Support NeoGAF

[Vermillion]

anal hemorrhaging

For whom? Now the animal is not being harmed if it is the one doing the penetration, correct?

 

[mavs]

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?

It is assumed in the legal system that affords them all the rights that a human is entitled to, because we simply do not know if they are in line for a miraculous recovery. A cynical person might say that everyone involved in the care of a person with no hope of recovery is in CYA mode, which means you do everything possible to keep the last remaining people who care happy, so they don't come after you.

 

[Uchip]

For whom? Now the animal is not being harmed if it is the one doing the penetration, correct?

for the person obviously
ive stopped taking this seriously, as there is no point discussing this with moral nihilists

 

[Vermillion]

for the person obviously
ive stopped taking this seriously, as there is no point discussing this with moral nihilists

Meh, assume, again, it's male animal on female human. Intercourse is strictly vaginal. Then what?

 

[DonMigs85]

 

[Uchip]

Meh, assume, again, it's male animal on female human. Intercourse is strictly vaginal. Then what?

if the girl has accepted the risks of both contamination and social stigma, then by all means, get done doggy style by said beast for the few seconds it would take.
and im out of this thread.

 

[Pandaman]

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.

sentient creatures moral value: 100
other animal moral value: 50
plant moral value: 10

offset of killing for food: 60
offset of forced sexual gratification: 30

where's the contradiction? we could twiddle the numbers forever, the point is allowing a sliding scale based on how an individual perceives the value and/or harm of animals and the raping/killing of animals can neatly solve the problem. I dont see why we should, as you seem to do, assume that animals and humans must be equally valuable for animals to have any moral value. it doesn't have to be black and white.

 

[TheExplodingHead]

It is assumed in the legal system that affords them all the rights that a human is entitled to, because we simply do not know if they are in line for a miraculous recovery. A cynical person might say that everyone involved in the care of a person with no hope of recovery is in CYA mode, which means you do everything possible to keep the last remaining people who care happy, so they don't come after you.

It's not assumed in the legal system or implied, it's just covered to wave any negligence and lawsuits, but I'm asking you to support your "okay to kill non sentient beings" with a consistent philosophy...not to fall back on the argument from authority. First you tell me it's wrong to kill and eat animals, citing a moral message that does not fall in line with law by and large, and then when I present a conflicting case you fall back on the law to support you. So you're still picking and choosing where you apply this philosophy, and then when something which relies on consistency comes up (like humans with PVS not being sentient), you conveniently hold up the law to say they are.

But the law in this case doesn't imply or even make the case for sentience as a reason, it makes the case for families and logistical reasons. In the very rare cases where a recovery does happen, it's just a rational for avoiding lawsuits bottom line, not a case for sentience. Sentience in itself is not even stated in the protections or laws, "rights" are different than sentience...and rarely if ever a reason for them.

 

[Vermillion]

if the girl has accepted the risks of both contamination and social stigma, then by all means, get done doggy style by said beast for the few seconds it would take.
and im out of this thread.

Well now you're being unreasonable. Certainly, there are risks, and animal sex would be stupid, but I'm questioning the notion of whether it's wrong or not. If you can't stay around to defend your beliefs, preferring to use "it's wrong" as a defense, and leave when people challenge those assumptions, then why bother entering in the first place?

At any rate, contamination is a risk of having sex without a condom (and is possible even with a condom). And social stigma isn't really a reason. Masturbation has a social stigma. Watching porn has a social stigma. And many, MANY other things have social stigmas. Yet not as much as bestiality, so... why?

 

[mavs]

It's not assumed in the legal system or implied, it's just covered to wave any negligence and lawsuits, but I'm asking you to support your "okay to kill non sentient beings" with a consistent philosophy...not to fall back on the argument from authority. First you tell me it's wrong to kill and eat animals, citing a moral message that does not fall in line with law by and large, and then when I present a conflicting case you fall back on the law to support you. So you're still picking and choosing where you apply this philosophy, and then when something which relies on consistency comes up (like humans with PVS not being sentient), you conveniently hold up the law to say they are.

But the law in this case doesn't imply or even make the case for sentience as a reason, it makes the case for families and logistical reasons. In the very rare cases where a recovery does happen, it's just a rational for avoiding lawsuits bottom line, not a case for sentience. Sentience in itself is not even stated in the protections or laws, "rights" are different than sentience...and rarely if ever a reason for them.

I said it is okay to kill non sentient beings because it causes no harm. Nobody gives a shit about a hibiscus, not even the hibiscus itself.

Did I mean it is okay to kill all plants for any reason? Mrs smith might actually care about that hibiscus. There is something called the amazon rainforest. It probably wouldn't be okay to kill every plant there either. The difference between the rainforest and a cow is that killing plants in the rainforest doesn't wrong the plants.

So yes, if you were absolutely sure that a human would never have brain activity again, its hard to imagine that you could wrong that human in any way. They ceased to exist. That doesn't mean they you can't cause harm by violating their rights, it means you harmed someone else.

 

[TheExplodingHead]

I said it is okay to kill non sentient beings because it causes no harm. Nobody gives a shit about a hibiscus, not even the hibiscus itself.

Did I mean it is okay to kill all plants for any reason? Mrs smith might actually care about that hibiscus. There is something called the amazon rainforest. It probably wouldn't be okay to kill every plant there either. The difference between the rainforest and a cow is that killing plants in the rainforest doesn't wrong the plants.

So yes, if you were absolutely sure that a human would never have brain activity again, its hard to imagine that you could wrong that human in any way. They ceased to exist. That doesn't mean they you can't cause harm by violating their rights, it means you harmed someone else.

Harm by proxy can be applied to plants/micro-organisms/insects just as well as beavers and humans, both globally and individually. Just depends on how you're willing to approach it.

But let's dig a bit deeper. You seem to have implied that the human decree to kill and eat animals as a species is flawed due to our morals/sentience/options. But would you also apply this same methodology to all aspects of the human biological mandate (reproduction, self preservation, self interest) in order for us to evolve and self diet intellectually as a species? Or is it just the "animals" you're concerned with?

 

[mavs]

Harm by proxy can be applied to plants/micro-organisms/insects just as well as beavers and humans, both globally and individually. Just depends on how you're willing to approach it.

But let's dig a bit deeper. You seem to have implied that the human decree to kill and eat animals as a species is flawed due to our morals/sentience/options. But would you also apply this same methodology to all aspects of the human biological mandate (reproduction, self preservation, self interest) in order for us to evolve and self diet intellectually as a species? Or is it just the "animals" you're concerned with?

I am concerned by the treatment of all sentient beings by humans, but mainly those that do not act aggressively towards us. For instance insects attack our food and our bodies. It doesn't say great things about us if we write them out, but if we cannot control them then it's them or us.

Not so with livestock. We control livestock.They cannot harm us and have no tendency to harm us. They are as innocent as innocent gets. No problem with that, until we kill them. I cannot reconcile the fact that humans are willing to directly inflict ultimate damage on such helpless beings with our apparently quite strong convictions that animals should be protected from harm. One of those convictions must go, and contrary to what the latecomers to this thread think I don't actually know which one.

 

[TheExplodingHead]

I am concerned by the treatment of all sentient beings by humans, but mainly those that do not act aggressively towards us. For instance insects attack our food and our bodies. It doesn't say great things about us if we write them out, but if we cannot control them then it's them or us.

Not so with livestock. We control livestock.They cannot harm us and have no tendency to harm us. They are as innocent as innocent gets. No problem with that, until we kill them. I cannot reconcile the fact that humans are willing to directly inflict ultimate damage on such helpless beings with our apparently quite strong convictions that animals should be protected from harm. One of those convictions must go, and contrary to what the latecomers to this thread think I don't actually know which one.

I used to have a lot of these similar thoughts (different areas though). And to be honest it's wishful thinking. I'm not a fan of keeping helpless animals in horrific conditions, slaughtering them brutally (yes I've seen the videos), and creating a economic environment where most people can ignore it and happily buy their meat. I wish there was a way to do more for animals, but their isn't a lot we can do in this type of forum.

And lecturing people about eating meat, becoming a vegan, etc won't work, the industry will keep going. I think while some of the moral/philosophical lessons you've noted here have value, comparing them to zoophilia isn't the way to go about it. Because their mutually exclusive, because there ARE people (myself included) who eat meat but also care a great deal about animals being treated kindly, and find zoophilia revolting. That can co-exist, you're free to think it's hypocritical if you want maybe you're right in some ways morally. But just like self preservation, self interest, reproduction, eating animals will always be a part of the human condition. For better or worse, that's what will win. But hopefully through a consistent moral message we can make headway into animal rights (in both factories and homes) while at the same time having a thriving meat market, and not fucking the goddamn chickens!

 

[boundedseven]

Interesting, I wonder what percentage is female clientele.

 

[mavs]

I used to have a lot of these similar thoughts (different areas though). And to be honest it's wishful thinking. I'm not a fan of keeping helpless animals in horrific conditions, slaughtering them brutally (yes I've seen the videos), and creating a economic environment where most people can ignore it and happily buy their meat. I wish there was a way to do more for animals, but their isn't a lot we can do in this type of forum.

And lecturing people about eating meat, becoming a vegan, etc won't work, the industry will keep going. I think while some of the moral/philosophical lessons you've noted here have value, comparing them to zoophilia isn't the way to go about it. Because their mutually exclusive, because there ARE people (myself included) who eat meat but also care a great deal about animals being treated kindly, and find zoophilia revolting. That can co-exist, you're free to think it's hypocritical if you want maybe you're right in some ways morally. But just like self preservation, self interest, reproduction, eating animals will always be a part of the human condition. For better or worse, that's what will win. But hopefully through a consistent moral message we can make headway into animal rights (in both factories and homes) while at the same time having a thriving meat market, and not fucking the goddamn chickens!

I'm only right logically, and I think it's important because these same terrible arguments pop up in other ethical controversies. My moral leaning is that animals should be respected and not treated as inferior beings, but that's not the case I was making. I only think that people should be honest when their gut reaction determines their position, and not try to package it into some fake ass enlightened argument. There are easy ways to attack animal sex, but humaneness is definitely not one of them.

 

[TheExplodingHead]

I'm only right logically, and I think it's important because these same terrible arguments pop up in other ethical controversies. My moral leaning is that animals should be respected and not treated as inferior beings, but that's not the case I was making. I only think that people should be honest when their gut reaction determines their position, and not try to package it into some fake ass enlightened argument. There are easy ways to attack animal sex, but humaneness is definitely not one of them.

Fair enough, I'd agree that "humaneness" isn't the most logical rejection of bestiality.

 

[Binabik15]

Haha, why am I not surprised that it's the Hessians? Pigfuckers, all of them /prejudiced Ba-Wü guy.

More serious, we don't have bestiality laws, but bestiality would always fall under our extensive animal cruelty laws UNLESS you have a sick judge ruling it to be non-cruel in an indicidual case.

Just like we don't have cannibalism laws, but eating a dead body is usually punishable under other laws (we had a high profile cannibalism case where our penal law was, umm, made a bit flexible to jail the guy).

 

[Shiggy]

From my personal experience, it's indeed very common in Germany. All of my friends are doing it. Be it a dog, pig, or goose - they love it. You guys heard of the Reeperbahn in Hamburg? Some brothels are already changing their business model: The first major animal brothel opened there just last October.
These days, everyone over here in Germany would be surprised if somebody told them that he/she has not had sex with animals yet.

Interesting, I wonder what percentage is female clientele.

Pretty high actually. The girls are usually taking an ox, the "wild" girls also tried a deer (though the girl, whom I know and who did it, said it was a great ride).

 

[Dresden]

From my personal experience, it's indeed very common in Germany. All of my friends are doing it. Be it a dog, pig, or goose - they love it. You guys heard of the Reeperbahn in Hamburg? Some brothels are already changing their business model: The first major animal brothel opened there just last October.
These days, everyone over here in Germany would be surprised if somebody told them that he/she has not had sex with animals yet.

dot dot dot

 

[Timedog]

From my personal experience, it's indeed very common in Germany. All of my friends are doing it. Be it a dog, pig, or goose - they love it. You guys heard of the Reeperbahn in Hamburg? Some brothels are already changing their business model: The first major animal brothel opened there just last October.
These days, everyone over here in Germany would be surprised if somebody told them that he/she has not had sex with animals yet.




Pretty high actually. The girls are usually taking an ox, the "wild" girls also tried a deer (though the girl, whom I know and who did it, said it was a great ride).

Oh no.

Oh YES.

 

[FlyingTeacup]

From my personal experience, it's indeed very common in Germany. All of my friends are doing it. Be it a dog, pig, or goose - they love it. You guys heard of the Reeperbahn in Hamburg? Some brothels are already changing their business model: The first major animal brothel opened there just last October.
These days, everyone over here in Germany would be surprised if somebody told them that he/she has not had sex with animals yet.




Pretty high actually. The girls are usually taking an ox, the "wild" girls also tried a deer (though the girl, whom I know and who did it, said it was a great ride).

what? seriously?

 

[Salvadora]

From my personal experience, it's indeed very common in Germany. All of my friends are doing it. Be it a dog, pig, or goose - they love it. You guys heard of the Reeperbahn in Hamburg? Some brothels are already changing their business model: The first major animal brothel opened there just last October.
These days, everyone over here in Germany would be surprised if somebody told them that he/she has not had sex with animals yet.




Pretty high actually. The girls are usually taking an ox, the "wild" girls also tried a deer (though the girl, whom I know and who did it, said it was a great ride).

Holy fuck.

 

[Pkaz01]

From my personal experience, it's indeed very common in Germany. All of my friends are doing it. Be it a dog, pig, or goose - they love it. You guys heard of the Reeperbahn in Hamburg? Some brothels are already changing their business model: The first major animal brothel opened there just last October.
These days, everyone over here in Germany would be surprised if somebody told them that he/she has not had sex with animals yet.




Pretty high actually. The girls are usually taking an ox, the "wild" girls also tried a deer (though the girl, whom I know and who did it, said it was a great ride).

this world is so fucked up.. a fucking ox? a goose? what the fuck?

 

[abracadaver]

Never heard of animal brothels in germany. Its not legal.
If there are any they are not public.


A quick google search brings up denmark for this kind of stuff though.

 

[OG Kush]

You guys seriously believe Shiggy? smh..

 

[Shiggy]

You guys seriously believe Shiggy? smh..

I'm a bit shocked too. Had a great laugh though

 

[Barrett2]

Martin said the current legal situation makes it too difficult for authorities to intervene – an animal has to be shown to have massive injuries before the animal protection laws prescribe action.

I guess emotional injuries don't count..

 

[BradleyUK]

There was that guy who died. He ran a ranch where he would allow people to come and get penetrated by his horses, and he would take videotape and sell it. I think he's the guy who died when a horse perforated his colon or something. I might be mixing up two separate stories though...

I have seen the video for that lol

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Anyone else find it annoying when you come back to a thread after some time to find people discussing things that were covered in the initial few pages?

I wish people would read threads before just dropping into them.

 

[Hot Coldman]

Anyone else find it annoying when you come back to a thread after some time to find people discussing things that were covered in the initial few pages?

I wish people would read threads before just dropping into them.

Discussing mr hands is never bad

 

[Des0lar]

You guys seriously believe Shiggy? smh..

hahaha for real

 

[Amibguous Cad]

sentient creatures moral value: 100
other animal moral value: 50
plant moral value: 10

offset of killing for food: 60
offset of forced sexual gratification: 30

where's the contradiction? we could twiddle the numbers forever, the point is allowing a sliding scale based on how an individual perceives the value and/or harm of animals and the raping/killing of animals can neatly solve the problem. I dont see why we should, as you seem to do, assume that animals and humans must be equally valuable for animals to have any moral value. it doesn't have to be black and white.

The offsets are factually untrue, rigged in such a way, as you have conceded, in order to justify the taboo and condone meat eating. There is not a single utility value that every instance of eating meat and every instance of zoophilia offer- it is dependent on the nature of the person harming the animal, their preferences, etc. I'm sure there are some for whom zoophilia is considerably more gratifying than my eating a steak (and also those circumstances in which the harm of eating the meat to my health is greater than the harm to someone's health of zoophilia. It's possible to be consistently paternalistic and vote for a significant curtailment of both on utilitarian grounds, but most aren't willing to bite that bullet. In any case, give that legislators and outside moralizers are ignorant of the exact value an actor attaches to each one, such behavior that harms no morally significant agent is best weighted and decided upon by the person in question). The only way in which one can sustain the argument is by claiming that rape is so significantly worse than murder in this case as to make rape worthy of social stigma, but murder legally, morally, and socially completely okay, and such an argument simply doesn't exist.

I used to have a lot of these similar thoughts (different areas though). And to be honest it's wishful thinking. I'm not a fan of keeping helpless animals in horrific conditions, slaughtering them brutally (yes I've seen the videos), and creating a economic environment where most people can ignore it and happily buy their meat. I wish there was a way to do more for animals, but their isn't a lot we can do in this type of forum.

And lecturing people about eating meat, becoming a vegan, etc won't work, the industry will keep going. I think while some of the moral/philosophical lessons you've noted here have value, comparing them to zoophilia isn't the way to go about it. Because their mutually exclusive, because there ARE people (myself included) who eat meat but also care a great deal about animals being treated kindly, and find zoophilia revolting. That can co-exist, you're free to think it's hypocritical if you want maybe you're right in some ways morally. But just like self preservation, self interest, reproduction, eating animals will always be a part of the human condition. For better or worse, that's what will win. But hopefully through a consistent moral message we can make headway into animal rights (in both factories and homes) while at the same time having a thriving meat market, and not fucking the goddamn chickens!

You're delusional. There are entire religions that demand vegetarianism from their followers, and cultures that take following that religion for granted. Don't hide your lack of moral fortitude with appeal to biological inevitability when people and cultures exist to disprove that inevitability.

 

[Des0lar]

Holy friggin shit, talking about animals and sex, has anyone here watched the Genki video on vice?

Wow, I'm completly speechless. I have never in my life seen anything like that. I didn't even know this existed.

http://www.vice.com/the-vice-guide-to-sex/genki-and-the-art-of-eel-porn

 

[Tears For Fears]

Morality is such a joke. What governs right and wrong? Humans? No, there is no such thing as morality. We have universal truths that we like to believe are the right way of doing something, but it all comes down to ones own subjective nature. Who has any right to judge others based on societal norms which are just based on global acceptence? Nothing but fucking hypocrites, I'm out, I hate this fucking forum.

 

[Onemic]

Morality is such a joke. What governs right and wrong? Humans? No, there is no such thing as morality. We have universal truths that we like to believe are the right way of doing something, but it all comes down to ones own subjective nature. Who has any right to judge others based on societal norms which are just based on global acceptence? Nothing but fucking hypocrites, I'm out, I hate this fucking forum.

So if I kill you and your entire family I guess it's not really morally wrong then?

 

[Log4Girlz]

Morality is such a joke. What governs right and wrong? Humans? No, there is no such thing as morality. We have universal truths that we like to believe are the right way of doing something, but it all comes down to ones own subjective nature. Who has any right to judge others based on societal norms which are just based on global acceptence? Nothing but fucking hypocrites, I'm out, I hate this fucking forum.

For sure... raping babies, who says that's wrong? WHO? Oh that's right, societies and cultures dictate morality, whether you like it or not.

 

[Monocle]

Morality is such a joke. What governs right and wrong? Humans? No, there is no such thing as morality. We have universal truths that we like to believe are the right way of doing something, but it all comes down to ones own subjective nature. Who has any right to judge others based on societal norms which are just based on global acceptence? Nothing but fucking hypocrites, I'm out, I hate this fucking forum.

Your continued presence in society constitutes your agreement to abide by its rules. If you don't like consensus morality, go be a hermit. I am sure there is a family of grizzly bears willing to be your friends somewhere in the noble wild.

 

[Des0lar]

Morality is such a joke. What governs right and wrong? Humans? No, there is no such thing as morality. We have universal truths that we like to believe are the right way of doing something, but it all comes down to ones own subjective nature. Who has any right to judge others based on societal norms which are just based on global acceptence? Nothing but fucking hypocrites, I'm out, I hate this fucking forum.

well yes they do. That's why we have culture and society. We always based what is right or wrong by what the general consensus was and is. I really don't get what you are saying.

 

[deejay8595]

There was that guy who died. He ran a ranch where he would allow people to come and get penetrated by his horses, and he would take videotape and sell it. I think he's the guy who died when a horse perforated his colon or something. I might be mixing up two separate stories though...

You're right. I saw the video. It's still out there now. "PLEUGHHHHH!"

 

[freenudemacusers]

Morality is such a joke. What governs right and wrong? Humans? No, there is no such thing as morality. We have universal truths that we like to believe are the right way of doing something, but it all comes down to ones own subjective nature. Who has any right to judge others based on societal norms which are just based on global acceptence? Nothing but fucking hypocrites, I'm out, I hate this fucking forum.

oh no, the guy who hates humans is leaving.

All of my life, with good reason though. I hate humans, but some how this approach does not seem to work on woman, because they always become 'interested" yeah well fuck off.

 

[Hot Coldman]

Right and wrong are human exclusive concepts too

Also get real

 

[Monocle]

You're right. I saw the video. It's still out there now. "PLEUGHHHHH!"

Is that the sound the horse made, or the guy made, or you made when you saw what the horse did to the guy?

No, I don't plan to watch the video.

 

[Des0lar]

You know you're wrong when most of GAF disagrees with you. Simple fact of life I've already learned.

 

[freenudemacusers]

Is that the sound the horse made, or the guy made, or you made when you saw what the horse did to the guy?

No, I don't plan to watch the video.

Well, according to the gentleman featured in the youtube video water wendi linked earlier, the horse.

 

[Joe Molotov]

Morality is such a joke. What governs right and wrong? Humans? No, there is no such thing as morality. We have universal truths that we like to believe are the right way of doing something, but it all comes down to ones own subjective nature. Who has any right to judge others based on societal norms which are just based on global acceptence? Nothing but fucking hypocrites, I'm out, I hate this fucking forum.

lol

 

[CHEEZMO™]

You know you're wrong when most of GAF disagrees with you. Simple fact of life I've already learned.

What a profoundly stupid thing to say.

 

[Red Liquorice]

Geese?

Who's doing what in that situation? @_@

 

[Hot Coldman]

What a profoundly stupid thing to say.

well it's probably a decent indicator that you're chatting shit if a sizable number of people feel you're chatting shit

not a guarantee but still

 

[Kinyou]

well yes they do. That's why we have culture and society. We always based what is right or wrong by what the general consensus was and is. I really don't get what you are saying.

General consensus 1 - Critical thinking 0

yay!

 

[Monocle]

What a profoundly stupid thing to say.

GAF usually doesn't pile on people unless they've made a boo-boo.