Comments on: Reply to Gelman

By: Eric

Eric — Thu, 28 May 2009 13:39:21 +0000

Rolf,

“bestiality seems to me like a possible candidate for rehabilitation. One could make the argument that no intelligent being is being hurt; after all we eat animals”

The trend seems to be more animal rights protections, not less.

By: Rolf Andreassen

Rolf Andreassen — Wed, 27 May 2009 20:12:54 +0000

I think we’ve reached a point in history where the resurrection of some activities such as sex with infants, animals, and rape is not going to happen and not worth contemplation.

I will give you pedophilia and rape, although trying to predict the morals of even a century into the future is a mug’s game; but bestiality seems to me like a possible candidate for rehabilitation. One could make the argument that no intelligent being is being hurt; after all we eat animals, and the insertion of genitalia into orifices does not on the face of it seem particularly more objectionable except for the squick factor. Take a look at a cow going into a slaughterhouse some time, and tell me that it would not ‘prefer’ (to the extent that one can speak of animals having preferences) a bit of bestiality.

By: Rolf Andreassen

Rolf Andreassen — Wed, 27 May 2009 20:07:29 +0000

You still have to explain why women prefer such policies in the first place.

Rolf, watch Milk. Gay activists have been articulate artistic cosmopolitan professionals, displaying strong group solidarity.

Which part of this does not apply to atheists, except perhaps substituting ‘scientific’ for ‘artistic’? Which should not matter to the argument, scientists having these days even more prestige than artists.

By: Eric

Eric — Wed, 27 May 2009 20:06:36 +0000

“Now that homosexuals have made progress, let’s contemplate how rapists, pedophiles, and bestially activists might make progress”. Saying that these activities are currently being suppressed just like homosexuality was and may be accepted some day is a pretty absurd thought experiment. Are we to believe that Robin would be morally neutral on such prospects? I think we’ve reached a point in history where the resurrection of some activities such as sex with infants, animals, and rape is not going to happen and not worth contemplation. Polygamists as a consituency is a valid analogy. Pedophilia was a poor choice so Robin is being insensitive at best.

By: John

John — Wed, 27 May 2009 17:51:05 +0000

It’s not the activism, but the effect of the issue on mate selection. Men, who have been the primary political movers (sorry to say, but true) have endorsed policies that signal positive attributes to women. In our current society, the majority (but not all, of course) of women prefer men who are tolerant of homosexuals. Thus, policy positions that benefit homosexuals are making strides.

By: Robin Hanson

Robin Hanson — Wed, 27 May 2009 17:28:26 +0000

Eric, everything is different somehow. If you don’t like the example with pedophiles, substitute polygamy or polyandry instead.

Rolf, watch Milk. Gay activists have been articulate artistic cosmopolitan professionals, displaying strong group solidarity.

By: Rolf Andreassen

Rolf Andreassen — Wed, 27 May 2009 15:48:33 +0000

It seems to me that your theory still has the difficulty of explaining where this impressiveness comes from. What is impressive about the gay activists that is not impressive about the activists of other despised groups? What strategies did the gay movement adopt that atheists, for example, have not?

By: Jess Riedel

Jess Riedel — Wed, 27 May 2009 15:07:24 +0000

I generally only chime in with criticism, so I thought I’d mention briefly that the amount of space Robin dedicates in the original post to explaining the arguments of the opposing viewpoint is commendable.

By: ArthurG

ArthurG — Wed, 27 May 2009 15:00:42 +0000

TGGP and Arthur, I acknowledged that error in an added to the original post.

Ah, so I see. Sorry, I’d missed the update.

By: Eric

Eric — Wed, 27 May 2009 14:26:08 +0000

“What facts could pedophiles or polygamists teach us to change our minds about them? The idea that we choose our coalitions to identify with impressive allies seems a less troubled explanation. Impressive gay activists made gays into impressive allies; pedophiles will not gain approval until their activists are similarly impressive.”

I find this statement quite disingenuous (cheap shot against homosexuals) unless Robin is really that dumb. There’s a clear legal/moral distinction to be drawn between consenting adults (gays and polygamists) and pedophiles, which involves sex with those who haven’t developed the rational faculty to make voluntary choices. Should we as citizens be worried about those who want to legalize sex with animals or reintroduced slavery? Apparently so according to the brilliant logic of Robin Hanson.