Support NeoGAF

[Corky]

I'm I doing it right?

This is like the 3rd time I've been avatar quoted today I don't like

 

[lethial]

Zoophiles are just hardcore furries. Fucking gross.

 

[Maleficence]

If you hunt and kill your own food as how its always been done thats fine. Chances are you don't. And thus it's not how "its always worked". I find the entire process of growing meat to be completely immoral for reasons that go beyond the process of humans eating meat in itself. You obviously disagree, but I find it completely disingenuous to say that factory farms is how eating meat has always been done.

How is someone else killing the animal and selling it to me so completely different from me killing it myself?

The main point is that the animal is killed and consumed, who does it is completely perfunctory to the argument.

Are you against animal farming for food? You'd rather people went out and hunt animals in the wild only?

 

[Uchip]

(Uchip even the author of your article admits that meat eaters are more destructive on that level, it's honestly irrefutable) to be completely more heinous than some wackos looking to get it on with a couple of animals.

his point was that you dont need to eat animals to survive
im saying you're killing them either way

 

[mavs]

How about you read the article I linked?

Apparently it only applies in Australia, because livestock in the US are grain-fed or corn-fed. Which means all those animals die, and then one gets slaughtered to top it all off.

 

[jgminto]

Apparently it only applies in Australia, because livestock in the US are grain-fed or corn-fed. Which means all those animals die, and then one gets slaughtered to top it all off.

Buy Australian meat. It's better anyway.

 

[Row]

Germany has the strangest sexual culture, not to mention the worst porn

 

[TheExplodingHead]

Way I see it, is no matter what your bizarre sexual desires are if you don't have the willpower, dignity and self-respect to not follow through on them...you deserve whatever disease/contempt/social ostracism that goes along with it. Same goes for pedophilia, and whatever else. There's something called self respect and decency.

 

[mavs]

Buy Australian meat. It's better anyway.

I'd dispute that. Australia is not known for its fish.

 

[Onemic]

Of course, the furries come out defending the fucking of animals. Why am I not surprised....

 

[CHEEZMO™]

There we go.

As surely as tick follows tock.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

I'm an omnivore, I eat animals. A clean kill so I can eat is fair. Torturing an animal for my pleasure is beyond the pale to me.

You are free to continue asserting your conclusions instead of making an argument, but I'm not sure how far we'll get in the discussion if you do.

How about you read the article I linked?

Finished reading it. It's an interesting argument, but hamstrung by two comparisons that don't quite wash out.

Published figures suggest that, in Australia, producing wheat and other grains results in:

at least 25 times more sentient animals being killed per kilogram of useable protein

Since the article doesn't link to the "published figures," it's hard to evaluate the claim. (at least not right there, anyway; the article is full of links, so it's possible that I missed it. Wouldn't be the first time I missed one). The first problem is that they are comparing the production of protein, not the production of calories or some other metric. Secondly, it's unclear what "wheat and other grains" refers to. Are soybeans a grain? Did they use Australia's current distribution of farmland to calculate this, in which case wheat production will obviously swamp soybean production (obviously a vegetarian society will grow more soybeans)? If you're going to compare the two, and are concerned with protein production, the obvious thing is to compare soybean fields to pastures. And calorie production is probably a better measure, anyway. About the only thing I can say for certain from the article is that meat is a more efficient way of producing protein than wheat- no shit, sherlock. To be honest, choosing protein production- particularly without highlighting that they did it or explaining why- is a disingenuous rhetorical tactic, and makes me question the rest of the article. Clearly the author hopes that a reader won't notice the sleight-of-hand and not think tooclosely about whether protein production is what we should be comparing.

The second is that the article takes rangeland production as its basis of comparison. This is like taking artisanal craftspeople working out of their huts as characteristic of the production of all manufactured goods in the world. It's true that Australia primarily produces on rangeland (2/3rds, if the article can be believed), but Australia is an anomaly. Most worldwide cows are raised in industrial farms,which would have a mouse death count more similar to grain production, in all likelihood. I googled for reliable stats on what percentage of American beef is produced on rangeland, to no avail. This suggests that between 2 and 4 percent of American beef production relies on western public rangeland, and this asserts that "nearly all"commercially available beef in the US is industrially raised.

It's an interesting argument, and significantly more plausible than I had thought, but it doesn't prove its case to my satisfaction. I'd be very interested to see an article that responded to these critiques, though.

In any case, it may well be true that rangeland is better for animal welfare than agriculture, but since the vast majority of meat eaters do notensure that their meat comes only from rangeland sources, the charge of hypocrisy stands.

 

[Devolution]

You are free to continue asserting your conclusions instead of making an argument, but I'm not sure how far we'll get in the discussion if you do.

What else am I supposed to say?

 

[Uchip]

Its not the only article
and egg farming tends to imply the death of male hens
you could always comment underneath said article

really you just needed to be called out on this:
"If you eat meat, you really don't have any leg to stand on in condemning animal abuse or zoophilia."

its not even relateable
eating meat is something we do naturally
animal abuse is something that we can prevent, and most meat eaters would not support torture as a precursor to killing for meat.

basically putting the majority of the world on the same level as animal abusers and zoophiles by denying our right to question morally detestable practices

 

[User Name Here]

This is like the 3rd time I've been avatar quoted today I don't like

 

[Dreams-Visions]

How long until people start trying to blame homosexuality for this?

damn.

the real question is how many read the topic title and had your comment as their first thought? I bet more than a few.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

What else am I supposed to say?

You can answer this, for one thing.

You, as well. An assertion is not an argument. What principles are you basing this assertion on? The analogous statement, "A clean kill of a human in order to eat it is morally superior to raping a person," would require some kind of defense. In order to carry it through, you will either have to defend that statement, or make a coherent argument that the ordering of preferences we give to humanity ought to be different than the ordering of preferences that we give to animals, and in such a way that murder drops from "worst possible thing," to "perfectly morally kosher"

From your other post:

I'm an omnivore, I eat animals. A clean kill so I can eat is fair. Torturing an animal for my pleasure is beyond the pale to me.

You could explain why you feel that your current status as an omnivore is an argument in favor of its morality. You can explain your concept of fairness, and why that means that murder is fair, and rape is not.

Its not the only article
and egg farming tends to imply the death of male hens
you could always comment underneath said article

really you just needed to be called out on this:
"If you eat meat, you really don't have any leg to stand on in condemning animal abuse or zoophilia."

its not even relateable
eating meat is something we do naturally
animal abuse is something that we can prevent, and most meat eaters would not support torture as a precursor to killing for meat.

What do you mean by, "natural?" Does something being natural make it more moral than something unnatural? Why? Is zoophilia less natural than meat eating? (recall that some of the earliest produced paintings involve zoophilia, and interspecies sex is present in non-human animals)

I'm fully aware that meat eaters find eating meat morally fine andtorture of animals morally abhorrent (given the horrors of industrially farmed meat, their commitment to this principle is questionable, but we can leave that to one side for now). The question is whether this position is morally coherent. I don't think it is.

 

[CorvoSol]

Maybe animals would fuck us if they were the superior species on the planet. The whole idea of the "morals" of this issue strike me as nothing more than more religious nonsense. We slaughter animals, destroy their habitats, and eat them thanks to us advancing further, evolutionarily. As the dominance species we're basically already fucking animals in the figural sense, what's the difference in fucking them in a more literal/sexual sense?

Religion ruins everything

I hate to be that guy, but this is a pretty stupid conclusion to reach. Everyone keeps saying "Oh we slaughter and eat animals, so why is sex with them wrong?" I mean, really? Let's break it down nice and small here:

We eat animals because we're omnivores. Humanity as a species needs to eat plants and animals to survive. Until we develop crazy pills that fill us and nurture us in the same way that plants and animals do, it's not a moral issue. We kill them and eat them because if we don't, we will die. We eat because we must.

Sex with animals isn't a necessity. You don't NEED to have sex with a beast that can't give its consent. You will not die because of it. Your species will not come to an end because you and your people chose not to do it. You have other people you can have sex with. Other human beings who can give consent. There is literally no reason to have sex with a donkey.

And then to suggest that the taboo is somehow religious only, and that it "ruins everything" in relation to this? Surely you're joking on this one, right? I mean, regardless of your views of religion, you cannot say "Oh yeah, only religious people say it's wrong to have sex with animals. Darn them for standing in the way of my getting it on with donkeys, sheep, and goats! Darn them!!!" Why? Because it isn't just religious people who say "Dude, having sex with animals? NO."

The claim that our dominance or "being higher up" justifies our doing what we want to other life forms because we can is a terrible one. Consider the times dominant civilizations came in, conquered and enslaved another, and then proceeded to do as it pleased to them? Were the rapes of the lesser civilization, which in some cases were considered subhuman by their conquerors, justified just because the other dominated? No, and you'll excuse me if I assume that many a man, regardless of his faith or lack thereof, would agree with me on that.

Long story short: We eat them because we have to. We don't have to have sex with them. They can't consent. And to say that that idea is religious in origin and somehow ruins your sleeping with donkeys is preposterous.

 

[les papillons sexuels]

I don't care what a man or women sticks inside themselves for pleasure, as long as they aint hurting anyone, or in this case animal, doing it.

Zoophiles are just hardcore furries. Fucking gross.

and furries are just hardcore shamans.

gross.

 

[Hot Coldman]

Murder and rape are human exclusive concepts

Get real

 

[Devolution]

You could explain why you feel that your current status as an omnivore is an argument in favor of its morality. You can explain your concept of fairness, and why that means that murder is fair, and rape is not.

It's going to be inconsistent but I guess that's the point of having higher faculties. To me it's natural to eat other animals, animals themselves do it. Protein sustains me. And frankly I have no business being a vegetarian, my metabolism ensures that I need copious amounts of iron and protein, easiest and cheapest way is to eat animals.

Now you could make the argument animals also rape other animals, but that's where my human consciousness perks up and I think it's not okay to torture another being, especially if it's not to sustain your body.

It's not consistent but that's how I feel about the matter.

 

[Alligatorjandro]

I dont even know whats going on in here anymore.

 

[freenudemacusers]

I dont even know whats going on in here anymore.

Do you enter alligators softly.

 

[SapientWolf]

The problem is that there's very clearly motivated reasoning going on in determining exactly what the gains to people are, and in determining exactly what the cost to the animal is. There's just no coherent argument that the wholesale slaughter of animals is morally superior to their rape. Killing someone is pretty close to the worst possible thing you can do to them. Rape is terrible, but it receives less of a punishment than murder in every justice system that I'm aware of, no matter how little pain the murder causes to the person being murdered. That's without even touching the fact that the conditions in the modern meat industry are far from humane. The ordering of preferences is out of whack, in a way that conveniently allows for people to continue satisfying their taste for meat while indulging in moral indignation at people whose animal cruelty is a bit more unusual.

If you eat meat, you really don't have any leg to stand on in condemning animal abuse or zoophilia.



You don't need to eat animals to survive, either. Vegetarians are perfectly healthy, often more healthy than omnivores. And meat production actually runs counter to survivability, in that they contribute to greenhouse gas emissions (seriously, methane from cow farts is a huge deal) and produce significantly fewer calories per acre than plant agriculture.



Funny how a sizable minority of individuals and cultures manage to defy their genetics just fine. Our genes incline us to immoral behavior all the time. That rape was a successful reproductive strategy and therefore selected for in our evolutionary history does not make it moral.



"Wanting it" and consent are two different things. Animals are incapable of consenting in a fully informed fashion in the same way minors are incapable of it.

Unlike eating meat, inter-species rape is deviant behavior in every type of animal. In fact, it's a good way to spread horrible diseases and does absolutely nothing to improve the fitness of the species.

Moral objectivism is the wrong approach here. People are more comfortable associating with meat eaters than sheep fuckers for many good reasons, and I don't see that changing any time soon.

 

[Vermillion]

Hm. Now that we're talking about the implication of animals being tortured, what do we think of the other way around - the male animals having sex with human females... what then?

 

[Uchip]

What do you mean by, "natural?" Does something being natural make it more moral than something unnatural? Why? Is zoophilia less natural than meat eating? (recall that some of the earliest produced paintings involve zoophilia, and interspecies sex is present in non-human animals)

I'm fully aware that meat eaters find eating meat morally fine andtorture of animals morally abhorrent (given the horrors of industrially farmed meat, their commitment to this principle is questionable, but we can leave that to one side for now). The question is whether this position is morally coherent. I don't think it is.

its a simple association fallacy
whether or not bestiality is acceptable is unrelated to the meat industry

morals also mature over time, having ancient paintings of animal sex does not make it acceptable now, nor did the fact that it used to be acceptable for grown men to keep little boys for sex toys in ancient Greece.

"Is zoophilia less natural than meat eating?"
We are wired to be attracted to other people, and being attracted to animals would be a mental illness or genetic deficiency. Meat eating on the other hand is the most efficient way to obtain nutrients, and has no implications of mental problems.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

I hate to be that guy, but this is a pretty stupid conclusion to reach. Everyone keeps saying "Oh we slaughter and eat animals, so why is sex with them wrong?" I mean, really? Let's break it down nice and small here:

We eat animals because we're omnivores. Humanity as a species needs to eat plants and animals to survive. Until we develop crazy pills that fill us and nurture us in the same way that plants and animals do, it's not a moral issue. We kill them and eat them because if we don't, we will die. We eat because we must.

Sex with animals isn't a necessity. You don't NEED to have sex with a beast that can't give its consent. You will not die because of it. Your species will not come to an end because you and your people chose not to do it. You have other people you can have sex with. Other human beings who can give consent. There is literally no reason to have sex with a donkey.

And then to suggest that the taboo is somehow religious only, and that it "ruins everything" in relation to this? Surely you're joking on this one, right? I mean, regardless of your views of religion, you cannot say "Oh yeah, only religious people say it's wrong to have sex with animals. Darn them for standing in the way of my getting it on with donkeys, sheep, and goats! Darn them!!!" Why? Because it isn't just religious people who say "Dude, having sex with animals? NO."

The claim that our dominance or "being higher up" justifies our doing what we want to other life forms because we can is a terrible one. Consider the times dominant civilizations came in, conquered and enslaved another, and then proceeded to do as it pleased to them? Were the rapes of the lesser civilization, which in some cases were considered subhuman by their conquerors, justified just because the other dominated? No, and you'll excuse me if I assume that many a man, regardless of his faith or lack thereof, would agree with me on that.

Long story short: We eat them because we have to. We don't have to have sex with them. They can't consent. And to say that that idea is religious in origin and somehow ruins your sleeping with donkeys is preposterous.

well said, young junior.

 

[Alligatorjandro]

Do you enter alligators softly.

I would be afraid to try and sex an alligator.

 

[AnathemicOne]

I entered the thread and expected GAF having a consensus opinion.

Instead I see arguments over meat-eating with the occasional defending of zoophilia.

Wtf GAF?

 

[freenudemacusers]

I would be afraid to try and sex an alligator.

I'm sure someone said that about donkeys many years ago.

 

[AzureNightmare]

I entered the thread and expected GAF having a consensus opinion.

Instead I see arguments over meat-eating with the occasional defending of zoophilia.

Wtf GAF?

Come back later...Legion....I mean GAF is still forming a concensus.

 

[les papillons sexuels]

Unlike eating meat, inter-species rape is deviant behavior in every type of animal. In fact, it's a good way to spread horrible diseases and does absolutely nothing to improve the fitness of the species.

Moral objectivism is the wrong approach here. People are more comfortable associating with meat eaters than sheep fuckers for many good reasons, and I don't see that changing any time soon.

neither does homosexuality?

 

[Alligatorjandro]

I'm sure someone said that about donkeys many years ago.

What went wrong in my life where I am having a discussion on having sex with a wild alligator?

I am sorry parents for I have brought for shame upon you.

 

[mavs]

We eat animals because we're omnivores. Humanity as a species needs to eat plants and animals to survive. Until we develop crazy pills that fill us and nurture us in the same way that plants and animals do, it's not a moral issue. We kill them and eat them because if we don't, we will die. We eat because we must.

That is quite a statement. And completely wrong too. I know an entire family of people who don't eat meat. I mean an extended family for 4+ generations, who have never eaten meat, and probably much further back than that. They eat very well on traditional food too, and of course nutrition is not a problem. They've just always eaten that way.

 

[AzureNightmare]

That is quite a statement. And completely wrong too. I know an entire family of people who don't eat meat. I mean an extended family for 4+ generations, who have never eaten meat, and probably much further back than that. They eat very well on traditional food too, and of course nutrition is not a problem. They've just always eaten that way.

and I am sure they are missing a few necessary nutrients. Humans are omnivores for a reason.

 

[freenudemacusers]

What went wrong in my life where I am having a discussion on having sex with a wild alligator?

I am sorry parents for I have brought for shame upon you.

Just blame drugs and peer pressure.

 

[Devolution]

neither does homosexuality?

Arguable. They're starting to find out how homosexuality in tribes can be beneficial. Bonding, having some benevolent aunts/uncles who aid in child rearing and protection, etc.

 

[Uchip]

Arguable. They're starting to find out how homosexuality in tribes can be beneficial. Bonding, having some benevolent aunts/uncles who aid in child rearing and protection, etc.

if they are intelligent, productive members of society, they are benefiting the human race
on the contrary, many fucked up people have children, and produce offspring that arent up to par, as opposed to a gay couple adopting a child and raising them well.
its not even comparable to fucking animals, and he should be ashamed for even mentioning it

 

[Timedog]

If you're really obsessed with not killing animals, please stop using all modern conveniences. Get the fuck off GAF, stop using computers/cars/infrastructure, and go live in a forest and hope you don't step on too many ants. You're killing a shitload of fucking animals with your bullshit. I kill like a cow or two and like 15 chickens a year cause I'm hungry--that's a fucking drop in the bucket.

Oh, you're not gonna do that? You're going to keep living your life of convenience and get all morally superior because some people kill like .5% more animals than you?

 

[Qwomo]

Reminds me of an excerpt from a book of real-life medical stories I saw on reddit:

I am the nurse in triage, screening the cases as they come in to determine their level of severity. A tall gentleman comes in and tells me he has a problem. It's August, about ninety-two degrees outside, and he has on an overcoat. When I ask what the problem is, he replies, 'It's personal. I have to show you.'

I take him behind a screen, where he opens his overcoat. He is naked underneath, except for his penis. On this man's penis is a dog. A live toy poodle. His penis is in the dog's butt. His problem is that he can't get it off. The dog's anal sphincter is serving as a cock ring, trapping blood in the man's penis and causing it to swell grotesquely within the dog's body. The dog is whimpering and gasping. I go back and tell the resident. He looks tired. He's seen everything in the Emergency Department rotation. He gives the dog a muscle relaxant and pries it off. The dog is already in shock and soon dies.

I would have suggested a different way to cut the dog free. I think the wrong animal died.

Carmen Diaz, R.N.
Brandon, Florida

Bestiality is disgusting and the people who practice it are quite awful.

 

[Satch]

Reminds me of an excerpt from a book of real-life medical stories I saw on reddit:


Bestiality is disgusting and the people who practice it are quite awful.

That story......................

Wow.

 

[CorvoSol]

That is quite a statement. And completely wrong too. I know an entire family of people who don't eat meat. I mean an extended family for 4+ generations, who have never eaten meat, and probably much further back than that. They eat very well on traditional food too, and of course nutrition is not a problem. They've just always eaten that way.

BS.

It's entirely true. Open your mouth and stick your finger on your teeth. Do you feel that? Your teeth are designed for tearing meat and chewing vegetables, not just one, and not just the other. Man is an Omnivorous beast. I don't care what strange, anecdotal anomaly you have to tell me about. Man eats meat because he MUST eat meat to survive. It has always been this way. One family does not change a species. If man had not been meant to eat meat, he would not have teeth designed for it. Name me one species that has teeth designed to chew meat that doesn't.

 

[freenudemacusers]

IWho hasn't had a poodle on their dick at one point in their life.

 

[AnathemicOne]

Reminds me of an excerpt from a book of real-life medical stories I saw on reddit:


Bestiality is disgusting and the people who practice it are quite awful.

God damnit...

 

[Amibguous Cad]

I hate to be that guy, but this is a pretty stupid conclusion to reach. Everyone keeps saying "Oh we slaughter and eat animals, so why is sex with them wrong?" I mean, really? Let's break it down nice and small here:

We eat animals because we're omnivores. Humanity as a species needs to eat plants and animals to survive. Until we develop crazy pills that fill us and nurture us in the same way that plants and animals do, it's not a moral issue. We kill them and eat them because if we don't, we will die. We eat because we must.

This is truly baffling. Is there some kind of campaign to keep vegetarians secret that I'm unaware of? Do I risk being whisked off to the Wizengamot for breaking the conspiracy of silence, or will I be called before the Camarilla for breaking the Masquerade by posting this? Is this some kind of obscure knowledge that me and my friends know about because we are self-selecting, like knowing who Tetsuya Nomura is? Or is the need to put a fig leaf over the taboo so strong that people are unable to come up with the blindingly obvious example that disproves it?

The claim that our dominance or "being higher up" justifies our doing what we want to other life forms because we can is a terrible one. Consider the times dominant civilizations came in, conquered and enslaved another, and then proceeded to do as it pleased to them? Were the rapes of the lesser civilization, which in some cases were considered subhuman by their conquerors, justified just because the other dominated? No, and you'll excuse me if I assume that many a man, regardless of his faith or lack thereof, would agree with me on that.

You're spot on about this, though.

Unlike eating meat, inter-species rape is deviant behavior in every type of animal. In fact, it's a good way to spread horrible diseases and does absolutely nothing to improve the fitness of the species.

Moral objectivism is the wrong approach here. People are more comfortable associating with meat eaters than sheep fuckers for many good reasons, and I don't see that changing any time soon.

How do we define deviant behavior? What about fitness of the species? Is anything that reduces the fitness of the species immoral? Why? What of "deviant behavior" in humans that "spread horrible diseases" and "do absolutely nothing to improve the fitness of the species? (The analogous bogus arguments against homosexuality are an irresistible comparison).

morals also mature over time, having ancient paintings of animal sex does not make it acceptable now, nor did the fact that it used to be acceptable for grown men to keep little boys for sex toys in ancient Greece.

You seem to have lost the thread of the argument. I did not offer ancient culture's acceptance of zoophilia as proof of its morality. I offered it in order to counter an assertion of yours, that it is unnatural.

"Is zoophilia less natural than meat eating?"
We are wired to be attracted to other people, and being attracted to animals would be a mental illness or genetic deficiency. Meat eating on the other hand is the most efficient way to obtain nutrients, and has no implications of mental problems.

Why are certain wirings of the brain mental illness and certain configurations of genes deficient, and others not? It's pretty obvious that both assertions are a value judgment, not a fact ontologically true absent human judgment. Asserting that it is a mental illness or genetic deficiency is assuming what you're trying to prove- that it is immoral.

 

[Satch]

IWho hasn't had a poodle on their dick at one point in their life.

well me but i have my reasons

 

[Hot Coldman]

Reminds me of an excerpt from a book of real-life medical stories I saw on reddit:


Bestiality is disgusting and the people who practice it are quite awful.

Welp, time to hit the booze.

 

[G-Fex]

well me but i have my reasons

Mmhmm..

 

[Kinyou]

Reminds me of an excerpt from a book of real-life medical stories I saw on reddit:


Bestiality is disgusting and the people who practice it are quite awful.

I assume there are different... kinds of bestiality. One where someone just does it as some kind of fetish, not caring for the animal's well being and the other where it's meant to be the "crown" of their great love relationship.

 

[ffdgh]

Reminds me of an excerpt from a book of real-life medical stories I saw on reddit:


Bestiality is disgusting and the people who practice it are quite awful.

well that was.....umm yeah poor poodle.