantage. However, this is not representative of delphilia, and is not what I am arguing in the defense of.

And yet despite this, every single successful case of delphilia has not resulted in harm to the human involved.


----------



## Heimdal (Oct 2, 2011)

SIX said:


> You didn't understand the argument.
> 
> The idea was that the fact we don't allow a child to have legally-recognised consent because they are not in the maturity of their faculties nor at their full potential to comprehend. Rakuen argues that the example of 'the child' is is not a valid predicate for evaluating the value of an animal's consent, because the adult animal _is_ both in the maturity of their faculties and at their full potential to comprehend.
> 
> The point regarding cultures of differing potential is an example that shows that despite different levels of knowledge, standards remain similar, and that therefore we cannot suggest that "level of knowledge" can be anything to do with "value of consent".



It sounds like I did understand the argument. That I countered it doesn't mean I didn't get it. I was trying to tear apart the _assumption_ that consent is entirely dependent on age (maturity). Mental maturity is a factor in legally-recognized consent, but it is only such because it _correlates_ with their understanding. There are plenty of cases of adult people who are considered mentally unfit to make legally-recognized consent; the implication is that relative maturity _cannot_ be the bottom line for consent (because it often isn't), so understanding must be.

How are cultures of differing potentials examples that "level of knowledge" is unrelated to "value of consent"? That standards remain similar only really applies to the low-knowledge side, they would feel their value of consent to be equal only because they don't know the advantage in power that the other has. Even then, if they realize the difference, they would recognize the high-knowledge side as being unfair, or immoral, for using that knowledge-gap to take advantage of them. This is why I brought up con-artists. Adults at the peak of their mental maturity, get conned by someone who uses their lack in understanding/knowledge of certain things to take advantage of them. This is just about universally considered immoral. Why? Why would it be immoral?

If I'm still misunderstanding the argument, I contest that silly arguments are meant to be misunderstood.

I would also like to note that while dolphins are big and physically powerful compared to humans, that does not mean they have all the power. That doesn't even mean they have _some_ power. Knowledge is power; knowledge is _a lot_ of power. G.I Joe!


----------



## Volkodav (Oct 2, 2011)

I better not be the only cool dude here who noticed him on his blog saying a dog yawning =/= stress

Google that shit
"About 2,400,000 results (0.24 seconds)"

Whatcha gonna do bout it, faggot


Zoophiles don't know *fuck. all.* about their fleshlights animals. The only reason why someone would ever fuck outside their own species is if they lived in buttfuck nowhere where nobody has morals/understanding of animals, or if they were like.. burned by their BF/GF and are scared of humans and think they are a dog
[yt]d-un4wj3cvA[/yt]


http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2011/09/florida_sex_with_animals_zoophilia.php
That's what im talkin bout


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Oct 3, 2011)

Heimdal said:
			
		

> It sounds like I did understand the argument. That I countered it doesn't mean I didn't get it. I was trying to tear apart the _assumption_  that consent is entirely dependent on age (maturity). Mental maturity  is a factor in legally-recognized consent, but it is only such because  it _correlates_ with their understanding. There are plenty of cases  of adult people who are considered mentally unfit to make  legally-recognized consent; the implication is that relative maturity _cannot_ be the bottom line for consent (because it often isn't), so understanding must be.
> 
> How are cultures of differing potentials examples that "level of  knowledge" is unrelated to "value of consent"? That standards remain  similar only really applies to the low-knowledge side, they would feel  their value of consent to be equal only because they don't know the  advantage in power that the other has. Even then, if they realize the  difference, they would recognize the high-knowledge side as being  unfair, or immoral, for using that knowledge-gap to take advantage of  them. This is why I brought up con-artists. Adults at the peak of their  mental maturity, get conned by someone who uses their lack in  understanding/knowledge of certain things to take advantage of them.  This is just about universally considered immoral. Why? Why would it be  immoral?



It would be easier if you gave an example of what you were talking about. Those that are mentally unfit to consent are so because their mental abilities are impaired, either because they are under the effects of drugs or alcohol or because something caused them to develop incorrectly or damaged their mental abilities after development. 

The idea of going back in time, or perhaps to undeveloped parts of the world is that you will then have people who are allowed to consent but who have less understanding of the world than an educated child has. A man who lives in the jungle can consent to sex once he has matured because even though his actual knowledge is less than it could be as long as he has developed correctly his mental ability to process information is at the same level as everyone else. 
Then if we use your example of the knowledge gap we can use that in another thought experiment. If advanced aliens came to Earth with far greater understanding than us, would that invalidate our ability to consent? We would be put in the situation of the low knowledge party. 
Lastly a con is not relevant to consent. The morality there is in deception. Ignorance is not deception. If you were to have sex with a dolphin you are not making any attempt to deceive it and you are not taking advantage of its lack of knowledge for your own advantage.



			
				Clayton said:
			
		

> I better not be the only cool dude here who noticed him on his blog saying a dog yawning =/= stress
> 
> Google that shit
> "About 2,400,000 results (0.24 seconds)"



Do you ever present information honestly? Dog yawning can be stress but it can be any number of other things, all of which you are happy to ignore if they don't support your view. If you google and then read some pages you'll find yawning meaning...
The dog is stressed/nervous
The dog is trying to calm someone else
The dog is bored
The dog is tired
The dog needs more oxygen
It's due to contagious yawning
The dog wants reassurance
In none of the pages does anyone ever link to the source of the claim though so who knows how reliable any of them are. The point is that there is more to yawning than just stress.

And the number of Google results is meaningless, particularly since you don't tell us your search term. For example I googled "Aliens rule the world" and got 34,7 million results.


----------



## Vega (Oct 6, 2011)

After reading this thread I have only one thing to ask.
Lets say... anthropomorphic animals existed, would you guys have serious moral issues with humans dating them?  Or what?
This whole thread has baffled me.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Oct 6, 2011)

Vega said:


> After reading this thread I have only one thing to ask.
> Lets say... anthropomorphic animals existed, would you guys have serious moral issues with humans dating them? Or what?
> This whole thread has baffled me.


It would go both ways, but there's a thread or four for _*that*_ bullshit in the Den, I'm sure.


----------



## BRN (Oct 6, 2011)

Vega said:


> After reading this thread I have only one thing to ask.
> Lets say... anthropomorphic animals existed, would you guys have serious moral issues with humans dating them?  Or what?
> This whole thread has baffled me.



The answer would come from reconciling "it's morally OK because they are like humans" with the instinctual response of "it's not morally OK, because they are animals".

 Yes, no? Relies on personal opinion, I think, and resolving between the intellectual and the instinctive self. I'm all for consenting parties doing whatever they want, so long as it concerns themselves.


----------



## Volkodav (Oct 6, 2011)

Today we learn that Six and Whats his face Growly should get married and have a big ol disgusting zoo wedding and then be shot into the sun


Or they go to jail, whichever


----------



## Corto (Oct 6, 2011)

I hate molesting animals as much as the next guy but that's calling out an user. Keep it civil.


----------



## Volkodav (Oct 6, 2011)

Corto said:


> I hate molesting animals as much as the next guy but that's calling out an user. Keep it civil.


How am I calling out a user? These are both readily available information that is right in their user profile
It's no different then me putting "I am a white male" in my profile and then someone saying "HEY CLAY, YOU'RE A WHITE MALE"


----------



## Corto (Oct 6, 2011)

Yeah I can't find the "I want to be shot into the sun" bit anywhere on their profile.


----------



## Volkodav (Oct 6, 2011)

Corto said:


> Yeah I can't find the "I want to be shot into the sun" bit anywhere on their profile.


I didn't realize we weren't allowed to voice our opinions on this forum. That bit also doesn't qualify as calling out.

http://www.myfacewhen.com/64/


----------



## Tycho (Oct 6, 2011)

Clayton said:


> I didn't realize we weren't allowed to voice our opinions on this forum. That bit also doesn't qualify as calling out.
> 
> http://www.myfacewhen.com/64/



"Clayton, you're a creepy douchebag".  <= Opinion.  Call-out as well.  Quit being obtuse, creepy douchebag.  If I told you to fuck off and die it would constitute a callout.  Just because you didn't directly address them or use obscene language doesn't make it not a callout.


----------



## Volkodav (Oct 6, 2011)

Tycho said:


> "Clayton, you're a creepy douchebag".  <= Opinion.  Call-out as well.  Quit being obtuse, creepy douchebag.


That's an opinion and you are welcome to voice it. I don't see it as a callout though unless you create a thread called "Clayton you are a creepy douchebag"


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Oct 6, 2011)

He's nuts.  If you buy this book "ironically" you're insane.  If you agree with him you're insane.  End of story.


----------



## Volkodav (Oct 6, 2011)

Antonin Scalia said:


> He's nuts.  If you buy this book "ironically" you're insane.  If you agree with him you're insane.  End of story.


I feel bad for anybody whose dad finds tht in their room
oh wait no i dont. good ol fashion dad beat down


----------



## Fay V (Oct 6, 2011)

Well this thread has run its course


----------



## Corto (Oct 6, 2011)

Clayton said:


> I didn't realize we weren't allowed to voice our opinions on this forum. That bit also doesn't qualify as calling out.
> 
> http://www.myfacewhen.com/64/



Of fucking course insults are opinions. That doesn't mean they're allowed. Don't be so dense. 

Keep that in mind for future posts.


----------

