Support NeoGAF

[AnathemicOne]

An omnivorous human eating meat and a zoophilic human having sex with animals gains exactly the same thing: the gratification of human desires.

Wrong, it is a biological need and desire. If you have a normal functioning average omnivorous human suddenly switch to only plant only consumption the results would be negative against health, mind, just plain bad all around. Sure said human can adapt, the problem here is that why the hell do we need to adapt in the first place?

We already practice omnivore consumption, our bodies are custom-tailored to it, it is socially acceptable.

Differing from bestiality which our bodies are not suited for, we do not (as a majority) practice it, and is socially unacceptable.

 

[mavs]

The sentient plant issue is being brought up to make you realize how stupid this debate is. If you want consistency in welfare without hypocrisy, you need to be universally consistent this includes plant life, micro life, etc.

The consistency is to respect the welfare of life that displays a preference for preserving its welfare, in sympathy with our own experience of life. A sympathy it seems plants and rocks do not share.

....because you say so. That's not a clinched answer sir.

Because it seems so. I have already acknowledged many times (the first time was 3 pages or so ago) that plants may in fact be sentient. From what we know it seems they are not.

 

[CiSTM]

Sick stuff! I really can't understand what goes in the heads of people who do this
This whole deal reminds me of an article I read few months ago. It was about Japanese secret societys and it mentioned this restaurant for rich people (you had to make a lot of money before you even were considered for mebership) basically it was normal looking place with the exception that there was this kind of dungeon section where you could have sex with the animals before they were cooked.

 

[CorvoSol]

Bzzt! Wrong. The correct answer is, "It's okay to kill them because they hold no preference either way on account of their non-sentience."

Because you say they don't. Sentience, Sapience, these are things Man has philosophized about, but as you yourself said, we know next to nothing about how thinking works. I'd also like to point out that the word "Sentience" is an incredibly malleable one with variant meanings depending on your school of thought. What you say is Sentience is not necessarily what someone else would say.

So again, your answer has consistently been "It's okay to eat plants because of this made up thing that Man described."

 

[farnham]

What I dont get witht he german Tierschutzgesetz (animal protection law) is that only hurting mammals is a crime.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

But you have already established the fact that it is acceptable not to respect the welfare of living beings. The only ones that must be respected are the ones you choose, from what I have seen.

Mavs has answered this pretty well, as I think have I. Still, even if the above argument doesn't obtain, so what? The moral inconsistency doesn't subsist in the treatment of different classes of animals, living things, and unliving things. It's perfectly morally consistent to say, "Humans are the only actors that have moral value," and reason from there, or "animals are the only actors that have moral value," or even "humans of my race are the only actors that have moral value." All of those are consistent. What is not consistent is saying, "category X has moral value, but while protecting them from sexual assault is a sine qua non of my morality, protecting them from murder is not."

Wrong, it is a biological need and desire. If you have a normal functioning average omnivorous human suddenly switch to only plant only consumption the results would be negative against health, mind, just plain bad all around. Sure said human can adapt, the problem here is that why the hell do we need to adapt in the first place?

We already practice omnivore consumption, our bodies are custom-tailored to it, it is socially acceptable.

Differing from bestiality which our bodies are not suited for, we do not (as a majority) practice it, and is socially unacceptable.

You're going to have to provide a citation that stopping the eating of meat will lead to negative consequences. You seem to pretty consistently overstate the health benefits of an omnivorous diet.

 

[TheExplodingHead]

Because it seems so. I have already acknowledged many times (the first time was 3 pages or so ago) that plants may in fact be sentient. From what we know it seems they are not.

It doesn't matter whether it's "sentient" or not, it's still a living organism. Just to clarify before we go further, are you suggesting we have full right to kill any organism that isn't sentient?

 

[AnathemicOne]

You're been too defensive. I'm not arguing against you in personal terms - only general terms. When I say we, I mean why is thread still going on with a back and forth with you?

It seems immediately obvious when I state it, but; People on internet forums skim threads, flit in and out of arguments (especially multi-page ones), latch onto a few sentences here and there and make enquiries and arguments as to what they find of interest/curiosity/objection.

That is just the simple flow of using a forum. Expecting everyone to read every single post runs counter to how forums are used and navigated.

As for biological necessity - it's 'necessary' in that it maximized our available nutrition, that the macro and micro nutrients found in meats are some of the more efficient forms (in terms of its ability to satisfy the palette, and deliver said nutrients into our body) found in nature.

Of course, with culture and civilization, we can subvert the natural paradigm easily - we could (and do) cultivate a set of macro and micro-nutrients in plant sources where it is *not* necessary to consume animals, while still maintaining our overall health.

In growth efficiency terms - plants will always win out, because animals eat plants or animals.

As for the terms of the animal's suffering - it's not hard to see how 'been raped' is not necessarily worse than the way's we already do treat them.

There's no real argument to be had here... just a bunch of continued back and forthing on what seems like nothing in particular (from what I can gather by skimming).

Considering the nature of how you injected yourself into the argument it seemed you directly wanted to attack me, do you deny this?

The argument is still going because I've a tendency to finish what I start despite being knowledgeable on how the Internet works (plus I get the occasional supporter here and there so I'm not all alone).

Back to the point, the question is why? Why would we switch from an omnivorous society into a plant-only consuming one? As humans are naturally selfish beings the question is, "What do we have to gain by this?"

 

[CorvoSol]

Mavs has answered this pretty well, as I think have I. Still, even if the above argument doesn't obtain, so what? The moral inconsistency doesn't subsist in the treatment of different classes of animals, living things, and unliving things. It's perfectly morally consistent to say, "Humans are the only actors that have moral value," and reason from there, or "animals are the only actors that have moral value," or even "humans of my race are the only actors that have moral value." All of those are consistent. What is not consistent is saying, "category X has moral value, but while protecting them from sexual assault is a sine qua non of my morality, protecting them from murder is not."

How is it consistent to say "I only respect life form X but not Y?" It's not. It is, however, rational to say, "I will eat life form X, because I will gain from that, but I will not condone the rape of life form X, because there is no good reason for that."

Likewise, it is not consistent to say "Murder of X and Y is wrong, but not Z!" Particularly when it goes "Murder of Y is wrong, but not Z because they don't feel!" Which is a lovely thing to say. Indeed, I believe that early Americans would have loved that. "Yeah, Murder of race A is wrong, but B has no soul, so I can enslave them and kill them!"

 

[mavs]

Because you say they don't. Sentience, Sapience, these are things Man has philosophized about, but as you yourself said, we know next to nothing about how thinking works. I'd also like to point out that the word "Sentience" is an incredibly malleable one with variant meanings depending on your school of thought. What you say is Sentience is not necessarily what someone else would say.

So again, your answer has consistently been "It's okay to eat plants because of this made up thing that Man described."

The description is made up, the thing we have described is delivered to us by our senses. We can guess that other beings share it, but we can't know even that other humans do. We just guess, and I suppose we test it scientifically too, but what the tests actually show is not clear. Still, it is clear enough that we attribute it to more than just our individual selves, and less than everything in the universe.

How is it consistent to say "I only respect life form X but not Y?" It's not. It is, however, rational to say, "I will eat life form X, because I will gain from that, but I will not condone the rape of life form X, because there is no good reason for that."

You broke your rational chain trying to define a "good" reason, though, and instead appealed to emotion. After all, someone (in their own judgement) benefits from the rape as well. About the only way you can decide otherwise is on public health grounds.

...Which is the argument I have trying to push on people over the wishy washy ethics of people who have no regrets over killing beings and manufacture some when people have sex with them.

 

[The Lamp]

I heard about the guy who died fucking his horse...thought it was an urban legend or some shit

No, it's the guy in the video 2 guys 1 horse (I'm serious).

 

[Log4Girlz]

Sure. I'd rather not know very much about their sex lives, but if I somehow stumbled onto the knowledge it wouldn't affect me too much after I got over the mental images.

Oh well that's lovely then, I'm certain they would be proud of your avatar

 

[CorvoSol]

The description is made up, the thing we have described is delivered to us by our senses. We can guess that other beings share it, but we can't know even that other humans do. We just guess, and I suppose we test it scientifically too, but what the tests actually show is not clear. Still, it is clear enough that we attribute it to more than just our individual selves, and less than everything in the universe.

Which means, ultimately, that you cannot prove to me that I should not eat even you, let alone plants and animals, because I have no way of knowing if you are sentient or not.

Now, do you prefer to be roasted, or baked?

 

[Monocle]

I think it's morally consistent to oppose animal rape and approve of eating meat as long as the animals to be eaten are killed humanely. What we want to avoid is recreationally exploiting, and causing undue distress to, feeling beings.

The idea of sexual intercourse with animals is repulsive to most people, and understandably so, but that's not sufficient to consider the act a moral evil. In principle, I would tolerate if not approve of zoophiles if there were a reliable way to obtain informed consent from their animal partners. Animals that voluntarily penetrate humans may be said to have affirmed their consent by that action, yet lacking the reasoning capacity of even a human child, they are hardly capable of being informed. So bestiality is still a no-no in my book.

What in god's fuck.

This is my new favorite phrase to express nauseated incredulity.

 

[AnathemicOne]

Mavs has answered this pretty well, as I think have I. Still, even if the above argument doesn't obtain, so what? The moral inconsistency doesn't subsist in the treatment of different classes of animals, living things, and unliving things. It's perfectly morally consistent to say, "Humans are the only actors that have moral value," and reason from there, or "animals are the only actors that have moral value," or even "humans of my race are the only actors that have moral value." All of those are consistent. What is not consistent is saying, "category X has moral value, but while protecting them from sexual assault is a sine qua non of my morality, protecting them from murder is not."

But in supporting that last premise you yourself are also called in to account as the premise is demanding one to be "universally consistent" with all forms of life, not just animals.

But then again you've already built your ground on believing that acts committed on an animal have no morality.

So why again are you arguing a moral position if you yourself have no moral ground to stand upon?

 

[Zaptruder]

It doesn't matter whether it's "sentient" or not, it's still a living organism. Just to clarify before we go further, are you suggesting we have full right to kill any organism that isn't sentient?

What the fuck do I care for 'living organisms' for, other then the fact that they could be useful for maintaining my own life, and that some degree of care needs to be shown in order to maintain their ecosystem as to allow me to continue benefiting from them?

If they had the capacity to feel pain and pleasure like we do... we might have some argument for empathetic kinship (and even then, we have the tendency to overextend that empathy, because many parts of these creatures lives are not equivalent to human).

 

[mavs]

It doesn't matter whether it's "sentient" or not, it's still a living organism. Just to clarify before we go further, are you suggesting we have full right to kill any organism that isn't sentient?

Are you arguing otherwise? On what grounds?

Please note that there is a difference between possessing a right to do something and causing no harm in doing something. I don't know how you'd go about deriving a right to kill plants, but the path to declaring it harmless seems clear.

 

[CorvoSol]

I know this isn't relevant, but Monocle, you always remind me of John Doe from the Phoenix Wright series. I don't know why, but I live in fear of the day I wake up and see that monocle hovering over me.

 

[Zaptruder]

Considering the nature of how you injected yourself into the argument it seemed you directly wanted to attack me, do you deny this?

I've only ever seen you in this thread, only recognize you as anyone from the last few posts you've made. I'm attacking some of the positions that I thought you held from the act of skimming the rest of the posts. That is the way the internet works.

Back to the point, the question is why? Why would we switch from an omnivorous society into a plant-only consuming one? As humans are naturally selfish beings the question is, "What do we have to gain by this?"

We are not in disagreement here. You and I both accept our 'hypocrisy' in eating animal meat. I do it for the sake of expedience, even while bearing in mind that, if there were an economically viable alternative available to their deliciousness, I would switch to it.

 

[TheExplodingHead]

What the fuck do I care for 'living organisms' for, other then the fact that they could be useful for maintaining my own life, and that some degree of care needs to be shown in order to maintain their ecosystem as to allow me to continue benefiting from them?

If they had the capacity to feel pain and pleasure like we do... we might have some argument for empathetic kinship (and even then, we have the tendency to overextend that empathy, because many parts of these creatures lives are not equivalent to human).

It was just a bridge to a point, for the record I don't care either. But if the core argument here is we only should kill what we perceive as sentient...that's pretty retarded.

 

[mavs]

Which means, ultimately, that you cannot prove to me that I should not eat even you, let alone plants and animals, because I have no way of knowing if you are sentient or not.

Now, do you prefer to be roasted, or baked?

I'm glad at least one person sees this controversy resolved. Now tell us, what else do you think you "know" in a provable way?

 

[CorvoSol]

Just curious: Does a Soldier have the right to care when a woman is raped? I mean, if that guy has killed others for money, what right does he have to suddenly empathize with the suffering of the very species he's accepted money to kill?

I'm glad at least one person sees this controversy resolved. Now tell us, what else do you think you "know" in a provable way?

I know I have my underwear on. I can feel that. Can I prove it to you? Nope. Which I suppose means its okay for you to kill my underwear and eat that.

 

[Zaptruder]

I think it's morally consistent to oppose animal rape and approve of eating meat as long as the animals to be eaten are killed humanely. What we want to avoid is recreationally exploiting, and causing undue distress to, feeling beings.

The idea of sexual intercourse with animals is repulsive to most people, and understandably so, but that's not sufficient to consider the act a moral evil. In principle, I would tolerate if not approve of zoophiles if there were a reliable way to obtain informed consent from their animal partners. Animals that voluntarily penetrate humans may be said to have affirmed their consent by that action, yet lacking the reasoning capacity of even a human child, they are hardly capable of being informed. So bestiality is still a no-no in my book.


This is my new favorite phrase to express nauseated incredulity.

You're a smart guy monocle. You're aware of the various nauseating conditions that produce animals labour under to provide us with their meat.

Do you go out of your way to research and find meat/farm labels that specifically cultivate animals in a humane manner?

 

[Haunted]

Enumclaw horse sex case

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumclaw_horse_sex_case

crazy

 

[Amibguous Cad]

But in supporting that last premise you yourself are also called in to account as the premise is demanding one to be "universally consistent" with all forms of life, not just animals.

But then again you've already built your ground on believing that acts committed on an animal have no morality.

So why again are you arguing a moral position if you yourself have no moral ground to stand upon?

It is possible to argue for the internal consistency of a morality without believing that morality to be true.

I think it's morally consistent to oppose animal rape and approve of eating meat as long as the animals to be eaten are killed humanely. What we want to avoid is recreationally exploiting, and causing undue distress to, feeling beings.

Preventing distress can't be the only moral precept, right? I mean, tranquilizing a human and then putting a bullet in their brain would cause a minimum of distress but would still be pretty morally reprehensible. What makes the moral consideration for an animal different enough from a human that rape is unconscionable, but murdering them with a minimum of suffering is a-okay?

 

[Haunted]

I'm not even so sure where this stereotype comes from.

Yeah, I never understood when/where that originated.

 

[mavs]

Just curious: Does a Soldier have the right to care when a woman is raped? I mean, if that guy has killed others for money, what right does he have to suddenly empathize with the suffering of the very species he's accepted money to kill?



I know I have my underwear on. I can feel that. Can I prove it to you? Nope. Which I suppose means its okay for you to kill my underwear and eat that.

If soldiering was nothing but lining up harmless people in pens and capping them...I'd say we should be happy the soldier can feel any emotion at all. Pretty sure that job would drive anyone off the deep end.

...Which is where it seems you have gone...

Yeah, I never understood when/where that originated.

South Park and Mozart (Austrian, I know)

 

[Zaptruder]

Just curious: Does a Soldier have the right to care when a woman is raped? I mean, if that guy has killed others for money, what right does he have to suddenly empathize with the suffering of the very species he's accepted money to kill?

A murderer (and I'm not saying that a soldier is a 'murderer' in the sense we use the term murderer - I'm specifically, referring to a murderer), can still care for a woman that's been raped.

It's not particularly morally congruent - but it doesn't stop or remove his ability to care about the raped woman (or anything else he sees as immoral; even the murder of other people). I don't know if the ability to care needs to be a right - it's just something that happens. You can do much to quell the ability of people to think... but I don't know that you can remove it in any fashion.

 

[TheExplodingHead]

Are you arguing otherwise? On what grounds?

Please note that there is a difference between possessing a right to do something and causing no harm in doing something. I don't know how you'd go about deriving a right to kill plants, but the path to declaring it harmless seems clear.

Question, is a clinically brain dead human considered sentient? What about a clinically brain dead animal?

I'm pretty sure if you walked onto a hospital (human or vet) and started offing a bunch of vegetable patients (pun intended), you'd go to jail. So being sentient or not isn't a prerequisite to kill or not-to-kill in the real world.

 

[AnathemicOne]

It is possible to argue for the internal consistency of a morality without believing that morality to be true.

If you don't believe the morality to be true then why are you supporrting the consistency of it if you don't believe it in the first place? It doesn't add up.

Unless you are just arguing for the sake of arguing when in that case I see no reason to continue this discourse with you.

And for now I'm heading for bed. I might continue this argument when I awake depends on how this thread goes.

 

[Zaptruder]

It was just a bridge to a point, for the record I don't care either. But if the core argument here is we only should kill what we perceive as sentient...that's pretty retarded.

I assume you mean as not-sentient... then yeah, I would agree it's a little dumb. I can see the angle they're coming from - empathizing with their ability to feel pain/suffering... and when we can afford the luxury of empathizing with all sentient creatures, we totally should.

In the mean time, we're not going to reduce meat consumption through moral philosophizing anymore then we could stop war from been waged with it.

 

[CorvoSol]

If soldiering was nothing but lining up harmless people in pens and capping them...I'd say we should be happy the soldier can feel any emotion at all. Pretty sure that job would drive anyone off the deep end.

...Which is where it seems you have gone...

So the justification is that the soldier is okay licensed to feel for a rape victim because there's a struggle? Does that make hunting okay, then?

And I don't really know why you're all so obsessed with my sanity or rationality or what have you. Really these have been the pettiest parts of the conversation, and I think we're all above them. Surely no one here actually believes that someone is insane simply for arguing the contrary?

That said, you all kill to survive. Kill or be killed by the inevitable starvation. You eat lives that were born and slain for the sake of feeding yourselves. Be those lives plants or animals, you still consume them. If you're going to insist that plants are excepted because of criteria that you establish, you should not be surprised to find that others have established their own criterion. If you think that to kill what you seek to eat excludes the possibility of sympathizing with that which you have killed, you know very little about the many who have stopped and thanked the animals they have killed over the tens of thousands of years that man has been doing this.

And again, I put aside my soapbox and bid you all a goodnight. It's late, and I need to sleep.

 

[mavs]

Question, is a clinically brain dead human considered sentient? What about a clinically brain dead animal?

I'm pretty sure if you walked onto a hospital (human or vet) and started offing a bunch of vegetable patients (pun intended), you'd go to jail. So being sentient or not isn't a prerequisite to kill or not-to-kill in the real world.

Humans are assumed sentient though, even if they never show signs of it from birth until death. It's the only way to be sure you aren't making a huge mistake. It's like abstinence, taking great pains for the absolute most optimal result.

Brain dead animals I think are in the same boat, but they have few protections anyway. You can be punished for being cruel to a comatose animal. However you'd have to do something quite offensive, since animals can be killed for nearly any reason as long as it's done quickly.

So the justification is that the soldier is okay licensed to feel for a rape victim because there's a struggle? Does that make hunting okay, then?

And I don't really know why you're all so obsessed with my sanity or rationality or what have you. Really these have been the pettiest parts of the conversation, and I think we're all above them. Surely no one here actually believes that someone is insane simply for arguing the contrary?

That said, you all kill to survive. Kill or be killed by the inevitable starvation. You eat lives that were born and slain for the sake of feeding yourselves. Be those lives plants or animals, you still consume them. If you're going to insist that plants are excepted because of criteria that you establish, you should not be surprised to find that others have established their own criterion. If you think that to kill what you seek to eat excludes the possibility of sympathizing with that which you have killed, you know very little about the many who have stopped and thanked the animals they have killed over the tens of thousands of years that man has been doing this.

And again, I put aside my soapbox and bid you all a goodnight. It's late, and I need to sleep.

I guarantee the animals did not thank them back with their dying thoughts. It's been a running theme of this thread that humans do not actually care how animals feel about their own deaths, just what other humans feel.

If you don't believe the morality to be true then why are you supporrting the consistency of it if you don't believe it in the first place? It doesn't add up.

Unless you are just arguing for the sake of arguing when in that case I see no reason to continue this discourse with you.

And for now I'm heading for bed. I might continue this argument when I awake depends on how this thread goes.

I want people to admit that killing animals is violently opposed by those animals, and that is all. Well, and also to admit that making decisions about the preferences of animals while also being willing to disregard those preferences to the ultimate degree is reprehensible.

 

[Vermillion]

Those saying that sex with animals harms the animals - would you answer my question? Maybe you, Devo? What of female humans having sex with male animals - what is the wrong there?

 

[Black Republican]

oh gaf, you slaaaaay me

 

[Pandaman]

Mavs has answered this pretty well, as I think have I. Still, even if the above argument doesn't obtain, so what? The moral inconsistency doesn't subsist in the treatment of different classes of animals, living things, and unliving things. It's perfectly morally consistent to say, "Humans are the only actors that have moral value," and reason from there, or "animals are the only actors that have moral value," or even "humans of my race are the only actors that have moral value." All of those are consistent. What is not consistent is saying, "category X has moral value, but while protecting them from sexual assault is a sine qua non of my morality, protecting them from murder is not."

actually, that's still perfectly consistent.

dont trip people over your own assumptions cad.

 

[Monocle]

I'll just leave this here.

Preventing distress can't be the only moral precept, right? I mean, tranquilizing a human and then putting a bullet in their brain would cause a minimum of distress but would still be pretty morally reprehensible. What makes the moral consideration for an animal different enough from a human that rape is unconscionable, but murdering them with a minimum of suffering is a-okay?

For one thing, human lives are worth more than those of other animals because we can suffer more, we can be more productive, and society can't function unless most of its members agree not to kill their neighbors. Exploiting nonhuman animals for constructive purposes (feeding people, scientific research, labor) is positively beneficial to society, and morally justifiable given animals' decreased capacity for suffering relative to humans. Obviously we as a society have a duty to destroy only so that we can create. We shouldn't abuse the vulnerable. We should make the very most of the animal lives we have at our disposal.

You're a smart guy monocle. You're aware of the various nauseating conditions that produce animals labour under to provide us with their meat.

Do you go out of your way to research and find meat/farm labels that specifically cultivate animals in a humane manner?

Nope, I'm a total hypocrite in that respect. But truth depends on the state of the world, not the conduct of the messenger.

Spoiler

To be fair to myself, I'm practically vegetarian since I eat meat twice a month, max. And I do try to buy local free-range meats; I'm just not consistent about it.

Enumclaw horse sex case

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumclaw_horse_sex_case

Guess you could say if you horse around...you might get shafted.

Spoiler

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!

 

[TheExplodingHead]

Humans are assumed sentient though, even if they never show signs of it from birth until death. It's the only way to be sure you aren't making a huge mistake. It's like abstinence, taking great pains for the absolute most optimal result.

Brain dead animals I think are in the same boat, but they have few protections anyway. You can be punished for being cruel to a comatose animal. However you'd have to do something quite offensive, since animals can be killed for nearly any reason as long as it's done quickly.

And the contradictions go round and round. And as much as a lot of you seem to care for non abuse of animals you sure do like to twist and torture the language.

A brain dead human is not sentient AT ALL, there is no brain activity whatsoever. You don't assume sentience or consciousness, it's either is or it isn't. It ain't a guessing game or a something we just assume to be safe. Do you think a doctor assumes cardiac failure, or loss of life? Sentience (aka higher aware consciousness) is not there anymore in a brain dead patient, and never will be again.

So if this philosophical thesis you vegans have cooked up about "only okay to kill if it's not sentient", then it has to be consistent across a wide moral/practical spectrum. Not just something you rattle off on a forum to stroke your own agenda.

 

[Black Republican]

Those saying that sex with animals harms the animals - would you answer my question? Maybe you, Devo? What of female humans having sex with male animals - what is the wrong there?

Perfectly normal

 

[Uchip]

actually, that's still perfectly consistent.

dont trip people over your own assumptions cad.

I dont think hes taking into account the literal meaning of morality
and is confusing it with a personal one

 

[Amibguous Cad]

actually, that's still perfectly consistent.

dont trip people over your own assumptions cad.

You got me. I truncated the argument. A fuller description: It is inconsistent to assert that category X and Y both deserve moral protection, believing that the most heinous thing one can do t category X is crime A, while believing that doing crime A to category Y is morally kosher, absent a coherent argument that category X and Y differ in such a manner that crime A does not affect category Y.

 

[Vermillion]

Perfectly normal

Mm, but we both know it is not. But for those insinuating that the bestiality is wrong because of the animal's choice, and the notion that the animal is being harmed, I want to know how their logic applies in such a case where the genders are reversed.

In one situation, the animal has no choice - they are being grabbed and forcefully made to have sex. In the other, the animal chooses to have sex... so what is the wrong of the latter?

 

[Uchip]

so what is the wrong of the latter?

anal hemorrhaging

 

[Monocle]

anal hemorrhaging

At last, I've found the name for my new punk band.

 

[mavs]

And the contradictions go round and round. And as much as a lot of you seem to care for non abuse of animals you sure do like to twist and torture the language.

A brain dead human is not sentient AT ALL, there is no brain activity whatsoever. You don't assume sentience or consciousness, it's either is or it isn't. It ain't a guessing game or a something we just assume to be safe. Do you think a doctor assumes cardiac failure, or loss of life? Sentience (aka higher aware consciousness) is not there anymore in a brain dead patient, and never will be again.

So if this philosophical thesis you vegans have cooked up about "only okay to kill if it's not sentient", then it has to be consistent across a wide moral/practical spectrum. Not just something you rattle off on a forum to stroke your own agenda.

You can't diagnose brain death until the patient had already ceased all vital functions though. As far as I know it cannot be used to judge a legal state of death, at least not where I live. This is because a patient can be diagnosed as brain dead even when they are not. The same can't be said of a patient whose heart can't be restarted.

 

[Krispy]

 

[TheExplodingHead]

At last, I've found the name for my new punk band.

Nah, they've already got this covered!

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

I like eating meat,but I wouldn't argue that we were made to eat it.; we can't run as fast as most ungulates,aren't as strong, our canine teeth are pathetic when it comes to tearing and rending flesh (raw, not cooked) no claws, etc. most other primates rarely eat meat and seem to survive just fine.

 

[Monocle]

Nah, they've already got this covered!

Dammit!

 

[TheExplodingHead]

You can't diagnose brain death until the patient had already ceased all vital functions though. As far as I know it cannot be used to judge a legal state of death, at least not where I live. This is because a patient can be diagnosed as brain dead even when they are not. The same can't be said of a patient whose heart can't be restarted.

You can diagnose catatonic brain death well before time of death, while still on artificial respiration. It happens all the time. And we're not talking about the legal linings here, I can tell you about a bunch of weird ones in the medical system, but that's beside the point.

And even so, we're discussing sentience, there is none at that point. But please, if there is, describe to me these "sentient preferences" in patients with no brain activity. But I'll broaden the vistas for you, even if there is only partial brain activity yet still functionally catatonic...where is the sentience assumed?