![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
In one corner, we have PZ Myers, biologist and web atheist extraordinaire. In another we have his daughter, 17 year old Skatje Myers. Opposing them is creationist For the Kids of Reasonable Kansans, and an ally of hers I hadn't heard of before today, Salvador Cordova.
Back in October, Skatje wrote a post arguing that she saw no rational reason for banning bestiality specifically. When the sex act is harmful to the animal, it's already covered by animal welfare laws, while sex is sometimes non-harmful, and something an animal can easily consent to. I'd agree. I'd also say that "condone" is a fine verb for this position: tolerating something you have no interest in and may think is kind of squicky seems like an excellent example of "condoning something". And I'd say that while believing in evolution by means of natural selection doesn't intrinsically make one a condoner of bestiality or voluntary adult incest or even abortion, I do see a causal trend that goes from doing away with the argument from design, to a materialist universe, to one of a handful of possible materialist bases of universal ethics and morality -- social contracts, the golden rule, categorical imperatives, and utilitarianism -- to supporting all sorts of mutually voluntary and non-damaging sex acts which appall the traditional Christian.
Tick, tick, tick, boom. Skatje got lots of comments on her own, but eventually it's spread. Sal in Dec 6 -- independent of Skatje, but Forthekids mentions her obliquely in the first comment. On Dec 27 she went into detail, bringing up Skatje's defense of the tolerability of some bestiality as an example of where a Darwinist upbringing will lead you. FtK is wrong to suggest this is evidence that "Darwinism" is false, and I think the position of most atheists I know on bestiality is "animals can't consent, also, ewww", but I think FtK is correct that using consent-ability as opposed to eww-ness or Biblical standards to debate the morality of bestiality is a rather large shift, one naturally led to by a materialist worldview, holding one of which is greatly helped by Darwin. She says "But, from an atheist’s standpoint, due to our supposed evolutionary origins, there are no clear cut reasons as to why certain behavior is deemed immoral." which is wrong if it means that we can't say any behavior is immoral, but kind of right in that certain behaviors indeed don't have any grounds for being deemed immoral, although wrong again in pinning that on evolution. It's not evolution -> bestiality but evolution -> no God -> ignore the Bible -> no grounds for condemning nice bestiality. Or gay sex.
This morning I found that post, and e-mailed Skatje about it, which was followed by Skatje making her own comments, which led me to believe I actually had a role here, but now I don't know. Because Sal got into things himself today with a picture of a peccary, which drew attacks from JanieBelle and attention from PZ himself.
Resulting comments have tended to "what jerks", arguments over the meaning of 'condone', and Skatje resenting being used as an example, and very little of "yes, we *do* tend to support abortion, even late-term abortion, incest between consenting adults who don't produce inbred children, and even possibly bestiality. Disgusting? Yeah, we find your morals and how you abuse gay children to be pretty disgusting too."
I don't know. Seems to me like a lot of reflexive groupthink against normally despicably wrong thinkers, and defending the lines of "oh no, Darwin has no moral consequences at all", whereas I see most thorough materialists over the last 2500 years indeed converging on "anything goes that doesn't actually hurt someone."
Back in October, Skatje wrote a post arguing that she saw no rational reason for banning bestiality specifically. When the sex act is harmful to the animal, it's already covered by animal welfare laws, while sex is sometimes non-harmful, and something an animal can easily consent to. I'd agree. I'd also say that "condone" is a fine verb for this position: tolerating something you have no interest in and may think is kind of squicky seems like an excellent example of "condoning something". And I'd say that while believing in evolution by means of natural selection doesn't intrinsically make one a condoner of bestiality or voluntary adult incest or even abortion, I do see a causal trend that goes from doing away with the argument from design, to a materialist universe, to one of a handful of possible materialist bases of universal ethics and morality -- social contracts, the golden rule, categorical imperatives, and utilitarianism -- to supporting all sorts of mutually voluntary and non-damaging sex acts which appall the traditional Christian.
Tick, tick, tick, boom. Skatje got lots of comments on her own, but eventually it's spread. Sal in Dec 6 -- independent of Skatje, but Forthekids mentions her obliquely in the first comment. On Dec 27 she went into detail, bringing up Skatje's defense of the tolerability of some bestiality as an example of where a Darwinist upbringing will lead you. FtK is wrong to suggest this is evidence that "Darwinism" is false, and I think the position of most atheists I know on bestiality is "animals can't consent, also, ewww", but I think FtK is correct that using consent-ability as opposed to eww-ness or Biblical standards to debate the morality of bestiality is a rather large shift, one naturally led to by a materialist worldview, holding one of which is greatly helped by Darwin. She says "But, from an atheist’s standpoint, due to our supposed evolutionary origins, there are no clear cut reasons as to why certain behavior is deemed immoral." which is wrong if it means that we can't say any behavior is immoral, but kind of right in that certain behaviors indeed don't have any grounds for being deemed immoral, although wrong again in pinning that on evolution. It's not evolution -> bestiality but evolution -> no God -> ignore the Bible -> no grounds for condemning nice bestiality. Or gay sex.
This morning I found that post, and e-mailed Skatje about it, which was followed by Skatje making her own comments, which led me to believe I actually had a role here, but now I don't know. Because Sal got into things himself today with a picture of a peccary, which drew attacks from JanieBelle and attention from PZ himself.
Resulting comments have tended to "what jerks", arguments over the meaning of 'condone', and Skatje resenting being used as an example, and very little of "yes, we *do* tend to support abortion, even late-term abortion, incest between consenting adults who don't produce inbred children, and even possibly bestiality. Disgusting? Yeah, we find your morals and how you abuse gay children to be pretty disgusting too."
I don't know. Seems to me like a lot of reflexive groupthink against normally despicably wrong thinkers, and defending the lines of "oh no, Darwin has no moral consequences at all", whereas I see most thorough materialists over the last 2500 years indeed converging on "anything goes that doesn't actually hurt someone."
