Bestiality brothels spur call for animal sex ban

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

No animal wishes to be eaten, and it will instinctively seek to avoid death, but necessarily for the food chain, it will ultimately not be able to overcome its fate. Whether it is taken down early by a predator or at the end of a long natural life is of no major consequence, because death is inevitable and is not a cause for worry provided the species can sustain itself. There are certainly more and less humane ways to keep, house and kill an animal, though. These are the shades of grey that you don't take into account.

Back on topic, almost every animal knows and embraces the act of sex. Typically they're drawn to their own species, but frankly, a dick is a dick and a hole is a hole (as long as the size is compatible). It doesn't change the experience tremendously for them if both participants aren't the same species, and I don't honestly think they mind. What can be highly problematic is if sex is tried outside the animal's natural breeding cycle. They may not be physically prepared or equipped to deal with it, and this can result in panic, injury, death. Animals have courting rituals between themselves to help signal each to each other how and when to procreate safely. A lot of so-called "zoophiles," who purport to have a relationship with animals, ignore this elaborate dance and just fuck whenever. However, if the proper care is taken to recognize the animal's signs of readiness and only act during this time, and to take the proper care afterwards (since some disease can be spread between man and beast) then I don't see where there's any real issue.
 
You can care for an animal's welfare, up until the point where you need to eat it. At which time you can kill it in a humane, and potentially pain minimizing way. I see no hypocrisy there. Most animals don't die of old age in nature.
 
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.

Each time I ask you this you come back and talk about your diet. I'm not asking what's healthy for you. I'm asking how you support killing an animal and simultaneously support the welfare of that animal. Does killing an animal not affect its welfare in your mind?

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?

Yes to inconsistent, no to not deserving their job. I'm sure there are people who help animals while eating (hurting) others, including people in this thread who oppose animal abuse in the form of bestiality. My focus is on the obstinate refusal to justify why humans are allowed to kill animals for their own gain, if they also oppose humans hurting animals to a far lesser degree for their own gain. Or at least explain how bestiality is more harmful than killing.

No animal wishes to be eaten, and it will instinctively seek to avoid death, but necessarily for the food chain, it will ultimately not be able to overcome its fate. Whether it is taken down early by a predator or at the end of a long natural life is of no major consequence, because death is inevitable and is not a cause for worry provided the species can sustain itself. There are certainly more and less humane ways to keep, house and kill an animal, though. These are the shades of grey that you don't take into account.

The inevitability of death does not excuse killing. I don't see the relevance of the rest of what you said. I certainly do see how people can be more or less humane to an animal even if they eventually kill it. I just think that killing an animal is a major detriment to its welfare, above most other offenses including sex (and not including outright torture.)
 

i0pM8bPx9fAPP.gif
 
Each time I ask you this you come back and talk about your diet. I'm not asking what's healthy for you. I'm asking how you support killing an animal and simultaneously support the welfare of that animal. Does killing an animal not affect its welfare in your mind?

I've no desire to break my practice of my diet. And quite frank when I'm hungry I don't give a damn if my hamburger came from a cow, I care on how it tastes, why? Because in the end biological need override ethical ones.

Sure there may be a few specific scenarios that override this but it is not common. And I for one am not going to start putting ethics over my biological needs every single time.

Yes to inconsistent, no to not deserving their job. I'm sure there are people who help animals while eating (hurting) others, including people in this thread who oppose animal abuse in the form of bestiality. My focus is on the obstinate refusal to justify why humans are allowed to kill animals for their own gain, if they also oppose humans hurting animals to a far lesser degree for their own gain. Or at least explain how bestiality is more harmful than killing.

Again, comparing animal consumption to inter-species sexual intercourse is a very blanket statement and it is best not to.

There's a big difference on a biological need to a fetish.
 
Again, comparing animal consumption to inter-species sexual intercourse is a very blanket statement and it is best not to.

There's a big difference on a biological need to a fetish.

I'm comparing killing to sexual intercourse. I don't see why I shouldn't compare those two. Clearly there is a difference if you hold that intercourse is harmful to the animal and killing is not. So what is the difference between killing and sex that makes killing OK?
 
I'm comparing killing to sexual intercourse. I don't see why I shouldn't compare those two. Clearly there is a difference if you hold that intercourse is harmful to the animal and killing is not. So what is the difference between killing and sex that makes killing OK?

No you are ignoring one crucial element to the "killing" part, that's consumption. To the rest of the animal kingdom killing is only done for consumption or when one is threatened. Just because I'm human and top of the food chain makes me somehow exempt from this? Fuck no.
 
I'm comparing killing to sexual intercourse. I don't see why I shouldn't compare those two. Clearly there is a difference if you hold that intercourse is harmful to the animal and killing is not. So what is the difference between killing and sex that makes killing OK?
lack of semen
 
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

I don't own a pet, but my family has in the past. I don't see any reason why you shouldn't own one. Dogs at least can survive on vegetarian pet food just fine.

http://www.google.com/products/cata...=X&ei=YxcuT7mIB4Pq2AXoktXDAQ&ved=0CIMBEPMCMAE

Anyway, I'm not actually a vegetarian. My thoughts on the matter are that non-human lives are of no moral consequence. But I recognize that the fully internally consistent application of that morality means that I cannot condemn zoophiles or animal cruelty.


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?

Yes.

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.

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?

Your body is biologically attuned to rape, and that doesn't make it moral.

The difference is that human beings are capable of moral reasoning, and in determining right from wrong.

I've no desire to break my practice of my diet. And quite frank when I'm hungry I don't give a damn if my hamburger came from a cow, I care on how it tastes, why? Because in the end biological need override ethical ones.

Sure there may be a few specific scenarios that override this but it is not common. And I for one am not going to start putting ethics over my biological needs every single time.



Again, comparing animal consumption to inter-species sexual intercourse is a very blanket statement and it is best not to.

There's a big difference on a biological need to a fetish.

You keep using this word.

inconceivable_means_02.jpg
 
No you are ignoring one crucial element to the "killing" part, that's consumption. To the rest of the animal kingdom killing is only done for consumption or when one is threatened. Just because I'm human and top of the food chain makes me somehow exempt from this? Fuck no.

So you accept that killing an animal is a detriment to its welfare? How do you reconcile that with your claim to respect animal welfare?

mavs thinks we can't be meat eaters and at the same time be against sex with animals.

You can, but not because you care about the well-being of the animal.
 
I don't own a pet, but my family has in the past. I don't see any reason why you shouldn't own one. Dogs at least can survive on vegetarian pet food just fine.

http://www.google.com/products/cata...=X&ei=YxcuT7mIB4Pq2AXoktXDAQ&ved=0CIMBEPMCMAE

Anyway, I'm not actually a vegetarian. My thoughts on the matter are that non-human lives are of no moral consequence. But I recognize that the fully internally consistent application of that morality means that I cannot condemn zoophiles or animal cruelty.




Yes.



Your body is biologically attuned to rape, and that doesn't make it moral.

The difference is that human beings are capable of moral reasoning, and in determining right from wrong.



You keep using this word.

inconceivable_means_02.jpg

The human body is attuned to sexual intercourse just like all lifeforms are, this does not equate to rape. Look at other species for a minute, even at the basic primal stage they all have some sort of courtship ritual, this is not rape.

I keep on using "biological need" to distinguish the difference between normal consumption of meat from a fetish.
 
I'm comparing killing to sexual intercourse. I don't see why I shouldn't compare those two. Clearly there is a difference if you hold that intercourse is harmful to the animal and killing is not. So what is the difference between killing and sex that makes killing OK?

Is there a way to eat meat without killing animals?
Are there specific benefits in eating meat?

Is there a way to have sex without fucking animals?
Are there specific benefits in having sex with animals?
 
So you accept that killing an animal is a detriment to its welfare? How do you reconcile that with your claim to respect animal welfare?

You have to learn to accept that humans are not perfect beings.

I'm all for the support of animal welfare. However I eat meat and fine with certain domesticated (keywords: certain domesticated) animals being killed for my consumption. However at the same time I can recognize the vast difference between unnatural inter species intercourse and killing for consumption, can you?
 
So you accept that killing an animal is a detriment to its welfare? How do you reconcile that with your claim to respect animal welfare?

Killing an animal isn't a detriment to its welfare. We want to consume its meat, and if we try to take a bite out of an animal while it's alive, the usual response is flapping and flailing and protests and attempts to escape. Much more humane to end its life first!
 
Is there a way to eat meat without killing animals?
Are there specific benefits in eating meat?

Is there a way to have sex without fucking animals?
Are there specific benefits in having sex with animals?

How much difference does the benefit to you in eating meat make to the killed/eaten animal?

Say the benefit is zero. Then say the benefit is infinite. How does that change the effect of killing the animal on its well-being?
 
The human body is attuned to sexual intercourse just like all lifeforms are, this does not equate to rape. Look at other species for a minute, even at the basic primal stage they all have some sort of courtship ritual, this is not rape.

I keep on using "biological need" to distinguish the difference between normal consumption of meat from a fetish.

Rape is common in the animal kingdom.

It's biologically adaptive for obvious reasons: organisms with genes that prevented them from raping had an evolutionary disadvantage against those who were capable of it. This is a pretty good reason why we shouldn't take our morality from what is biologically adaptive.
 
You have to learn to accept that humans are not perfect beings.

I'm all for the support of animal welfare. However I eat meat and fine with certain domesticated (keywords: certain domesticated) animals being killed for my consumption. However at the same time I can recognize the vast difference between unnatural inter species intercourse and killing for consumption, can you?

I can see the difference between those actions. In terms of animal welfare, unnatural inter species intercourse is less harmful than killing for consumption.

Killing an animal isn't a detriment to its welfare. We want to consume its meat, and if we try to take a bite out of an animal while it's alive, the usual response is flapping and flailing and protests and attempts to escape. Much more humane to end its life first!

That's what I want to hear, a definite answer. So what is the effect on the animals welfare from sexing it, is it more or less than killing it (zero, according to you.)
 
Rape is common in the animal kingdom.

It's biologically adaptive for obvious reasons: organisms with genes that prevented them from raping had an evolutionary disadvantage against those who were capable of it. This is a pretty good reason why we shouldn't take our morality from what is biologically adaptive.

https://www.msu.edu/~hampto26/mating.htm

So is consensual sexual intercourse.

Please don't throw blanket statements around and say all of the animal kingdom resorts to rape only.
 
That's what I want to hear, a definite answer. So what is the effect on the animals welfare from sexing it, is it more or less than killing it (zero, according to you.)

Like I said earlier, it depends. Depending on how careful and sensitive the person is to the animal's receptiveness, capability and needs, it could be quite beneficial. For a dog, for example, it would give them a real sexual outlet that wouldn't result in more unwanted puppies being destroyed at a shelter. It could also be harmful in terms of impacting their quality of life if it results in injury, illness etc., and in extreme cases it could cause a massive amount of stress to the animal and subject it to a pattern of abuse that it would never recover from. That's why the issue is so touchy.
 
I can see the difference between those actions. In terms of animal welfare, unnatural inter species intercourse is less harmful than killing for consumption

And now I throw the question at you, what or who determines how harmful is it to kill for natural consumption is to inter species intercourse?

On a human standard the issue is still iffy and some people will agree that dieing or taking one's own life is more desirable than to be raped and/or impregnated with an unwanted child.
 
I don't even think you can call coercive or forceful mating rape in the animal world. We're anthropomorphizing the animals at this point.

Seriously doubt the animal is feeling violated or like their rights as a living being have been ignored or something, in that context.
 
How much difference does the benefit to you in eating meat make to the killed/eaten animal?

Say the benefit is zero. Then say the benefit is infinite. How does that change the effect of killing the animal on its well-being?

If there are no benefits, or at least one that can't be matched by other similar activities, then maybe we shouldn't exercise it.
 
https://www.msu.edu/~hampto26/mating.htm

So is consensual sexual intercourse.

Please don't throw blanket statements around and say all of the animal kingdom resorts to rape only.

I never said that the animal kingdom resorts to rape only. I said there was a biological tendency to rape, which is true. In the same way genetics predisposes us to both eat meat and plants, genetics predisposes us to both have consensual sex and rape, as circumstances dictate.
 
I never said that the animal kingdom resorts to rape only. I said there was a biological tendency to rape, which is true. In the same way genetics predisposes us to both eat meat and plants, genetics predisposes us to both have consensual sex and rape, as circumstances dictate.

And what proof do you have it is a biological tendency to rape? Sexual urges? Your link is to a wikipedia article and nowhere does it say it is a tendency just common. My link features lions engage in consensual intercourse, they have the biological means to rape but they don't.
 
If there are no benefits, or at least one that can't be matched by other similar activities, then maybe we shouldn't exercise it.

And the benefits of meat consumption cannot be matched by non-meat consumption, is that your implication?

And now I throw the question at you, what or who determines how harmful is it to kill for natural consumption is to inter species intercourse?

On a human standard the issue is still iffy and some people will agree that dieing or taking one's own life is more desirable than to be raped and/or impregnated with an unwanted child.

Maybe. But humans cannot impregnate animals, so that goes right out. And animals can be willing participants (mr hands) even if they are not competent to consent to sex. In which case that would be like saying it's better for a teen to die than have sex with his creepy pedo teacher. Which is quite an amazing stretch.

So even in the case you are left with, where a human forcibly rapes an animal and causes it severe harm, your only defense as a carnivore is that you are inflicting a preferable fate to rape.
 
Beastiality has been common throughout human history. With that said, I'm opposed to it since an animal can't consent and it's disgusting and selfish and epitomizes everything that's wrong with human beings.

I'm sorry, you can attempt to rationalize it if you want but there's something wrong about sticking your dick in a duck. Or getting fucked by a buck.
 
Beastiality has been common throughout human history. With that said, I'm opposed to it since an animal can't consent and it's disgusting and selfish and epitomizes everything that's wrong with human beings.

I'm sorry, you can attempt to rationalize it if you want but there's something wrong about sticking your dick in a duck. Or getting fucked by a buck.

I give you a toast and let's go eat some chuck.
 
Maybe. But humans cannot impregnate animals, so that goes right out. And animals can be willing participants (mr hands) even if they are not competent to consent to sex. In which case that would be like saying it's better for a teen to die than have sex with his creepy pedo teacher. Which is quite an amazing stretch.

So even in the case you are left with, where a human forcibly rapes an animal and causes it severe harm, your only defense as a carnivore is that you are inflicting a preferable fate to rape.

Are you sure about that? There are documented cases between interspecies sexual intercourse producing hybrid animals. For the sake of the discussion let us refer to it as a possibility due to both scientific and ethical standpoints (a lion and tiger can produce offspring, would the victimized party know the difference of risk if it were a human being?).

As an omnivore yes I think I would be granting the animal a better fate than rape. It is viable/practical on a biological level and is acceptable on a social level.
 
And the benefits of meat consumption cannot be matched by non-meat consumption, is that your implication?

It sure can be matched in terms of nutrition values (even if values per serving ratio are greater for meat), but it can't be matched on disponibility (seasonal and regional).
And it goes hand in hand with agriculture.

Bear in mind, we are omnivores. ^ He said that toooooo.
 
Are you sure about that? There are documented cases between interspecies sexual intercourse producing hybrid animals. For the sake of the discussion let us refer to it as a possibility due to both scientific and ethical standpoints (a lion and tiger can produce offspring, would the victimized party know the difference of risk if it were a human being?).

As an omnivore yes I think I would be granting the animal a better fate than rape. It is viable/practical on a biological level and is acceptable on a social level.

If you wish to bring in such a hypothetical, I would put it on par with damaging physical abuse. That's not a high ethical bar to clear, and I'm not sure killing clears it.

I just affirmed that there is a case where killing and eating an animal is preferable to rape. However I'd say that is limited to cases where the animal expresses displeasure and/or suffers severe physical harm. Again, a low bar to clear, and in other cases where the animal does not suffer immediate harm (even if there is long run harm in cancer/disease) that's still not as bad as death for consumption.

You keep using words like viable/practical. You want to make this about yourself and other humans, but caring about the welfare of another being does not involve what is good for yourself. You cannot justify harm to another being by the benefit it brings to yourself and also stand by the right of that being to its good health.
 
Are you sure about that? There are documented cases between interspecies sexual intercourse producing hybrid animals. For the sake of the discussion let us refer to it as a possibility due to both scientific and ethical standpoints (a lion and tiger can produce offspring, would the victimized party know the difference of risk if it were a human being?).

As an omnivore yes I think I would be granting the animal a better fate than rape. It is viable/practical on a biological level and is acceptable on a social level.

How does the biological viability and social acceptability bear upon the goodness or badness of the animal's fate?

And what proof do you have it is a biological tendency to rape? Sexual urges? Your link is to a wikipedia article and nowhere does it say it is a tendency just common. My link features lions engage in consensual intercourse, they have the biological means to rape but they don't.

What else would you call something that's common in the animal kingdom, and that is genetically adaptive?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom