Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Ok I've learned something new. Quick question, is it ok for me to have inter special sex on my own? I promise I will clean up afterwards.
@Sheldon
" Quick question, is it ok for me to have inter special sex on my own? I promise I will clean up afterwards.'
How would that work ,exactly?
Does it involve one or more devices with a battery?
@Cranky Re: To Sheldon - "Does it involve one or more devices with a battery?"
Wow... You really don't listen, do you? Again, for those who missed it, that would be called InterMECHANICAL sex. Please, do try to remember. Althoooooough....
Something just popped into my head. (Feel free to cringe.) What if it was sex with a cybernetic robot like the Terminator? Organic human-type flesh on the outside, high-density metal alloy robotics on the inside. Hmmmmm..... *scratching chin*......
@Tin-Man
It would be just dandy if it was like Pris, the basic pleasure model on Blade Runner. (she just happens to look like a young Darryl Hannah) Of course it would also be nice if she didn't try to kill me.
Why yes, my own little world is a bit unusual .Why do you ask?
@Tin
The Japanese are already “on” it... giggle
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.thesun.co.uk/tech/6851057/sex-robots-jap...
@ Sheldon, sure you can go solo, but why would you want to clean up? Cog never does. You could just pin the mess on him. Everyone else does. Just leave an apology note hastily scrawled in crayon...and at least one banana skin.
@Grinseed: Ohhhh, so I have been tricked into cleaning up all those white spots! Damn you all!!! I'm not cleaning up another white spot without a DNA test first.
Thanks to modern technology, we can side-step this messy ethical dilemma and please all parties.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
Some time ago (archived somewhere if I remember correctly), i wrote a piece covering one of the risks involved in interspecies sex, which is apposite today in the light of the history of Covid-19 ... namely, the risk of a new zoonosis emerging. Which on its own should be sufficient to make the astute wary.
You have a point about the public safety issue, and I'm not disputing it.
However, arguments that run counter might be deemed offensive, unpopular, dissenting, and broaching of taboo, just as an innocuous mule, the interloping cross between a horse and a donkey. They aim at the same conclusion as justification for the rules for "crime against nature" or "buggery" penal codes, but the rationale is different.
It's the rationale that I'm interested in. Not so much the conclusion, but how it was arrived at.
There are many questions that can't be asked because of taboo. (E.g. Is it wrong if your cat humps your dog? They're both Carnivora, right? What your female friend's pet dog humps her? Is it wrong? Is it wrong if she thinks it's funny? Is it wrong when she becomes aroused? Would mule breeders be in business without interspecial sex? Would they even be alive without it? Speciation produces offspring that can no longer produce viable offspring with members of the parent species. Why is sexual activity after that has occurred deemed unethical when one of the participants is human? What if it involves fruits and vegetables (e.g. pickles, watermelons, etc)?)
As I understand it, the ancestors of homo sapiens separated from Neanderthals and Denisovans and later interbred with them and possibly interbred with the ancestor branch homo heidelbergensis.* (If I'm wrong on this, please do correct it.) We're sure fussy about sex rules now.
* https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/8/eaay5483
Garrett
Really? Sure sounds, with this latest post, that you get off on talking about and imagining sex with non-humans.
Why don’t you start a forum somewhere other than Atheist Republic to discuss just that? There are also other websites where you could likely find enticing (to you) photos, stories, and perhaps even some sort of equipment associated with it. Those sites might better help sate your hunger for the subject.
But, really, since atheism is merely the response to an assertion that god(s) exist, why bring it here? It seems you believe folks identified as atheist are more prone to appreciate doggie sex than theists. Wherever did you get such an idea?
"Sure sounds, with this latest post, that you get off on talking about and imagining sex with non-humans."
Something is preventing you from seeing the point. Whatever it is (stupidity, projection, cussedness… the reasons don't really matter as your exhibition doesn't constitute rational thought).
You've already copy'n'pasted my questions of
“The inability to have reasonable discussion about diverse and taboo topics illustrates the problem of social censorship. Where might unmoderated public might occur? Where can questions be asked to a reasonable group who considers and doesn't censor?”
Great questions. That you chose to reply, quote the questions, then deliberately not answer them shows disingenuous behavior. So, again, we have a demonstration of the the problem of low-quality shitposters such as yourself who post up whatever crosses their ill minds at no cost and to no value.
“So, again, we have a demonstration of the the problem of low-quality shitposters such as yourself who post up whatever crosses their ill minds at no cost and to no value.”
Sorta like posting about getting kicked off of other sites, eh?
Do you think that everything the ancestors of homo sapiens did was morally acceptable? Or is it just the stuff you think justifies your own sexual predilections?
"Do you think that everything the ancestors of homo sapiens were morally acceptable?"
No, I didn't think so. Nor did I give it much consideration, mostly because I don't know much about how our ancient ancestors lived.
But you're two steps removed from the original point. The original point is about the lack of unmoderated public discussion of ethics and the the general inability to have such discussion and the harm that that causes. And corollary to that, dogma, including religion.
The claim would be more complete with at least one example. And so I have presented one; the proposal of the ethics sexual acts between different species of life form gets rejected, presumably on the basis of taboo.
This example illustrates the point. The example is not the point. Make sense? That's one step removed.
The second point removed is projecting your own sexual predilections onto me. You did that after you became fixated on the example, missing the point, tripping over your own stupidity.
Then why bring it up?
https://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/mental-incompetence-s...
Again, it was your example, not mine, so it must be you who is "two steps away from the original point" with the example.All I did was question what your claim was trying to imply. Even more so now that we know you don't know much about the example you used, and gave it little thought, by your own admission.
Can they give consent? How would you feel if you were gang raped by gorillas? Perhaps you're the wrong person to ask, but the point is valid nevertheless.
No, not really, your example was flawed, as my response tried to explore, but you responded by dismissing the example as "two steps away from the original point", even though you then admit to having not given it much consideration, because you don't know much about it, all in a poor example for you to choose I'd have thought.
I never remotely mentioned any sexual predilections, so you might try reading a post before responding, then you might not come across as such a twat, but maybe not.
Fixated? It was your example, and I responded once with one observation. An example you now admit you gave little consideration to, and know nothing about, so I am fairly sure that both the stupidity, and the projection, are all yours Bullwinkle. So the irony of your hysterical histrionics claiming others censor your attempts at debate is manifest, as your response speaks for itself. I can only suggest you go fuck yourself, and thus keep animals safe.
Have a nice day...dickhead
Well, Sheldon, it appears Garrett is asking to have unmoderated discussion about anything EXCEPT that which is in disagreement with what he says, thinks, believes, wants.
@CyberLN
Yes it would seem so, you have to laugh at the aggressive way he proclaimed everyone wanted to censor discussion, then when people attempt discussion, and it wasn't what he wanted to hear, he dismisses it.
As I said, the reason he was banned from other forums, will have to remain an impenetrable mystery.
"Well, Sheldon, it appears Garrett is asking to have unmoderated discussion about anything EXCEPT that which is in disagreement with what he says, thinks, believes, wants."
Where did I ask that?
Oh, Garrett...here’s a tidbit from Dictionary Dot Com:
“to be plain or clear, as after further evidence, e.g. ‘it appears you were correct after all’ “
So, from that, we are able to extrapolate that it was not necessary for you to explicitly ask the question, rather, all your posts point in that direction.
Where I to mean you actually asked, verbatim, that question, I would have said so. Instead, I said “IT APPEARS...”
Got it?
[quote]
Garrett Smith "No, I didn't think so. Nor did I give it much consideration, mostly because I don't know much about how our ancient ancestors lived."
Then why bring it up?
https://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/mental-incompetence-s...
"But you're two steps removed from the original point."
Again, it was your example, not mine, so it must be you who is "two steps away from the original point" with the example.All I did was question what your claim was trying to imply. Even more so now that we know you don't know much about the example you used, and gave it little thought, by your own admission.
"the ethics sexual acts between different species"
Can they give consent? How would you feel if you were gang raped by gorillas? Perhaps you're the wrong person to ask, but the point is valid nevertheless.
"This example illustrates the point. The example is not the point. Make sense? "
No, not really, your example was flawed, as my response tried to explore, but you responded by dismissing the example as "two steps away from the original point", even though you then admit to having not given it much consideration, because you don't know much about it, all in a poor example for you to choose I'd have thought.
"The second point removed is projecting your own sexual predilections onto me."
I never remotely mentioned any sexual predilections, so you might try reading a post before responding, then you might not come across as such a twat, but maybe not.
"You did that after you became fixated on the example, missing the point, tripping over your own stupidity."
Fixated? It was your example, and I responded once with one observation. An example you now admit you gave little consideration to, and know nothing about, so I am fairly sure that both the stupidity, and the projection, are all yours Bullwinkle. So the irony of your hysterical histrionics claiming others censor your attempts at debate is manifest, as your response speaks for itself. I can only suggest you go fuck yourself, and thus keep animals safe.
Have a nice day...dickhead
[/quote]
Sheldon: "Do you think that everything the ancestors of homo sapiens did was morally acceptable? Or is it just the stuff you think justifies your own sexual predilections?"
Sheldon: "I never remotely mentioned any sexual predilections"
Sheldon: "fuck yourself, and thus keep animals safe."
Where, if anywhere, did I disclose any sexual predilections for animals?
You're at best making an unsupported assertion. Why? Well, who knows. We know that bestiality is illegal and taboo; not socially accepted. Sort of like in the 80's how you'd hear the word faggot, etc. Your attempt to malign or slander my image among the group failed. Hang your head in shame, loser.
My example wasn't flawed; nothing I've written here has shown to be. Trying to pretend not to understand it my example won't get you far when it's clear for anyone to see. I'm sorry for calling you stupid. That's wrong. Hanlon's razor applies; you're a liar.
@Garret Smith
Sorry was I not clear, I'm done attempting honest rational discourse with you, you dog fingering low life.
See I can do ad hominem as well.
@Sheldon
"Do you think that everything the ancestors of homo sapiens did was morally acceptable?
If they were sentient beings, of course not. However, it's likely that their moral values were different from ours.
Contrary to their persistent claim of moral absolutes, the moral values of both Judaism and Christianity have change significantly. Same goes for Islam as a world religion. ***
EG In Hebrew the commandment is NOT "thou shalt not kill " but "thou shalt commit no murder". Context: in bronze age nomadic tribes, the stranger was usually seen as an enemy and could be killed without compunction. I suspect that may be why powerful rules of hospitality were made. Once hospitality had been offered the stranger was protected from harm. Times, and views of morality have changed in most cultures. One noticeable exception is the relatively small group of Wahhabi Muslims in Saudi Arabia who follow Sharia Law, which is bases on ancient Mosaic law
-- ALSO the behaviour of some rural Indians who will murder people who break ancient taboos against caste,.
" Or is it just the stuff you think justifies your own sexual predilections?"
Not convinced that is entirely fair. Not sure the bloke is quite that much of a cock.
(((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
***IMO , to use quotes from the Quran to try to prove anything about one billion Muslims is cherry picking and nonsense..As with the Torah, on which it is based , the Quran contains many contradictions. Quotations can be found to support any position, positive or negative.
Having found the quotes desired, the next step is to produce a massive non sequitur. IE the assumption that all or most Muslims actually live by whatever quotes have been found. So far I have never seen any credible evidence to support such an assumption, either way. Same with Jews and Christians. People quote both Torah and New Testament to prove Christianity is a warlike religion .
Imo it's bollocks .Violent societies produced violent religions. As societies have become less violent so to religions. Many Muslims still live in societies which remain tribal and violent especially in the middle east, which contains approx .20% of all Muslims. So about 300 million .
I have yet to see any credible evidence that anything approaching the majority of these people support violent jihad in the form of war or terrorism. On the contrary, it is my perception that most Muslims are just ordinary people, who want the same as ordinary people everywhere ; a safe life, without fear or want for themselves and their family.
,
There is a word to describe making sweeping, unfounded generalisations about huge numbers of people, such as a race or members of a religion. ; bigotry.
" Bigot: a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who does not like other people who have different beliefs or a different way of life:
a religious bigot
He was known to be a loud-mouthed, opinionated bigot."
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/bigot
Pissing in the wind I guess. So far I have never once seen a bigot admit that such a view of them could possibly have some foundation. As such, I'm afraid this must remain simply the expression of my opinion rather than the desire to change anyone's thinking.
Re: “ Is it wrong if your cat humps your dog?”
Actually, my Tom-cat went outside and a wild rabbit right-away “humped” him. He was terrified, poor guy’s first sexual experience (he’s fixed now).
http://messybeast.com/cabbit3.htm
Inter-breeding. Gives some insight...
@Garrett Re: "What if it involves fruits and vegetables (e.g. pickles, watermelons, etc)?)"
And this one time, at band camp...
...or fruits and animals...
:)
Edited to
Add: Bowing, hoping for acknowledgment from most popular clique leader
@ Garrett: Tell you what.... I'm going to list a whole lot of questions that can't be asked. And then I will ask them. Then again, perhaps it's just best to keep my mouth shut and let people think I am an idiot than to post a bunch of inane bullshit and prove it.
"We're sure fussy about sex rules now."
I went into my local pharmacy and tried to purchase donkey condoms. They had the nerve to tell me they did not sell them.
I am going to sue.
How dare they, next thing you know they will be banning my shrubbery.
David - next time ...
WEAR PANTS. No one cares to see if/how you trim your shrubbery.
Dave...has your shrubbery got a bush?
Pages