PZ Myers on bestiality

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search
PZ Myers

(photo obtained from Flickr, see license agreement)

Bestiality is the unbiblical act of a human being engaging in sexual relations with an animal.

PZ Myers wrote about bestiality:

So, to answer clueless thick-skulled Christian idiot’s question, I don’t object to bestiality in a very limited set of specific conditions, but do not support it in any way[1][2]

A Christian commented on Myers's statement:

If you are sensing that there is something amiss with a person stating he neither supports nor opposes bestiality, then you are more perceptive with regard to moral reasoning than PZ Myers is. Myers once stated his morality is based on feelings of empathy. In an interview he stated, "If I punched you in the face, you would feel bad and I would feel bad ..and that's where morality comes from." Ironically, Myers offers a cartoon that mocks plaintive logic, that is, logic based on feelings, which is exactly the same basis of morality Myers appealed to in his interview.

When I sent Myers an email asking him to clarify what "specific conditions" would make bestiality morally acceptable in his opinion, he declined to address my email and my second article on the subject. There is really only one likely scenario in which it seems Myers would accept bestiality, also known as zoophilia, and that is if it is apparent that the animal is not being harmed and if it is demonstrating some kind of approval, enjoyment or "consent" in the act. The problem for Myers here is quite simple. If nothing must be held sacred, then why should bestiality be considered acceptable only under certain conditions and not always? Why should animal rights be an issue if animal rights are not sacred? These are logical contradictions he needs to address. What is happening here is that Myers is revealing in his quote that he does in fact believe that some boundaries must be held sacred.[1]

On May 22, 2012, PZ Myers specifies under what conditions he thinks the practice of bestiality would be acceptable.[3]

On November 14, 2014, an atheist animal trainer wrote in response:

We now have the PZ Myers Humanist Guide to Bestiality:
  • 1. IF you are interested in having sex with an animal, AND;
  • 2. That animal is willing to have sex with you, AND;
  • 3. No real harm comes to the animal, AND;
  • 4. You can avoid social stigma by hiding your act;

>> THEN sex with an animal is ethical...

PZ Myers possesses numerous character flaws that make him ill-suited as an A/S/humanism spokesperson and representative: his explosive temper; his violence-tinged threats; his foul language; his preference for personal insults over reasoned debate; his propensity to smear and slander any & all who oppose him;..his willingness to abandon skepticism and science to serve the pomo constructs of radical feminism and social justice warriordom.

Of all these, nothing is more odious, repulsive, or damaging to the reputation of A/S & humanist activism, than Myers’ condoning of bestiality.[4]

Contents

Michael Nugent's commentary on PZ Myers' material about human/octopus sexual relations

On November 17, 2014, atheist Michael Nugent wrote:

PZ has several times written about and linked to pornography involving women and octopuses described as ‘hentai tentacle rape’. In one post, PZ wrote: “I know some people will be aghast at the exposed mammalian flesh and weird exploitation of women… but it’s got tentacles everywhere, and molluscs…” In another post, he wrote: “Although nothing beats a sea slug for that vulval feel, I’m afraid. Mmmm, Aplysia, if you weren’t so cold, I’d… ahem.”[5]

PZ Myers' daughter Skatje Myers' comments on bestiality

See also: Atheism and bestiality and Skeptic Skatje Myers' comments on bestiality

Skeptic Skatje Myers, the daughter of evolutionist and atheist PZ Myers describes herself as "atheist, agnostic, rationalist, complicated vegetarian (sans dairy and eggs mostly, avec dumpster diving, by-products, and ethical sources), existential and moral nihilist, social democrat”.[6]

On January 2, 2008 Christian apologist Vox Day wrote in an article entitled Atheist Dad of the Year:

If I were ever to have attacked atheism by arguing that on the rare occasions when atheists manage to successfully reproduce, their children would likely grow up possessing beliefs that are utterly immoral by Western moral norms and abhorrent to the average individual, many people would howl that I was unfairly engaging in baseless conjecture, regardless of the logic presented.

So, it's more than a little amusing to see PZ Myers angrily defending his daughter's public argument against anti-bestiality laws. Now, it's certainly the girl's right to advocate on behalf of whatever legal cause she feels is important to her, but this particular choice of subject really doesn't provide the most convincing evidence against the oft-repeated charge that atheists are hopelessly immoral. And if there's nothing rationally objectionable about the practice, then from whence comes this defensive paternal outrage?

The ironic truth is that Miss Myers is absolutely correct; once the basic concept of Natural Law is abandoned, there is no rational basis for banning anything from necrophilia to cannibalism other than a vague sense of "ickiness" inherited from preceding generations possessed of a more conventional morality.[7]

Skatje Myers, the daughter of atheist PZ Myers, wrote:

Sexual relationships between humans and animals come as such a shock to people, but it doesn’t to me. There can be very deep, meaningful relationships between humans and their pets...

That said, I remind you that my position isn’t based on my own personal wants. I just don’t see any reason to ban it other than the same reason things like homosexuality and sodomy were banned: it’s icky. I think it’s bad practice to put social taboos into legislature when no actual logical argument can be made against it.[8][9]

See also:

Skatje Myers on morality

On August 18, 2011, Skatje Myers wrote:

I’m a moral nihilist. I have no reason to believe that morality is anything other than preferences.

I have those preferences, of course — essentially it’s just intuitional leanings. Any need or desire to follow those leanings is purely for my own enjoyment. I decide what is right and wrong based on what I feel is right and wrong, and I follow them only because of a self-created obligation to myself. I demand that others follow the same “rules” I have for myself, because I want them to. It makes the world the way I want it to be.

The way I see it, every other system of morality is based on unjustifiable claims too, so why follow someone else’s invented ideas of right and wrong?[10]

Atheism, academia and bestiality

See: Atheism, academia and bestiality

See also

Notes

Personal tools