/sci/ - Science & Math

>>>/b/

>what is the worst

Inane trolling garbage on /sci/.

I don't think an action can be better or worse without some kindof qualifier.
Paedophilia is worse for humanity as whole. I assume this is what you meant.

bump

>>3671342
This. Children have a higher moral value, and sexual abuse of children is worse than sexual abuse of animals.

Besides, even if animals can't really give informed consent in the way humans can, there are some cases of adult animals that would not be opposed by their actions to having sex with a human. Rare cases, but still. Meanwhile, prepubescent children don't want to have sex with you. No, seriously.

>>3671365
>Meanwhile, prepubescent children don't want to have sex with you.
just because they don't want to have with you don't mean they don't want to have sex with others. a 9 year old girl once molested me, at first i thought it was an accident and she didn't know not to touch there but then she took my have and put in into her panties and asked me to "play" with her. she was beautiful too, long blond hear (for a 9 year old) and big blue eyes. blowjobs really are better if the girl has nice eyes.

>>3671405
*hair

>>3671405
Nice troll.

But pedophilia isn't between peers.

>>3671424
peers?

>>3671431
Oops, I misinterpreted the first sentence.

So now I'll just say
>implying a 9-year-old volunteered to give you a blowjob

>>3671405
continuing:

she was extremely intelligent, was home schooled and went to university to study math and physics and chemistry when she was 14. she started coming on to me about 6 months before that after she found some hentai on my computer (it was password protected so i don't know how the fuck a 9yo got in). she lived in the house next door and her mother would come home late at night and so she would come over to my house for dinner (i was 23 at the time and knew her mother)

bestiality is the act of it no?
Pedophilia is just an attraction.
From that it should be clear which is worse.

>>3671456
That's an interesting fantasy you have there.

>>3671456
now what im getting at is that she was very mature for her age, she basically did all the housework at her house too, and that she was the one who wanted to do it, why is it a bad thing? should children just be handled as if they are retarded and cant make their own choices just because they are young, even if mentally they are already mature.

>>3671461
A technical point, though I don't disagree. The OP is probably referring to pedophilia and zoophilia.

really /sci/?
still no dolphin bestiality post?

sage for me not contributing

>>3671471
There has to be a standard by which child abuse is punished. Also, cool story bro.

>>3671471
>>3671456
>>3671405
come to think of it, instead of happening to me when i was 23, this may have been the story of the hentai i read last night before i fell asleep. either way, my point still stands.

an adult chimp has the same intelligence as a 5 year old human so if you fuck a chimp it would be like doing both

>>3671492
I lol'd

>>3671496
Though they may have the same intelligence at the time (allowing your point for the sake of argument), the child still has greater value because it can become an adult human, which is more valuable than an adult chimp. The chimp will remain a chimp.

>>3671405

>>3671496

it depends on the culture.
Taboos and mores on sexual acts are not a matter of moral becasue mroal doesn't exist there is only what is acceptable or unacceptable within a given culture. From the time we are born we are endowed with the culture of our upbringers in both a concious and subconsious manner. Had we been brought up in a society that found it acceptable to have sexual relations with children and animals then we would not find it tro be immoral. further more if we say "this is our way therefor it is moral" we fall into a trap of ethnocentrism and nieve realism which opens us to break our own taboos "in ways of killing and cultural genocide" inorder to inforce our own culture upon those who do not hold it. So to answer your question niether is immoral therefor niether holds a lower position than the other. however, culturaly we see children as being unspoiled carriers of our culture to future generation so we would likely wish to protect them from the counterculture of pedophilia more than say an animal.

Ethics/Morals are purely subjective.


Zoophilia and Pedophilia are biproduct attractionσ of evolution.
There is no "evil".
But If you are living in a society, then it is wrong to have sex with children because it has a negative impact on them, thus society, and in the end to yourself, since you are acting against society.

No one really cares about beastiality cause it doesnt affect directly society.

While pedophilia is a negative thing to society people make it too much of a deal.
I feel bad for those people who are attracted to things they never can have, its not really they fault.

Its terrifying to see little girls, innocent looking people starting shouting in facebook pages: "kill them all burn them", "if i was there i would cut them in pieces" etc.
And everyone was agreeing with eachother.

Those are the moments you see really see how relative is morality and ethics and how dumb 99% of people are.

inb4 the obvious: i fap to cp or beastiality

Not really, just a scientist who obsserves you filthy creatures doing your silly games and killing yourself cause you just can't communicate and think the simplest things.
99% of humans are everything wrong in humanity.

pedophilia is worse obviously, all humans are conscious while only a few animals have anything resembling consciousness

>>3671592
what is consious?

LOL obviously humans.
We are intelligent beings with a soul.
>inb4 soul doesnt exist
COME AND SAY THAT TO MY FACE.

>>3671575
>moral subjectivism
>pretending a functionally useless philosophy is wort using

>No one really cares about beastiality cause it doesnt affect directly society.
Animal abuse affects society, because it affects the humans who engage in it, as well as the humans who permit it.

>>3671309
Trickster

>>3671564
What you value is subjective. The results of actions are not.

Murdering children, for instance, would go against the value that we want our species to continue.

beastaphillia.

>>3671618
Fucking prepubescent animals?

>>3671618
>>3671622
Either that or having animals rape children.

>>3671615
However in some culters this does not apply. There is a particularly resonate story I heard about two waring tribes a lesser tribesmen asked the chief how much food the children should be given, the chief said "none, we can have more children when the war is over" this was an acceptable response IN HIS CULTURE. to us it seems hanous but to them it was fine. they had to feed their soldiers inorder to survive. Every moral changes with the culture it is in, there is no ultimate moral code that everyone must follow.

>>3671598

Prove a soul exists. You are the one claiming something we cannot directly infer, the onus is on you to provide evidence of it being true, not on us to provide evidence on it's being false.

Nonexistant until proven to exist is the default for Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny too.

>>3671598
what is the chemical composition of a soul?

>>3671628
>"none, we can have more children when the war is over" this was an acceptable response IN HIS CULTURE. to us it seems hanous but to them it was fine. they had to feed their soldiers inorder to survive.
No, that's just pragmatic. The tribes was more important than a specific group of children.

You should be pointing to cultures that have significantly different values, not just ones that are in extenuating circumstances.

>>3671596
you are conscious, unless you are a philosophical zombie

>>3671628
Define this properly.

You can't saying universal morals change from place to place, situational morals maybe like whether whether it's right to eat pork. Eating pork in a synagogue might be unncessarily provocative whatever your views on pork law but not eating a delicious ham outside the synagogue would be a crime against you!

>>3671644
the point was that they viewed the children as expendable, this is contrary to our culture where we would consider it taboo not to put the children first regardless of circumstances.

but if thats what you want, there were past societies who sacrificed their children by fire. it was perfeclty normal and moral. for murder there are hundereds of societies where murder is perfeclty acceptable.

I ask you what is the medium for an ultimate moral code?

>>3671674
>I ask you what is the medium for an ultimate moral code?
Stop trying to strawman me. You think I hold views which I do not hold, just because I criticised your post.

What we value is subjective and arbitrary. However, WE are not arbitrary. We are humans - we have a specific set of properties and tendencies as defined by our genetics. And as humans, we all share certain basic needs and values - life, food, shelter, a sense of value and belonging, etc. We disagree widely on what systems will best meet those needs, but our core values don't actually vary that much.

>>3671642

Either pure Sodium or Nitrogen Monoxide.

>>3671674
> we would consider it taboo not to put the children first regardless of circumstances.
I don't think that's really true. If we really thought it was a situation of "feed the soldiers and not the children or we all die", we'd make the same decision.

>>3671696
>>our core values don't actually differ that much
>>naive realism
what core values are those?
do not kill? (either within a given group or universally) this is not universally accepted by all cultures or poeple
do not steal or be dishonest?
not held universally by all cultures or peoples

every "value" (moral,creed what ever you wish tocall it) we have is subject to the culture that is exorcising it. there are no morals bound in our DNA ther IS NOTHING that determines what is right or what is wrong on a universal level. We have commonalities because certain things work to the benifit of a people this does ot mean that they are universally moral or immoral they are simple cultural commonalities

Acting on pedophilia is virtually certain to damage a developing human being. Acting on bestiality, at worst, damages an animal.

Objectively, Bestiality is more harmful to our evolutionary success.

Societally, paedophilia by a mile- or rather, child molestation. We give humans value above animals because our society is composed entirely of humans, and inevitably abuse of a human will be seen as a disregardation of this.

>>3672041
>do not kill? (either within a given group or universally) this is not universally accepted by all cultures or poeple
>do not steal or be dishonest?

To be fair, the basic rules for treating in-group are consistent across human societies. Don't kill, don't injure, don't steal, don't lie. But the rules for who deserves this treatment varies greatly, from only you tribe, your people, your nation, your race, your coreligionists, and only men, only adults or everyone.

You'd be hard pressed to find a group that thinks it's okay to kill proper people, or injure them, or steal from them, or lie to them. But it's easy to find people who define proper people narrowly or widely.

>>3672108
Two words: Death Penalty
Killing is accepted as alright in certain instances by certain groups.

>>3672133

Punishments for breaking the rules also vary.

It's never considered okay to kill another proper person without very good reason. And if you do, we punish you in some way. Some earlier systems thought it was a good idea to make the punishment so great and dramatic that nobody would dream of breaking even the smallest rules. But we know now that this doesn't work nearly as well as they thought, no better than milder punishments in terms of prevention.

>>3672159
It *does* work better. People who are dead or imprisoned do not commit crimes. I get your point though, the relationship between severity and crime rates is by no means direct.

>>3672176

It does nothing special to prevent a person from committing a crime in the first place. The most effective way to prevent crime is to ensure that investigation is effective and justice is public and balanced. The severity of the punishment after the trial does not make people more or less likely to commit a crime in the first place.

If it was, we'd see that nations or states with the death penalty would have lower crime rates in the crimes that carry the death penalty. We don't see this.

That people who are incarcerated aren't out there committing crimes, or people who are executed can commit no more crimes is beside the point. In fact, given the crime rates, it may even make people MORE violent in societies that allow it.

>>3672203
It reduces repeat offences, which reduces crime rates. I'd argue that if your punishment for littering is death you be less likely to do it than if it carries a $5 fine. I understand that for some criminals, there is not any deterrent because the imperative is, for whatever reason, to commit the crime.

Different countries have vastly different demographics. It's widely accepted that guns increase gun crime, but if you compare nations with very much identical gun law like the US and Sweden you will see very different crime rates.

Correlation != causation

>>3672269

I'm saying that in America, states with the death penalty do not have a lower murder rate. It does not equal causation, no, but it should at least show that the death penalty is irrelevant to anything but the vengeance of the state. And yes, it may reduce repeat offences, but since the death penalty doesn't lower the murder rate, it seems that the first-timers are making up for it. Being able to effectively identify the suspects, and then being able to effectively determine the guilt of any suspect, is the most effective way to prevent crimes. Having a legal system with no unjust laws is another part, but we could take that as read.

And I think that allowing any inner group to kill anyone in the whole group weakens the whole rule to begin with.

babby raping is worse than animal raping

anyone that says otherwise is a fool

>>3672269

Also, a state with draconian laws is not what we are examining. That kind of system changes things so much that it would not be easy to make comparisons. The death penalty for petty crime is not on the cards in a modern, enlightened society.

And if we take murder rate as being the number of unjustified deaths; I predict that since it is unjustified to kill a person for littering, even though it would reduce littering, the murder rate would skyrocket.

>>3672329
If they don't have lower unadjusted murder rates that's very interesting. Do want source if you have it

The problem is that identifying the suspects pre-emptively gives no evidence of crime being committed. Unfortunately, there's no method of reliable conviction from crimes not yet commited beyond "conspiracy to x" which needs a metric fuckton of evidence.

Agreed. Then again, giving any group total control over lethal weaponry and its prohibition is arguably more likely to trigger violent dissent.

>>3672348
Why isn't it on the cards? Because we say it isn't?

Morality is for humans not animals. Paedophilia is worse.

>>3672357

http://nmrepeal.org/issues/deterrence is the source of image related

Death penalty may increase murder rates. I mean, allowing people to kill one another for any reason weakens the whole rule. The main thing that keeps us from killing people is our conscience, we don't kill kin, and everybody's (abstracted) kin now. The secondary thing is the chance that we will be found out. The last thing is the punishment we might receive IF we're found out.


And a rule allowing the death penalty for petty crimes is not a useful test case. Such a society would be immoral from start to finish. We don't think killing is okay. This society DOES think killing is okay, and not just in special cases like murder. The amount of injustice in this society would be so great. Would we really want to live in a society with very little petty lawbreaking, but many, many times the number of violent deaths? No, for the crime of murder, the threat of execution does not significantly alter the decision to commit it.

So it's ineffective. It's ineffective to kill these people for their crimes, and it's immoral to kill without good reason, so killing them is immoral, just like most killing.

bestiality is worse

at least a child could offer their consent