Ftk
Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007
|
From PZ's Palace:
| Quote | After reading Prof. Myers sanctimonious moral condemnation of libertarians I don't see where he gets off complaining about someone criticizing the political positions his daughter takes.
Presumably he believes his daughter can stand on her own two feet since he allows her to blog about bestiality. Either her voice opinions can stand up to criticism or they cannot.
Sure she began with: "Allow me to first tell you that I personally do not have an interest in bestiality. I don't support it being legal because I want to hump animals."
Ok, I can believe that.
Then she writes: "Ever owned a dog? They'll come right up to you and start poking at your crotch. What if you don't have pants on at the time? And what if you maybe enjoy a little complication-free oral sex?"
Then: "Sexual relationships between humans and animals come as such a shock to people, but it doesn't to me. There can be very deep, meaningful relationships between humans and their pets. Obviously they can't obtain the same level a deep human-to-human relationship, but loving your pets isn't anything unusual. People care for their pets, talk to them, spoil them, feel relaxed in their company, and mourn them when they die. This relationship is so underestimated. Why does it come as a surprise that when someone feels a deep connection to their pet, they might be interesting in doing something more expressive and intimate like we do in human-to-human relationships?"
She further adds in the comments: "Of course adults should be allowed to engage in incest. I just personally think breeding would be very bad idea, for obvious reasons."
Her writing makes it clear that she thinks such behavior should be legal but further she gives the distinct impression that she sees little wrong with it.
So the natural question is, what if she had a change of heart and did have "a personal interest in bestiality", or did want to "hump animals". Suppose one day she just happened not to have her pants on when the dog poked his nose in there and this time she liked it? I don't see by her argument why she wouldn't go for it and "maybe enjoy a little complication-free oral sex."
In which case Prof. Myers just might be in a position where his daughter is buying a larger breed of dog. Is it such a stretch for the other guy to mock Myers that his daughter might just bring home a peccary as a husband?
Why these complains of "quote mining" the article was only written a few months ago and probably just came to his attention. Furthermore, the quotes don't really distort what she was saying. She seems to have no notion that getting oral sex from the dog might be wrong for some reason or another. To her it's "complication-free". I guess so till your dad finds out, or worse the neighborhood.
Considering her additional comment about incest just be thankful the picture of the peccary wasn't a picture of Prof. Myers. Especially considering that there was a recent scientific paper showing that human incest might not be so incredibly dangerous from a genetic standpoint as popularly believed.
Why the moral invective against libertarians when it appears that his own daughter goes beyond legalizing certain behavior and actually seems to think it's morally acceptable.
Not sure how old she is as her blog doesn't say, but someone here claims she's 17. Not sure what the law is on having these kinds of discussions with a 17 year old over the internet in Minnesota so I think I'll refrain from that.
I'm certainly interested in what moral (or other) arguments Prof. Myers would give to his daughter on this subject. That's the angle he's being attacked.
I know what I would have to say but I'm not sure what he would. I think it's a valid question from their perspective. The religious can say "God says no" and they aren't aware of what an atheist would say to their daughter in this case.
BTW, based on his moral denunciation of libertarians as having "bourgeois values" I get the distinct feeling Myers is a Marxist. I'd also be interested in how he can justify moral condemnation for "bourgeois values" when apparently he hasn't even instructed his child throughly enough to even recognize bestiality as immoral.
First he finds "libertarians represent the worst of America" and calls them "My least favorite political/economic group". Which would mean he likes Nazis and racial separatists more. Now he seems to have taught his daughter a moral reasoning that finds incest and zoophilia morally acceptable. Not sure what to make of this. A great man Milton Freedman is some kind of moral leper to him and it seems like he might think someone who's buggering their dog isn't.
Just so you don't get confused. I'm an atheist who knows evolution is true and the theory of natural selection is the best model of how it works. So I'm not here to defend the creationist. |
--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero
|
