Imagination Theory wrote:Well, thankfully most Christians pick and choose what to Believe in the Bible.

If they pick and choose only the good parts of the bible, doesn't that mean they had morals before even reading that vile book? (Paraphrasing Philosoraptor)

LarianLeQuella wrote:

Imagination Theory wrote:Well, thankfully most Christians pick and choose what to Believe in the Bible.

If they pick and choose only the good parts of the bible, doesn't that mean they had morals before even reading that vile book? (Paraphrasing Philosoraptor)

Depends which bits they pick and choose.

Er, I'm befuddled. I'm a militant, evil, baby-eating atheist & anti-theist, truly a morality-free zone (by definition), yet I've read the OP & can't for the life of me work out what it's all about. Further reading seems to reveal 'K9' as some slang for dog-fucking. How coe the pious fucking Christians knew about this & the evil atheist here didn't?

So not the James Belushi film?

Damn! Thought my refutation was airtight.

chairman bill wrote:Er, I'm befuddled. I'm a militant, evil, baby-eating atheist & anti-theist, truly a morality-free zone (by definition), yet I've read the OP & can't for the life of me work out what it's all about. Further reading seems to reveal 'K9' as some slang for dog-fucking. How coe the pious fucking Christians knew about this & the evil atheist here didn't?

Thank you for clearing that up Bill, I was trying to work out what Doctor Who's robot dog had to do with the OP. I am now, though, trying to work out what the OP may get up to in his spare time!

ramseyoptom wrote:

chairman bill wrote:Er, I'm befuddled. I'm a militant, evil, baby-eating atheist & anti-theist, truly a morality-free zone (by definition), yet I've read the OP & can't for the life of me work out what it's all about. Further reading seems to reveal 'K9' as some slang for dog-fucking. How coe the pious fucking Christians knew about this & the evil atheist here didn't?

Thank you for clearing that up Bill, I was trying to work out what Doctor Who's robot dog had to do with the OP. I am now, though, trying to work out what the OP may get up to in his spare time!

I suppose that if you can ask the baby Jesus to forgive you, anything is up for grabs as a past-time

ispoketoanangel wrote:If atheism is true, then on what ground is K9 morally objectionable, if the dog happens to enjoy it?

Discuss.

.. Never heard of anyone finding the use of a dog as a K9 unit to be morally objectionable before. This is a new one for me.

Edit: Oh, should have read the entire thread first! It's slag for dog fucking... that's odd and bound to cause confusion because police dogs are referred to as K9 Units around this part (Colorado) of the world.

Well, now to answer the OP: How can you tel that the dog is enjoying it? You can't. They are not able to hold an intelligent conversation with us; thus they can't consent which makes it rape. Simple concept.

I'm sure it wasn't his intention, but AtheistsAreVermin has hit on what could actually be an interesting question.

It's easier to answer if instead of talking about dogs, we talk about young adults under the legal age of consent. Different people mature both emotionally and sexually at different rates, and most of us would be able to credit that a relationship with someone still beneath the age of consent might be totally loving and non exploitative, the probabilities of them being abusive or exploitative are so high that we forbid them all. And almost all would agree that an abusive or exploitative relationship of any kind, sexual or not, is immoral.

It's no different with bestiality, we might be able to acknowledge (as the AtheistsAreVermin does so classlessly in talking about a dog "enjoying it" that there might be sexual connections between humans and animals that are not abusive, the fact that an animal has not even the awareness of ideas like consent that a young adult has mean that we have to do the same thing - forbid them.

MoonLit wrote: Well, now to answer the OP: How can you tel that the dog is enjoying it? You can't. They are not able to hold an intelligent conversation with us; thus they can't consent which makes it rape. Simple concept.

Not quite so simple. I doubt many animals would consent to living their lives in captivity then being prematurely killed for food. Yet most people (though not all) do not consider that immoral.

ramseyoptom wrote:

chairman bill wrote:Er, I'm befuddled. I'm a militant, evil, baby-eating atheist & anti-theist, truly a morality-free zone (by definition), yet I've read the OP & can't for the life of me work out what it's all about. Further reading seems to reveal 'K9' as some slang for dog-fucking. How coe the pious fucking Christians knew about this & the evil atheist here didn't?

Thank you for clearing that up Bill, I was trying to work out what Doctor Who's robot dog had to do with the OP. I am now, though, trying to work out what the OP may get up to in his spare time!

I must say, today has be highly educational. From JHubner I learned that boi is slang for a boyish lesbian, and now from ispoketoanangel I learn that K9 is slang for having sex with a dog.

Who'd have thought such fine upstanding Christians would be so well informed about the details of the gay and bestiality communities?

If atheism is true, then on what ground is K9 morally objectionable, if the dog happens to enjoy it?

The OP is just plain nonsense. He/she hasn't even come back to confirm or deny he's talking about fucking dogs. Maybe that's the plan, miss that crucial word and then call all of you who filled it in with 'fucking' immoral.

Paula wrote:

If atheism is true, then on what ground is K9 morally objectionable, if the dog happens to enjoy it?

The OP is just plain nonsense. He/she hasn't even come back to confirm or deny he's talking about fucking dogs. Maybe that's the plan, miss that crucial word and then call all of you who filled it in with 'fucking' immoral.

Maybe. But hey! I got what ISTAA meant from mattwilson!

Imagination Theory wrote:

Paula wrote:

If atheism is true, then on what ground is K9 morally objectionable, if the dog happens to enjoy it?

The OP is just plain nonsense. He/she hasn't even come back to confirm or deny he's talking about fucking dogs. Maybe that's the plan, miss that crucial word and then call all of you who filled it in with 'fucking' immoral.

Maybe. But hey! I got what ISTAA meant from mattwilson!

What is it?

I'm not sure I want to know if it came from Matt though.

Nebogipfel wrote:

ramseyoptom wrote:

chairman bill wrote:Er, I'm befuddled. I'm a militant, evil, baby-eating atheist & anti-theist, truly a morality-free zone (by definition), yet I've read the OP & can't for the life of me work out what it's all about. Further reading seems to reveal 'K9' as some slang for dog-fucking. How coe the pious fucking Christians knew about this & the evil atheist here didn't?

Thank you for clearing that up Bill, I was trying to work out what Doctor Who's robot dog had to do with the OP. I am now, though, trying to work out what the OP may get up to in his spare time!

I must say, today has be highly educational. From JHubner I learned that boi is slang for a boyish lesbian, and now from ispoketoanangel I learn that K9 is slang for having sex with a dog.

Who'd have thought such fine upstanding Christians would be so well informed about the details of the gay and bestiality communities?

One of course maybe should ask (or perhaps not) how these fine upstanding Christians know such things. I am beginning to think my education is sadly lacking or maybe they know about these details because...... No, speculation in that realm, probably better not going there.

ispoketoanangel wrote:If atheism is true,

Bzzzzzzzzzzz. Thank you for playing.

Atheism can't be 'true' because it isn't a truth claim. Nice category error you have there.

then on what ground is K9 morally objectionable, if the dog happens to enjoy it?

How does one ascertain the enjoyment of the dog?

Fatuous drivel.

Imagination Theory wrote:Dogs can't consent or communicate or understand fully enough to be able to agree to sex with a human. They cannot communicate to you that they want you to stop now, even if they acted like they wanted it before, or that it is hurting them, etc. So it is rape. Sometimes when animals, including mammals get raped their body may react as if they are enjoying it. They are NOT. You can't just tell from that.

Do you need me to tell you why rape is unethical?

So it is morally objectionable because the animal can't consent.

But why does it matter if animals can consent or not? Do we ask for their consent to use them as pet, or to eat them?

Then, do you think killing animals - and eating meat - is immoral as well? Do you think it should be illegal?

ispoketoanangel wrote:
But why does it matter if animals can consent or not?

You seem to be the expert on dog fucking. Mind telling us. You brought it up after all.

I don't know what you're all going on about. It's potentially lethal. Isn't the thing supposed to be nuclear-powered or something?

It does seem a common concern among religious folk, what other people are getting up to in the bedroom. I suspect in many churches, some poor soul has the thankless task of categorizing all sexual activity into acceptable within the confines of a loving marriage and abominable perversion.

Obviously, they need to know all the gory details so they can be disapproved-of in graphic detail.