Wolf/Dog Rape

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Thu Jan 27, 2011 1:31 am

Ah, so I was confusing the issue. It's not whether dolphins should be treated as persons, but whether they already are.

In that case, some people treat them as such and some don't, and to my knowledge no legal bodies do. So, if you are how you're treated, dolphins are sometimes people (but probably never legally). The opinions of dolphin researchers only matter inasmuch as they treat dolphins as people.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Thu Jan 27, 2011 1:36 am

CatharzGodfoot wrote:Ah, so I was confusing the issue. It's not whether dolphins should be treated as persons, but whether they already are.

In that case, some people treat them as such and some don't, and to my knowledge no legal bodies do. So, if you are how you're treated, dolphins are sometimes people (but probably never legally). The opinions of dolphin researchers only matter inasmuch as they treat dolphins as people.

What does "should" even mean?

Should be treated as persons for what goal?

Should is like freedom, it doesn't mean anything on it's own.

Xenologer · Post by **Xenologer** » Thu Jan 27, 2011 2:03 am

For me the whole bestiality question (and I can hardly believe I am weighing in on "the bestiality question") is not about harm to the animal or lasting psychological trauma to the dog, the lion, or the moray eel chosen as a bestial paramour. This isn't about the wolves. That is a deflection from what has to be going on in your head to have the inability to grant or refuse consent be anything but a dealbreaker when considering potential live sexual partners ("live" added to differentiate between using a vibrator to get off and using a mastiff).

Whether certain animals are smart enough to count as people and thus deserve "human rights" is sort of beside the point to me. I want to know if they're able to give or refuse informed consent. If not, even though the dog humping your leg is quite literally asking for it as clearly as he knows how, you are broken on the inside if you even compare this to a mating between sapient consenting creatures.

It's not about the dogs who get fucked or their rights. It's about the dogfuckers and their evident lack of enthusiasm for self-aware partners.

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Thu Jan 27, 2011 4:59 am

CatharzGodfoot wrote: Why don't you tell me a little bit about octopus social structure.

They don't really have them. Possibly because they die after sex (thier endocrine glands kill them, IIRC, but they also stop eating, so they still starve if you remove the glands). Otherwise, they can recognize specific people and will play with toys. It's possible they play pranks and plan ahead, though I'm not convinced.

I'm not even an expert/fan/whatever. It's just this wierd and cool thing I ran across once.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Thu Jan 27, 2011 5:59 am

Xenologer wrote:It's not about the dogs who get fucked or their rights. It's about the dogfuckers and their evident lack of enthusiasm for self-aware partners.

By that standard, people who 'have sex' with objects are committing bestiality.

fectin wrote:
CatharzGodfoot wrote: Why don't you tell me a little bit about octopus social structure.
They don't really have them. Possibly because they die after sex (thier endocrine glands kill them, IIRC, but they also stop eating, so they still starve if you remove the glands). Otherwise, they can recognize specific people and will play with toys. It's possible they play pranks and plan ahead, though I'm not convinced.

I'm not even an expert/fan/whatever. It's just this wierd and cool thing I ran across once.

Yeah, I was asking that as a snark a Kaelik. If an animal doesn't have social relationships (which are basically the basis of personhood), how can you consider it more intelligent that animals that do? Octopuses are really fucking cool, and they're great at problem solving, but they don't really have the traits which allow a person to act as such.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Thu Jan 27, 2011 6:11 am

CatharzGodfoot wrote:Ydoesn't have social relationships (which are basically the basis of personhood), how can you consider it more intelligent that animals that do?

Uhh WTF are you smoking that social relations are the basis of personhood. Hive insects are the most social and least personlike of any animal species.

Again. Define personhood you fucking sophist. Stop trying to Schroedinger your way around the definition to win an argument.

Spike · Post by **Spike** » Thu Jan 27, 2011 6:18 am

This whole question of Personhood really makes me want to go re-read H. Beam Piper's Fuzzy Papers again, because if I have to deal with people bullshitting their way through what is and isn't personhood, he really did actually answer the question with some heavy thought that just isn't manifesting here.

Of course, one of his potential answers involved 'Uses Fire'... then he pointed out that babies don't use fire... so make what you will of it.

norms29 · Post by **norms29** » Thu Jan 27, 2011 7:24 am

Xenologer wrote:For me the whole bestiality question (and I can hardly believe I am weighing in on "the bestiality question") is not about harm to the animal or lasting psychological trauma to the dog, the lion, or the moray eel chosen as a bestial paramour. This isn't about the wolves. That is a deflection from what has to be going on in your head to have the inability to grant or refuse consent be anything but a dealbreaker when considering potential live sexual partners

no. THAT is a deflection from an actual moral question.
Answer this VERY SIMPLE question: Is there or is there not an entity of anykind with rights that are even potentially being violated?

if the answer is no, than the discussion is over. nothing morally wrong is taking place.

the whole quoted paragraph amounts to "I find it gross, so it's immoral"

theye1 · Post by **theye1** » Thu Jan 27, 2011 8:05 am

I don't even care about the morality of Dog Fucking, I just don't play with the freaks who think it is okay.

PoliteNewb · Post by **PoliteNewb** » Thu Jan 27, 2011 4:59 pm

theye1 wrote:I don't even care about the morality of Dog Fucking, I just don't play with the freaks who think it is okay.

This is a legitimate stance to take.
Of course, it also puts you in roughly the same boat as people who won't game with queers because they think it's gross. So make of that whatever you want.
Actually, it puts you in the same boat as people who don't want people to play gay characters, because "buttsecks is gross", and "what kind of freaks think that's okay".

I mean, seriously, we're not talking about people who want to fuck a dog right there on your table. You are talking about completely hypothetical fictional dogs, and generally only in the sense of "yeah, my characters a lupus and he mates with wolves. end of story". Why are people getting their panties in a bunch?

I don't want to game with people who think it's alright to behead people and take the money out of their pockets...but I don't complain when they want to play characters that do that. Hell, I've gamed with people who played characters that torture human beings...compared to that, a character that fucks dogs is kinda small potatoes.

This whole question of Personhood really makes me want to go re-read H. Beam Piper's Fuzzy Papers again, because if I have to deal with people bullshitting their way through what is and isn't personhood, he really did actually answer the question with some heavy thought that just isn't manifesting here.

Of course, one of his potential answers involved 'Uses Fire'... then he pointed out that babies don't use fire... so make what you will of it.

First, Beam Piper rocks, and I too want to go back and read those. I can't deny he had some paternalistic racism going on, but he was a product of his times.

Second, as far as the "uses fire" and babies thing...make it "belongs to a species that, as a whole, uses fire" and you're fine. Judging a species by it's immature version is bollocks.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Thu Jan 27, 2011 7:59 pm

Kaelik wrote:
CatharzGodfoot wrote:Ydoesn't have social relationships (which are basically the basis of personhood), how can you consider it more intelligent that animals that do?
Uhh WTF are you smoking that social relations are the basis of personhood. Hive insects are the most social and least personlike of any animal species.

Insects aren't very adept at interacting socially with humans. Octopodes don't even interact much with each other, so it seems incredibly unlikely that they could meaningfully be members of human society.

Kaelik wrote:Again. Define personhood you fucking sophist. Stop trying to Schroedinger your way around the definition to win an argument.

Kaelik, I'm not trying to win an argument. We stopped arguing back when I realized you were just claiming that dolphins weren't always already treated as people. Which is obviously true.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Thu Jan 27, 2011 8:02 pm

CatharzGodfoot wrote:Insects aren't very adept at interacting socially with humans. Octopodes don't even interact much with each other, so it seems incredibly unlikely that they could meaningfully be members of human society.

So now the definition of "person" is interacts socially with humans? Seriously? Then why the fuck does it matter if Dolphins are smart? It only matters if they interact socially with humans.

As Ants demonstrate, interacting socially doesn't require much intelligence.

Again. Define personhood you fucking sophist. Stop trying to Schroedinger your way around the definition to win for no apparent reason.

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Thu Jan 27, 2011 8:10 pm

Jesus, Kaelik. You are a weird dude.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Thu Jan 27, 2011 10:04 pm

mean_liar wrote:Jesus, Kaelik. You are a weird dude.

He ejaculates all over the thread by talking about something that he doesn't actually know the definition of and still has no idea what he even means to say, and I'm the weird one?

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Thu Jan 27, 2011 10:23 pm

I think its your viciousness and fervor that's most atypical.

I imagine most folks don't care about the thread though, so there is that. I mean, its mostly all been about dog-fucking apologetics, right? Its hard to shit up a thread like that.

Carry on.

Molochio · Post by **Molochio** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 12:09 am

Attempting to apply human moral attributes to a dog is absurd.

It is only the human who needs these justifications and even among humanity the ideals of what is moral and immoral may vary wildly from person to person and culture to culture.

Thus when a human and a dog lay down together in lust it is most commonly looked upon with some measure of disgust, with the exception of a select few groups with variant perspectives on sexual morality.

But when a werewolf and a wolf lay down together in excellence... Yes.

That is good. That is good.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:22 am

Kaelik wrote:
CatharzGodfoot wrote:Insects aren't very adept at interacting socially with humans. Octopodes don't even interact much with each other, so it seems incredibly unlikely that they could meaningfully be members of human society.
So now the definition of "person" is interacts socially with humans? Seriously? Then why the fuck does it matter if Dolphins are smart? It only matters if they interact socially with humans.

As Ants demonstrate, interacting socially doesn't require much intelligence.

Again. Define personhood you fucking sophist. Stop trying to Schroedinger your way around the definition to win for no apparent reason.

Like I said, I'm not arguing with you anymore. I agree with your opinion on the personhood of dolphins. Still, I'll try to answer your question.

Spoiler for wall of text

Personhood is one of those fuzzy concepts like "consciousness" which is valuable but difficult to pin down. Still, I'll try to define it for the sake of your argument. In the process, I'll probably exclude some entities that I'd probably like to define as persons. I'll try to avoid including those which I wouldn't. I'm not here to write a metaphysics dissertation.

Firstly, personhood requires a sense of self. It's useless to consider something a person if it isn't capable of thinking of itself in similar terms. This is a difficult thing to test, but there are ways to gather evidence for it.

By necessity, a person must be able to communicate with human beings (this is a human-centric definition because I'm human). There's no way to know whether something is a person without this criteria. It's possible (though highly unlikely) that there is some self-aware highly intelligent enity in the form of a fungal matrix living right under our feet, or a pattern of magnetic field lines in plasma right over our heads. Until we communicate with them, though, there's no way of knowing. This doesn't mean that a person has to communicate directly in a human language.

Then, if I want to put a cruel filter on this, the last qualification I'll provide is that they can learn a context-dependent grammar. This is a test of both intelligence and ability to interact.

The above aren't exactly ways of describing what a person is. They're qualities which are probably necessary and sufficient to generate the gestalt which most people can understand as a 'person'.

violence in the media · Fri Jan 28, 2011 3:37 am

A person is the principal constituent of Soylent Green?

Spike · Post by **Spike** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 3:56 am

I am horribly going to mangle this but:

A person is defined by a certain sense of self awareness and abstract thought. I've actually heard it formulated that the key is 'Self reflection'. An octopus or a dog does not dwell on why they do what they do. They don't worry if an action is good or bad. Their ability to even evaluate abstract concepts like cause and effect is extremely limited... for example: Dog trainers say that you should not punish a dog for pooping in the house unless you can do it WHILE THEY ARE POOPING, because if you wait even a second or two, the Dog will assume it is being punished for walking away...or what ever it was actively doing the exact instant you punished it. It can't really link together the idea of 'every time I poop in the house I get yelled at later and have my nosed rubbed in it'... it can only think 'Every time I walk away from poop I get yelled at, so I should not walk away from poop'.

Of course, I'm paraphrasing a syncretic idea cobbled together from smarter and more eloquent men than myself... from memory, so if I haven't really covered it well... its their fault for not explaining it better.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:12 pm

For sex to be moral it has to have three things. Just three. Fucking. Things.

Your partner has to have adult human intelligence.
Your partner has to have mental competence at the time.
Your partner has to consent.

That's it. That's not a high fence to jump over. You can have gay dragon-fucking scat orgies. I don't care. You must have those. Three. Things. All of them. No exceptions, substitutions, or refunds.

I am willing to accept that there are gray areas. The line of where to draw adult human intelligence is completely arbitrary, and the legal definitions designed to capture the idea are by necessity obtuse. The line between "slightly tipsy" and "mentally incompetent" is extremely arguable. Even "consent" can get into weird areas with S&M play and inadequate safe words and shit. And all of those are reasonable, if distinctly uncomfortable, things to talk about.

But you know what is full stop not OK? Claiming that you can skip any of those three things you need to make your sex a moral act and not be a literal fucking monster. That is not OK. It is not OK to meander on about some navel gazing about "who is really the victim" when you have sex with people who don't consent. It is not OK to do the same about sex with people who are not mentally competent, nor is it OK to do that about sex with people who are not of adult human intelligence. These things are not OK. OK?

I am aware that there are people who claim that fucking women who have passed out is "OK" because "they won't remember it anyway" and that you therefore have not traumatized anyone. This is a bullshit argument, and the people who make it are monsters. I am further aware that there are people who claim that fucking children is OK if the child agrees to it because "they wanted to go forward, so there's no victim". This is also bullshit, and the people who make this argument are monsters.

I don't have to identify a specific victim or explain how they are being harmed in order to show that non-consensual sex is wrong. That should be completely obvious and beyond question. You need all three things. No exceptions.

-Username17

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:26 pm

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:52 pm

So just to be clear Frank, your explicit opinion is that using a vibrator is immoral?

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:54 pm

Kaelik wrote:So just to be clear Frank, your explicit opinion is that using a vibrator is immoral?

A vibrator is not a sexual partner. You are also perfectly within your rights to either take your socks off or leave them on during sex.

-Username17

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 3:21 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:
Kaelik wrote:So just to be clear Frank, your explicit opinion is that using a vibrator is immoral?
A vibrator is not a sexual partner. You are also perfectly within your rights to either take your socks off or leave them on during sex.

-Username17

A vibrator is pretty clearly a sexual partner. Unless you are defining partner based on some kind of intelligence thing, rather than action, in which case dogs aren't sexual partners either.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 3:25 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:
Kaelik wrote:So just to be clear Frank, your explicit opinion is that using a vibrator is immoral?
A vibrator is not a sexual partner. You are also perfectly within your rights to either take your socks off or leave them on during sex.

-Username17

OK You are going to need to define the term "sexual partner" then.

A pillow (had to throw that in for the ladies)
The Vibrator
The inaimate anatomically correct inflatable doll
The inaimate but very oddly shaped tree
...