Jump to content
JulyDiaz

Episode 94 — Hands In The Air

Recommended Posts

This episode solidified it: Lauren Lapkus is my favorite person ever.

 

 

And dogs don't know they've done something wrong. They are reacting to your reaction to what they've done. It's behavioral.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Best thing about watching the episode was that the improv4humans logo was visible throughout the debate.

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, I'm not gonna just blindly click on a YouTube link in a thread that has largely been about bestiality.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, I'm not gonna just blindly click on a YouTube link in a thread that has largely been about bestiality.

 

It's actually incredibly adorable and has nothing to do with animal sex, unfortunately.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I wish someone would have brought up what is to me the most obvious and central counter argument: animals are similar to human minors in that they are both unable to consent. If an adult has sex with a child, it is still abuse even if the child initiates the act or even if the adult claims that the child "enjoyed it." The same standards hold true for animals. As a society, we are advanced enough to know that children and animals do not have the mental capacity to understand the consequences and meaning of sex.

Well yeah, this. Anyway, did anyone else think the movie Avatar veered towards bestiality?

Share this post


Link to post

 

What? WHO THE FUCK IS MR. HANDS??? There's a well known animal fucker? Nevermind, don't want to know. I've never seen bestiality. Don't plan to.

 

Clearly you are either too young or too old or grew up with out internet access in the early 2000's. Mr.Hands is on the internet fame level of Goatse, Tubgirl and the Harliquin Fetus. Sites like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogrish were really popular with internet kids for a while.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I wish someone would have brought up what is to me the most obvious and central counter argument: animals are similar to human minors in that they are both unable to consent. If an adult has sex with a child, it is still abuse even if the child initiates the act or even if the adult claims that the child "enjoyed it." The same standards hold true for animals. As a society, we are advanced enough to know that children and animals do not have the mental capacity to understand the consequences and meaning of sex.

 

I would say that the difference here is that the child might think they want to have sex because they are not at full capacity. But when they grow up, and look back on it, they might be seriously mentally scarred by the things they did when they understand them on a deeper level. The same can not be said for an animal. I don't think an animal will ever look back on something it has done sexually and feel ashamed, humiliated, or used. This is why sex is put in a separate category than other actions--it carries a lot of emotional and psychological baggage which means sex can have serious consequences that are not apparent when we do the act itself. So with humans there are some very serious consequences that do not apply from the animal's side of things. I guess the strongest argument against bestiality would be that you might be exposing them to health risks they're not aware of? But then I suppose if you take precaustions the health risk could be made very small.

 

Not that I am pro-bestiality; I'm just saying that for me, it's more of a gray area where I lean towards saying it's wrong, but I can kind of see both sides of the argument... whereas sex with a child is unequivocally wrong.

Share this post


Link to post

HILARIOUS episode but Gemberling is fucking depraved. He's funny, but he's kinda a sick fuck. I think he's been so insulated by his own opinion and defending it that he's gotten a degree of aloofness and cognitive dissonance. He hesitated, deflected and qualified Besser's question about reporting a neighbor's bestiality.

 

The debater didn't come with strong stances or knowledge of ethical principles. The best way to show a flawed argument is to extend its perimeters to generally accepted taboos. So I will use pedophilia. Dogs have intelligence on par with 2-3 year old children, children at this age are controlled by impulses, unimpeded by cultural taboos. Like the dog, they don't have constructs of shame or high levels of cognition. Would it be okay to have sex with a child or any being simply because it doesn't have developed ego/superegos? You would say no because although children are primarily focused on receiving pleasure (being held by parents and other instant gratification), some pleasures are potentially traumatizing.

 

Animals aren't as dumb and unaware as people think, regardless of whether an animal enjoys sex is unrelated because it can permanently traumatize them - I've seen many stories of horses, dogs and gorillas who grow a Pavlovian response after long-term sexual abuse. They often turn their butts towards any visitors, all they know is sex and they've developed a terribly dependency and fear of it. A variation of the argument of "well if the animals enjoy it, who cares?" is used by rapists, some guys who have been raped become hard despite displeasure - it's a subconscious reaction. But you are permanently fucking up someone's relation to sex, and using them as an ends to a means as Kant would say.

 

The biggest reason the bestiality taboo exists is because animals will never be able to fully consent; it's like expecting a six year old to sign a lease. They won't fully understand the terms and extent of the relationship; the communication barrier will always prevent that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Also, Gemberling has the Relativist ideology of a first-year college student; this fuels his entire "open-minded" morality. I won't elaborate too much about the fallacy of this world view but basically the argument unravels upon its own reasoning. It alleges that since morality is a social construct, it's fabricated and arbitrary. Relativists claim ultimate objectivity yet at the same time decide what is moral and what is not. Gemberling dismisses his detractors as wrong and mucked by societal taboos but if he truly followed this world view he would take a more agnostic approach to ethics.

 

Gemberling defended bestiality as a "rich cultural tradition" using social examples of Colombian donkey fucking and asian vaginal eels while at the same time declaring that morality based on social examples is bullshit and contrived. Relativism is ultimately very subjective and self-righteous; by using it to negate an opponent's argument you negate your own.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Having just had a baby last week I can say that the first sketch this week hit very close to home and was, perhaps, the funniest sketch I've ever heard on this show. Which is amazing, because the rest of the show made up the best show I've ever heard. Simply amazing stuff. And by the way, to Matt's point of days of labor, we went in at 8am on Wednesday, had the baby at 3am on Saturday.

Share this post


Link to post

Alex your argument comparing animals to human children, with all due respect, is complete and utter bullshit. Please allow me to list things we do to animals that we don't do to children, that by your logic shouldn't be allowed since animals can't give consent regardless if it hurts them or not.

 

1) Stores that sell animals to anyone

2) Zoos (we lock them in cages and pay to watch them)

3) Milk them (We forcible tie cows to machines that milk them for us to drink)

4) Slaughter them for food (Probably the biggest one)

5) Sheer Sheep (Forcibly take their hair for our enjoyment)

6) Kill them for fur/skin

7) Use them for our sporting entertainment

8) Forcefully breed them

 

So unless you're a complete strict vegan, who has never in their life eaten any meat (fish included) or drank any milk other than your mothers, or worn any clothes made from animal, then you're a complete hypocrite. Because I'm pretty sure killing them and eating there flesh is way worse to the animal then letting them mount someone.

 

Also where is your line drawn? Have you killed a bug? They're alive, so are germs and single celled organisms. Hell so are plants, so please Mr. Hypocrite tell me where its ok to stop?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Alex your argument comparing animals to human children, with all due respect, is complete and utter bullshit. Please allow me to list things we do to animals that we don't do to children, that by your logic shouldn't be allowed since animals can't give consent regardless if it hurts them or not.

 

I agree with you that there are murky lines in Natural Rights for animals and it has recently led me to believe that killing animals is immoral. So I admit cognitive dissonance because I do eat meat. I think the main argument allowing for animals to be killed is a Natural Law argument or maybe Devine Command, descendant from biblical ideals; we either have a natural prominence over animals because of survival of the fittest or because god told Adam so. Survival of the fittest is void by the social contract and religious ethics shouldn't be impressed onto others.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Dogs have intelligence on par with 2-3 year old children, children at this age are controlled by impulses, unimpeded by cultural taboos. Like the dog, they don't have constructs of shame or high levels of cognition. Would it be okay to have sex with a child or any being simply because it doesn't have developed ego/superegos? You would say no because although children are primarily focused on receiving pleasure (being held by parents and other instant gratification), some pleasures are potentially traumatizing.

 

But the difference is that the dogs' development stops there. They'll NEVER develop "ego/superegos". They'll NEVER be able to understand the stuff you're presenting. They won't grow up and be traumatized by their experiences because they're not going to grow up. However, dogs' sex organs are as developed as a grown human's, so their experience is completely different; they can't understand sex, much less anything else, on a human level, but they desire it all the same. The peanut butter blowjob thing, as I see it, goes two ways: either the dog gets what it's doing and is fine with it, or the dog doesn't get what it's doing, and it NEVER WILL, so who cares? If the dog sees it as simply licking peanut butter, and will never see it any other way, then what's the problem?

Share this post


Link to post

Ah, but I present the example of developmentally challenged or brain damaged people. We can't grant dignity only to the rational and those who we expect to reach rationality because that would allow the abuse of permanently mentally incapacitated people.

 

Also, the expectation of rationality is a flawed argument, it's Aristotelian teleology. Basically, an acorn will grow into a tree but an acorn is not a tree. You are putting effect before cause which forsakes most scientific reasoning. This argument is also used in the personhood; because a fetus will one day be a rational being, it is afforded certain rights.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

The problem with dogs licking peanut butter off balls (hard to believe the things we debate on the interwebs), I used the example of a six-year old being expected to sign a lease. Even if you qualify that the dog has no societal scrutiny or shame, the human party still does and brings that burden into the relationship. Since the dog cannot fully understand the full terms and potential meaning of the agreement (societal ideals and taboos that a human involvement adds) it's unfair and potentially exploitative. Deliberately or involuntary, information is withheld from one party.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Alex your argument comparing animals to human children, with all due respect, is complete and utter bullshit. Please allow me to list things we do to animals that we don't do to children, that by your logic shouldn't be allowed since animals can't give consent regardless if it hurts them or not.

 

1) Stores that sell animals to anyone

2) Zoos (we lock them in cages and pay to watch them)

3) Milk them (We forcible tie cows to machines that milk them for us to drink)

4) Slaughter them for food (Probably the biggest one)

5) Sheer Sheep (Forcibly take their hair for our enjoyment)

6) Kill them for fur/skin

7) Use them for our sporting entertainment

8) Forcefully breed them

 

So unless you're a complete strict vegan, who has never in their life eaten any meat (fish included) or drank any milk other than your mothers, or worn any clothes made from animal, then you're a complete hypocrite. Because I'm pretty sure killing them and eating there flesh is way worse to the animal then letting them mount someone.

 

While there are flaws in his argument, yours is worse. Because while animals and children are different on many levels, they are not different on every level. There are things we consider wrong to do to both. Just because there are things we consider acceptable with animals and not with people, that doesn't mean that EVERYTHING we consider unacceptable for humans is OK for animals. A much better argument is to explain WHY this applies to humans and not to animals.

 

Also, the expectation of rationality is a flawed argument, it's Aristotelian teleology. Basically, an acorn will grow into a tree but an acorn is not a tree. You are putting effect before cause which forsakes most scientific reasoning. This argument is also used in the personhood; because a fetus will one day be a rational being, it is afforded certain rights.

 

The point isn't that they should get more rights because of what they will become. The point is that sex has more potential to harm them because of what they will become. An eight year old who has sex with an adult is almost certainly going to have serious psychological issues down the line. The same can not be said for a dog or a horse.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Please Kevin point out the flaws then and not just say, that somethings are ok and some are not. The fact is who are you do judge the line for other people? If someone is to compare sex with an animal to sex with a child then everything else is equal comparisons as well.

Share this post


Link to post

HILARIOUS episode but Gemberling is fucking depraved. He's funny, but he's kinda a sick fuck. I think he's been so insulated by his own opinion and defending it that he's gotten a degree of aloofness and cognitive dissonance. He hesitated, deflected and qualified Besser's question about reporting a neighbor's bestiality.

 

The debater didn't come with strong stances or knowledge of ethical principles. The best way to show a flawed argument is to extend its perimeters to generally accepted taboos. So I will use pedophilia. Dogs have intelligence on par with 2-3 year old children, children at this age are controlled by impulses, unimpeded by cultural taboos. Like the dog, they don't have constructs of shame or high levels of cognition. Would it be okay to have sex with a child or any being simply because it doesn't have developed ego/superegos? You would say no because although children are primarily focused on receiving pleasure (being held by parents and other instant gratification), some pleasures are potentially traumatizing.

 

Animals aren't as dumb and unaware as people think, regardless of whether an animal enjoys sex is unrelated because it can permanently traumatize them - I've seen many stories of horses, dogs and gorillas who grow a Pavlovian response after long-term sexual abuse. They often turn their butts towards any visitors, all they know is sex and they've developed a terribly dependency and fear of it. A variation of the argument of "well if the animals enjoy it, who cares?" is used by rapists, some guys who have been raped become hard despite displeasure - it's a subconscious reaction. But you are permanently fucking up someone's relation to sex, and using them as an ends to a means as Kant would say.

 

The biggest reason the bestiality taboo exists is because animals will never be able to fully consent; it's like expecting a six year old to sign a lease. They won't fully understand the terms and extent of the relationship; the communication barrier will always prevent that.

 

How can they be traumatized if they don't feel any shame? Also, comparing it to pedophilia is a little extreme, as we're talking about sexually active animals. If the whole point is that it is inherently immoral to take advantage of some being dumber than you, that's a can of worms I don't want to open. An animal with higher brain capacity, say a dolphin, elephant, or ape, which show some cognitive capabilities may be more of a better subject for this debate. I do agree with you, but I can see how Gemberling finds the moral lines to be blurred.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×