Support NeoGAF

[Alligatorjandro]

What is wrong with people?

 

[CorvoSol]

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?



You're spot on about this, though.

How in the world does the existence of a vegetarian disprove the fact that man is not a herbivore? If man is a herbivore, why does he have teeth made for tearing meat. Man needs protein to survive, and his primary source of protein is meat. How does this surprise anyone? Is it wrong for a bird to eat a worm? Is it wrong for a cat to eat a mouse? Is it wrong for a bear to eat fish?

Why, then, is it wrong for a man to eat meat, if he, like the animals listed, is doing it to survive?

And on the subject of vegetarians, please be more specific. Do you mean the saps who eat fish by saying it isn't meat, or are we talking "vegans who never ingest the flesh of animals?"

And while we're on the subject, why is eating an animal less wrong than eating a plant, save it be that fauna is more intelligent than flora? I need both to survive, and both are alive. I will kill what I must to sustain myself.

 

[Uchip]

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.

you could argue that nothing in life is unnatural, but for the sake of the argument we are talking about the moral implications.

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.

if your brain is wired to be attracted to the wrong species, then you are quite obviously incorrectly formed genetically. Id wager that most of the people that screw with animals have some kind of mental illness. Specifically in the first world nations such as Germany.

 

[SapientWolf]

neither does homosexuality?

That point is debatable because of how selfish genes work.

I'm going to make the argument less general by saying that healthy human romantic relationships bring benefits to society regardless of the gender involved, while inter-species ones tend to harm everyone involved to some degree.

So I'll couch the original argument as a utilitarian argument. Boning pigeons has no utility to society. Eating nutritious meat does. It can make people strong, healthy and hardy. And if those arguments seem too thin to some people and it appears that society is making rules against bestiality based on disgust rather than morality then I'm okay with that.

 

[mavs]

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.

They're called Hindus man. I don't think they'd appreciate you calling them strange (though I don't think they'd get that worked up about it.)

A human does not need to ingest a single microgram of animal flesh to survive. We are able to eat meat because it vastly improved our ancestors chances of survival to be able to get nutrition from as many sources as we could find. But today we don't live in a world where nutrition is scarce. At least, most of us don't, and those who do live in that world do not even have access to meat.

And while we're on the subject, why is eating an animal less wrong than eating a plant, save it be that fauna is more intelligent than flora? I need both to survive, and both are alive. I will kill what I must to sustain myself.

Until we discover that plants are self aware (entirely possible given our lack of knowledge of thought), we can't ascribe any motivation to a plant. A plant should be as neutral to its existence as a rock if that is the case. As we are animals ourselves, we know it is likely that animals are different from plants and inanimate objects.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

That point is debatable because of how selfish genes work.

I'm going to make the argument less general by saying that healthy human romantic relationships bring benefits to society regardless of the gender involved, while inter-species ones tend to harm everyone involved to some degree.

So I'll couch the original argument as a utilitarian argument. Boning pigeons has no utility to society. Eating nutritious meat does. It can make people strong, healthy and hardy. And if those arguments seem too thin to some people and it appears that society is making rules against bestiality based on disgust rather than morality then I'm okay with that.

You see absolutely nothing wrong with the abandonment of pursuit of truth in constructing moral precepts? You see nothing at stake in condemning people to imprisonment for decades on the basis of a subjective, idiosyncratic reaction contingent upon cultural factors,and that has catastrophically misled us in recent history?

 

[Kinyou]

So I'll couch the original argument as a utilitarian argument. Boning pigeons has no utility to society. Eating nutritious meat does. It can make people strong, healthy and hardy. And if those arguments seem too thin to some people and it appears that society is making rules against bestiality based on disgust rather than morality then I'm okay with that.

Well the problem is that we actually don't know enough about this to really know what use it could have. Maybe boning pigeons would relieve pedophiles of their desires? lol

 

[CorvoSol]

They're called Hindus man. I don't think they'd appreciate you calling them strange (though I don't think they'd get that worked up about it.)

A human does not need to ingest a single microgram of animal flesh to survive. We are able to eat meat because it vastly improved our ancestors chances of survival to be able to get nutrition from as many sources as we could find. But today we don't live in a world where nutrition is scarce. At least, most of us don't, and those who do live in that world do not even have access to meat.



Until we discover that plants are self aware (entirely possible given our lack of knowledge of thought), we can't ascribe any motivation to a plant. A plant should be as neutral to its existence as a rock if that is the case. As we are animals ourselves, we know it is likely that animals are different from plants and inanimate objects.

Oh, WHAT. Hindus eat meat, dude. They just don't eat beef. Some hold it as an ideal, but by and large, they still involve the consumption of animals.

And I love your argument for eating plants is weightless. "I can't tell if a plant thinks so it's okay to eat it!" By the same standard, anything I can't tell if it thinks or not, I am allowed to eat. That's a slippery slope if ever I slid down one.

That said, my point is proven already: Man eats meat because he must, or out of necessity. There is nothing to suggest that man stands to gain from sex with an animal.

 

[sk3]

What is wrong with people?

Everything.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

That poodle story made me go check the aforementioned bitchsex guide to see if it had anything to say.

WHAT ABOUT DOG SIZE?

For bitches, size does matter. For vaginal contact nothing smaller than an Australian shepherd should have sexual contact with humans. Some select medium breeds can have human intercourse, but it is suggested that large and giant breeds are more suited to take human sizes.

Sounds like that guy didn't really care for his dog's wellbeing.

 

[les papillons sexuels]

That point is debatable because of how selfish genes work.

I'm going to make the argument less general by saying that healthy human romantic relationships bring benefits to society regardless of the gender involved, while inter-species ones tend to harm everyone involved to some degree.

So I'll couch the original argument as a utilitarian argument. Boning pigeons has no utility to society. Eating nutritious meat does. It can make people strong, healthy and hardy. And if those arguments seem too thin to some people and it appears that society is making rules against bestiality based on disgust rather than morality then I'm okay with that.

one could argue that sexual relationships with animals develop a stronger bond between them, making those human partners more empathatic to our actions on those species enviroments. Us caring more about the world and it's enviroment is surely a benifit?

To be honest, you just made a blanket statement and I felt the need to point out the similarities you have versus views of people decades ago towards homosexuality.

Maybe we need to study beastiality more? maybe we need to find why these type of philia/fetishes, be them bestiality, necro, pedo, homosexuality, and the various fetishes etc have formed and look for a more underlying issue than just the base act?

 

[C.Dark.DN]

one could argue that sexual relationships with animals develop a stronger bond between them, making those human partners more empathatic to our actions on those species enviroments. Us caring more about the world and it's enviroment is surely a benifit?

No, not really.

You can develop a strong bond without sex. Hence having pets. You take care of them like children.

And I highly doubt having sex with your human children make your bond stronger... it's fucked up and having sex with animals is fucked up.

 

[Uchip]

You can develop a strong bong without sex.

I bet you can

 

[SapientWolf]

one could argue that sexual relationships with animals develop a stronger bond between them, making those human partners more empathatic to our actions on those species enviroments. Us caring more about the world and it's enviroment is surely a benifit?

To be honest, you just made a blanket statement and I felt the need to point out the similarities you have versus views of people decades ago towards homosexuality.

Maybe we need to study beastiality more? maybe we need to find why these type of philia/fetishes, be them bestiality, necro, pedo, homosexuality, and the various fetishes etc have formed and look for a more underlying issue than just the base act?

The potential for animal abuse and sexual coercion is too great, and the human-animal bond is already close enough without resorting to fucking ducks.

I don't think this issue needs any more philosophizing or research. People can't win that argument by drawing shallow (and frankly offensive) links to homosexuality.

 

[mavs]

Oh, WHAT. Hindus eat meat, dude. They just don't eat beef.

And I love your argument for eating plants is weightless. "I can't tell if a plant thinks so it's okay to eat it!"

No, they don't eat meat. Some Hindus do. The family I know does not eat meat. They do not eat anything derived from dead animals or that may contain dead animals. That means they don't eat skittles because they contain dead insect parts. They don't eat jello or anything that contains gelatin. They don't eat eggs (they consider them flesh.)

Actually, according to our knowledge of thought, we are about as sure that plants don't think as we are sure that mountains don't think. Hence it's OK to mine coal and eat plants. That's weightless to you?

 

[RiZ III]

The end is nigh..poor animals T_T

 

[les papillons sexuels]

The potential for animal abuse and sexual coercion is too great, and the human-animal bond is already close enough without resorting to fucking ducks.

I don't think this issue needs any more philosophizing or research. People can't win that argument by drawing shallow (and frankly offensive) links to homosexuality.

I myself am gay, have been in a long term relationship with my boyfriend for 7 years.

I was just pointing out how flawed your arguments were and how much they resemble arguments made towards homosexual relationships in previous decades. I could care less about what people shove in their bodies, as long as no harm is being doen to either party then I personally can't be the one to create a demarcation between right and wrong.

I disagree completely with pedophilia, rape, etc because it's one party acting upon the other without conscent. I also disagree with forcing a loved one into performing sexual acts, like dressing up like a clown, because, well i think that's just fucked up.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

you could argue that nothing in life is unnatural, but for the sake of the argument we are talking about the moral implications.

That's exactly what I'm arguing, that nothing in life is unnatural. I further assert that even if the distinction had validity, it would in no way bear on morality. As proof, I offer that things that nearly everyone agrees are immoral- rape, for one- fits nearly everyone's definition of natural, in that it is both genetically adaptive and occurs a significant amount in nature.

if your brain is wired to be attracted to the wrong species, then you are quite obviously incorrectly formed genetically. Id wager that most of the people that screw with animals have some kind of mental illness. Specifically in the first world nations such as Germany.

What does it mean to be incorrectly formed genetically? If it is accurate to say that it's a genetic anomaly, how does this bear on the morality of the action?

Oh, WHAT. Hindus eat meat, dude. They just don't eat beef. Some hold it as an ideal, but by and large, they still involve the consumption of animals.

And I love your argument for eating plants is weightless. "I can't tell if a plant thinks so it's okay to eat it!" By the same standard, anything I can't tell if it thinks or not, I am allowed to eat. That's a slippery slope if ever I slid down one.

That said, my point is proven already: Man eats meat because he must, or out of necessity. There is nothing to suggest that man stands to gain from sex with an animal.

How can something be a necessity if there is an alternative that suffices to sustain life?

How in the world does the existence of a vegetarian disprove the fact that man is not a herbivore? If man is a herbivore, why does he have teeth made for tearing meat. Man needs protein to survive, and his primary source of protein is meat. How does this surprise anyone? Is it wrong for a bird to eat a worm? Is it wrong for a cat to eat a mouse? Is it wrong for a bear to eat fish?

Why, then, is it wrong for a man to eat meat, if he, like the animals listed, is doing it to survive?

And on the subject of vegetarians, please be more specific. Do you mean the saps who eat fish by saying it isn't meat, or are we talking "vegans who never ingest the flesh of animals?"

The existence of a vegetarian proves that man is not eating meat "in order to survive." Survival is clearly possible without eating meat. Therefore, it is not a necessity. Therefore, it is a choice, not something forced upon us by circumstance.

And while we're on the subject, why is eating an animal less wrong than eating a plant, save it be that fauna is more intelligent than flora? I need both to survive, and both are alive. I will kill what I must to sustain myself.

The argument generally goes something like, "animals are capable of feeling pain; plants aren't."

 

[mavs]

That said, my point is proven already: Man eats meat because he must, or out of necessity. There is nothing to suggest that man stands to gain from sex with an animal.

Man does not need to eat meat. There is no necessity in it. Man eats meat because he wants to, he is accustomed to it, and it is available. And perhaps he does not know how to live without it, but these days we have things like the internet and books that can teach man to live without it.

We eat meat because we like it. Well, that's a justification that works for...lots of things.

 

[Devolution]

I myself am gay, have been in a long term relationship with my boyfriend for 7 years.

I was just pointing out how flawed your arguments were and how much they resemble arguments made towards homosexual relationships in previous decades. I could care less about what people shove in their bodies, as long as no harm is being doen to either party then I personally can't be the one to create a demarcation between right and wrong.

I disagree completely with pedophilia, rape, etc because it's one party acting upon the other without conscent. I also disagree with forcing a loved one into performing sexual acts, like dressing up like a clown, because, well i think that's just fucked up.

Homosexuals can consent. Can animals consent?

That's the real argument to be made rather than this moral objectivism crap.

 

[AnathemicOne]

Man eats meat because our body is tailored to eat meat. Why else would we have teeth (canines) that specialize in the tearing of flesh?

The same goes for plants, man also has teeth specialized in the grinding and mashing of plant-like substances (molars).

Why are we still having this damn argument?

 

[apana]

No, they don't eat meat. Some Hindus do. The family I know does not eat meat. They do not eat anything derived from dead animals or that may contain dead animals. That means they don't eat skittles because they contain dead insect parts. They don't eat jello or anything that contains gelatin. They don't eat eggs (they consider them flesh.)

Actually, according to our knowledge of thought, we are about as sure that plants don't think as we are sure that mountains don't think. Hence it's OK to mine coal and eat plants. That's weightless to you?

Not sure I understand how those two ideas fit together. Some hindus eat meat and some do not. It is probably a religous ideal but not a strict necessity outside of beef.

Man does not need to eat meat. There is no necessity in it. Man eats meat because he wants to, he is accustomed to it, and it is available. And perhaps he does not know how to live without it, but these days we have things like the internet and books that can teach man to live without it.

We eat meat because we like it. Well, that's a justification that works for...lots of things.

Human are omnivores. Under ideal conditions we could survive without meat but in principle our diet conists of both animal and plant life. It is natural for humans to eat meat.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

Man eats meat because our body is tailored to eat meat. Why else would we have teeth (canines) that specialize in the tearing of flesh?

The same goes for plants, man also has teeth specialized in the grinding and mashing of plant-like substances (molars).

Why are we still having this damn argument?

Because having genetically endowed faculties to commit immoral actions does not make those actions moral.

Homosexuals can consent. Can animals consent?

That's the real argument to be made rather than this moral objectivism crap.

Your hostility to moral objectivism (if I am understanding the term the way you're using it correctly) is belied by your appeal to it in trying to form a rational moral argument to justify your unexamined and unjustifiable taboos. Once you're in that domain, you've already conceded that you can't compete. In this case, while it is clear that animals are incapable of consenting to sexual activity, it is also clear that animals do not consent to being slaughtered (or, if you like, are incapable of doing so), and therefore the only way to rationally maintain your objection is to give up eating meat.

Human are omnivores. Under ideal conditions we could survive without meat but in principle our diet conists of both animal and plant life. It is natural for humans to eat meat.

How do we determine what is natural? Once we figure that out, why does the naturalness of an act make it moral? What of natural acts that we nearly unanimously condemn as immoral?

There's a reason why no one has been able to answer these questions. They have no answer. The distinction is logically meaningless, and no argument exists for their having a relation to morality even if it did have logical content. If you are committed to truth, and if you care about constructing morality in such a way as is in accord with reality, you will stop proffering the argument.

 

[Slayven]

Wow killing an animal for food = keeping it around as a sexual aid.

 

[Jill Sandwich]

I Love Horses!

 

[Uchip]

What does it mean to be incorrectly formed genetically? If it is accurate to say that it's a genetic anomaly, how does this bear on the morality of the action?

if you have a predisposition toward harming lesser creatures for sexual gratification and act on it, you are not acting within acceptable moral behavior in our society.

we aren't arguing whether or not something can occur in nature, we are arguing whether or not it is an acceptable act, which you related it to being akin to eating meat, and im calling you out on that because it made very little sense.

 

[AnathemicOne]

Because having genetically endowed faculties to commit immoral actions does not make those actions moral.

And why is morality brought up at all in this argument? Is the eating of animal flesh immoral? I think not as the vast majority of modern society practice the activity on a regular basis. Even those opposed to it (vegetarians/vegans) have acknowledged the fact that the majority does so.

On another note, what dictates what's moral or not? Why the hell are we having an argument on the supposed morality of consuming fried chicken?

 

[bigboss370]

Because having genetically endowed faculties to commit immoral actions does not make those actions moral.

what le fuk?
are you saying humans eating meat is immoral?

sex with animals was being increasingly seen as a lifestyle choice, and thus more acceptable.

 

[speculawyer]

Spinal Tap - Sex Farm is relevant to drop here.

 

[freenudemacusers]

Spinal Tap - Sex Farm is relevant to drop here.

Gwar, Fucking an Animal

 

[C.Dark.DN]

I'm glad it's illegal in 34 US states. Half have it as a felony. Just need the 16 without any laws and the 17 with it as a misdemeanor to make it a felony.

Canada, Australia, are superior in this department with it illegal. I think UK as well.

 

[mavs]

Not sure I understand how those two ideas fit together. Some hindus eat meat and some do not. It is probably a religous ideal but not a strict necessity outside of beef.

It's probably not a strict necessity to abide by the judgement of the Pope. Except for, well you know, that one religion. It's religion man. People have different ideas about what's necessary.

Human are omnivores. Under ideal conditions we could survive without meat but in principle our diet conists of both animal and plant life. It is natural for humans to eat meat.

It is natural for humans to do many things that are harmful or socially unacceptable. Personally I think humans will naturally cease to consume dead animals, and probably eventually all life grown in a natural environment.

And why is morality brought up at all in this argument? Is the eating of animal flesh immoral? I think not as the vast majority of modern society practice the activity on a regular basis. Even those opposed to it (vegetarians/vegans) have acknowledged the fact that the majority does so.

On another note, what dictates what's moral or not? Why the hell are we having an argument on the supposed morality of consuming fried chicken?

Why are we having a debate about the harm of fucking animals? Come on dude.

 

[Zaptruder]

Homosexuals can consent. Can animals consent?

That's the real argument to be made rather than this moral objectivism crap.

Can animals consent to anything we do to them?

I can understand people's objections to bestiality... but let's recognize it for the emotional objection that it is, and not pretend that it's the height of rationality.

There are rational objections related to animal fucking - including the spread of disease. But the rights of animals is a tenuous one to cite unless you can properly differentiate between how been beasts of burden, pleasure, or been our meat is entirely different; why some of it requires 'consent' and some it does not... and do so without resorting to anthropormophic empathy.

 

[Xenon]

Spoiler

j/k thats nasty

 

[virtuoso88]

Homosexuals can consent. Can animals consent?

Can't animals consent if they engage? My dog use to try to hump anything he could til he was neutered.

 

[C.Dark.DN]

Can animals consent to anything we do to them?

I can understand people's objections to bestiality... but let's recognize it for the emotional objection that it is, and not pretend that it's the height of rationality.

There are rational objections related to animal fucking - including the spread of disease. But the rights of animals is a tenuous one to cite unless you can properly differentiate between how been beasts of burden, pleasure, or been our meat is entirely different; why some of it requires 'consent' and some it does not... and do so without resorting to anthropormophic empathy.

Being against animal cruelty/abuse is quite rational.

Just because I eat some animals doesn't mean all should be subjected to cruelty/abuse/rape. Also rational.

 

[CrazyDogg77]

Can't animals consent if they engage? My dog use to try to hump anything he could til he was neutered.

That's not consent that's just being a dog.

 

[mavs]

Can't animals consent if they engage? My dog use to try to hump anything he could til he was neutered.

Yet another things animals don't consent to. We'll just cut your balls off boy. Humans roll like that, it's how nature made us.

 

[Zaptruder]

Because having genetically endowed faculties to commit immoral actions does not make those actions moral.




Your hostility to moral objectivism (if I am understanding the term the way you're using it correctly) is belied by your appeal to it in trying to form a rational moral argument to justify your unexamined and unjustifiable taboos. Once you're in that domain, you've already conceded that you can't compete. In this case, while it is clear that animals are incapable of consenting to sexual activity, it is also clear that animals do not consent to being slaughtered (or, if you like, are incapable of doing so), and therefore the only way to rationally maintain your objection is to give up eating meat.




How do we determine what is natural? Once we figure that out, why does the naturalness of an act make it moral? What of natural acts that we nearly unanimously condemn as immoral?

There's a reason why no one has been able to answer these questions. They have no answer. The distinction is logically meaningless, and no argument exists for their having a relation to morality even if it did have logical content. If you are committed to truth, and if you care about constructing morality in such a way as is in accord with reality, you will stop proffering the argument.

How do I make the logical distinction? My morality extends only to human beings. Sure, it'd be nice if I'd extend it to all sentient creatures, but I'll be honest: It's inconvenient. It's not to say that we should do anything we damn well please to animals - but rather we should treat them humanely, in so far as the way we treat them reflects our ability to empathize, and by extension treat each other reasonably. We should maintain reasonable environments and populations of animals, so that we may preserve them for our own needs and interests.

When we get around to commercializing vat grown meat, I'd recommend it to friends, family, colleagues - for pragmatic reasons.

If we ever get to a post-scarcity environment, I'd be happy to treat animals as well as humans.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

And why is morality brought up at all in this argument? Is the eating of animal flesh immoral? I think not as the vast majority of modern society practice the activity on a regular basis. Even those opposed to it (vegetarians/vegans) have acknowledged the fact that the majority does so.

On another note, what dictates what's moral or not? Why the hell are we having an argument on the supposed morality of consuming fried chicken?

That the vast majority of modern society practices something does not make it moral. Vegetarians know very well that the majority engages in meat eating; some of them nevertheless continue to believe that

Your argument contradicts itself. At certain points of history, the vast majority of human society has, for example, practiced slavery or the subjugation of women. The vast majority of human society is now opposed to such practices. One era is correct and one is wrong. They cannot both be right, and therefore morality cannot be a mere matter of consensus.

We have these things called brains. They're pretty good at reasoning towards conclusions. We also have moral intuitions and principles. These are the starting points, the axioms, of our moral reasoning. Through examining and interrogating the results of these axioms, we can determine which axioms are internally consistent, and which are not. I know of no way to choose between two equally internally consistent moral systems, in the same way that there's no real way to determine whether Euclidean or non-Euclidean geometry is true (if "truth" is even appropriate to ascribe to such systems). I do know that it is possible to narrow the number of possibly true moral systems by determining which ones contradict themselves and therefore, by dint of their internal logic, disprove themselves.

As it turns out, most people's moral systems have disproven themselves. It would be nice if most people had moralities that at least had a chance of being correct.

what le fuk?
are you saying humans eating meat is immoral?

I am saying that the only logically consistent moralities are those opposed to both beastiality and meat eating, and those accepting of both.

if you have a predisposition toward harming lesser creatures for sexual gratification and act on it, you are not acting within acceptable moral behavior in our society.

we aren't arguing whether or not something can occur in nature, we are arguing whether or not it is an acceptable act, which you related it to being akin to eating meat, and im calling you out on that because it made very little sense.

Actually, we are arguing whether or not something can occur in nature, inasmuch as you brought up the argument that the unnaturalness of bestiality implied its morality. I will take your retreat from that line of argument as a concession, and move on from here.

I am stunned by the revelation that bestiality is considered outside the realm ofacceptable moral behavior in the modern west.

Or, y'know, I knew that, and I was making an normative claim (about the correct morality) rather than a positive one (about what the moral system most people adopt right now currently is). I will leave it to you to determine which one is more likely.

How do I make the logical distinction? My morality extends only to human beings. Sure, it'd be nice if I'd extend it to all sentient creatures, but I'll be honest: It's inconvenient. It's not to say that we should do anything we damn well please to animals - but rather we should treat them humanely, in so far as the way we treat them reflects our ability to empathize, and by extension treat each other reasonably. We should maintain reasonable environments and populations of animals, so that we may preserve them for our own needs and interests.

When we get around to commercializing vat grown meat, I'd recommend it to friends, family, colleagues - for pragmatic reasons.

If we ever get to a post-scarcity environment, I'd be happy to treat animals as well as humans.

Your opinions mirror my own. I am only arguing that the internally consistent application of such a morality is acceptance of bestiality.

 

[AnathemicOne]

Why are we having a debate about the harm of fucking animals? Come on dude.

The fact of the matter is that the consumption of animal flesh is biologically supported. As long as the human body is accustomed to consuming meat as a prime source of nutrition then the consumption of meat in modern society is not going to change.

Now on the act of engaging in sexual intercourse with an animal is something to argue about, not the damn practice of eating meat.

 

[Zaptruder]

Being against animal cruelty/abuse is quite rational.

Just because I eat some animals doesn't mean all should be subjected to cruelty/abuse/rape. Also rational.

It's only cruelty/abuse in the context of ingrained human social mores. Lets apply all these things (an animal of pleasure... of burden... and of meat) as we would to a human - rape, slavery and cannabalism.

Why do we single out one and think of the other two as 'morally acceptable acts'? Because society for some reason sees it as convenient for us to ignore the relative cruelty of the other two.


If you think that been a beast of burden isn't cruel, because such animals can develop meaningful, even loving relationships with humans... what do you think would happen for the animal that you offered sexual relief to every night?

Let us be certain about the 'moral' hangups we have about bestiality. It's a negative emotional reaction. It's disgust. Don't seek to rationalize it. Just accept it, and move on to bigger and more relevant issues.

 

[jgminto]

This thread is ridiculous. You don't have sex with animals. NO! Stop it! Don't make me get the spray bottle!

 

[mavs]

The fact of the matter is that the consumption of animal flesh is biologically supported. As long as the human body is accustomed to consuming meat as a prime source of nutrition then the consumption of meat in modern society is not going to change.

Now on the act of engaging in sexual intercourse with an animal is something to argue about, not the damn practice of eating meat.

Killing sentient beings is not something to argue about? I'm not talking about just eating an animal carcass you found somewhere, I'm talking about people defending the welfare of animals right up to the point when it becomes a minor inconvenience, and not one step further.

 

[Kusagari]

Most of the arguments in here against it suck, and some veer far to close to the same arguments made against gay sex for my liking.

I'm a meat eater, but even I agree that the 'no consent' argument seems kind of stupid when we're killing these same animals for our food.

The best argument against it is either cruelty to animals, though I'm not sure in general how you would prove this, or the disease argument.

 

[Good Job Bob]

Killing sentient beings is not something to argue about? I'm not talking about just eating an animal carcass you found somewhere, I'm talking about people defending the welfare of animals right up to the point when it becomes a minor inconvenience, and not one step further.

Animals aren't sentient beings.

 

[Joel Was Right]

I agree that there is a lack of consistency with the consent argument.

• Bestiality is immoral because animals cannot (do not) give consent.
• Slaughtering an animal without its consent to eat it is perfectly acceptable.

 

[apana]

How do we determine what is natural?

Wat? I just said that humans are omnivores. We are creatures that live off both plant and animal life.

Once we figure that out, why does the naturalness of an act make it moral?

It doesn't, but we use nature as a guide.

What of natural acts that we nearly unanimously condemn as immoral? There's a reason why no one has been able to answer these questions. They have no answer. The distinction is logically meaningless, and no argument exists for their having a relation to morality even if it did have logical content. If you are committed to truth, and if you care about constructing morality in such a way as is in accord with reality, you will stop proffering the argument.

Ultimately there needs to be a starting point for logic and morality, it can't exist in a vacuum. As humans we emphasize the needs of humanity as a whole and the rights of individual humans beings around us. Everything else follows from that. That is why we have some, on the surface, contradictory rules regarding animals. Of course you can make a case for more rights for animals and I think we may get there one day. I think we actually agree to a certain extent on the point you just made.

 

[mavs]

Animals aren't sentient beings.

I'm aware that language will not fly in the USA for many years to come, but on the off chance you live somewhere else I'd recommend you take a look at the founding treaties of the EU.

 

[YoungHav]

the way people worship dogs in the U.S. it wouldn't surprise me if it happens a lot here.