Archive for June 26th, 2007

Fascism and Bestiality – Atheists Please Tell Me Why I Am Morally Wrong

June 26, 07

Today I will play the role of an atheist who subscribes to humanism and the relative nature of morality.

(Hey, this is a realistic role-play… See After Homosexuality, Sexual Revolutionary Frank Kameny Moves on to Making Bestiality ‘Normal’ for details)

Shall we begin?

—– 

THESE ARE MY TWO CORE BELIEFS:

1) I believe that certain nonproductive members of society – i.e. the terminally and painfully sick, unemployed and alcohol-addicted street vagrants, serial criminals, and those too old to contribute anything meaningful - should be euthanized for the greater of good of society and mankind.

Resources that they consume can find much better use in advancing civilization and the happiness of other (and more) people. The good and survival of the human species takes precedence over selfish and petty individual needs.

-

2) I believe that bestiality as a sexual choice should be given the same legal rights and social respect as heterosexual and homosexual human-human relationships.

I am a practising zoophile who regularly engages in group sex with my fully-mature rottweilers (both male and female) who willingly and often actively reciprocate the intimate eroticity.

We all enjoy it immensely, so what’s wrong with it? For some reason, most people – even the supposedly enlightened individuals at PFLAG - think my sexual choice is disgusting, morally repugnant and unnatural. To me it’s incomprehensible and inexplicable why.

—–

Now please tell me why my stand is MORALLY WRONG from a atheistic, humanist point of view.

Quotes from the Bible or other holy scriptures will not be accepted. Arguments that some god or another forbids it will similarly be ignored. As a atheist, I WILL NOT ACCEPT ANY RELIGION OR PHILOSOPHY BASED ARGUMENTS.

I welcome and eagerly await comments which attempt to persuade me that somehow, my beliefs and practices are fundamentally wrong from a relativistic, humanist, liberal and pluralistic point of view.

Convince me.

—–

Role-playing ends here. Related to my posts Communism = Atheism = Relative Morality and Morality: Of Absolutes and Relatives.

————–

UPDATE: The Dutch ban bestiality, and a liberal makes the case for why it shouldn’t be banned. Nuff said?

Communism = Atheism = Relative Morality

June 26, 07

CommunistFashions

Above by Michael Ramirez of Investor’s Business Daily, 26 June 2007

CheGuevaraShirtCost

Above by Red Planet Cartoons. The bearded guy so prevalent on shirts is the same one who said“If the nuclear missiles had remained we would have fired them against the heart of the U.S. including New York City. The victory of socialism is well worth millions of atomic victims.”

     liberal_idiot

Above via Moonbattery

How many million? One hundred million. A breakdown here.

If you want some gruesome photographic evidence of the above massacres: Here at Moonbattery

Links regarding Communist-sponsored mass murder: This comment.

The following statements will be offensive to some, and the line of reasoning may be challenged. But I find the logic to be whole.

Communists are de facto atheists. Atheists believe that there is no God – no higher power per se.

If there is no higher power, morals and ethics are determined by man himself. Where there is no God, man makes himself god.

Therefore, morals become relative to the situation. There is no absolute definition of right or wrong – it depends on the viewer, the culture or the majority decision.

The killing of millions therefore cannot be condemned as ‘fundamentally immoral’ if there is no fundamental on which to base a definition of wrong.

If survival of the species is the determinant in a genetic code of morals, then it can be argued that killing 10 million humans is moral if it preserves the life of 100 million humans.

And if there are no longer any morals to offer restraint, then the monster within will be freely unleashed… Like in the case of that most famous of revolutionary poster-boys, Che kill-everyone-out-of-insurgent-hate Guevara.

Similarly, if homosexuality is not considered immoral, there are no moral arguments against bestiality.

If both the human and the animal willingly participate in sex and enjoy it, what protest can be made? That it is unnatural or non-procreative? The same can be also said of homosexuality.

Yet you will be hard pressed to find openly professing supporters of zoophilia, even among PFLAG and other LGBT groups. Is bestiality not yet a socially acceptable lifestyle?

Judging by such standards, I guess certain European nations where animal kinkiness, prostitution, drugs and euthanasia are legal are more advanced civilizations than America.

In conclusion, this is what I am getting at: It is not that atheism is by definition immoral. It is that by definition, atheism cannot have absolute morals, only situation-relative ones.

Right and wrong are no longer set in stone, but always in flux.

See also my post Morality: Of Absolutes and Relatives.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 115 other followers

%d bloggers like this: