6. If PZ Myers' opinion is true, that morality is based on feelings of empathy, then he should be morally justified to go into a field and sodomize a lonely sheep if he wants to.
68 comments
I.... I'm not sure empathy means what you think it means.
Just because you empathise with the sheep's loneliness, doesn't mean it wants to be sodomised. It MIGHT, but you'll never know because it can't talk and give consent.
Empathy means consideration for another's feelings as well as your own, something fundies can't seem to grasp. I'm more an more convinced that some fundies like this guy don't see the value in morality beyond making God happy by following his rules. They don't really care about others and, as they so often accuse us, if they didn't believe in God they would have no inhibitions.
If the sheep gives consent, then why would anyone have a problem with it?
Now, please show me that a sheep is capable of giving consent.
That's... not... what... empathy... means.
Also, is the OP suggesting that empathy has nothing to do with morality? They just don't see the value in it.
There is no logic here. Note: I do not mean there is bad logic, I mean there is none. There is point A, "morality is based on feelings of empathy," and there is point B, sheepfucking, and there is absolutely no path whatever between the two.
You can't get there from here.
What is it with fundies and sheep raping? I swear, for all their self-righteousness, they think about deviant sex acts more than anyone I've ever seen. Between suggesting that atheists have sex with farm animals or children, and their graphic descriptions of gay sex, they come off as some disturbingly perverted people. It probably comes from their Puritannical beliefs about sex. Repress your sexuality for long enough and who knows how crazy it'd make you?
"If PZ Myers' opinion is true, that morality is based on feelings of empathy, then he should be morally justified to go into a field and sodomize a lonely sheep if he wants to."
Had your eye on a cute little ewe, have you Ricky?
"I don't agree with his views, ergo he can go shag sheep!"
Great counterargument there. You really knocked the wind out of his sails.
@rubber chicken, that made me do a spit-take.
Rick, I suggest a good psychiatrist and about, oh, 6-10 years of intensive therapy.
@ Amadan
Spit out my drink. Goddamn it.
As for Ricky here, well, if morality is based on the whims of some god, then he should be morally justified to go into a field and sodomize a lonely sheep if god orders him to.
Actually, Doubting Thomas, we used to call these types Pruritans. They'd go sniffing out all kinds of deviant sex acts they could denounce so they could get their rocks off picturing and talking about them.
...what?
...What?
...WHAT?!
Ow. Most of us here got this wrong. I hate it when that happens.
He's trying to rebut P.Z. Myers' claim by reductio ad absurdam.
We can't reasonably twit this guy for supporting a darnedest thing. He's created an argument to show that Myer's logic leads to a darnedest thing that the OP doesn't support.
We're responding as if he's producing a load of fail, when in fact he's claiming that the other person's argument is producing that load of fail.
Not that he's correctly stated Myers' argument. I'm sure his argument is a straw-man caricature of Myers' actual argument. But none of us here have responded to that. If his account of Myers' view is correct then this guy has logically refuted that view. Of course, part of his argument is implied, but as long as the person he's speaking to draws the correct inferences, that all he needs.
Those who don't see how his argument links empathy and sheep-shagging must have missed the word 'lonely'. He's proposing that Myers' argument leads to the conclusion that it's moral to console a lonely sheep sexually, a proposition that he finds so absurd it warrants immediate dismissal of Myers' argument.
The notion of 'informed consent' actually supports his argument. Its absence is one the errors in (his version of) Myers' argument, not his.
Ow. Most of us here got this wrong. I hate it when that happens.
He's trying to rebut P.Z. Myers' claim by reductio ad absurdam.
We can't reasonably twit this guy for supporting a darnedest thing. He's created an argument to show that Myer's logic leads to a darnedest thing that the OP doesn't support.
We're responding as if he's producing a load of fail, when in fact he's claiming that the other person's argument is producing that load of fail.
Not that he's correctly stated Myers' argument. I'm sure his argument is a straw-man caricature of Myers' actual argument. But none of us here have responded to that. If his account of Myers' view is correct then this guy has logically refuted that view. Of course, part of his argument is implied, but as long as the person he's speaking to draws the correct inferences, that all he needs.
Those who don't see how his argument links empathy and sheep-shagging must have missed the word 'lonely'. He's proposing that Myers' argument leads to the conclusion that it's moral to console a lonely sheep sexually, a proposition that he finds so absurd it warrants immediate dismissal of Myers' argument.
The notion of 'informed consent' actually supports his argument. Its absence is one the errors in (his version of) Myers' argument, not his.
Ow. Most of us here got this wrong. I hate it when that happens.
He's trying to rebut P.Z. Myers' claim by reductio ad absurdam.
We can't reasonably twit this guy for supporting a darnedest thing. He's created an argument to show that Myer's logic leads to a darnedest thing that the OP doesn't support.
We're responding as if he's producing a load of fail, when in fact he's claiming that the other person's argument is producing that load of fail.
Not that he's correctly stated Myers' argument. I'm sure his argument is a straw-man caricature of Myers' actual argument. But none of us here have responded to that. If his account of Myers' view is correct then this guy has logically refuted that view. Of course, part of his argument is implied, but as long as the person he's speaking to draws the correct inferences, that all he needs.
Those who don't see how his argument links empathy and sheep-shagging must have missed the word 'lonely'. He's proposing that Myers' argument leads to the conclusion that it's moral to console a lonely sheep sexually, a proposition that he finds so absurd it warrants immediate dismissal of Myers' argument.
The notion of 'informed consent' actually supports his argument. Its absence is one the errors in (his version of) Myers' argument, not his.
Ow. Most of us here got this wrong. I hate it when that happens.
He's trying to rebut P.Z. Myers' claim by reductio ad absurdam.
We can't reasonably twit this guy for supporting a darnedest thing. He's created an argument to show that Myer's logic leads to a darnedest thing that the OP doesn't support.
We're responding as if he's producing a load of fail, when in fact he's claiming that the other person's argument is producing that load of fail.
Not that he's correctly stated Myers' argument. I'm sure his argument is a straw-man caricature of Myers' actual argument. But none of us here have responded to that. If his account of Myers' view is correct then this guy has logically refuted that view. Of course, part of his argument is implied, but as long as the person he's speaking to draws the correct inferences, that all he needs.
Those who don't see how his argument links empathy and sheep-shagging must have missed the word 'lonely'. He's proposing that Myers' argument leads to the conclusion that it's moral to console a lonely sheep sexually, a proposition that he finds so absurd it warrants immediate dismissal of Myers' argument.
The notion of 'informed consent' actually supports his argument. Its absence is one the errors in (his version of) Myers' argument, not his.
@Doubting Thomas
Christianity and Judaism were developed by shepherds.
They even have burial prayers implying the worshiper is a lamb of God.
Thus, whenever they want to prevent logical thought, the "christian" extremist automatically associates whatever they want people to not think about with bestiality, especially with flock animals.
I think he's probably using the biblical definition of the word "sodomy", which sweeps all "unnatural" acts of penetration under one blanket term, like homosexuality, bestiality, pedophilia and rape. It isn't them, but their twisted religion, which puts consensual sex, between two adults of the same gender, at the same level as raping another human being, molesting a child, and yes, even raping a poor farm animal.
Empathy -> Beastiality
I don't get it.
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.