Reynold believes that neither of you have in any way ever entertained the possibility that bestiality could be morally acceptable. He also maintains that neither of you have supported it in any way, including its legalization. However, I have read published quotes by Skatje Myers at PZ Myers’ blog stating that she does support its legalization. And I’ve seen a video outlining how your view on morality, PZ, is based on “empathy,” which would not seem to forbid the practice of bestiality. Both Reynold and I would like to see you both take a clear stand either way on this subject and then justify your views logically, if you can.
1. Should bestiality be considered morally acceptable in your opinion?
2. Should bestiality be legalized in your opinion?
3. What is the logical justification of your views.
In march 2012 I had posted a comment at PZ Myers blog asking you, PZ, to clarify your views on this subject.[2] But to my knowledge there has been no response by you to this request in any form at your blog. A review of PZ Myers’ views on morality offer that you believe morality should be based on an evolutionary view and that morality should ultimately be based on feelings of empathy.[3] If you could clarify how feelings of empathy help to inform the moral question of bestiality, that would be helpful.
Skatje Myers implies that there is no logical basis for making moral judgements on these types of subjects: “I think it's bad practice to put social taboos into legislature when no actual logical argument can be made against it.”[4] At one point Skatje apparently supported the legalization of bestiality: "I don't support it being legal because I want to hump animals. You might ask, why even bother arguing for this position if it really doesn't actually matter to me.”[5] However, later you state, "I do not support bestiality.”[6] And so your views, Skatje, are a bit difficult to follow.
As an advocate for atheism who claims that “Nothing must be held sacred.”[7] It would seem that you, PZ, should be able to offer a rational and logical outline of your views on morality and how your views inform practical questions in today’s society. If you do not wish to comment on this subject, that is your prerogative. Just say so and then Reynold will hopefuly not continue to pester me with regard to this subject.
In any event, perhaps you, Skatje, seeing that you’ve already discussed this subject at great length, could clarify once and for all whether or not you believe that bestiality should be a legal right for those who wish to practice it. Thank you in advance for your responses.
Note: I have sent a note to PZ's email address: pzmyers@gmail.com. However, his blog states he receives a "tremendous flood" of email so I will also post a comment at his bog. If anyone knows PZ or Skatje personally and could ask one or both of them to respond, that would probably be more effective.
Note: I have sent a note to PZ's email address: pzmyers@gmail.com. However, his blog states he receives a "tremendous flood" of email so I will also post a comment at his bog. If anyone knows PZ or Skatje personally and could ask one or both of them to respond, that would probably be more effective.
References
[1] Comment by Reynold, (May 16, 2012 5:06 PM), http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/05/why-is-david-barton-1-in-google-trends.html?showComment=1337223129686#c1937154261061417945, Answering 2nd request by Reynold to write letter, May 20, 2012 11:56 AM, http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/05/why-is-david-barton-1-in-google-trends.html?showComment=1337540166465#c4535044173841125682
[2] Comment #5 (24 March 2012 at 12:21 pm)
, http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/03/24/why-i-am-an-atheist-torsten-pihl/comment-page-1/#comment-295144
[3] Interview with PZ Myers, aka Pharyngula, At approximately the 6.20 mark in the interview, PZ offers that empathy is the basis of moral decisions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgW9vJ4QyFw
[4] PZ Myers’ blog, Pharyngula (Comment #35, January 2, 2008 7:25 PM) http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/01/just_when_you_think_slimy_sal.php#comment-696973
[5] PZ Myers’ blog, Pharyngula (Comment #35, January 2, 2008 7:25 PM)
[6] Comment #61, January 2, 2008 8:08 PM, http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/01/just_when_you_think_slimy_sal.php#comment-697030
[7] Templestream, PZ Myers' Animal Sex: A Big Question For PZ, http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/03/pz-meyers-animal-sex-big-question-for.html
Related:
Related:
You are beyond stupid...
ReplyDeleteThanks for offering a typical atheist comment. It really helps to show how enlightened your critique is. I might ad that PZ Myers' reply was not much better - Longer, but not better. The usual kindergarten name calling and, no big surprise, he didn't answer any of the three simple questions I asked.
Deletehttp://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/05/reply-to-pz-myers-objective-moral-tools.html
So, Rick, now that you've done that, are you ever going to get back to discussing the Miller-Urey experiment, and the issues around the problems with a "fine-tuning" argument, or are you content to remain refuted? I'm perfectly happy if you are, but I figured I should check.
ReplyDeleteImnotandrei, speaking from experience, Rick and reason are two incompatible things. The only thing you can do is make fun of his delusions
DeleteRus anon
This may well be; it also serves to remind him from time to time that he's leaving a lot of unanswered questions behind him before he goes off and makes more claims about his "unrefuted" proofs. ;)
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Deleteimnotandrei,
Delete>So, Rick, now that you've done that, are you ever going to get back to discussing the Miller-Urey experiment,
- Your last comment on the Miller-Urey experiment was a request for me to go and read some link:
(May 4, 2012 12:09 AM)
As for the Miller-Urey experiments: I call your attention to this:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081016141411.htm
And when you're done reading that, we can discuss Miller-Urey further
- How many times do I have to tell you atheist critics that you need to summarize your ideas if you want me to consider them. I'm not going to waste my time and read every link that people offer and say "This link refuters you..." because I've found they are dead end rabbit trails that do not lead to any substantial arguments. If you can't even summarize the point, it must not be worth very much.
Translation: "I couldn't actually understand the link, so please dumb it down a little for me."
DeleteBecause I'm feeling slightly generous, here's a quotation from the link:
"One of the unpublished experiments by American chemist Stanley Miller (under his University of Chicago mentor, Nobelist Harold Urey) actually produced a wider variety of organic molecules than the experiment that made Miller famous. "
Basically, the Miller-Urey experiments were more successful than originally thought, and science has progressed even further in the interim.
But since you seem comfortable commenting authoritatively on origin of life issues, you already knew that didn't you Rick?
It rather sounds like you actually can't find moral grounds to oppose bestiality (and are particularly interested in the matter) beyond your particular brand of christianity. I hope you stay christian, at least for the sake of animals. This is sick. No one wants to know about the sexual obsessions you struggle with, please.
ReplyDeleteWell put. Myer's response, which I linked to below kind of deals with that.
DeleteSo Warden: Are you now going to finally PUBLICALLY APOLOGIZE to Myers and his daugher?
Of course he's not going to apologise. To apologise would be show some some humiliity, and a capacity to realise when you're mistaken and want to make amends.
DeleteRick appears to lack these basic traits - he's all ignorance wrapped up in a thick shell of arrogance.
Well, Rick, your answer is within this post.
ReplyDeleteRead down to where Myers mentions you:
In another example of the dishonest Christian gotcha, lately a thick-skulled Christian idiot name Rick Warden has been pestering me with email and comments demanding that I justify support for bestiality. Seriously, dude? What the fuck is wrong with you?
Mr Warden is so obsessed with bestiality that he even claims the Friday Cephalopod is a “weekly animal sex post” in one of his incessant whines about my odious imaginary support for bestiality. He’s a shockingly dishonest asshole; he does fit my expectations of Christian liars for Jesus, though, who think nothing of accusing atheists of being moral nihilists who approve of torturing toddlers, or of being promiscuous goat-rapers.
Should I put quotes around that to make it more clear to you?
This is even worse than I thought: You were trying to get the man to SUPPORT IT?
The fuck?
Now that that bullshit's out of the way, we can deal with the other bullshit on this blog.
I don't think Myers goes far enough in using "shockingly dishonest asshold" to describe Rick. He's far worse than that :-)
DeleteWhoops. Forgot this from Myer's post:
ReplyDeleteI do not support bestiality. No one I know does. But we are capable of assessing it objectively, unlike these wretched Christians and their brains full of lies and disgust.
So are we done now?
Since Myers used "bad words" to (accurately) describe Rick, I wouldn't be surprised if Rick decided the response didn't count.
DeleteHe has a remarkably thin skin, does our Rick!
Yeah, it seems that Rick can dish it, but he can't take it.
DeleteIt's why people like Rick don't deserve respect.
Reynold,
ReplyDelete>You were trying to get the man to SUPPORT IT?
- You shouldn't believe everything you read, Reynold. I simply asked to know his opinion. I asked for clarity and PZ could not even answer one of the three simple direct questions I had asked.
ttp://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/05/reply-to-pz-myers-objective-moral-tools.html
>Are you now going to finally PUBLICALLY APOLOGIZE to Myers and his daughter?
- Um, let me see. I ask two people to clarify their views on a subject. None of my three simple questions are addressed and I'm called all sorts of insults and, to top it off, a commenter named Reynold believes that I should be the one apologizing. You can't make this stuff up.
"I do not support bestiality..."
>So are we done now?
Um, Reynold, perhaps you can translate PZ's intended meaning in the following quote:
"I don’t object to bestiality in a very limited set of specific conditions, but do not support it in any way.”[9]
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/05/reply-to-pz-myers-objective-moral-tools.html
Now, when PZ states ""I don’t object to bestiality in a very limited set of specific conditions," - What conditions do you believe he is referring to? Is this when animals appear to enjoy it? Is this when sheep seem to bleat with delight? Can you help me out a little with this interpretation, Reynold?
Seriously, what do you believe PZ is referring to here?
Reynold,
ReplyDelete>You were trying to get the man to SUPPORT IT?
- You shouldn't believe everything you read, Reynold. I simply asked to know his opinion. I asked for clarity and PZ could not even answer one of the three simple direct questions I had asked.
ttp://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/05/reply-to-pz-myers-objective-moral-tools.html
>Are you now going to finally PUBLICALLY APOLOGIZE to Myers and his daughter?
- Um, let me see. I ask two people to clarify their views on a subject. None of my three simple questions are addressed and I'm called all sorts of insults and, to top it off, a commenter named Reynold believes that I should be the one apologizing. You can't make this stuff up.
"I do not support bestiality..."
>So are we done now?
Um, Reynold, perhaps you can translate PZ's intended meaning in the following quote:
"I don’t object to bestiality in a very limited set of specific conditions, but do not support it in any way.”[9]
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/05/reply-to-pz-myers-objective-moral-tools.html
Now, when PZ states ""I don’t object to bestiality in a very limited set of specific conditions," - What conditions do you believe he is referring to? Is this when animals appear to enjoy it? Is this when sheep seem to bleat with delight? Can you help me out a little with this interpretation, Reynold?
Seriously, what do you believe PZ is referring to here?