The thing is I would like to have her do it without my consent.
And you are not the only party in the engagement. Therefore it is not consensual. That does not defeat what I am saying. It’s not like first part overrides the second part or something.
Anyway, this is getting way off topic.
Uhm… did you miss “is actually quite a good rule when you factor in ideas of consent.”
If the girl consents to that, then there is no rape and it is not bad.
Thank you.
I’m really confused.
1) You said you had no objections to bestiality. 2) I bring up pets. 3) You say that you are against that. Therefore, (3) is a clarification of (1).
Can you clarify this? I don’t understand your point on rape. Even in the old days, I’m pretty sure rape implied not-consent...
Is the idea of consent really that modern?
You know, I agree that at first my ideas were post-hoc, but that could just be where it started.
The fact is that the old adage “Do unto others as they would have them do unto you” is actually quite a good rule when you factor in ideas of consent. It immediately rules out sadomasochism and rape issues. There are still issues of course (usually in terms of irreversible or serious harm).
This is what you said:
I don’t have any objection to bestiality. Having sex with animals seems like a less harmful thing to do to an animal than killing it and eating it.
But you DO have objections to bestiality. Just not all cases of it.
which it wouldn’t unless bestiality involved having sex with any or all animals… which it doesn’t.
Having sex with any nonhuman animal is bestiality. That’s literally what it is.
I was referring to pets in that statement.
Clearly, we don’t care about animals’ consent when we kill and eat them. So I guess we can have sex with them all we want. Kind of an odd train of thought, I admit...
It doesn’t really work this way. And to demonstrate, I bring up the prime numbers.
What many people don’t quite understand is that mathematics, like the sciences does not invent things, it discovers them. The structures are already there. We did not invent cells, electricity, or gravity. They were already there. All Mathematics does is name them, categorize them, and show properties that they have. There is nothing human about the prime numbers, for instance. There really is nothing human about mathematics.
Counting is essentially the building block of all of mathematics. 1 2 3 etc… There is no other way to count than the way we count. Is this because of our definition of counting? Well of course, but it is nonetheless true. If Aliens were to count, they would have to count this way. Can I construct systems where 1+1=1? Of course. Consider clouds. If you add two clouds together, you just get a cloud. However, counting is still not changed. In order to even ask the question, I need to be able to discretely differentiate clouds, which means that counting is still there. You simply have a bizarre algebra on top of it.
To even consider a universe where counting goes by different rules is mind-boggling, because it would require the impossibility of discrete objects. Even waves would have peaks and valleys they would be able to be counted. Time generates rhythm and beats that would be counted. And there is only one way to count.
And once you realize there is only one way to count. You realize that addition gives us multiplication and that gives us the prime numbers. We didn’t invent prime numbers. We discovered them.
Aw, no mention of Necrophilia? It’s even a victimless crime!
Comparison? It wasn’t a comparison. It was a clarification. Having sex with pets is also bestiality.
You’re against it? Why? You’re just sounding arbitrary.
The main issue with bestiality is the notion of consent (similar to pedophilia). So far we really don’t have any good solutions to the issue of consent, and that is why I would argue that we have a flat ban on it.
I don’t have any objection to bestiality. Having sex with animals seems like a less harmful thing to do to an animal than killing it and eating it.
Er… what about pets? Not all animals we kill and eat, you know...
That reminds me of that game that girls sometimes play “Given three choices of guys, which would you sleep with, date, or marry?”
Did the ancient Tibetans die out or did they just get assimilated into the Chinese farmers?
See, now you’re just getting me curious about this stuff.
The point is the minority population becomes the hybrid, and the majority population changes relatively less.
I don’t understand. All of those (except Introgression I suppose) are just additional reasons why the groups would mix. That’s not suggesting that extensive mixed populations are sometimes not the result of mixing between groups.
How do those things go against my implication?
Suppose I on average found category X of dissimilar people, less attractive because they are different, this would not mean I would find every member less attractive than average.
Okay. That definitely makes more sense.
Also historically, people really haven’t been that picky, its amazing to what extent we chose those that are available. While barriers between populations that coexist on the same territory do exist, they are not absolute. And all else being equal the smaller group will quickly become basically a hybrid population, while the larger population will still have a bunch of people who match their previous genetic profile. To give an extreme example If you are the last member of your tribe, the only way you get to mate is to find a partner outside your tribe.
While I can certainly understand why minorities would mix with majorities, that doesn’t really explain the opposite.
But I suppose the opposite isn’t really that true. After all, looking at America, we see that blacks have lots of european ancestry, but we don’t really see whites having lots of african ancestry (unless I’m mistaken). My example with Jews explains how Jews took from the majority populations, not the other way around.
Thanks for the clarification.
Yes, I am American. Certainly I’m rushing to race, but that’s the point I was having trouble with. If I didn’t consider race, then I don’t see how I would have found it so surprising in the first place. Regardless of American’s obsession with race, race is still a simple example of this. Race. :D
Oh, reading through it again, I just seemed to misunderstand both people.
I understand. What I mean is:
Is it something I would like them to do to me? Yes or No.
Do all parties involved consent that this is what they want to do? Yes or No.
The first question doesn’t override the second question. Both parts has to say yes. If the you don’t care about consent, that only affects the first question.