fchan

discussion

Human&Dolphin Married!

Pages:1
1Report
RJ at 4 Jan 2006: 13:50

Anyone hear about this it's true! After a fifteen year relationship a british millionair woman married the love of her life a dolphin named cindy. I believe I rememberd the dolphins name correctly, afterall it WAS 4:00 in the morning.

2Report
at 4 Jan 2006: 16:41

Nothing kinkier than a kiss on the bottlenose though, at least not from what I read.  She said it wasn't love like loving a man sort of love, by which I assume she means no eff yew see kay eye en gee is involved.

3Report
at 4 Jan 2006: 21:07

not a legally binding marriage.  i don't know if there's any country in the world where one can legally marry an animal.  if there is, probably someone here will know.

5Report
at 5 Jan 2006: 00:31

>>3

No, there isn't. One party can't consent.

I'm just worried this is just going to give the Religious Right more ammunition against gay marriage. They've been using the ridiculous slippery slope argument for quite a while now.

6Report
at 5 Jan 2006: 01:59

>>5
The "marriage" took place in Israel.  Not a nation renowned for gay rights.  I predict the Religious Reich will ignore this particular instance.  Wait for somebody to marry an orca in Canada.  Then they will get out the torches and pitchforks.

7Report
at 5 Jan 2006: 02:01

>>5
That whole "one party can't consent" bit really doesn't matter in a lot of countries.  Women are still sold into marriage in some places... her consent doesn't matter.  And this quite often happens when the female's age is still in single digits.

8Report
at 5 Jan 2006: 04:33

>>7 Humans and female animals of the sea are not the same thing.

9Report
at 5 Jan 2006: 05:27

>>8
Point stands that marriage laws in many countries do not care about consent.

In ages past, all countries' marriage laws did not care about consent, only about property.  But I digress.  Your mother has flippers.

10Report(capped) (sage)
Sage Nadia at 5 Jan 2006: 06:45

>>9 Be nice now.

11Report
at 6 Jan 2006: 02:27

That would be an awkward relationship because they couldn't ever do anything together except swim and i'm sure the love making would be dificult if they tried it at all

12Report
at 6 Jan 2006: 11:36

I have heard that Britain has very harsh anti-bestiality laws, and that it is punshable with life in prison.

The belief that animals "can't consent" is untrue; studies have shown it to be false, and even ethologists will admit animals can consent.  There are plenty of resources on the internet regarding this issue that will corroborate the veracity of my statement.

13Report (sage)
at 7 Jan 2006: 13:50

>>12

I believe we disagree. Animals are not capable of the same rational thought that we are. They live chiefly on instinct, and therefore cannot make decisions on the same level. It would be like having sex with an autistic or retarded person. And I doubt you're going to say that would be acceptable.

14Report
at 7 Jan 2006: 14:33

*headtilts* This is a very intersting subject, the aspect of ability to form rational thought and therin consent.
now with the understanding that nadia has in the past made it clear where she stands on consent, and attempting to walk gently.
  After many years of living with canids and equines, slightly over 40 total. I've watched these so called dumb animals perform quiet intersting levels of reasoning. both in the puzzle solving variety and in the realms of manipulating people to get what they want. (this is stated from a rather objective veiwpoint regarding that, as I was firmly of the belief that they were not capable of reason for a long time)  after my past dog finally figured out that I only got mad at him if he tipped my drink over and spilled it to drink it, he finally started to literally drink from the straw, thereby avoiding spilling it and me telling him he was a bad dog.
It was around that point (roughly 1980) that i started seeing them as more inteligant than I had given credit for, and actually started watching their behaviour,
  Some current books ive beeen reading through regarding reasoning at the same level as canids - principly to get along and ease the living under one roof of beings that are inherantly wired different instinctually (that applies both ways, not just that dogs are lesser just that they are different)
have shed even more light on why they act the way they do.
with that said. (i know its not a conclusive argument nor can it be as this sort of thing is rather like religion - they believe what they believe.) 
Not all that long ago historicly many were of the deeply held belief that other races than white were incapable of reasoning.
 
  The above is what ive observed and my opinion. - it does not inherantly condone practices mearly addresses to some small level intellect.
  *peace out people*

15Report (sage)
at 7 Jan 2006: 15:03

>>14

Problem solving does not equate to the ability to make personal moral judgments, which happens to be a great part of what makes us human.

16Report
at 7 Jan 2006: 16:41

morals the ability to chose between what is right and wrong and to impliment descisions based upon such long held internal standerds (paraphraised and verified from a few sources dictionary.com websters unabriged on the bookshelf)
the ability to choose based upon internal beleiefs and understandings. animals will refuse to do many things. and will willingly do many others. sounds pretty much like the working definition of morals to myself. try to get a horse to go down a trail they dont like not gonna happen.
the flip side is the aspect of saying something is bad just because its bad (another definition of morality) is something of a moot point and a self reinforcing argument.
this is a furry board full of *all* types of material to wank to
by that it seems that many of fail the moral test.
again thinking this out and it doesent nessisarily reflect what I *believe*

17Report (sage)
at 7 Jan 2006: 16:46

>>16

Morals are a set of personal beliefs which one creates on their own. Animals are not capable of this. When was the last time you saw a starving lion decide not to kill a zebra because he feels bad for it and would rather be a vegan? Never. Because he lives chiefly on instinct, no matter how clever he may be at catching said prey. Case closed.

18Report
at 7 Jan 2006: 17:41

The lion---probably the same time i saw a honestly starving human pass up meat based upon vegan beliefs.*chuckle*
anyway I've tossed my logic there be it flawed or not.
I'm done and you are indeed correct, *case is closed*

19Report (sage)
at 8 Jan 2006: 14:58

>>18
When have you seen a vegan starving?  You have not.

20Report
at 8 Jan 2006: 15:25

13

Love and sexual attraction are not the product of "rational thought", but of primal instinct, and we humans, despite our highly evolved cognitive abilities, are still goverened by the rudimentary instincts to survive and procreate.  Perhaps there is something wrong with those of us who are attracted to different species, but since animals are also driven by the need to reproduce, they can consent to sex.

21Report
at 8 Jan 2006: 16:02

>>19 never have never will because when it gets to the point of eating what is left, one abandons such things as vegitarianism. (this seems to be of a different but vaugly related theme so ill add back to it)
>>20 bingo
also a random thought that just occured - any time any cross species sex is potrayed wouldent that also fall under the heading of bestial if this all is to be taken from the angle of crossing species boarders. (although the current topic was the ability to form concent)

22Report
at 8 Jan 2006: 19:37

>>19
That's because there's more dingdongs, hohoes, and twinkies available than most vegetables.

23Report (sage)
at 8 Jan 2006: 20:50

>>20 Love and sexual attraction are not the product of "rational thought"

Sure they are. Or rather, they can be. Depends on how weak minded the person is.

>>21 never have never will because when it gets to the point of eating what is left, one abandons such things as vegitarianism.

I know plenty of people who would call you out on this. But if you can't understand how little sense that makes, I'm not even going to bother trying to explain.

24Report
at 10 Jan 2006: 01:20

>>23 I know plenty of people who would call you out on this.

Have -you- ever seen those people starving?

>>23 Sure they are. Or rather, they can be. Depends on how weak minded the person is.

"Have they announced who I'm going to be married to yet?"
"Yeah.  It's Frederick."
"Frederick?  With the cleft lip and the offensive BO?  ...well, he IS rather wealthy."
"M'lady, remember, you're strong-minded, yes?..."
"Oh, of course.  I know, rationally, it's in my best interests to be in love with him, so really all I need in order to be deeply attracted to him is my sheer force of will!  Here goes... *nnnnnrrrrrgggghhh DING!*"

25Report (sage)
at 9 Jan 2006: 17:14

>>24

Your replies make absolutely zero sense.

26Report
at 9 Jan 2006: 21:20

>>25

*woosh*

27Report
at 10 Jan 2006: 22:26

>>5
>>6
I feel deeply offended by the anti religious sentiment. Not ALL christians go about oppressing gays and damning people to hell. I myself happen to be one that isn't some right wing extremist.

28Report
at 15 Jan 2006: 11:37

>>13
Autism is primarily defined by lack of ability to read neurotypical body language or pick on implicit (rather than explicit) social rules. (There are other aspects, such as sensory differences, but they're irrelevant to this discussion). We have the exact same emotional repertoire as anyone else, we just express it differently.

 There is a subset of autistics who are mentally retarded in other ways, yes, but the same is true of nonautistics as well.  Media sensationalism aside, we're not all Rain Man any more than all furry fans are zoophiles.

I am autistic, 21, in college, and every bit as capable of giving or withholding consent as you are.  Please attempt to get some accurate information before making such offensive comparisons.

29Report
at 15 Jan 2006: 13:22

  Thank you #28 it has also been therorised that many of us who are particularly insanely good at a certain thing/s may have a variant of idiot savant, does that mean that due to my hardware
groking im incabable of consent as well?
  To many want to conveintly pigionhole things in ways that makes it comfortable for them to deal with.
  In many ways this whole thing illistrates how different we all are and intolerant of difference others are especially with the comparisons used.

30Report
at 16 Jan 2006: 09:22

My question is: Why did she choose a dolphin?  I think it's because it is not socially appropriate for a woman in western society to marry someone of lower social status.  Thus, the number of acceptable mates for this woman was incredibly low, so she choose someone else.  After 15 years, she stopped trying to hide it.

Males are no longer the privledged sex for a variety of reasons.

31Report (sage)
at 16 Jan 2006: 10:27

Why did she choose a dolphin? Maybe just for the halibut.

32Report
at 16 Jan 2006: 23:57

>>27
You needn't have been offended, since both those posts (mine was >>6) were explicitly directed at the "Religious Right" only, which you have distanced yourself from.

Here, I have a little quote I'd like to share with you:

"I have something to say to the religionist who feels atheists never say anything positive:     You are an intelligent human being. Your life is valuable for its own sake. You are not second-class in the universe, deriving meaning and purpose from some other mind. You are not inherently evil -- you are inherently human, possessing the positive rational potential to help make this a world of morality, peace and joy. Trust yourself."  -- Dan Barker, former clergyman, quoted from his book, Losing Faith in Faith

Now I hope you are comfortable understanding that I am not anti-you.  Because I have a confession to make, and you may be even more offended this time.  But here it is:  I am very anti-your-religion.  I think that even your moderate, tolerant version of Christianity is paving the way for more violent churches to grab more converts.  You are aiding the fundamentalists.

Why do I say this?      Read on:
http://tinyurl.com/9kv4b

33Report (sage)
zStorm at 17 Jan 2006: 00:04

>>25
Now, while the reply did make sense, it was phrased in a metaphor instead of plainly stated so it might not be so obvious what was being said.

The fact is, as far as we know, love is strongly based on instinct and irrational behavior:  types of courtship, lifetime partnership, etc. occur in many different species of lower animals.  The point >>24 was trying to make with the dialogue of an aristocratic woman is that love could not possibly be the product of higher thought alone, because otherwise it would be possible to convince yourself to love someone that you don't.

Also, yes, you will abandon artificial eating habits such as vegetarianism if you are starving.  It is a fact.

>>31
Best reply in the thread

34Report
at 17 Jan 2006: 00:24

>>33
In situations of starvation, there is no meat.  Vegetarian food is cheaper and more widespread.  When people are starving, the last things to eat are plants, and then other humans.  So if you take resorting to cannibalism as giving up vegetarianism, you are right.  But nobody breaks vegetarianism to eat a chicken out of sheer hunger.  Look at starving peoples.  They do not have livestock.  How would starving people eat meat?  Your imagination is running away with you.  It is a fact.

35Report
at 17 Jan 2006: 09:22

  Living in a area in which during the winter the supply of palatable greens and vegetarian related foods tend to dry up during the winter(granted the natives here did survive on dried stores of meat
and various tubers and greens, that however is not the modern vegitarian) the supply of meat in these parts - uppper west coast- outstrips the supply of greens during winter months  - and this is a forgiving climate. unlike many areas such as the desserts and simaler.
  Ruminants are inhreantly built to convert foliage that would do us zero or close enough to zero good to not really matter into something that is edible. by that, the assertion that in time of starvation one would likely turn to meat is a valid asertation.
  I ran the line "would you starve to preserve your vegan ways" by four of my freinds who are strict vegans - the reply was a unanimous - we are vegitarian not stupid.
 Even though there may be shrubbery left behind that does not mean its good to eat for humans.
*gives 31 a gold star*

36Report (sage)
at 17 Jan 2006: 15:49

This is not the 1650s, and we are not eskimos.

All Internet "you would do this or that" discussion is necessarily confined to first-world peoples, as we are the only ones able to talk to one another on the Internet.  But in our civilizations, we do not face starvation.  We have long-range distribution of foods.  You can buy kiwifruit in January in Ontario, and tofu in Texas.  If you have the option today to eat a vegan diet in a first-world civilization, then you will never face starvation.  Of course, in your very hypothetical "but if I put you on an island with no coconuts, you'd eat a seagull," you're right.  Any human will eat what they have to, to survive.  But you're wrong, because in reality I will never be in such a situation, so in reality I will never eat meat (and we are talking about reality, right?  because if we're all supposed to be playing make-believe in your head then count me out)

Quit playing this stupid word game.  It is like me telling you that if you and your family were the last people on earth, you would eat your grandmother's corpse and mate with your siblings.  The hypothetical trueness or falseness of this statement is irrelevent, because in reality it will never happen, so in reality the statement is false.

37Add Reply
Name Sage? - captcha =
First Page - Last 40 - Entire Thread

Powered by: Shiichan Version 3956
The contents of this page are asserted to be in the public domain by the posters.
The administrators claim no responsibility for thread content.
Manage