I only condone ovo-lacto bestiality.

What if you grab Air Bud's dong and stroke it until it gets hard, then force it into your pink taco?

How about if you notice Lassie in the room watching intently while you and your gf are having sex. A couple days later while you are sleeping she jumps on the bed and furiously starts licking your willie. As you wake-up with a raging hard-on, she climbs on top of you in the exact same position that she saw your girl in. Thoughts?

Whoa, whoa. What is this place turning into SMP?

1. I have a hard time coming up with a reason, why this should be such a clear cut case for most people. Ok, I can accept Brian's innate creepyness ex post rationalisation thing to a point, but then

a) it probably wasn't always considered creepy and

b) there are still regions in the world, where bestiality is not considered creepy. At least my dad swore to me, that in Afghanistan it is considered ok in many places. But then, he really was a racist. But you know, vice swears so too. (I guess, I misplaced a joke somewhere.)

And even if this universal creepyness is true, one could at least try to be consistent in the ex post rationalization.

2. So (for non vegetarians)

a) there are people who think animals are inherently different from people. Ok, so no bestiality for them. They just have to come up aa) with a reason, why they are inherently different and ab) at the same time argue for their killing but not for their having sex with a willing woman, and I don't think this is that easy to do.

b) There are people who think animals feel pain and therefore shouldn't be hurt. Ok, so why no bestiality for them, if we can guarantee, that the animal isn't hurt? If you are a outcome Utilitarian, I see no way for you not to agree to bestiality then. Especially, if you would have sex with a robot.

c) I do not get either, why consent should play a role here, we don't give a **** about their consent, when horseback riding or you know, killing them. So that is obv. not the way out for most people.

I don't know whether the greek statue example is a good one. Intuition was faster, but not better than the deliberate reasoning process. And it was the intuition of experts, who had deliberately trained their reasoning for years.

It isnt any different than food taboos. Try getting an American to eat horse meat. The rationalization comes in when you ask them why they think it is wrong.

You see the same sort of reasoning as you get when you ask whether it is OK for a brother and sister to have sex.

wtf, no? eating animals is bad because we love animals!!<3! incest is bad because it exploits family love and trust and turns ppl into savages.

How about if we eat incestuous people?

gotta kill'em first.

Cognitive neuroscience exists.

People are obviously more than welcome to wax on poetically about what it is like to be themselves. It is a relatively harmless hobby and occasionally leads to something interesting for the cognitive neuroscientists to explore.

That is gross.

Is it something that can be altered or is my mom is right in her answer, when I point out her faulty reasoning for not eating fawn but calves: "I don't give a **** about logic and you can't logically convince me to do otherwise." Because this makes me wanna kill and eat her. Is wanting at least to be coherent in my rationalizations just a preference?

It is an exciting field of knowledge, in my experience.

Intuition was better than the scientific analysis.

Clearly the years of training were important (I mentioned that). The point is not that recognizing art fraud is innate, but "second nature" is perhaps neurologically similar to training so much that something becomes innate.

Your mom would be incorrect in giving a rationalization. Veal is yummy and she doesn't care about what baby cows have to say about it.

A desire to be coherent is definitely a preference. It might even be justifiable.

So back to the potential feelings of an AI driven, bunny- shaped sex toy.


I have an intuitive conclusion that sublime experiences such as intuition, conscience, and emotions cannot not be synthetically crafted, at least using the methods of the faculties of reason.

We can use reason to consider this further.

A sex toy which is also capable of playing chess and having a conversation is not the same as an animal capable of playing fetch or communicating in sign language.

Is it even possible that penetrating a synthetic animal can become equal to penetrating a real animal from an ethical perspective if certain faculties can only be imitated rather than replicated?

Both look pretty gross is an agreeable conclusion.

We call that automated thinking. You aren't doing physics calculations when you are playing catch.

Muscle memory for the wing!

I meant more like mental stuff like the spotting art forgery example.

I'm not trying to say intuition is always better of course. It's almost the definition of bias.

If you mean better=faster, maybe, nobody knows. He lets the story of all the intuitive geniuses, who did not feel it was a fake, fall under the table. No evidence suggests it was more than a guess by 3 art experts out of maybe ten times as many. In the end it was more or less shown to be false by the scientific method.

Maybe I was unclear, just making sure: She finds both yummi.

Because if not, then I do not understand that. Let's just say it is justified. Why would my mom be incorrect in giving a rationalization?

That sounds pretty consistent. What is the issue?

Because her rationalization isn't likely to be correct.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "the methods of the faculties of reason."

We can't build a house using the methods of the faculties of reason. We can build them using such things as hammers.

Don't listen to BTM, Spank. He's one of said robot bunnies.