Speciesism Is Just As Bad As Racism And Sexism

This is the place for topical debate and discussion about anything in the world (non-Queen related).

Re: Speciesism Is Just As Bad As Racism And Sexism

Postby YAFF » Sun Sep 28, 2014 11:18 pm

Elessar wrote:You've done some more lazy pasting there; I'm not reading it. Your job isn't to push books in front of me and insist that they make you right, it's to persuade me with shortened versions that it's worth reading the longer ones.


Your loss. It unequivocally shows you choose to have your head up your ass. Don't read it then. Why would I care? I already know you have your mind made up. I don't post for you but for any potential lurkers who have open minds.
"I don't dislike Freddie and have said he's hands down the best singer I've ever heard." - magicshoes
 
YAFF
Don't Stop Me Now
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 2288
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 12:26 am
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 281 times
Been thanked: 238 times

Re: Speciesism Is Just As Bad As Racism And Sexism

Postby YAFF » Sun Sep 28, 2014 11:22 pm

Elessar wrote:I didn't say that tool use is evidence of a carnivorous diet. I said that we use tools that make carnivorous-type teeth unnecessary. Furthermore, the evolution of language necessitates an oropharynx capable of producing words, and great big teeth would hinder this. You might also have noticed that we don't have huge claws like the large cats, or venomous bites like many carnivorous reptiles. We don't need them, because we have tools and language to help us hunt.


Again. Not relevant. It is not evidence that our bodies are made to eat meat. They are clearly not. We may have culturally evolved to be omnivores but our bodies have not. You can use a spoon tool to eat some elephant dung as well. So what? Tool use is not proof we are designed to be meat eaters.
"I don't dislike Freddie and have said he's hands down the best singer I've ever heard." - magicshoes
 
YAFF
Don't Stop Me Now
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 2288
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 12:26 am
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 281 times
Been thanked: 238 times

Re: Speciesism Is Just As Bad As Racism And Sexism

Postby Elessar » Sun Sep 28, 2014 11:40 pm

YAFF wrote:
Elessar wrote:You've done some more lazy pasting there; I'm not reading it. Your job isn't to push books in front of me and insist that they make you right, it's to persuade me with shortened versions that it's worth reading the longer ones.


Your loss. It unequivocally shows you choose to have your head up your ass. Don't read it then. Why would I care? I already know you have your mind made up. I don't post for you but for any potential lurkers who have open minds.


I did actually read it once I knew who wrote it, and when I did, I did so from its original source. It's clearly written from a position where the author has already made his mind up, which is fine, but not particularly scientific. Much of what he writes omits large amount of relevant fact. For example, many herbivores are violently sick if they eat meat. We're not. If eating meat is a global error of judgement that goes against or biology (which would be truly staggering), you'd expect to see it in other animals. Indeed you do. Monkeys with a certain brain injury can develop Kluver-Bucy syndrome, where they eat previously rejected meats. Sadly, this syndrome also exists in humans, or rather, it's still an abnormality when it exists in humans.

I'm darting around points here because it's a complete non-starter. Having an open mind doesn't mean accepting anything, it means being willing to change your mind based on fact. There are many excellent ethical, social, political, ecological and economic reasons not to eat meat. Dozens of them. Some are more valid than others; all are deserving of discussion. But the idea that humans are herbivores, betraying their biology by eating meat, is a complete fantasy.

We evolved (I keep forgetting, I can't really talk in evolutionary terms when talking to you) as hunter-gatherers. There isn't just archeological evidence, but there's also biological evidence. In fact they're the same thing. If we know cavemen ate meat, we know evolution took place with a meat-eating diet. Yes, if you take a 'god designed us' approach then you could argue that humans were given herbivore stomachs but stupidly use them to eat meat, but with a starting premise like that it's nigh on impossible to have a proper discussion. If anatomical considerations are doomed to boil down to the sadly-still-a-thing evolution vs creationism argument, let's try genetics. I'm by no means an expert and don't have the energy right now to go on a Googling spree, so I'll stick to what I know.

We evolved as hunter gatherers. Men mostly hunt, women mostly gather. Colour blindness is sex-linked, affecting men 10x as frequently as women. Trichromacy allows us to differentiate ripe fruit from under-ripe. Dichromats have a greater ability to see through camouflage (Mollon 1992). Camouglage is an evolutionary mechanism used by prey to protect themselves against predators. Anyone with an enhanced ability to see through camouflage will therefore have advantages in hunting.

I'm sure there are hundreds of far more directly relevant examples of our genetics enabling a carnivorous diet, but as a dichromat myself, I quite like that one.
 
Elessar
I Want To Break Free
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 11470
Images: 0
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:35 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 185 times

Re: Speciesism Is Just As Bad As Racism And Sexism

Postby Elessar » Sun Sep 28, 2014 11:46 pm

YAFF wrote:
Elessar wrote:I didn't say that tool use is evidence of a carnivorous diet. I said that we use tools that make carnivorous-type teeth unnecessary. Furthermore, the evolution of language necessitates an oropharynx capable of producing words, and great big teeth would hinder this. You might also have noticed that we don't have huge claws like the large cats, or venomous bites like many carnivorous reptiles. We don't need them, because we have tools and language to help us hunt.


Again. Not relevant. It is not evidence that our bodies are made to eat meat. They are clearly not. We may have culturally evolved to be omnivores but our bodies have not. You can use a spoon tool to eat some elephant dung as well. So what? Tool use is not proof we are designed to be meat eaters.


Again, not what I said. I'm not saying using tools mean we must eat meat. I'm saying using tools means that we don't need the same teeth as other carnivores, so an absence of such teeth can't be relied upon as proof that we're herbivores. We also don't have thick furry skin, so one could use that as evidence that we were 'designed' to live indoors or in hot climates; it neglects the fact that we also evolved the ability to make clothes.

In any case, this is all a chronic misunderstanding of evolution. We can eat meat (evidence: I ate meat earlier today very successfully) so BY DEFINITION we evolved being able to. The only way you can argue that away is by doing away with evolution, in which case you have a very different discussion on your hands.
 
Elessar
I Want To Break Free
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 11470
Images: 0
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:35 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 185 times

Re: Speciesism Is Just As Bad As Racism And Sexism

Postby YAFF » Mon Sep 29, 2014 12:02 am

Elessar wrote:I did actually read it once I knew who wrote it, and when I did, I did so from its original source. It's clearly written from a position where the author has already made his mind up, which is fine, but not particularly scientific. Much of what he writes omits large amount of relevant fact. For example, many herbivores are violently sick if they eat meat. We're not. If eating meat is a global error of judgement that goes against or biology (which would be truly staggering), you'd expect to see it in other animals. Indeed you do. Monkeys with a certain brain injury can develop Kluver-Bucy syndrome, where they eat previously rejected meats. Sadly, this syndrome also exists in humans, or rather, it's still an abnormality when it exists in humans.


Well you are entitled to your opinion but I'd like to see some actual scientific refutation rather than you just cherry picking a weak spot to give the appearance of having addressed the article equitably.

Elessar wrote:I'm darting around points here because it's a complete non-starter.


In less cryptic words you are waving the white flag. Read you loud and clear.

Elessar wrote:Having an open mind doesn't mean accepting anything, it means being willing to change your mind based on fact. There are many excellent ethical, social, political, ecological and economic reasons not to eat meat. Dozens of them. Some are more valid than others; all are deserving of discussion. But the idea that humans are herbivores, betraying their biology by eating meat, is a complete fantasy.


Says you but you have added nothing to buttress your hand waving dismissal. You are simply wrong and that article shows unequivocally- despite some errors- that humans match the Herbivore type. In fact there is not a SHRED of biological nor anatomical evidence to support your opinion and theory humans are fit to be omnivores.

Elessar wrote:We evolved (I keep forgetting, I can't really talk in evolutionary terms when talking to you) as hunter-gatherers.


That's nonsense. I will gladly debate you on evolution. I already know you are deficient in this area because of your schoolboy crush on Richard Dawkins. And "cultural evolution" does not mean "biological evolution". Our species has also "evolved" to be cannibalistic, to commit pedophilia, to drink urine, to murder other humans. Based on your poor reasoning these things are also just part of our evolution.

Elessar wrote: There isn't just archeological evidence, but there's also biological evidence. In fact they're the same thing. If we know cavemen ate meat, we know evolution took place with a meat-eating diet. Yes, if you take a 'god designed us' approach then you could argue that humans were given herbivore stomachs but stupidly use them to eat meat,


Who said anything about God? A worthless diversion. This is an example of your tiresome presumptuousness.

Cavemen eating meat is NOT biological evidence anymore than cannibals being a archaeological and biological evolution,

Elessar wrote: but with a starting premise like that it's nigh on impossible to have a proper discussion.


Then why bring it up when I didn't?!?

Elessar wrote:We evolved as hunter gatherers. Men mostly hunt, women mostly gather. Colour blindness is sex-linked, affecting men 10x as frequently as women. Trichromacy allows us to differentiate ripe fruit from under-ripe. Dichromats have a greater ability to see through camouflage (Mollon 1992). Camouglage is an evolutionary mechanism used by prey to protect themselves against predators. Anyone with an enhanced ability to see through camouflage will therefore have advantages in hunting.

I'm sure there are hundreds of far more directly relevant examples of our genetics enabling a carnivorous diet, but as a dichromat myself, I quite like that one.


You can't be serious. That is pure Richard Dawkins-like "just so" conjecture. If you are going to site this kind of examples we may as well stop now. It is not evidence but just an evolutionary interpretation. Other explanations would carry equal weight
"I don't dislike Freddie and have said he's hands down the best singer I've ever heard." - magicshoes
 
YAFF
Don't Stop Me Now
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 2288
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 12:26 am
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 281 times
Been thanked: 238 times

Re: Speciesism Is Just As Bad As Racism And Sexism

Postby YAFF » Mon Sep 29, 2014 12:08 am

Elessar wrote:Again, not what I said. I'm not saying using tools mean we must eat meat. I'm saying using tools means that we don't need the same teeth as other carnivores, so an absence of such teeth can't be relied upon as proof that we're herbivores.


Sure it can. Just because we evolved to know we can use weapons means nothing. We evolved and do all kinds of ridiculous things.
Is cannibalism part of our evolution? How about pedophilia? How about if we use the tools to anally rape other humans?

You have not bridged the gap between cultural evolution and biological evolution by giving a mere interpretation, which has many other interpretations
"I don't dislike Freddie and have said he's hands down the best singer I've ever heard." - magicshoes
 
YAFF
Don't Stop Me Now
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 2288
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 12:26 am
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 281 times
Been thanked: 238 times

Re: Speciesism Is Just As Bad As Racism And Sexism

Postby Elessar » Mon Sep 29, 2014 12:14 am

We're not going to get anywhere here. You're going to continue to be insulting and irrational, and I'm not going to be able to have any kind of meaningful discussion against that style of argument. You could have chosen the many extremely valid ethical or environmental reasons to switch to vegetarianism but instead have gone down a line that is almost impossible to argue with because it's so inane. Not only is it inane but it's also deeply unpleasant and I don't think I'd take any pleasure in systematically tearing it apart, as it would require a huge amount of effort to refute things that shouldn't really need to be refuted, and I'm confident you'd dismiss it anyway. I'm out. If you want to interpret that as a white flag then I can't stop you - it would be by no means your most outlandish misinterpretation. I very briefly thought that I'd been premature in thinking that your opening post was indicative of your intentions to conduct yourself poorly in any subsequent discussion, but you've very generously vindicated me.
 
Elessar
I Want To Break Free
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 11470
Images: 0
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:35 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 185 times

Re: Speciesism Is Just As Bad As Racism And Sexism

Postby YAFF » Mon Sep 29, 2014 12:25 am

Elessar wrote:We're not going to get anywhere here. You're going to continue to be insulting and irrational, and I'm not going to be able to have any kind of meaningful discussion against that style of argument. You could have chosen the many extremely valid ethical or environmental reasons to switch to vegetarianism but instead have gone down a line that is almost impossible to argue with because it's so inane. Not only is it inane but it's also deeply unpleasant and I don't think I'd take any pleasure in systematically tearing it apart, as it would require a huge amount of effort to refute things that shouldn't really need to be refuted, and I'm confident you'd dismiss it anyway. I'm out. If you want to interpret that as a white flag then I can't stop you - it would be by no means your most outlandish misinterpretation. I very briefly thought that I'd been premature in thinking that your opening post was indicative of your intentions to conduct yourself poorly in any subsequent discussion, but you've very generously vindicated me.


Yes, you clearly have waved the white flag of defeat. So instead of answering my counter-questions you tellingly post an overwrought, rambling paragraph decrying my behavior of insults and hard-headedness with the very same behavior. You used words like "irrational", "inane", "unpleasant", "outlandish" but the real deal is that you are feigning moral superiority and outrage to mask your very untenable arguments. You sir are simply full of shit.
"I don't dislike Freddie and have said he's hands down the best singer I've ever heard." - magicshoes
 
YAFF
Don't Stop Me Now
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 2288
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 12:26 am
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 281 times
Been thanked: 238 times

Re: Speciesism Is Just As Bad As Racism And Sexism

Postby Elessar » Mon Sep 29, 2014 12:26 am

YAFF wrote:
Elessar wrote:Again, not what I said. I'm not saying using tools mean we must eat meat. I'm saying using tools means that we don't need the same teeth as other carnivores, so an absence of such teeth can't be relied upon as proof that we're herbivores.


Sure it can. Just because we evolved to know we can use weapons means nothing. We evolved and do all kinds of ridiculous things.
Is cannibalism part of our evolution? How about pedophilia? How about if we use the tools to anally rape other humans?

You have not bridged the gap between cultural evolution and biological evolution by giving a mere interpretation, which has many other interpretations



Once again you're using emotive and sexually violent imagery to try to make your points. I'm not saying evolving the ability to make spears was so that we could eat meat, I'm saying that we HAVE spears so IF we eat meat, sharp tearing teeth aren't necessary, so a lack of them isn't proof that we didn't evolve to eat meat. Furthermore, losing those teeth was probably evolutionarily advantageous in the acquisition of language. It's really not a complicated point.

The connection to anal rape doesn't really deserve a reply, but I'll take on your paedophilia one. Females are at their reproductive peak in their mid-teens. It makes evolutionary sense to be attracted to young teen girls. However, societal values have developed (they haven't evolved in a genetic sense) such that we now value childhood, innocence, consent, psychological maturity, education, and a whole load of other things such that we reject sex with under-16s (18 in many countries). We didn't evolve that. We went against our evolutionary roots, and that's fine. In the course of evolution we've developed incredibly powerful brains such that we can develop society, morality, ethics etc. We can also choose to become vegetarian for ethical and environmental reasons, and use modern technology to do so in a healthy way. But that's not evolution. We still have bodies capable of eating meat, and 14 year old girls still have bodies capable of bearing offspring.

As for cannibalism, it's pretty rare and tends to be stopped in its tracks by prion disease.

As I said though, this is going nowhere. Change your attitude and I might regain interest. Until then, adios.
 
Elessar
I Want To Break Free
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 11470
Images: 0
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:35 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 185 times

Re: Speciesism Is Just As Bad As Racism And Sexism

Postby YAFF » Mon Sep 29, 2014 12:53 am

Elessar wrote:Once again you're using emotive and sexually violent imagery to try to make your points. I'm not saying evolving the ability to make spears was so that we could eat meat, I'm saying that we HAVE spears so IF we eat meat, sharp tearing teeth aren't necessary, so a lack of them isn't proof that we didn't evolve to eat meat. Furthermore, losing those teeth was probably evolutionarily advantageous in the acquisition of language. It's really not a complicated point.


"emotive and sexually violent imagery"? What is wrong with that? I just took your argument to the logical conclusion. We will have to agree to disagree on whether our teeth are indicative of our proper diet. Your example of tools does not negate the fact we have the jaws and teeth of an herbivore. I'm not arguing against the fact we have culturally "evolved" to eat meat but I don't consider that a strong point. We also evolved to do all kinds of despicable things. You answer reasonably about heterosexual pedophilia- I wasn't arguing against it's evolutionary advantage- but your answer doesn't explain homosexual pedophilia. But, again, I am only using such examples to counter your main "proof" of our evolutionary "naturalism". The truth is I don't find this argument the strongest reason to switch to veganism. Being that we don't need to eat meat and dairy I find the ethical arguments the "heart" of the matter.

Elessar wrote:As for cannibalism, it's pretty rare and tends to be stopped in its tracks by prion disease.


All consumption of flesh is potentially detrimental to the human system

Elessar wrote:As I said though, this is going nowhere. Change your attitude and I might regain interest. Until then, adios.


I find this hypocritical and disingenuous. You have displayed an "attitude" towards me for a couple years so to cry foul over me treating you with the same tone is just lame. Even in this thread you do it- your little jab about evolution, God-. You're condescending and glib. Cut that out if you wanted to be treated with respect because I really don't have much respect for you because it isn't warranted so far.
"I don't dislike Freddie and have said he's hands down the best singer I've ever heard." - magicshoes
 
YAFF
Don't Stop Me Now
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 2288
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 12:26 am
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 281 times
Been thanked: 238 times

Re: Speciesism Is Just As Bad As Racism And Sexism

Postby WeeMann » Mon Sep 29, 2014 6:59 am

YAFF wrote:
WeeMann wrote:All carnivores and omnivores evolved to survive eating meat as part / all of their diet. Animals all the way through the food chain are killed to feed those 'above' them in the chain (the word 'above' being used to describe the hunter, not from a moral standpoint). Is the way a crocodile drowns and tears apart its prey humane? Is the way group of lionesses separate a young antelope from the adults in its herd before bringing it down humane?

Like it or not, it is the natural order.


Again. So what? Based on your reasoning cannibalism, rape, pedophilia is par of the "natural order". It does not make it right or even necessary.


Did you make that conclusion from my post above, or from the part, quoted below, that you omitted when quoting my post?

WeeMann wrote:How do you define 'Natural'? The OED says that it's something that happens in nature, without our intervention. All the above happen in the animal kingdom, ergo they must be natural, if distasteful to the majority of us when introduced into the human world.


These things become wrong in human life purely because we have developed a moral system (something that I would struggle to see being argued as natural - it happens nowhere else in the animal kingdom). Incest is also distasteful for us, but, again, it happens right through the animal kingdom. From a 'large picture' evolutionary viewpoint, it's a bad idea, but viewed short term from the standpoint of a small community, it may be necessary to continue the species.

You can't claim something is unnatural purely because you don't like it.

And this, I feel, is where you are arguing from regarding eating meat. You have your reasons for not eating meat and they may be the right ones for you, but using your emotional standpoint to argue that mankind as a whole shouldn't eat it based on those reasons is wrong. Like it or not, meat is one of the most efficient protein delivery systems available to us. As Elessar has explained, we have the teeth required to eat meat (as well as those suitable for eating plants) - is this just a coincidence? If we were genuinely not omnivores, we simply wouldn't be able to stomach meat.

And here, you are clearly ignoring the wider view and making the mistake of thinking that Elessar's point is 100% of the story:

YAFF wrote:
Elessar wrote:We evolved as hunter gatherers. Men mostly hunt, women mostly gather. Colour blindness is sex-linked, affecting men 10x as frequently as women. Trichromacy allows us to differentiate ripe fruit from under-ripe. Dichromats have a greater ability to see through camouflage (Mollon 1992). Camouglage is an evolutionary mechanism used by prey to protect themselves against predators. Anyone with an enhanced ability to see through camouflage will therefore have advantages in hunting.

I'm sure there are hundreds of far more directly relevant examples of our genetics enabling a carnivorous diet, but as a dichromat myself, I quite like that one.


You can't be serious. That is pure Richard Dawkins-like "just so" conjecture. If you are going to site this kind of examples we may as well stop now. It is not evidence but just an evolutionary interpretation. Other explanations would carry equal weight


If humans were the only creatures where these kind of things were important, it may be difficult to draw the conclusions that Elessar has. But when we look into other areas of the animal kingdom we see that other animals have developed other kinds of vision that benefit them - various herbivores have eyes on each aide of their head in order to get a 360 degree view of the world, thus being able to spot approaching predators. Those predators tend to have both eyes on the front of their heads in order to gain binocular vision - depth perception - in order to judge distance to the prey.

Where are your eyes?

Generally speaking, coincidences don't happen in evolution. If two different animals have developed the same tools with the same benefits, there will be a common reason behind them.
DISCLAIMER: If you find a posting or message from me offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know how to ignore a post, complain to me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate.
 
WeeMann
Moderator
 
User avatar

 

Not even on the B list...

      
 
Posts: 6451
Images: 103
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:37 pm
Location: Shropshire
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 164 times

Re: Speciesism Is Just As Bad As Racism And Sexism

Postby action » Mon Sep 29, 2014 9:00 am

Elessar wrote:

Once again you're using emotive and sexually violent imagery to try to make your points. I'm not saying evolving the ability to make spears was so that we could eat meat, I'm saying that we HAVE spears so IF we eat meat, sharp tearing teeth aren't necessary, so a lack of them isn't proof that we didn't evolve to eat meat. Furthermore, losing those teeth was probably evolutionarily advantageous in the acquisition of language. It's really not a complicated point.

The connection to anal rape doesn't really deserve a reply, but I'll take on your paedophilia one. Females are at their reproductive peak in their mid-teens. It makes evolutionary sense to be attracted to young teen girls. However, societal values have developed (they haven't evolved in a genetic sense) such that we now value childhood, innocence, consent, psychological maturity, education, and a whole load of other things such that we reject sex with under-16s (18 in many countries). We didn't evolve that. We went against our evolutionary roots, and that's fine. In the course of evolution we've developed incredibly powerful brains such that we can develop society, morality, ethics etc. We can also choose to become vegetarian for ethical and environmental reasons, and use modern technology to do so in a healthy way. But that's not evolution. We still have bodies capable of eating meat, and 14 year old girls still have bodies capable of bearing offspring.

As for cannibalism, it's pretty rare and tends to be stopped in its tracks by prion disease.

As I said though, this is going nowhere. Change your attitude and I might regain interest. Until then, adios.


hold on, when was it established the general male population is attracted to young teen girls? :? :shock: when i was 16 i was attracted to them yes, now i dont find skinny, under-grown young girls attractive at all. i like my woman to be full grown, great tits and nice ass (my ideal woman is a cross-over of pamela anderson, kim kardashian etc). qualities one doesnt generally find with 16 year olds (or younger). i find the thought to have sex with -16's to be repulsing and inherently wrong. there isnt one single molecule in my body that would ever think of having sex with a woman of under 20.

also, your cultural / society argument is wrong too. since the ancient times, the ideal woman was the bulky , full grown one. this is evidenced by excavated relics like the venus of willendorf. big tits, great hips. hardly an underaged girl. as far as i know, there is not a single bit of evidence old cultures advocated sex with underage girls. :?

Image
Why stand on a silent platform?
 
action
Don't Stop Me Now
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 2933
Images: 0
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 7:58 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 193 times
Been thanked: 216 times

Re: Speciesism Is Just As Bad As Racism And Sexism

Postby Tarkus » Mon Sep 29, 2014 12:18 pm

Elessar wrote:They offered you a double bypass though so you probably only had double or even single vessel disease, and by now you've probably grown some pretty good collaterals. I'm not even sure CABG is the mainstay of treatment for double vessel disease! Didn't they offer you PCI?


I was hoping that a stent or two would be the most that was needed, but it seems that the blockage was too far for a stent to be used, hence the CABG. I had double vessel disease, but one of them was blocked in two places, apparently. Since then, thanks to changing the diet, my cholesterol is nice and low- 3.45 the last time I got it measured, down from 6.27, and my blood pressure is at the low end of normal (Can't remember the figures, sorry)- and all that without drugs!
 
Tarkus
 
User avatar

 
 

Re: Speciesism Is Just As Bad As Racism And Sexism

Postby Tarkus » Mon Sep 29, 2014 12:24 pm

action wrote:also, your cultural / society argument is wrong too. since the ancient times, the ideal woman was the bulky , full grown one. this is evidenced by excavated relics like the venus of willendorf. big tits, great hips. hardly an underaged girl. as far as i know, there is not a single bit of evidence old cultures advocated sex with underage girls. :?

Image


The bulky, full-grown woman thing is cultural- some cultures regard obesity or bulkiness as a sign of prosperity and health, in environments where starvation is rife- the person can afford to eat great amounts, so marrying them would guarantee healthy, i.e. not starving, children- and it's only societal laws that determined that sex with underage women is wrong; as Elessar says, women are at their most fertile and productive from about 14 until their early twenties. In the middle ages, marrying women from the age of 14 was not only legal, it was practically encouraged. It's only relatively recently that we introduced laws to create the minimum age of consent, and laws against incest, and so on- back in the 1950s, Gerry Lee Lewis married his own cousin, aged about 14- it caused a sensation here, but in the area of the US where he came from, no one batted an eyelid.
 
Tarkus
 
User avatar

 
 

Re: Speciesism Is Just As Bad As Racism And Sexism

Postby action » Mon Sep 29, 2014 12:50 pm

Tarkus wrote:The bulky, full-grown woman thing is cultural- some cultures regard obesity or bulkiness as a sign of prosperity and health, in environments where starvation is rife- the person can afford to eat great amounts, so marrying them would guarantee healthy, i.e. not starving, children- and it's only societal laws that determined that sex with underage women is wrong; as Elessar says, women are at their most fertile and productive from about 14 until their early twenties. In the middle ages, marrying women from the age of 14 was not only legal, it was practically encouraged. It's only relatively recently that we introduced laws to create the minimum age of consent, and laws against incest, and so on- back in the 1950s, Gerry Lee Lewis married his own cousin, aged about 14- it caused a sensation here, but in the area of the US where he came from, no one batted an eyelid.


the cultural element is only a small part of my stance against sex with girls under 18. i'll break it down even more:

- common sense

the biggest part is inherent (not based on society) common sense. i gave the example of the willendorf venus, in the hope of showing that mankind has always preferred grown woman above children, that it is "the norm"; that "everyone" should disapprove of the phenomenon.
I admit, this part of the argument is entirely personal and down to everyone's personality / preferences. basically it means i find paedophiles repulsive and they should be killed upon discovery

- cultures as a measure of morality?

there were always cultures where sex with children happened. some even sacrificed them (the mayans). let's not refer to culture exclusively to distill a moral norm. some cultures are / were downright barbaric, including the people in the middle ages.

- personality of young girls as a moral factor?

a better fact to refer to, is look at the personality of the girls in question. girls that age easily get traumatised when a perfvert 40 year old has sex with them. there is a discrepancy of emotional maturity, and the 40 year old can easily gain the confidence of the girl.

- the natural instinct to protect our children

what this all boils down to, is we want to protect our children. that's not a cultural thing. try to get near the pup of a grizzly bear, you'll see that not only humans want to protec their children.
Why stand on a silent platform?
 
action
Don't Stop Me Now
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 2933
Images: 0
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 7:58 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 193 times
Been thanked: 216 times

PreviousNext

Return to Views Of The World

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest