A teenager heard his high school teacher say that people are actually animals. The teen thought about the statement for a minute and then embarrassed his teacher by asking her in front of the class... "If people are animals, then is it acceptable for humans and animals to have sex together?" Unless you believe in bestiality, then you must concede that people are not animals and that evolution is a bunch of nonsense.
95 comments
Having grown up around them and even tried to be one myself, it's hard for me to imagine a well-trained fundie teenager talking like this publicly to a teacher, but I'll bite. The rebuttal takes 30 seconds: "Do you see cats and dogs having sex with each other? No? Then pipe down."
"If people are animals, then is it acceptable for humans and animals to have sex together?"
Well, yes, as long as the other animal is a willing human of appropriate age.
Never heard of the beast with two backs?
Anyway, do fundies actually have sex lives? I have this picture in my head:
Mr Fundie: "Oooo! Aaah! Hallelujah!"
Mrs Fundie (removing reading glasses and putting down bible): "Feeling better now, dear?"
"The teen thought about the statement for a minute and then embarrassed his teacher by asking her in front of the class... "If people are animals, then is it acceptable for humans and animals to have sex together?""
People are animals, remember? Do try to keep up.
"Unless you believe in bestiality, then you must concede that people are not animals and that evolution is a bunch of nonsense."
Your reasoning, if it can be called that, is laughable.
Not true. We accept that dogs and cats are both animals, but dogs and cats do not engage in sex with each other because they are of different species.
Similarly, it is unacceptable for humans to have sex with members of a different species, regardless of whether one acknowledges that humans are, in fact, a species of animal.
Oh my, I do believe that I just blew David's premise wide open.
Informed consent, BITCH. Non-human animals can't give it, so it's not OK to have sex with them, for the same reason it's not OK to have sex with a preschooler.
Animals rarely have sex with animals of different species anyway, so why would admitting that we are animals lead to having sex with animals of different species?
That reminds me of that line from that movie... You know that movie. Where the dude's talking about all the bad things that'll happen and says "Cats and dogs living together!" Oh, what was it called again?
Oh yeah, HolyGhostbusters!
Ummmm
If humans are animals, then we already do and you have no problems with it.
But if you meant with other animals, show me a snake having sex with a gorilla first.
So how come I never see a tiger have sex with a turkey even though they are both animals? How come I never see a shark behave like a gorilla even though they are both animals? Could it be that the important, and possible only, deciding factor in behave is at the species level. A shark behaves like a shark because it is a shark, not because it's an animal. Humans should behave like humans because we are humans first before we are animals.
"The teen thought about the statement for a minute"
Looks like God wasn't quite so clued up about beastiality when he paraded all the animals in front of Adam to see if any of them would take his fancy:
"And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him." Genesis 2:18,20
It's really only as an afterthought that God grudgingly creates Eve. (And I understand that Adam's first words on beholding Eve were: "Uh... can I see that sheep again?" ;-))
The correct response is "I'm sorry, you are just too dumb to be allowed to live" BANG! BANG! BANG!
Sadly, we live in countries that do not advocate retro-active abortions. :-)
Most of you are missing the point. "Informed Consent" is really irrelevant here. It has nothing to do with the issue.
The issue is, "Is the social acceptability of having sex with a creature determinative of that creature's status as an animal?" And the answer is, no it's not.
The reasoning behind it is simply to examine what makes an animal an animal. If an organism can synthesize its own nourishment from sunlight, it's a plant. If not, it's an animal. Boom, done.
If people are made of atoms, is it acceptable for humans and inanimate objects to have sex together?
Unless you believe in paraphilia, then you must concede that people are not made of atoms and that modern physics and chemistry are a bunch of nonsense.
"Animals are a major group of multicellular, eukaryotic organisms of the kingdom Animalia or Metazoa. Animals are also heterotrophs, meaning they must ingest other organisms for sustenance."
Humans are multicellular. Humans are eukaryotic organisms. Humans are of the kingdom Animalia. Humans are heterotrophs. Wow, 4 out of 4. How are we not animals again?
Or, alternatively, I could say that an animal cannot provide consent due to the language barrier. Hence why you also shouldn't screw a person who you cannot communicate with, especially if you are the...alpha...of the act.
I'm going to not even bother pointing out that you're arguing over a classification system.
Humans are a part of the animal kingdom--primates, to be exact. There is no special "human kingdom." There's plants, there's animals, end of. READ A REAL SCIENCE BOOK, GODDAMN IT!
Also, how often do you see cats and dogs making it? Never. They're different species entirely, just like humans are.
Also also, informed consent, bitch--learn about it!
A teenager heard his high school teacher say that people are actually made of atoms. The teen thought about the statement for a minute and then embarrassed his teacher by asking her in front of the class... "If people are made of atoms, then is it acceptable to smash them to bits in a particle accelerator?" Unless you believe in treating humans the same as any other form of matter, then you must concede that people are not made of atoms and that atomic theory is a bunch of nonsense.
Fixed
Two random animals: A wombat and a bilby. Is it acceptable for them to have sex together? Hell no!.
Ergo: Wombats and Bilbys are not actually animals, but each other's bitches. (Although I fear for the poor Bilby)
Humans (Homo Sapiens) share at least 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees (Pan Troglodytes). Which proves Darwin was RIGHT all along (so much for Creationism/'Intelligent Design'). But we're still genetically incompatible. So why would I want to have sex with any animal, let alone a chimp? But then, why should I? Put lipstick on an ape, it's still an ape. Can't say the same for Mr. Palin though. He like pigs...
isn't it so that a mule is a cross between a horse and a donkey, so technically i'd see no problem with someone having sex with a chimpansee, on the condition the chimp gave consent. Practically i think it's gross, but hey, whatever floats your boat right.
Uh, we are animals, but we are different kinds.
Well, because humans are animals, yes. If we are talking about humans having sex with OTHER SPECIES of animals, no it is not.
Why/how is this embarrassing to the teacher? If you wonder something, your teacher is there to teach you about it.
Humans ARE part of the animal "kingdom", of course. We are very similar to most other mammals, so how could we not be animals.
What do you mean by "believe in bestiality"? I do believe that there are sick fucks out there who abuse animals. Does that mean I don't have to agree with your bunch of nonsense?
Davy, why the fixation with bestiality? Is there something you want to tell the class?
"If people are animals, then is it acceptable for humans and animals to have sex together?"
Sure it is, as long as the animal says it's okay. I walked up to my friend's dog, and he barked at me, so I knew the dog was consenting!
Any atheist furries out there who get the reference?
*Holds up a branding iron with the words "Informed Consent" glowing red-hot on the end*
Now, do you want this on the forehead? The chest? Perhaps right on your frontal lobe?
"Unless you believe in bestiality, then you must concede that people are not animals and that evolution is a bunch of nonsense."
And this coming from someone who diddles little girls. Oh, the irony. Oh, the hypocrisy. Oh, the SHAME!:
http://davidjstewartexposed.blogspot.com/
Hey David, have you ever read the story of Lot in Genesis? Lot's two daughters get him drunk and father children with him, and your god doesn't say a word against it. Obviously, if you are a bible believing Christian, you must support father-daughter incest, just like your god does.
See, I can distort information to make a BS argument too. Its fun! Not very productive though.
Animal means breath. Humans have breath. Which means that people are animals too.
Cresswell, Julia (2010). The Oxford Dictionary of Word Origins (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-954793-7. 'having the breath of life', from anima 'air, breath, life' .
"If people are animals..."
So which animal are we? How are we to "act like animals" if we don't know which animal we are? Can I pick which animal I am? I want to be an eagle.
I bet you're a monkey since all you seem to be able to do is fling your shit all over.
@#1794384
I call frilled shark!
evolution is a bunch of nonsense
What appears on the laptop lid of a Christian :
image
'Thanks for watching. Keep your dick in a vice!' as enginerd AvE would say, Dave-o.
His Empire of Dirt is like an operating theatre prior to an operation compared to your mind
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.
