1. Many believe that the human population is the greatest threat to the Earth.
Which point or points do you disagree with?
62 comments
Number 3 starts with "IF," so if the answer is, for most humanists, that it is not correct, then the rest of your argument falls apart. What is it about fundies and zoophilia?
Other options: birth control (either natural or artificial)and non-intercourse sexual activity. Of course, the same argument would apply to gay relationships, but you don't want to go there, do you?
Point 1 applies primarily to the handful of lunatics who like to burn SUV dealerships and housing developments, and morons like Pentti Linkola.
3,4, and 5 are a particularly disgusting form of strawman.
Which point or points do you disagree with?
1, 3, 4, and 5. The only one you managed to get right was number 2 and even then you excluded artificial reproduction which, while not "natural" (technically everything is natural as everything happens in nature, including human animals creating computers from natural parts such as metal and plastic), is still a form of reproduction and it is sloppy for you not to include it. Your whole syllogism is flawed from the very beginning because you take the opinions of some people (not everyone thinks population is the biggest threat to the Earth, it may be a threat to our own survival but the Earth will be fine even if we can't live on it and even then, it's not even close to being the biggest threat to us) and apply a blanket solution to every single humanist in the world. Furthermore, you make a conditional statement and then turn it into an assumption of your syllogism. Finally, you neglect all of the non-humanists and even Christians who think we shouldn't be overpopulating the Earth.
TL;DR version: you fail at logic.
What points do I disagree with?
Well, the biggest problem is that you automatically equate zoophilia with bestiality. That is - confusing a sexual attraction or obession with a particular kind of animal with the act of having sex with an animal.
This is not the same thing. The people who self-identify as "zoophiliacs" (people who are attracted to and/or love animals including sexually) do so to separate themselves from people who have sex with animals for the excitement of experimenting with the taboo, or as a substitute for human sexual interaction where none is available (ie; the cliche of the lonely shepherd and his sheep).
I know some zoophiliacs, and believe me, if they could change their attraction to (and often, love of) an animal, they certainly would.
I will not get into the whole debate over whether or not and why or why not sex with animals is wrong and should (or should not) be illegal.
However, Mr. Warden up there seems to think that bestiality is something one just chooses in preference to a relationship with a human being.
No.
Wrong.
Love and attraction are not things that we consciously control. Therefore, the points from #3 on Fail in a big way, unless the person already has that kind of preference (attraction to and/or love) for animals.
Which point or points do you disagree with?
The part where you make a non-sequitur in assuming human overpopulation concern would lead to bestiality. Oh, and when you falsely assume that lowering human population justifies raping animals. Yeah, pretty much the whole thing. Your own skewed and perverted thoughts are your responsibility, not ours.
Point 3. It IS in conflict with humanist morals, as animals can't give informed consent.
Homosexuality, on the other hand, is mostly between consenting adults.
Cheap, easily available birth control and safe abortions will also keep the population in check.
Or, you know, proper sex ed for teens and no more resistance to birth control or abortion for a woman who isn't in a position to support a baby(her choice, of course).
Seriously, what is with fundies and this habit of announcing their fetishes for animals or children by projecting them onto people they don't like?
"Which point or points do you disagree with?"
The tenuous connection between atheists and population control, and the even-more-tenuous claim that Zoophilia is the only viable solution. It isn't.
Yeah, this makes no sense. I know a logical fallacy is being committed here, I'm just not sure which one. And as for what I disagree with, points 3-5, because not only are those statements complete lies, but how zoophilia even got brought up in the first place, I don't know.
"Which point or points do you disagree with?"
The one where you stopped taking your medicine.
Moreover, I disagree with the fact that someone as stupid as you can even exist.
The problem in the world over the next 40 years is going to be under population anyway. Not enough workers to support children and elderly.
It is the single most important demographic fact in the world today.
1. 7 billion is quite a bit, wouldn't you say? The plane takes off.
Well Rick.
Also zoophilia does indeed conflict secualr humanist morals... Its a thing called CONSENT.
Hi, fuckstain. Guess what, fuckstain? Zoophilia is tantamount to rape because lower animals can't express consent, fuckstain. Which you would already know if you weren't a retarded fuckstain. Fuckstain.
We've moved beyond sex = babies. And no, we don't need to shag animals do achieve that. We have these things called contraceptives, they work great. There are countries in the world with fertility rates between 1 and 1.5 children per woman, and they don't have sex with sheep. Also, that would never be a pragmatic solution, since, get this: MOST PEOPLE DON'T LIKE TO FUCK ANIMALS. If you would, that's your problem.
By the way, Rick, if you don't see a flaw in that reasoning, then you should agree with it. Funny how appeals to consequence fail, isn't it?
Why is murdering and animal ok but raping one wrong?
Pretty terrible alternative for non-zoophilliacs, really. Contraceptives make far more sense for people that aren't into that.
@Robespierre
Hear hear, seems that slips past a lot of people. Makes a convienient enough shield for their squick reaction, I suppose.
You used the generalization "many believe" at first, and then moved your argument's focus to atheists (and atheists who are also secular humanists at that, as if there 100% overlap). You might want to get a little better at logic before you try it.
3 4 and 5. You really had to ask? As no animal is sentient and therefore can not give any sort of informed consent I do not consider this rather disturbing topic up for debate, nor would any rational human being. Or lacking sanity, one with the barest respect for the rights of others.
1. It is
2. You don't say!
3. This seems like projection of your personal preference onto others.
4.So you approve of sex with animals. \Consemt!!! you are disgusting.
5. Again the question of consent. Why don't you just confess your predlictions.
The point is that your are sick. Get help.
1. And they would be wrong. Due to demographic transition the human population is projected to begin falling later this century, and even that's not a problem, because there's going to be a 6th stage of demographic transition. Researchers find that when the human development index gets high enough birth rates start going up again, the extra financial security makes it more feasible to tend to your career and raise a family at the same time.
1. Many believe that the human population is the greatest threat to the Earth.
"Which point or points do you disagree with?"
I'll start with the one on top of your head and go from there.
1. Unquantified generalization as in, "Many believe Rick Warden to be a complete drooling idiot."
2. 5th Grade level of knowledge, but what's your point?
3. Strawman fallacy.
4. Statistical inaccuracy, since ignorant and religious types vastly outnumber atheists and tend more often to have broods, the delta to population growth would be negligible.
5. Moving the goalposts of your own argument. The most you can prove with your "proof" is, "would therefore be", not "is" (a valid and pragmatic, etc.)
F - minus.
These are not points at all, so there nothing of any value to disagree with.
You don't need to have sex with other animals in order to not have kids. It's called birth control. Your argument there is a non-sequitor.
And animals can't consent, so yes, it is immoral for humans to have sex with other animals that are not other humans.
"Which point or points do you disagree with? "
The one that implies that it's atheists who are reproducing like bunnies and overpopulating the Earth.
Also, the one that implies that it's atheists who are an active threat to the planet.
An animal cannot give consent, therefore sex with animals is immoral, just like it would be if you rape a woman, or had sex with a child.
Edit: Holy shit, I just went to read the thread. This asshat is fucking thick.
Presumably you worship Bible God, the god of thick breeders and drooling taunters.
Ever notice how salivating is on the increase among fundies as their intelligence decreases? There must be something wrong with their breeding program.
Course, I'm a thick breeder and drooling taunter too, sometimes. But it's all my own work, no gods required.
This guy is totally insane. But, ehh, really, zoophilia isn't really bad. I have a couple zoophile friends, and really, animals can give consent. It's rather obvious when they don't... I'd never advocate rape for animals, or anyone else of course, but zoophilia as a whole isn't bad when it's safe and consensual, just like all sex.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
