So a bunch of cops in London mistakenly decide that some [brown] guy is a potential terrorist and start to tail him. He's of course getting mildly freaked out that a gang of men is following him (they were plainclothes officers) and once he gets to the train station and they come at him, he freaks out and runs, jumping the turnstile to try and escape. They manage to catch him, throw him to the ground and restrain him, and then one of them pushes their gun into him and fires five shots, killing him.
Let's see what else is in the news. There's a BME member (who I won't mention by name or identify in any way) who runs a ranch that raises Rottweillers for sex (as in trains them to have sex with guys — the dogs themselves are never penetrated and are the “dominant” partner in the encounters) and regularly has parties although I don't think he does it for pay. Anyway, that brings me to a story from near Seattle about a guy that was killed when a horse fell on him at a “bestiality brothel”. They're using this to try and get laws in place making bestiality illegal…
To be very clear, these aren't animals being abused. They are being treated well, become aroused, and choose to engage in sex. So this isn't an animal rights issue and other than the unfortunate accident I just mentioned, no one is being hurt — this is a exclusively a moral issue, and I'm just not comfortable with morals being legislated.
The fact is that we allow animals to be kept as slaves for our personal amusement. We allow insemination by force (ie. rape), and forced semem extraction for breeding purposes. We allow animals to be raised for the sole purpose of being killed for food, clothing, or even just decorative purposes. We even allow this to happen in ways that causes the animal a great deal of pain and suffering both throughout its life and at its execution. Yet somehow having a loving — or at least lustful — relationship with an animal is criminal? It's definitely perverted but I don't see why it should be illegal.
In pseudoscience news, there's a new study claiming that porn physically damages the brain and needs not only to be stopped, but that lawsuits like the ones filed against tobacco companies could be leveled at adult entertainment companies — they call people who view erotic media as “victims under the influence of pornography“. Oh, and the author claims that because porn is viewed with a part of the brain that's different than the part that decodes language, it's not covered by the First Amendment. Thanks a lot, Christians.
Speaking of pseudoscience, I just watched Natasha Vita More (who I think is an embarrassment to transhumanism, although I am quite certain that she and her husband have equally warm feelings about me) chatting with the very bright Dr. Raj Bawa, an expert among other things in nanotechnology patent issues. She made a comment about his Spanish accent. I'm sorry, but what sort of dope doesn't clue in that a guy called Raj Bawa, who you're looking right at and is obviously Indian, is speaking with an Indian accent rather than a Spanish one?
Sheesh.
Oh, and I just had a really nice talk with the Raelian scientist that's here about his views and the Raelian movement. If you strip away the UFO aspect of the movement, I really like where they're coming from and agree with it almost entirely, but of course the alien aspect is a little much for me. Makes me feel a little guilty though about last year's April Fools story.
Post a Comment