Bestiality brothels spur call for animal sex ban

Status
Not open for further replies.
apana said:
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.



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.
Click to expand...

that means some follow the religion strictly others do not. Jain do not eat meat either. My god I replied in this thread lol. I feel dirty now. Just to contribute what was the movie where the main character has sex with fish? lol that was funny.
 
Amibguous Cad said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually I stated right from the beginning that it was morally questionable.
The definition of morality assumes a societal consensus, and as such, im not wrong.

You explicitly stated that having meat as a part of your diet is no different to zoophilia or animal abuse, and you need to explain why.
Being a vegetarian does not give you any kind of moral high ground.

Amibguous Cad said:
I am stunned by the revelation that bestiality is considered outside the realm ofacceptable moral behavior in the modern west.
Click to expand...

So you are all for bestiality then?
 
mavs said:
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.
Click to expand...

Killing sentient beings as a necessity for survival is a pointless topic to argue upon. Yes humans are omnivores, yes plant-only consumption can produce similar benefits as meat-only consumption. However the human body is tailored to a diet tailored to both types of consumption. On a biological level restricting oneself to only one type of consumption is impractical and unviable compared to regular omnivore consumption.

As long as the above is true, society will always eat meat, society will always eat plants. This is why we go to McDonalds and order french fries with our damn hamburger, omnivore consumption.
 
AnathemicOne said:
Killing sentient beings as a necessity for survival is a pointless topic to argue upon. Yes humans are omnivores, yes plant-only consumption can produce similar benefits as meat-only consumption. However the human body is tailored to a diet tailored to both types of consumption. On a biological level restricting oneself to only one type of consumption is impractical and unviable compared to regular omnivore consumption.

As long as the above is true, society will always eat meat, society will always eat plants. This is why we go to McDonalds and order french fries with our damn hamburger, omnivore consumption.
Click to expand...

More like best and tastiest consumption.

Damn herbivores and carnivores. They don't know what they're missing out on.
 
Good Job Bob said:
Animals aren't sentient beings.
Click to expand...

Source?

AnathemicOne said:
Killing sentient beings as a necessity for survival is a pointless topic to argue upon. Yes humans are omnivores, yes plant-only consumption can produce similar benefits as meat-only consumption. However the human body is tailored to a diet tailored to both types of consumption. On a biological level restricting oneself to only one type of consumption is impractical and unviable compared to regular omnivore consumption.

As long as the above is true, society will always eat meat, society will always eat plants. This is why we go to McDonalds and order french fries with our damn hamburger, omnivore consumption.
Click to expand...

I'm really shocked that this argument ever comes up. It's not difficult for humans to survive without any meat. Many people around the world live on that diet involuntarily, and in rich countries people have no trouble coming up with much better meatless diets because there is simply so much variety in food for the wealthy.
 
mavs said:
I'm really shocked that this argument ever comes up. It's not difficult for humans to survive without any meat. Many people around the world live on that diet involuntarily, and in rich countries people have no trouble coming up with much better meatless diets because there is simply so much variety in food for the wealthy.
Click to expand...

Again, on a biological level restricting oneself to only one type of consumption is unviable and impractical. The proof is in your damn teeth.

And also note I didn't say meat>plant or plant>meat, I said omni>plant only; omni>meat only.
 
AnathemicOne said:
Again, on a biological level restricting oneself to only one type of consumption is unviable and impractical. The proof is in your damn teeth.

And also note I didn't say meat>plant or plant>meat, I said omni>plant only; omni>meat only.
Click to expand...

When you say unviable I am taking that to mean that humans cannot survive on that diet, so you are really going to have to elaborate if you don't want to say something that is empirically false.
 
The law in California is interesting. First off, it only protects domesticated animals that are owned or housed by someone. Wild animals are fair game under this law. Normally the hazards of attempting such a thing would serve as an adequate deterrent, but this phrasing would also seem to protect someone who had sex with the dead carcass of a wild animal he had found. No legal problem with this, since it wasn't owned by anyone.

The other wrinkle is that it's only illegal if it's done for the purposes of gratifying the human. If a dog mounts you of his own volition, you're permitted (if we interpret the law at face value) to accept his advances and gratify him. Presumably, you could also make a case for a female animal that was in heat and begging for action that couldn't be conveniently provided by a male of the species. If you hump a pony purely to get your rocks off, that's when it becomes an illegal act.
 
mavs said:
When you say unviable I am taking that to mean that humans cannot survive on that diet, so you are really going to have to elaborate if you don't want to say something that is empirically false.
Click to expand...

My mistake, we'll just stick with impractical then.

Back to the point, in a world where it is in the nature of an animal to eat another animal or an animal to eat a plant why would humans, as a species, restrict themselves willingly to a diet that goes against what their body is naturally suited for IE their nature?

Yes one can live off a plant-only diet, the ominivore diet is still superior in everyway and modern society supports it. What I'm getting here is that you want the omnivore diet to be restricted (maybe to the point of being outright banned) on the levels of moral ground, which quite frankly is already a glass surface to begin with.
 
AnathemicOne said:
My mistake, we'll just stick with impractical then.

Back to the point, in a world where it is in the nature of an animal to eat another animal or an animal to eat a plant why would humans, as a species, restrict themselves willingly to a diet that goes against what their body is naturally suited for IE their nature?

Yes one can live off a plant-only diet, the ominivore diet is still superior in everyway and modern society supports it. What I'm getting here is that you want the omnivore diet to be restricted (maybe to the point of being outright banned) on the levels of moral ground, which quite frankly is already a glass surface to begin with.
Click to expand...

You've misunderstood my argument. I mean that you can care about animal welfare, in which case you don't eat meat. Or you can acknowledge your cruelty to animals, and do nothing to correct your own flaws (but as this thread shows raise bloody hell about others'.) Or you can admit that you don't care what fate animals face, after all they are not humans.

Edit: The point being that any other position is inconsistent, and indefensible. Indefensible arguments can be powerful, witness anti-gay attitudes. But I believe that have a limited lifespan, and anyone who is invested in their position should worry about that.
 
mavs said:
You've misunderstood my argument. I mean that you can care about animal welfare, in which case you don't eat meat. Or you can acknowledge your cruelty to animals, and do nothing to correct your own flaws (but as this thread shows raise bloody hell about others'.) Or you can admit that you don't care what fate animals face, after all they are not humans.

Edit: The point being that any other position is inconsistent, and indefensible. Indefensible arguments can be powerful, witness anti-gay attitudes. But I believe that have a limited lifespan, and anyone who is invested in their position should worry about that.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why so many people in this thread are trying so hard to make this a black or white issue. Life is inconsistent, deal with it.
 
mavs said:
You've misunderstood my argument. I mean that you can care about animal welfare, in which case you don't eat meat. Or you can acknowledge your cruelty to animals, and do nothing to correct your own flaws (but as this thread shows raise bloody hell about others'.) Or you can admit that you don't care what fate animals face, after all they are not humans.

Edit: The point being that any other position is inconsistent, and indefensible. Indefensible arguments can be powerful, witness anti-gay attitudes. But I believe that have a limited lifespan, and anyone who is invested in their position should worry about that.
Click to expand...

It is nice to stray away from hypocrisy, in fact I desire every person (myself included) to always strive to do so.

Unfortunately it is realistically impossible due to many obvious and many not so obvious factors. I think a majority population of a given group would be against animal cruelty, but at the same time consume meat. Sure it's hypocritical but we're just going have to deal with it. And I say we make progress in that it is commonplace that we only consume certain domesticated animals instead of any random animal off the street be it domesticated or not (like consuming a random dog or cat).

Tarazet said:
I don't understand why so many people in this thread are trying so hard to make this a black or white issue. Life is inconsistent, deal with it.
Click to expand...

Truth.
 
You can eat animals and not be cruel to them. Previous cultures did this pretty easily.

Sure the 'meat is murder' crowd might disagree, but if we were herbivores instead of omnivores, we wouldn't have made it this far.


Anyway, comparing eating a hamburger with fucking one? I don't really see the sense in that. Their life energy is what sustains us, and frankly, eating a ton of plant protein to try to compensate for not eating meat, also doesn't make sense to me.
 
Tarazet said:
I don't understand why so many people in this thread are trying so hard to make this a black or white issue. Life is inconsistent, deal with it.
Click to expand...

People are inconsistent. This is a failing on their part. They can either persist in error and accept their faultiness, or strive to improve.
 
So how does the conversation go where you explain to your mother that you've been jerking off her dog when she's out of town.
 
Amibguous Cad said:
People are inconsistent. This is a failing on their part. They can either persist in error and accept their faultiness, or strive to improve.
Click to expand...

Don't you think we need to formulate a consistent human morality that we follow consistently before we extend it to animals.

I'm not really following your whole "killing animals = bad", what about killing plants? How about insects? Is it okay to deprive insects and plants of their right to live, shouldn't we be engineering our own lab grown nutrient shakes so we can sit pretty knowing we're morally consistent about murder and treatment of animals?

Where does the line get drawn in your view?
 
Amibguous Cad said:
People are inconsistent. This is a failing on their part. They can either persist in error and accept their faultiness, or strive to improve.
Click to expand...

There's a saying, what was it...

"We're only human"

Inconsistency is part of our species. Again it is nice to strive not to be hypocritical (consistent) but it's realistically impossible.
 
I think I'd have to oppose criminalizing zoophilia. Don't see a compelling state interest. If someone wants to risk death by horse cock then by all means go for it, it ain't any business of mine.
 
Ignis Fatuus said:
I think I'd have to oppose criminalizing zoophilia. Don't see a compelling state interest. If someone wants to risk death by horse cock then by all means go for it, it ain't any business of mine.
Click to expand...

but what if some farmer gets down with a cow, and then later the cow is processed for consumption? o_O
 
Tarazet said:
I don't understand why so many people in this thread are trying so hard to make this a black or white issue. Life is inconsistent, deal with it.
Click to expand...

Inconsistent arguments do not last. If you don't want animals to be fucked by people then:

Stop eating animals or,

Have another argument for when yours no longer works.

If you don't care enough about your argument to make it consistent there's no reason anyone else will care either.
 
DCxTL.gif

.
 
mavs said:
Inconsistent arguments do not last. If you don't want animals to be fucked by people then:

Stop eating animals or,

Have another argument for when yours no longer works.

If you don't care enough about your argument to make it consistent there's no reason anyone else will care either.
Click to expand...

Having sexual intercourse with an animal has nothing to do with slaughtering/eating them. By that "logic" we should demand the state stop putting people to death, or, don't complain about rape. It makes no sense. I understand the fallacy of accepting horrid abuse of animal in slaughterhouses, and then bitching about zoophilia. But the two acts are mutually exclusive, how can you not see this?
 
mavs said:
Inconsistent arguments do not last. If you don't want animals to be fucked by people then:

Stop eating animals or,

Have another argument for when yours no longer works.

If you don't care enough about your argument to make it consistent there's no reason anyone else will care either.
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with supporting animal welfare and practicing a healthy omnivore diet. I have a puppy, I eat meat on a daily basis, does that mean I'm going to eat my puppy? No, of course not.

Again, we have progressed to the point that we no longer kill random animals "just 'cause we like meat." We have wildlife parks, poaching laws/bans, animal welfare programs, etc. And I guarantee you a good number people that have worked on/working on those programs consume meat too.
 
AnathemicOne said:
I have a puppy, I eat meat on a daily basis
Click to expand...

our pets need meat more than we do
I wonder if owning pets angers hardened vegetarians

really, you are supporting the meat industry by owning a cat/dog
and im curious as to if people like ambiguous cad own some
 
TheExplodingHead said:
Having sexual intercourse with an animal has nothing to do with slaughtering/eating them. By that "logic" we should demand the state stop putting people to death, or, don't complain about rape. It makes no sense. I understand the fallacy of accepting horrid abuse of animal in slaughterhouses, and then bitching about zoophilia. But the two acts are mutually exclusive, how can you not see this?
Click to expand...

I should think that if you were in favor of putting innocents to death for your own material gain, you would have little ground to stand on for opposing rape. Do you have a problem with that reasoning?

AnathemicOne said:
There is nothing wrong with supporting animal welfare and practicing a healthy omnivore diet. I have a puppy, I eat meat on a daily basis, does that mean I'm going to eat my puppy? No, of course not.

Again, we have progressed to the point that we no longer kill random animals "just 'cause we like meat." We have wildlife parks, poaching laws/bans, animal welfare programs, etc. And I guarantee you a good number people that have worked on/working on those programs consume meat too.
Click to expand...

You won't eat or have sex with your puppy. That's one safe animal. But you will eat a cow, or presumably some animal yes? Is having sex with you or someone else a fate worse than death? If not, how can you say you support animal welfare without qualifying that statement so thoroughly you may as well have stated its negation? I just don't get how people can accept animal killing as consistent with animal welfare.
 
mavs said:
You won't eat or have sex with your puppy. That's one safe animal. But you will eat a cow, or presumably some animal yes? Is having sex with you or someone else a fate worse than death? If not, how can you say you support animal welfare without qualifying that statement so thoroughly you may as well have stated its negation? I just don't get how people can accept animal killing as consistent with animal welfare.
Click to expand...

Yes I would, because I practice a healthy omnivore diet and have no desire to willingly restrict myself from practicing it.

Again this practice is done because my body is biologically attuned for it, just like everyone else's bodies are. Is my body attuned to have sex with an animal, do I have a biological need for it? No I do not and no one else does either.

Comparing the practice of a healthy diet to inter-species sexual intercourse and deeming both similar is a very large blanket statement.

Again, I guarantee a large amount of people who work in animal-welfare programs consume meat. Are you going to call of them hypocrites and state that they are inconsistent and don't deserve to work at what they do?

And what is the difference between me, being a human, part of a species of this planet, eating meat compared to another animal that eats meat?
 
mavs said:
I should think that if you were in favor of putting innocents to death for your own material gain, you would have little ground to stand on for opposing rape. Do you have a problem with that reasoning?
Click to expand...

I have no problem with that reasoning, I'm against any death penalty. Still not following your "logic" though, so let's see how consistent you are. Do you extend plants and insects the same "rights" as you do cows and chickens? Or are you selective with your "logic", which means it's anything but consistent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

LTTP : Animal Kingdom (TNT TV series)
2
14
Giallo Corsa replied
Major Reddit Forums Ban X Links
News  2 3 4 5
213
13K
Bitmap Frogs replied
  • Locked
Kanye West Accuses The Kardashians of ‘Sex Trafficking Black Children’
Clickbait 
24
1K
Days like these... replied
  • Locked
UK Supreme Court rules legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex
2
62
2K
jason10mm replied
What is the best animes for adults
2 3
102
5K
rubik's dude replied
Top Bottom