I wouldn't vote for perry, but I agree with the message. Sin should never be normalized or legislated in society. Just recently they repealed the sodomy laws in the miltary for homosexuals, and it also repealed laws against bestiality:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/08/senate-defense-bill-repeals-military-law-on-sodomy-sex-with-animals/

I feel sorry for our troops that they have to serve with this kind of thing going on, which is now approved by the powers that be. America is fading fast, and judgement cannot be far behind.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Sexy, Sheep, Dog, Oh yes' to 'Sexy, Sheep, Dog, Oh yes, thanks smokey, bestiality' - edited by xxovercastxx

The bestial roar he lets out originally is 100,000 more emotional.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

People can be unhappy for valid and invalid reasons. Happiness is an emotion. Happiness isn't rational. Happiness is related directly to what makes us animals, not humans. Happiness has no proper gauge, it has no measure, it has no quantifiable meaning outside of personal subjective experience. Something that makes one person sad, makes another happy. Some people like being mad, which makes others unhappy, which makes some people happy. Happy is a useless idea for basing moral arguments. I am staring to hold that Aspergers is the next stage needed in humans to put aside these silly emotional states that tie us to animal notions of morality. If we want to be better than pigs and rats, then happy needs to die, and soon.


And yet pain and pleasure are at the core of how we experience the world. We can try to pretend we're not connected to the world of animals, but we are.

Oh, and for sure, in a society built on glorifying selfishness, disconnectedness, and individualism as an end in and of itself, evolution is pushing us all ever closer to a race of total psychopaths.

You know, the ultimate moral creatures. Totally unhindered by any such animal emotions, like empathy, sympathy, compassion, honesty, loyalty, etc. Obsolete concepts that only those bestial liberals keep pushing, as if there was any moral worth in guaranteeing people a right to the pursuit of happiness...

Also, if your chief complaint about utilitarianism is that following it requires you to actually think about the consequences your actions will have on other people, and never provides any totally clear answers even then, you might want to think about whether that's really bug and not a feature.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Dirty Deeds, Sheep' to 'Dirty Deeds, Sheep, bestiality, bob rivers' - edited by xxovercastxx

Somehow the apparent acts of necrophiliac bestiality take something away from the whole "scientific" exposition.

Ok, although I upvoted, the kid seems to be an active participant... this is like, borderline pedophilic bestiality.

Not that there's anything wrong with... no... EVERYTHING is wrong with that.

@xxovercastxx

I don't know if there are multiple universes. It's a fun idea, but at this point it's just an idea with no supporting evidence. At least, I'm not aware of any. It's not a topic I keep up on. I lack a belief in multiple universes at this point. Immaterialism falls into the same boat.

Apparently, if the other Universes had different physics, it would be impossible to detect them anyway. So to me it's a fairly useless supposition. So, just one Universe and nothing but the material.

I subscribe to the big bang theory, fully aware that it leaves plenty of questions to be answered. There are always more questions. Anything prior to singularity is a total mystery and I imagine it will be that way for a very long time.

Time and space had a beginning at the big bang, so really it would always be impossible to measure it. The most interesting thing is that the Universe sprang into existence from no prior material. It's creation ex nihilo..IE, creation from nothing. Which funnily enough happens to uniquely support the judeo-christian belief.

How does something from from nothing? Only nothing can come from nothing..So therefore, if time and space had a beginning, there must be something outside of time and space which created it. These have always been identified as Gods attributes, of existing outside of time and space in an eternal continuim with no beginning or end. Isn't a transcendent creator necessitated here?

I do not feel consciousness is as fancy or magical as many people do. We seem to be getting along just fine with the model that it's all just physical processes in the brain. There's still room for a surprise, sure, but until that surprise comes I'm ok with a physical model.

How do you respond to the argument that, if we're simply biological machines then all of our thoughts are nothing but chemical reactions which therefore cannot be trusted? Without an independent existence from the body, IE the soul, this seems to be the conclusion you're left with.

Morality is interesting. In practice, it really comes down to consensus and I feel it's largely based on emotions. It's fortunate that the vast majority of people have very similar feelings about what is or isn't moral, at least when it comes to the big ones (murder, theft, honesty, slavery, etc). I don't think anything that doesn't harm other people is immoral, which is where you and I part ways on the subject.

Well, how would you explain the uniformity of morality that we see in all cultures, past and present. It would have to be something explained by biology, except there is no biological imperative except selfishness. In regards to whether thoughts can be harmful..well, consider for example the commandment not to covet. It's a thought crime because it leads to breaking all of the other commandments. Coveting leads to envy, envy to desire, desire to larceny, murder, lying, stealing and adultry. It's entirely rational, nipping problems in the bud before they even begins.

Homosexuality, for example, poses no moral dilemmas for me because what people do to themselves and/or to other willing participants doesn't harm anyone else.

Bestiality, on the other hand, harms animals and it's also really fucking weird. This is not acceptable behavior to me. Mind you, it's the act that crosses the line. I don't think people who find themselves sexually attracted to animals are immoral so long as they don't act on it. All of us has some strange shit on our minds from time to time and I'm not ok with prosecuting thought crimes with either earthly or celestial judges.

Lacking an objective standard for morality, what makes it wrong? Why is it bad to have sex with animals, hurt people, rape people..if it's just your feelings. If that's the case, some people feel that raping people is just great..doesn't that make them morally justified in your world view?

Putting aside, for a moment, your apparent war on etymology, what if you believe the universe is a simulation running on a computer? What if you believe it was created by an advanced alien race? According to you, these people would be theists.

Well, you could say the Universe started 5 seconds ago and all of your memories are false. And if the Universe was simulated, the question is meaningless..but point taken..the better question is..Was the Universe deliberately Created by supreme being?

>> ^shinyblurry:

Okay, I'll bite. Since you don't want to discuss what the bible says, I'll delve into your world. Do you believe there is only one Universe, many Universes or infinite Universes? Do you only believe in material reality, or do you think there could be other dimensions or planes of existence that transcend it? Basically, what is your cosmology/model of reality? How do you think consciousness works? Do you believe in morality and how do you determine what it is?


I don't know if there are multiple universes. It's a fun idea, but at this point it's just an idea with no supporting evidence. At least, I'm not aware of any. It's not a topic I keep up on. I lack a belief in multiple universes at this point. Immaterialism falls into the same boat.

I subscribe to the big bang theory, fully aware that it leaves plenty of questions to be answered. There are always more questions. Anything prior to singularity is a total mystery and I imagine it will be that way for a very long time.

I do not feel consciousness is as fancy or magical as many people do. We seem to be getting along just fine with the model that it's all just physical processes in the brain. There's still room for a surprise, sure, but until that surprise comes I'm ok with a physical model.

Morality is interesting. In practice, it really comes down to consensus and I feel it's largely based on emotions. It's fortunate that the vast majority of people have very similar feelings about what is or isn't moral, at least when it comes to the big ones (murder, theft, honesty, slavery, etc). I don't think anything that doesn't harm other people is immoral, which is where you and I part ways on the subject.

Homosexuality, for example, poses no moral dilemmas for me because what people do to themselves and/or to other willing participants doesn't harm anyone else.

Bestiality, on the other hand, harms animals and it's also really fucking weird. This is not acceptable behavior to me. Mind you, it's the act that crosses the line. I don't think people who find themselves sexually attracted to animals are immoral so long as they don't act on it. All of us has some strange shit on our minds from time to time and I'm not ok with prosecuting thought crimes with either earthly or celestial judges.

>> ^poolcleaner:

>> ^ForgedReality:
>> ^probie:
Dolphins = hard and smooth
Cats = furry and warm
Remind you of anything? No wonder they got along.

I dunno about you, but I don't put my thing in anything "furry." >_>

So you're a pedophile?


Uhh... no? I just don't like marching through the jungle to reach the ocean... and I'm also not into bestiality.

On topic, big thumbs up for the very tolerant woman in the video. I disagree with her religion but she has my utmost respect.

re: the debate regarding gay 'choice vs genetics' and how it pertains to marriage, who fucking cares? This is one big old red herring, okaying discrimination because a person chooses not to adhere to a societal norm rather than being forced to by genetic circumstance. We're not talking an involuntary relationship (ie. paedo/bestiality marriages) which in my mind are the only precluders. You can't marry a person if a) it's against their will or b) they are not capable of making the decision to accept. If a bisexual chooses to marry the same sex, the principle is the same, good luck to em. Two fellow citizens who should have the same rights as any other have their rights removed because they don't conform to what society thinks.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Being Kevin Smith: "Hmm, the Clerks II bestiality/n-word concept didn't work...I know!! I'll bash all Christians based on the antics of that one bizarre family!"
Hey, KS, prove me wrong.


Well you asked for some proof, now you have to entertain the proof that he gives. Go see the movie.

Being Kevin Smith: "Hmm, the Clerks II bestiality/n-word concept didn't work...I know!! I'll bash all Christians based on the antics of that one bizarre family!"

Hey, KS, prove me wrong.

Just like speeding limits will end up with cars being banned. Just like gay marriage will lead to polygamy and bestiality. This is my problem with libertarianism as a whole, it's not an absolutist position in the slightest. It's drawing a line in the sand slightly to the right of the general societal consensus around you in terms of individual ownership rights and liberties.

As for guns in particular:

You have 89 guns per 100 people. The next country down, Switzerland, has half (46 per 100) and is in itself is an outlier:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership

By a conservative estimate on total firearm deaths you are 8th in the world per capita.

On homicides per capita alone you are 10th in the world. The next, and first other developed country down in descending order is Italy with just 23% of the US. The next is Finland with 12%.

On unintentional deaths, you are ranked 3rd in the world. The next developed country down, Spain, has a rate per capita, 42% of the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Now, let's put aside the whole argument over whether owning a gun is a right. Is there really any disputing that high gun ownership rates in the US lead to high death rates a a result of firearms?

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, when it's fear based and affects other people's rights? I'd say that's when fear is bad. It doesn't start with "let's get rid of all guns" which is what most of you really feel. It starts with, "Maybe we should revisit this whole gun control conversation again. Maybe we do little more this time to ensure our safety."
Sure, clips are limited this time around. Next, the caliber of bullet is limited. Those who can own guns is limited further. Where those guns can be located is limited further. Eventually what're we left with? Are the 20,000 gun laws currently on the books not enough? Of course they're not, because they still allow people to own them, and that's really the point isn't it? It's disingenuous and opportunistic (not to mention horrible) to wrap yourself in self-righteous indignation over Green's death and then use it further your political agenda.

>> ^shagen454:

kitty porn, anyone?


Yep, bestiality.