Atheism Morality Pedophillia Nature

[Bijan Li Causi X]

I was thinking about how Humans, are just another species, just an Animal.

In the Animal Kingdom, Older animals will have intercourse with young animals, will forcefully do so, and will not think twice about it.

So, it seems, Morality is a social construct, where we decide what is right and wrong, this can be seen when we hear of the good side V the bad side, but are these terms not just things, one side will use to gain and justify power?

If Morality is just a man made construct, is it good, or a hinderence on the species?

How can acts be moral in onbe decade, immoral the next?

To me, morality is man made, but that is not bad, morality, to me, is us evolving, when we are at communism, the human race will have finished its evolution, we have evolved as far nas we can body wise, now empathy, unity, love and all other aspects can take us to a new level in dignity, peace and love, and hurdle any borders, to unify, not just us, but all animals.

The land is a common treasury for all the earth to share.

[Widerstand]

I don't think morality is purely a construct. A lot of it surely is constructed, but I think, in essence, it's just instinctive rules of social life, such as not killing other members of the society, etc. Some of our "moral rules" are prevalent in non-human animals, too.

As for sex with children in other animals, or rape in other animals, it surely exists. It exists as a means to keep the acting individual's genes in the gene pool. That may make it defensible for a lot of animal societies, as it's a necessary contribution to their survival, but the human society has moved past the necessity to keep an optimal gene pool long time ago. Rather, human society should concentrate on the wellbeing of every individual member, an effort undermined by rape or any other practice creating trauma in an individual.

[Thirsty Crow]

If Morality is just a man made construct, is it good, or a hinderence on the species?

In the broadest meaning of the term, human societies simply cannot function without a moral code, even though these are social constructs.

[GreenCommunism]

are animal traumatized by rape or sexual abuse of children?

[S.Artesian]

How many of these threads speculating uselessly, at their best, do we need? Can somebody please end ban this entire topic from discussion?

[Bijan Li Causi X]

Actually yes, Young animal suffer the physical, ie Vaginal tearing, bruising cuts of rape and animal "pedophillia", they are also visibly mentally scarred, for example cowering around male animals, becoming lowest of the herd or pack, as shown on an old doc i watched on Animal behaviour a while back.

[Bijan Li Causi X]

Why, if you do not like, do not post, why moan like a spoilt child, seriously, stop being so white "i am not comfortable/approve of this topic, now fuck off before i lynch you"

[Widerstand]

are animal traumatized by rape or sexual abuse of children?

Doubtful. Bonobos have sex with pretty much everyone in their social group: Members of the opposite sex, members of the same sex, their own children, children of other members of the group, etc. It's normal behavior.

Rape however, I'm not so sure. There are a bunch of animals where the female is forced to sex simply because of the physical superiority of the male, but I don't think those cause any traumas. There are however, some more extreme forms of rape. Not sure if anyone ever researched if they cause traumas, though. Make up your own mind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behaviour#Coercive_sex

edit: This seems quite interesting: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=38120

[Bijan Li Causi X]

you never seen how sharks bite the woman and effectively gangrape her.

[Robocommie]

How many of these threads speculating uselessly, at their best, do we need? Can somebody please end ban this entire topic from discussion?

At the very least it'd be nice to see them placed in Theory or Philosophy or whatever.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

you never seen how sharks bite the woman and effectively gangrape her.

Well they don't really have appendages so they bite.

That said, in sharks the female is almost always the strong and dominant entity. The males just tag along for whenever as the female is willing.

[S.Artesian]

Why, if you do not like, do not post, why moan like a spoilt child, seriously, stop being so white "i am not comfortable/approve of this topic, now fuck off before i lynch you"

You're an idiot. White? I'm not white. But you're an idiot for certain.

[black magick hustla]

yall got trolld. you folks are not experimented netizens

[S.Artesian]

yall got trolld. you folks are not experimented netizens

Probably. Could you end this thread, and do everyone a favor and trash it?

[Jolly Red Giant]

I was thinking about how Humans, are just another species, just an Animal.
Physically, yes - in terms of comprehension and understanding, no


In the Animal Kingdom, Older animals will have intercourse with young animals, will forcefully do so, and will not think twice about it.
Doesn't mean humans should - after all humans should be aware of the implications of rape.


So, it seems, Morality is a social construct,
Yes it is

where we decide what is right and wrong,
Actually 'we' don't decide anything - as a social construct, morality is decided by the ruling class.


but are these terms not just things, one side will use to gain and justify power?
In terms of the bourgeois class, yes - in a classless society, no


If Morality is just a man made construct, is it good, or a hinderence on the species?
Nothing to do with what is 'good' or 'bad' - everything to do with what is acceptable as human behaviour.


How can acts be moral in onbe decade, immoral the next?
Because the ruling class changes the goalposts to suit their needs to control society.


when we are at communism, the human race will have finished its evolution,
No - the human race will not have finished evolving - what will have happened is that human society will have changed from a class-based society built on exploitation to a classless society built on cooperation. Nothing to do as such with the evolution of the human race - everything to do with the evolution of human society.


we have evolved as far nas we can body wise,
Again - not the case - it is impossible to suggest that the human body has finished its evolutionary process. We have no idea how emerging technology will impact on the structure of the human body.


now empathy, unity, love and all other aspects can take us to a new level in dignity, peace and love, and hurdle any borders, to unify, not just us, but all animals.
Again - not accurate. While human society can evolve in a direction that provides for the needs of individuals and the needs of society as a whole - there is no way that human society evolving in this direction will automatically mean that other species will evolve in the same direction and through the same process - in fact it could actually be ruled out.


The land is a common treasury for all the earth to share.
Bit of an ambiguous statement really.


I think, in essence, it's just instinctive rules of social life, such as not killing other members of the society, etc.
But human beings kill millions of other human beings either through war, famine, disease etc. If 'not killing' was an instinctive rule of social life then there would be no wars. The willingness to kill is a social construct - and the rejection of killing is also a social construct. The reason being is that human beings are social animals and if you kill other human beings you will not be able to engage in social activity with other humans.


It exists as a means to keep the acting individual's genes in the gene pool.
No it does not - evolution has created an adequate and appropriate means of continuing a species. Rape in other animal species is directly related to power (just as in humans) - it is used to keep the pack in line and ensure the continued existance of the pack hierarchy.


That may make it defensible for a lot of animal societies, as it's a necessary contribution to their survival,
Again - false


but the human society has moved past the necessity to keep an optimal gene pool long time ago.
But that is not the reason why rape is unacceptable in humans. It is not acceptable because human society has developed to a degree that it is unacceptable for one human being to dominate another human being through violence. It does, however, still happen - as demonstrated by the prevelence of domestic violence. I must stress that this is on an individual basis - ruling elites still attmept to dominate one another and the oppressed classes through violence. Also some cultures accept the domination of some individuals by others - e.g. honour killings.


Rather, human society should concentrate on the wellbeing of every individual member, an effort undermined by rape or any other practice creating trauma in an individual.
It should but it can't in a class based society.

[durhamleft]

I think morality is very much a set of values that one develops based on the society they are in. Morality is also very hypocritical.

You kill for your country, you're a hero. You kill for your religion, you're a terrorist.

It is also definitely an evolving and changing thing. 2000 years ago homosexual love in Greece between two men was seen as the most moral love there was. 100 years it was widely seen as immoral and sinful.

What does this teach us? That we should make our decisions about not what is seen as 'moral' or not, but rather what we believe in our hearts is right, and even then we have to understand we are not always right, and ultimately different societies naturally will have a different morality, and to always think we're right is plain pig headed.

[NecroCommie]

If one is a materialist, one understands that moral code is indeed a social construct. The universe does not care about what you do, because matter predates and outlives all our petty actions and ideas. Morality only has value to humanity as a construct that enhances the quality of life, the meaning of life for a materialist. One might indeed say that not forcefully raping everyone increases the quality of life, not just for the potential victim but in relation to the social bonds around these people too.

Things are only immoral if they harm the holder of that particular moral code. One that understands marxism also understands how human individuals do not live in a vacuum. Therefor every harmful act you impose upon your society will reflect on yourself, perhaps through several proxies, but it does nevertheless. This way we can come to the conclusion that everything that only affects you as an individual is, if not moral, then at least not immoral. The things that affect society around you are a more complicated matter as individuals and society live through highly complex dialectic relations.

[NecroCommie]

I don't understand why atheism is brought up in the headline. The notion of gods and divine laws are only one suggestion that fall under the wide umbrella of "absolute morality".