31–40 of 63 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the mindset of the 60's was way different. Today nobody blinks twice when a horse needs to be manually gotten-off to ship off the semen to other parts of the word.
> Today nobody blinks twice when a horse needs to be manually gotten-off to ship off the semen to other parts of the word. That's perhaps a city thing. In farms people did similar things (to cows etc) all the time as part of routine job.
Side-note, this project was one of the inspirations behind the cult-classic Ecco the Dolphin game for the Sega Genesis This video explains it very well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xUvhUK8Dv8
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Today nobody blinks twice when a horse needs to be manually gotten-off to ship off the semen to other parts of the word. That's perhaps a city thing. In farms people did similar things (to cows etc) all the time as part of routine job.
Yup. This is literally where milk comes from.
http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/reprod/semenev...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the horse does not enjoy it That's a bold statement. I don't even know where to begin, there are so many levels here. Like, why would you even make such a claim? I mean I'm not against the claim per se, but it does not seem like you have any evidence, or that you even looked for it. Seems to come right out of some human moral position instead, one that is not rooted in nature, given how many "weird" sex stories and…
From a moral standpoint, it doesn't matter if the horse enjoys it. The point is the get the semen, not for the horse to enjoy it. Whereas with the dolphin example, the point was for the dolphin to enjoy it. There was no "morally purer" point.
I had read about these stories separately, the consensual, interspecies sex and the dolphin suicide, but for some reason I failed to realized or had forgotten it was the same dolphin. I admit I sort of fail to understand the outrage about the sex thing and about the attempt to teach it English. I'm probably naïve but I still think some basic form of communication should be possible, like with great apes.
I think the mindset of the 60's was way different. Today nobody blinks twice when a horse needs to be manually gotten-off to ship off the semen to other parts of the word.
I'm more intrigued by the moral code that finds sexually stimulating an animal on its request morally wrong, but force-feeding them LSD a-okay.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From a moral standpoint, it doesn't matter if the horse enjoys it. The point is the get the semen, not for the horse to enjoy it. Whereas with the dolphin example, the point was for the dolphin to enjoy it. There was no "morally purer" point.
are you saying it's not non-consensual sex because the point is not for the horse to enjoy it but it is non-sensual sex with the dolphin because the point is for the dolphin to enjoy it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
are you saying it's not non-consensual sex because the point is not for the horse to enjoy it but it is non-sensual sex with the dolphin because the point is for the dolphin to enjoy it.
I'm saying that intent informs morality. eg: Murder and Man Slaughter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm saying that intent informs morality. eg: Murder and Man Slaughter.
so if i rape someone and i didn't intend for them to enjoy it then it's not rape? or is it that the person hasn't been raped?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
so if i rape someone and i didn't intend for them to enjoy it then it's not rape? or is it that the person hasn't been raped?
You escalated your example a bit fast (putting it squarely in the territory of a maybe overly emotional argument), but you touch on a not unreasonable question. Does the horse's right to decide who it has sex with not factor into this decision at all?