RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (341) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: UnReasonable Kansans thread, AKA "For the kids"< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2008,13:17   

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 05 2008,13:02)
If you are aware of the background to this fiasco, then you would know that the reason I linked to Skatje’s post was in regard to moral issues, not legal ones.

Sal, wrote a post that angered Darwinists because he made the moral connection that Darwinism leads to the acceptance of bestiality.  I told him in the comments of that post that I understand his position, but that the way in which he went about making his point, which was highly provocative, was not fair to Darwinists in general.  The point he was trying to make was going to be lost because of his choice in how he presented it.  

This forum lit up, and further discussion took place about the issue of morality and whether or not Darwinism or atheism would allow for bestiality to become an acceptable behavior.

I then responded to Ed Brayton’s post which was in regard to Sal’s indication that Darwinism leads to bestiality.  My post was entirely in regard to morality, not legality.  I considered from the Christian and the atheist perspective whether or not bestiality is an acceptable practice for those who wish to engage in it.  That is when I linked to Skate's feeling on the topic.  I was not interested in the legality of the issues, but rather the “right” and “wrong” of the issue.  

Here is the post I initially wrote at my blog.  I was commenting on the moral issues throughout, not the legal ones.  Skatje’s comments on the subject of bestiality were in regard to the “ew” factor and whether is it morally acceptable to engage in the act.  She also mentioned legality in one of her later comments, but that was never the issue.  We had been talking about the moral issues.  Her first comment on bestiality was this:

   
Quote
What's wrong with bestiality? I mean, I disapprove of forceful penetration or any sort of activities that would hurt the animal. But when an animal willingly engages in sexual activity with a human, what's the problem?

Note: You must supply a better answer than "ew".


Other commenters started to kinda of freak out, and then she reframed the issue and brought in the legal aspect.  The legal issue was not something that we were discussing, but rather the moral one.  She then went to her blog and wrote the infamous post.  There was more in that post than whether or not it should be legal or not.  The moral issues are what I was interested in, and that is what I considered when I wrote my post at YC.

Sal read my post, and decided to pull an AtBC peanut gallery move.  He wrote a humorous post while alluding to Skatje’s apathetic acceptance of bestiality for those who choose to engage in the act.

It doesn’t follow that Sal was trying to make everyone believe that Skatje engages in bestiality, but rather that she is apathetic to it.  He quoted from her post in regard to her feeling about the moral issues in regard to bestiality.  Links to her post were all over the place, and he even later wrote a post of apology to those who didn’t realize that the post was *supposed* to be humorous.  

The discussions were all based on morality, not legality.

I was talking to Skatje when she wrote that post.

I know you fundies have a hard time separating what you personally don't like and what is OMG!!!! WRONG!!! MAKE IT ILLLEGAL!!!!, but Skatje was arguing legal issues the entire time.

When she asked you what was wrong, she was asking why it should be banned - something you agree it should not.

There are two possibilities:
You and Sal have started an extensive smear campaign against a 17 year old girl because you can't read.
or:
You and Sal have started an extensive smear campaign against a 17 year old girl because you just don't like her dad.

(Don't pull the definition crap - anyone can see through that.)

From someone who saw this unfold from the inside, thats the only conclusions I see possible, and thanks you to she could well be harassed by UD-types for a long time to come.

You aren't even worthy of contempt, FTK. I hope you feel good about yourself.

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
  10202 replies since Mar. 17 2007,23:38 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (341) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]