Moontanman

Ok, let try to get this clear, training animals to do all sorts of strange unnatural things (unnatural to them) is ok as long as it isn't sex. Sex is somehow demeaning to animals more so than enslaving them as workers, solders, entertainers, meat, fibers or anything else is fine? Training a dog to kill on command is ok but cunnilingus is not? Stump breaking a pony is bad, riding them and using them as slaves is ok? Bestiality is a strange concept for sure, very difficult to really understand but i don't see it as moral problem for the animal or rape from the stand point of the animal (well maybe a chicken might object:doh:) We use animals in (what must seem to them) some very strange ways unless of course the animals we train only look to please their trainers and do not have a concept of strange, only of what humans want them to do. As long as the animal is not being physically harmed I can't logically argue against it any more than any other human animal interaction. Can a case be made that an animal who is trained to perform sex acts feels demeaned by it? I really don't know, anyone want to take that part of it?

I'm not sure that sex with an animal is the same as rape, Rape implies violence, a dog that is trained to perform sex acts would not be rape. I'm not sure if the animal would even be aware of the sexual aspects of it at all. I do remember a case when I was a kid fio a dog who actually penetrated a little girl. The father heard the little girl crying and found the dog holding her down much the same way a male dog does as he humps a female dog. While I see no reason to have sex with animals I also cannot quite see it as rape either.

Lasers are being looked for

Our own search efforts are pretty much based on ET trying to be found. We could listen in on leakage from say an earth like civilization only if it was very close. This may be of interest here. http://www.ufoblogger.blogspot.com/2009/05/astrophysicist-discovered-suspicious.html

Really? Can you provide any evidence for this?

I guess there has to be one in every group

almost certainly not Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedNo it's a stomatopod

It would have to be a very big island dude but the idea sounds interesting

The islands limited resources is what would limit their size. a very small animals with no predators might get bigger but there is a very real limit the resources an island can provide so no matter how long they evolve I would expect them to stay smaller than say a rodent population on a continent sized body would get with the necessary environmental pressures.

Hmmm, don't mammals generally get smaller on islands and reptiles get bigger? Dwarf elephants, hippos, rhinos, even humans?

Normal anaerobic decay will probably produce acid, I'm sure it would less than sweet. to be honest you have m eon this one, I will bow to more knowledgeable people.

To some extent it does, the collapsed vertebra in my neck keep me from being able to lay down for long periods of time. I wake up in extreme pain in my arms hands nd shoulders. but even before I was injured sleep was a seriously rare thing for me. As a child i seldom slept more than 2 hours at a stretch or a night so it has been a life long problem. i often go several days with out any sleep at all but i get very irritable after four or five days.

It shouldn't be long before you have a stinking mess but the end result would depend on the temp, the type and number of bacteria and access to oxygen. Oxygen would favor a completely different type of bacteria and possibly a faster decay rate.

If indeed there is one et with in 1000 lights years of us they would not know necessarily know of us yet since we have only been send radio for less than 100 years and detectable signals for even less. Unless they happen to be very close or have been sending a long time we would not know of them either.

The center looks like a mite or water bear, could the "arms" be bleached algae skeletons being fed on by the mite/water bear at the center?

I'm not sure this is something I've struggled with most of my life. I now take ambien. I've tried many things over the years but ambien seems to give me about 4 hrs sleep with some regularity.

Sorry I didn't notice it was an old thread, I need to pay attention more but the idea that bestiality is somehow more immoral than many of the other things we do to animals for fun and profits is kind of weak IMHO.

I do see a doc, sleeping pills give me three or fours hours but without them I often go days without sleep.

Personally I am in the metabolism first camp, no DNA needed at first, then there is the garbage bag idea and the RNA world, clay temp plates, oh the possibilities! Deciding a cell or even DNA had to spontaneously appear for life to exist is not exactly accurate. I've read a few good books of recent date and it would seem at some research is going on currently.

Has anyone here ever had sex for the express purpose of procreation? No other motive? Be honest..... I didn't think so.

This is absolutely the most self serving thread to anyone with an ax to grind I've ever seen, sex with an animal is cruel because they cannot consent? really? Really? REALLY? Do animals consent to being caged and and raised to make special veal? Do they consent to being bred into slaves for meat, milk, work? Do humans really care about what animals consent to? Have they ever? I've read where certain venereal diseases resulted from bestiality, this by it's self is the best argument I can give against it, sheep farmers are famous for there 'relationships" with sheep. I know this is almost certainly not true to day but bestiality was a significant factor in early humans as they domesticated animals. i knew a guy many years ago that had a pony that was "stump broke" when that damn pony was in heat it was annoying as hell! Do I care if you screw a sheep, pony or allow a calf to perform fellatio on you? No not really, your reward will probably be a somewhat less than human ability to have a real relationship with a real human. Do women do this to , oh yes they do details are not necessary. Should it be illegal? I'm not sure, so far all arguments seem to be of the slippery slope idea of if you allow this then this will happen too. If you do you are not unique but your are weird and I would be very suspicious of you as a reasonable human but is it immoral? only if all the other terrible things we do to animals are also immoral. Lets face it , moral only really applies to humans. would we allow other humans to be treated the way we treat even our favorite animals? I think not, drop the chicken dude, it's in your best interests, I think?

The Egyptians had electricity?

If only I could sleep four hours a day, often I feel lucky to get two hours of sleep a day. I've been like that since I was a kid.

oooops, sorry, I missed a couple posts there. I would like to point out that in this case a slippery slope argument just might be the best way to get across the idea of how bad this is to those who think the parents have aright to exercise their beliefs in regard to their children. since we know that not seeking medical treatment is bad and we know that prayer is not going to heal the child if he is really sick no matter how strong the beliefs are where do you draw the line? If i believe the right thing to do is discipline my child with a soldering iron is that ok? Are ciggarettes a tool partents can use to burn the devil out of thier child? Can I use needles to penetrate my child's tongue for lying? At some point the welfare of the child has to be paramount over the parents beliefs. Just as an exercise in futility where is the line? when are a parents beliefs more important than the child's welfare? Is it when we agree with the parent? Or is there a real line that we cannot allow to be crossed by parents? some religions routinely tell parents not to allow certain medical procedures. blood transfusion comes to mind right away. Is this ok? where is the line, can we really allow it to be defined by belief?

I don't think there is a connection between blue eyes and blue skin. Blue eyes is more from a lack of pigment than actual blue pigment at least in humans.