|
On June 17 2013 04:34 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 04:29 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 17 2013 04:23 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 04:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 17 2013 04:11 Millitron wrote:On June 17 2013 03:59 D10 wrote:
Problem is animals cant consent, they are almost biological machines, with the right conditioning anyone can get themselves a beast that will act as if its the shit.
Personally I wouldnt make it something criminal unless theres some serious abuse involved, but I wouldnt make it legal either, maybe give zoophile some psychological evaluation, if the guy is pathologically a zoophile, well id rather have him fuck a sheep than killhimself.
Also, a hefty fine and be done with it, that way at least the government is earning some money to turn a blind eye to something no one wants to see anyways. Are you sure animals can't consent? Does the animal try to prevent it, i.e. fight back/avoid the person? If yes, it doesn't consent. If no, it does.
I personally think zoophilia is pretty gross, but I'm not going to try to impose that view on everyone else. I was thinking about it and that's something I wasn't sure about. Even if the animal does not physically show that it does not want to have sex by fighting back or by displaying some kind of physical and observable behavior, is this necessary and sufficient proof that the animal consents to sex? What if the animal would prefer not to have sex, but would not dare or does not understand how to display behavior indicating this to be the case? I don't think it's radical to imagine that could be the case in some instances. I think it makes more sense to conclude that because there is no communication possible, that we have to err on the side of not allowing any sex with animals, on the off chance that it may be violating the animal in many or even just some cases. I think it makes less sense to err on the side of allowing sex with animals just because it may be okay with some or even many animals. Sorry, I think I've missed an important step in your argument here. If I'm following correctly it goes like this 1) Animals are incapable of communicating their wishes to us 2) We shouldn't do things to them if we don't know whether or not they consent 3) 2 only applies to sex with them, not eating them or domesticating them or using them as farm tools or keeping them as pets or doing medical research on them I don't understand how 3 logically follows from 2. Logically, yeah, we'd not capture them/eat them by that logic. However realistically it becomes a moral issue. It turns out that domesticating them and eating them in some cases greatly benefits humans. With raping animals, however, there is no real gain to humans on the whole. So it doesn't seem as worthwhile to violate their autonomy. It's tricky, and it's probably why it remains a 'hot topic' in bioethics To me your post reads "I like meat so consent doesn't matter if I want a steak but I don't like fucking them so consent is really important for that". It's a colossal hypocrisy, you don't get to argue one is fine and the other isn't, especially when your argument is rooted in animal welfare and the thing you claim is fine is killing them and the thing you claim is not fine is non harmful sex. Your desire for a steak is not a necessary thing for the good of the species.
The act of killing can take as little as a couple seconds. I find the abuse of an animal throughout their life a lot worse than the killing of an animal at the end. I'm perfectly happy eating meat and at the same time not being okay with the needless suffering of animals to get me that meat. Just because they die in the end to become food doesn't mean you can't have the opinion that they should have some sort of decent life. In fact, particularly because they die to be eaten by me is why I find it important that they are not mistreated. The whole "just because you do X to them you should also be okay with doing Y" is pretty absurd.
|
United States43142 Posts
On June 17 2013 04:50 datcirclejerk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 04:45 SnipedSoul wrote:
What are your opinions on keeping pets, Marigold? A pet serves no purpose other than satisfying the selfish desires of a human. An animal is unable to consent to being purchased and kept in a human's house and is basically a piece of property. Adopting a pet or buying one from a store serves more than just a selfish purpose, I assure you. Especially given the conditions many of them live in. Taking care of a pet in general requires a lot of time, money, and empathy. For the third time, consent isn't what actually matters here.
You think they'd be in the pet store if people didn't keep buying them? The reason there are so many abandoned pet dogs and cats is because we keep pet dogs and cats, you don't see badgers in miserable conditions in pet stores because no fucker wants a pet badger.
|
United States43142 Posts
On June 17 2013 04:54 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 04:34 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 04:29 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 17 2013 04:23 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 04:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 17 2013 04:11 Millitron wrote:On June 17 2013 03:59 D10 wrote:
Problem is animals cant consent, they are almost biological machines, with the right conditioning anyone can get themselves a beast that will act as if its the shit.
Personally I wouldnt make it something criminal unless theres some serious abuse involved, but I wouldnt make it legal either, maybe give zoophile some psychological evaluation, if the guy is pathologically a zoophile, well id rather have him fuck a sheep than killhimself.
Also, a hefty fine and be done with it, that way at least the government is earning some money to turn a blind eye to something no one wants to see anyways. Are you sure animals can't consent? Does the animal try to prevent it, i.e. fight back/avoid the person? If yes, it doesn't consent. If no, it does.
I personally think zoophilia is pretty gross, but I'm not going to try to impose that view on everyone else. I was thinking about it and that's something I wasn't sure about. Even if the animal does not physically show that it does not want to have sex by fighting back or by displaying some kind of physical and observable behavior, is this necessary and sufficient proof that the animal consents to sex? What if the animal would prefer not to have sex, but would not dare or does not understand how to display behavior indicating this to be the case? I don't think it's radical to imagine that could be the case in some instances. I think it makes more sense to conclude that because there is no communication possible, that we have to err on the side of not allowing any sex with animals, on the off chance that it may be violating the animal in many or even just some cases. I think it makes less sense to err on the side of allowing sex with animals just because it may be okay with some or even many animals. Sorry, I think I've missed an important step in your argument here. If I'm following correctly it goes like this 1) Animals are incapable of communicating their wishes to us 2) We shouldn't do things to them if we don't know whether or not they consent 3) 2 only applies to sex with them, not eating them or domesticating them or using them as farm tools or keeping them as pets or doing medical research on them I don't understand how 3 logically follows from 2. Logically, yeah, we'd not capture them/eat them by that logic. However realistically it becomes a moral issue. It turns out that domesticating them and eating them in some cases greatly benefits humans. With raping animals, however, there is no real gain to humans on the whole. So it doesn't seem as worthwhile to violate their autonomy. It's tricky, and it's probably why it remains a 'hot topic' in bioethics To me your post reads "I like meat so consent doesn't matter if I want a steak but I don't like fucking them so consent is really important for that". It's a colossal hypocrisy, you don't get to argue one is fine and the other isn't, especially when your argument is rooted in animal welfare and the thing you claim is fine is killing them and the thing you claim is not fine is non harmful sex. Your desire for a steak is not a necessary thing for the good of the species. The act of killing can take as little as a couple seconds. I find the abuse of an animal throughout their life a lot worse than the killing of an animal at the end. I'm perfectly happy eating meat and at the same time not being okay with the needless suffering of animals to get me that meat. Just because they die in the end to become food doesn't mean you can't have the opinion that they should have some sort of decent life. In fact, particularly because they die to be eaten by me is why I find it important that they are not mistreated. The whole "just because you do X to them you should also be okay with doing Y" is pretty absurd.
You think animals reared for meat are treated better than a zoophile (someone who literally feels love towards an animal) treats their, in their eyes, partner and lover? I'm not sure you have any idea where your food comes from.
|
On June 17 2013 04:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 04:54 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:On June 17 2013 04:34 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 04:29 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 17 2013 04:23 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 04:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 17 2013 04:11 Millitron wrote:On June 17 2013 03:59 D10 wrote:
Problem is animals cant consent, they are almost biological machines, with the right conditioning anyone can get themselves a beast that will act as if its the shit.
Personally I wouldnt make it something criminal unless theres some serious abuse involved, but I wouldnt make it legal either, maybe give zoophile some psychological evaluation, if the guy is pathologically a zoophile, well id rather have him fuck a sheep than killhimself.
Also, a hefty fine and be done with it, that way at least the government is earning some money to turn a blind eye to something no one wants to see anyways. Are you sure animals can't consent? Does the animal try to prevent it, i.e. fight back/avoid the person? If yes, it doesn't consent. If no, it does.
I personally think zoophilia is pretty gross, but I'm not going to try to impose that view on everyone else. I was thinking about it and that's something I wasn't sure about. Even if the animal does not physically show that it does not want to have sex by fighting back or by displaying some kind of physical and observable behavior, is this necessary and sufficient proof that the animal consents to sex? What if the animal would prefer not to have sex, but would not dare or does not understand how to display behavior indicating this to be the case? I don't think it's radical to imagine that could be the case in some instances. I think it makes more sense to conclude that because there is no communication possible, that we have to err on the side of not allowing any sex with animals, on the off chance that it may be violating the animal in many or even just some cases. I think it makes less sense to err on the side of allowing sex with animals just because it may be okay with some or even many animals. Sorry, I think I've missed an important step in your argument here. If I'm following correctly it goes like this 1) Animals are incapable of communicating their wishes to us 2) We shouldn't do things to them if we don't know whether or not they consent 3) 2 only applies to sex with them, not eating them or domesticating them or using them as farm tools or keeping them as pets or doing medical research on them I don't understand how 3 logically follows from 2. Logically, yeah, we'd not capture them/eat them by that logic. However realistically it becomes a moral issue. It turns out that domesticating them and eating them in some cases greatly benefits humans. With raping animals, however, there is no real gain to humans on the whole. So it doesn't seem as worthwhile to violate their autonomy. It's tricky, and it's probably why it remains a 'hot topic' in bioethics To me your post reads "I like meat so consent doesn't matter if I want a steak but I don't like fucking them so consent is really important for that". It's a colossal hypocrisy, you don't get to argue one is fine and the other isn't, especially when your argument is rooted in animal welfare and the thing you claim is fine is killing them and the thing you claim is not fine is non harmful sex. Your desire for a steak is not a necessary thing for the good of the species. The act of killing can take as little as a couple seconds. I find the abuse of an animal throughout their life a lot worse than the killing of an animal at the end. I'm perfectly happy eating meat and at the same time not being okay with the needless suffering of animals to get me that meat. Just because they die in the end to become food doesn't mean you can't have the opinion that they should have some sort of decent life. In fact, particularly because they die to be eaten by me is why I find it important that they are not mistreated. The whole "just because you do X to them you should also be okay with doing Y" is pretty absurd. You think animals reared for meat are treated better than a zoophile (someone who literally feels love towards an animal) treats their, in their eyes, partner and lover? I'm not sure you have any idea where your food comes from.
He never came a nautic mile close from infering that he thinks that.
|
On June 17 2013 04:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 04:54 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:On June 17 2013 04:34 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 04:29 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 17 2013 04:23 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 04:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 17 2013 04:11 Millitron wrote:On June 17 2013 03:59 D10 wrote:
Problem is animals cant consent, they are almost biological machines, with the right conditioning anyone can get themselves a beast that will act as if its the shit.
Personally I wouldnt make it something criminal unless theres some serious abuse involved, but I wouldnt make it legal either, maybe give zoophile some psychological evaluation, if the guy is pathologically a zoophile, well id rather have him fuck a sheep than killhimself.
Also, a hefty fine and be done with it, that way at least the government is earning some money to turn a blind eye to something no one wants to see anyways. Are you sure animals can't consent? Does the animal try to prevent it, i.e. fight back/avoid the person? If yes, it doesn't consent. If no, it does.
I personally think zoophilia is pretty gross, but I'm not going to try to impose that view on everyone else. I was thinking about it and that's something I wasn't sure about. Even if the animal does not physically show that it does not want to have sex by fighting back or by displaying some kind of physical and observable behavior, is this necessary and sufficient proof that the animal consents to sex? What if the animal would prefer not to have sex, but would not dare or does not understand how to display behavior indicating this to be the case? I don't think it's radical to imagine that could be the case in some instances. I think it makes more sense to conclude that because there is no communication possible, that we have to err on the side of not allowing any sex with animals, on the off chance that it may be violating the animal in many or even just some cases. I think it makes less sense to err on the side of allowing sex with animals just because it may be okay with some or even many animals. Sorry, I think I've missed an important step in your argument here. If I'm following correctly it goes like this 1) Animals are incapable of communicating their wishes to us 2) We shouldn't do things to them if we don't know whether or not they consent 3) 2 only applies to sex with them, not eating them or domesticating them or using them as farm tools or keeping them as pets or doing medical research on them I don't understand how 3 logically follows from 2. Logically, yeah, we'd not capture them/eat them by that logic. However realistically it becomes a moral issue. It turns out that domesticating them and eating them in some cases greatly benefits humans. With raping animals, however, there is no real gain to humans on the whole. So it doesn't seem as worthwhile to violate their autonomy. It's tricky, and it's probably why it remains a 'hot topic' in bioethics To me your post reads "I like meat so consent doesn't matter if I want a steak but I don't like fucking them so consent is really important for that". It's a colossal hypocrisy, you don't get to argue one is fine and the other isn't, especially when your argument is rooted in animal welfare and the thing you claim is fine is killing them and the thing you claim is not fine is non harmful sex. Your desire for a steak is not a necessary thing for the good of the species. The act of killing can take as little as a couple seconds. I find the abuse of an animal throughout their life a lot worse than the killing of an animal at the end. I'm perfectly happy eating meat and at the same time not being okay with the needless suffering of animals to get me that meat. Just because they die in the end to become food doesn't mean you can't have the opinion that they should have some sort of decent life. In fact, particularly because they die to be eaten by me is why I find it important that they are not mistreated. The whole "just because you do X to them you should also be okay with doing Y" is pretty absurd. You think animals reared for meat are treated better than a zoophile (someone who literally feels love towards an animal) treats their, in their eyes, partner and lover? I'm not sure you have any idea where your food comes from.
Kwark, don't forget, in the battle of taboos, here in America, sex is a shit ton more taboo than violence. Therefore, sexual deviance is considered much more "weird" than any violence related. By violence, I mean slaughtering for the purposes of food.
|
On June 17 2013 04:48 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 04:41 Paljas wrote:On June 17 2013 04:35 butchji wrote:On June 17 2013 04:34 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 04:29 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 17 2013 04:23 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 04:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 17 2013 04:11 Millitron wrote:On June 17 2013 03:59 D10 wrote:
Problem is animals cant consent, they are almost biological machines, with the right conditioning anyone can get themselves a beast that will act as if its the shit.
Personally I wouldnt make it something criminal unless theres some serious abuse involved, but I wouldnt make it legal either, maybe give zoophile some psychological evaluation, if the guy is pathologically a zoophile, well id rather have him fuck a sheep than killhimself.
Also, a hefty fine and be done with it, that way at least the government is earning some money to turn a blind eye to something no one wants to see anyways. Are you sure animals can't consent? Does the animal try to prevent it, i.e. fight back/avoid the person? If yes, it doesn't consent. If no, it does.
I personally think zoophilia is pretty gross, but I'm not going to try to impose that view on everyone else. I was thinking about it and that's something I wasn't sure about. Even if the animal does not physically show that it does not want to have sex by fighting back or by displaying some kind of physical and observable behavior, is this necessary and sufficient proof that the animal consents to sex? What if the animal would prefer not to have sex, but would not dare or does not understand how to display behavior indicating this to be the case? I don't think it's radical to imagine that could be the case in some instances. I think it makes more sense to conclude that because there is no communication possible, that we have to err on the side of not allowing any sex with animals, on the off chance that it may be violating the animal in many or even just some cases. I think it makes less sense to err on the side of allowing sex with animals just because it may be okay with some or even many animals. Sorry, I think I've missed an important step in your argument here. If I'm following correctly it goes like this 1) Animals are incapable of communicating their wishes to us 2) We shouldn't do things to them if we don't know whether or not they consent 3) 2 only applies to sex with them, not eating them or domesticating them or using them as farm tools or keeping them as pets or doing medical research on them I don't understand how 3 logically follows from 2. Logically, yeah, we'd not capture them/eat them by that logic. However realistically it becomes a moral issue. It turns out that domesticating them and eating them in some cases greatly benefits humans. With raping animals, however, there is no real gain to humans on the whole. So it doesn't seem as worthwhile to violate their autonomy. It's tricky, and it's probably why it remains a 'hot topic' in bioethics To me your post reads "I like meat so consent doesn't matter if I want a steak but I don't like fucking them so consent is really important for that". It's a colossal hypocrisy, you don't get to argue one is fine and the other isn't, especially when your argument is rooted in animal welfare and the thing you claim is fine is killing them and the thing you claim is not fine is non harmful sex. Your desire for a steak is not a necessary thing for the good of the species. KwarK, may I ask why this topic is so important to you? somebody is wrong on the internet, thats very important. on topic: Kwark, if we asume that eating animals is wrong, would you agree with the points of falldownmarigold? No, I would still disagree with his premises but his argument would at least be internally consistent. I think animal consent has no value, I'm fine with eating them. If someone were to genuinely believe that animal consent had value, that beastiality was literally equivalent to rape and that slaughtering an animal to eat was literally equivalent to murder then their argument would be internally consistent but based upon premises which I did not agree with. However instead we've been getting that animal non-consent only matters when they're not being harmed and when the thing happening is something that I personally don't want to do which is just bullshit. I'd be happy to debate the value of animal consent but the only person in this topic to argue that animals are literally people is Evangelist who QQed out earlier. Everyone else has gone with "animals are people only when it suits me".
Eating animals is OK because it's a normal, healthy and unavoidable aspect of life (if humans don't eat them, something else will). Having sex with an animal seems optional. Society can then have a say in if it's OK to use that option or not.
|
On June 17 2013 05:01 [Agony]x90 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 04:58 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 04:54 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:On June 17 2013 04:34 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 04:29 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 17 2013 04:23 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 04:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 17 2013 04:11 Millitron wrote:On June 17 2013 03:59 D10 wrote:
Problem is animals cant consent, they are almost biological machines, with the right conditioning anyone can get themselves a beast that will act as if its the shit.
Personally I wouldnt make it something criminal unless theres some serious abuse involved, but I wouldnt make it legal either, maybe give zoophile some psychological evaluation, if the guy is pathologically a zoophile, well id rather have him fuck a sheep than killhimself.
Also, a hefty fine and be done with it, that way at least the government is earning some money to turn a blind eye to something no one wants to see anyways. Are you sure animals can't consent? Does the animal try to prevent it, i.e. fight back/avoid the person? If yes, it doesn't consent. If no, it does.
I personally think zoophilia is pretty gross, but I'm not going to try to impose that view on everyone else. I was thinking about it and that's something I wasn't sure about. Even if the animal does not physically show that it does not want to have sex by fighting back or by displaying some kind of physical and observable behavior, is this necessary and sufficient proof that the animal consents to sex? What if the animal would prefer not to have sex, but would not dare or does not understand how to display behavior indicating this to be the case? I don't think it's radical to imagine that could be the case in some instances. I think it makes more sense to conclude that because there is no communication possible, that we have to err on the side of not allowing any sex with animals, on the off chance that it may be violating the animal in many or even just some cases. I think it makes less sense to err on the side of allowing sex with animals just because it may be okay with some or even many animals. Sorry, I think I've missed an important step in your argument here. If I'm following correctly it goes like this 1) Animals are incapable of communicating their wishes to us 2) We shouldn't do things to them if we don't know whether or not they consent 3) 2 only applies to sex with them, not eating them or domesticating them or using them as farm tools or keeping them as pets or doing medical research on them I don't understand how 3 logically follows from 2. Logically, yeah, we'd not capture them/eat them by that logic. However realistically it becomes a moral issue. It turns out that domesticating them and eating them in some cases greatly benefits humans. With raping animals, however, there is no real gain to humans on the whole. So it doesn't seem as worthwhile to violate their autonomy. It's tricky, and it's probably why it remains a 'hot topic' in bioethics To me your post reads "I like meat so consent doesn't matter if I want a steak but I don't like fucking them so consent is really important for that". It's a colossal hypocrisy, you don't get to argue one is fine and the other isn't, especially when your argument is rooted in animal welfare and the thing you claim is fine is killing them and the thing you claim is not fine is non harmful sex. Your desire for a steak is not a necessary thing for the good of the species. The act of killing can take as little as a couple seconds. I find the abuse of an animal throughout their life a lot worse than the killing of an animal at the end. I'm perfectly happy eating meat and at the same time not being okay with the needless suffering of animals to get me that meat. Just because they die in the end to become food doesn't mean you can't have the opinion that they should have some sort of decent life. In fact, particularly because they die to be eaten by me is why I find it important that they are not mistreated. The whole "just because you do X to them you should also be okay with doing Y" is pretty absurd. You think animals reared for meat are treated better than a zoophile (someone who literally feels love towards an animal) treats their, in their eyes, partner and lover? I'm not sure you have any idea where your food comes from. Kwark, don't forget, in the battle of taboos, here in America, sex is a shit ton more taboo than violence. Therefore, sexual deviance is considered much more "weird" than any violence related. By violence, I mean slaughtering for the purposes of food.
People have been eating animals since we were animals ourselves, you saying that we should have started eating people to complement our early diet ?
|
United States43142 Posts
On June 17 2013 05:00 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 04:58 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 04:54 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:On June 17 2013 04:34 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 04:29 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 17 2013 04:23 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 04:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 17 2013 04:11 Millitron wrote:On June 17 2013 03:59 D10 wrote:
Problem is animals cant consent, they are almost biological machines, with the right conditioning anyone can get themselves a beast that will act as if its the shit.
Personally I wouldnt make it something criminal unless theres some serious abuse involved, but I wouldnt make it legal either, maybe give zoophile some psychological evaluation, if the guy is pathologically a zoophile, well id rather have him fuck a sheep than killhimself.
Also, a hefty fine and be done with it, that way at least the government is earning some money to turn a blind eye to something no one wants to see anyways. Are you sure animals can't consent? Does the animal try to prevent it, i.e. fight back/avoid the person? If yes, it doesn't consent. If no, it does.
I personally think zoophilia is pretty gross, but I'm not going to try to impose that view on everyone else. I was thinking about it and that's something I wasn't sure about. Even if the animal does not physically show that it does not want to have sex by fighting back or by displaying some kind of physical and observable behavior, is this necessary and sufficient proof that the animal consents to sex? What if the animal would prefer not to have sex, but would not dare or does not understand how to display behavior indicating this to be the case? I don't think it's radical to imagine that could be the case in some instances. I think it makes more sense to conclude that because there is no communication possible, that we have to err on the side of not allowing any sex with animals, on the off chance that it may be violating the animal in many or even just some cases. I think it makes less sense to err on the side of allowing sex with animals just because it may be okay with some or even many animals. Sorry, I think I've missed an important step in your argument here. If I'm following correctly it goes like this 1) Animals are incapable of communicating their wishes to us 2) We shouldn't do things to them if we don't know whether or not they consent 3) 2 only applies to sex with them, not eating them or domesticating them or using them as farm tools or keeping them as pets or doing medical research on them I don't understand how 3 logically follows from 2. Logically, yeah, we'd not capture them/eat them by that logic. However realistically it becomes a moral issue. It turns out that domesticating them and eating them in some cases greatly benefits humans. With raping animals, however, there is no real gain to humans on the whole. So it doesn't seem as worthwhile to violate their autonomy. It's tricky, and it's probably why it remains a 'hot topic' in bioethics To me your post reads "I like meat so consent doesn't matter if I want a steak but I don't like fucking them so consent is really important for that". It's a colossal hypocrisy, you don't get to argue one is fine and the other isn't, especially when your argument is rooted in animal welfare and the thing you claim is fine is killing them and the thing you claim is not fine is non harmful sex. Your desire for a steak is not a necessary thing for the good of the species. The act of killing can take as little as a couple seconds. I find the abuse of an animal throughout their life a lot worse than the killing of an animal at the end. I'm perfectly happy eating meat and at the same time not being okay with the needless suffering of animals to get me that meat. Just because they die in the end to become food doesn't mean you can't have the opinion that they should have some sort of decent life. In fact, particularly because they die to be eaten by me is why I find it important that they are not mistreated. The whole "just because you do X to them you should also be okay with doing Y" is pretty absurd. You think animals reared for meat are treated better than a zoophile (someone who literally feels love towards an animal) treats their, in their eyes, partner and lover? I'm not sure you have any idea where your food comes from. He never came a nautic mile close from infering that he thinks that.
He characterised beastiality as a lifetime of abuse while food production killing as taking just a few seconds. I think that's somewhat missing the issue.
|
United States43142 Posts
On June 17 2013 05:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 04:48 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 04:41 Paljas wrote:On June 17 2013 04:35 butchji wrote:On June 17 2013 04:34 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 04:29 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 17 2013 04:23 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 04:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 17 2013 04:11 Millitron wrote:On June 17 2013 03:59 D10 wrote:
Problem is animals cant consent, they are almost biological machines, with the right conditioning anyone can get themselves a beast that will act as if its the shit.
Personally I wouldnt make it something criminal unless theres some serious abuse involved, but I wouldnt make it legal either, maybe give zoophile some psychological evaluation, if the guy is pathologically a zoophile, well id rather have him fuck a sheep than killhimself.
Also, a hefty fine and be done with it, that way at least the government is earning some money to turn a blind eye to something no one wants to see anyways. Are you sure animals can't consent? Does the animal try to prevent it, i.e. fight back/avoid the person? If yes, it doesn't consent. If no, it does.
I personally think zoophilia is pretty gross, but I'm not going to try to impose that view on everyone else. I was thinking about it and that's something I wasn't sure about. Even if the animal does not physically show that it does not want to have sex by fighting back or by displaying some kind of physical and observable behavior, is this necessary and sufficient proof that the animal consents to sex? What if the animal would prefer not to have sex, but would not dare or does not understand how to display behavior indicating this to be the case? I don't think it's radical to imagine that could be the case in some instances. I think it makes more sense to conclude that because there is no communication possible, that we have to err on the side of not allowing any sex with animals, on the off chance that it may be violating the animal in many or even just some cases. I think it makes less sense to err on the side of allowing sex with animals just because it may be okay with some or even many animals. Sorry, I think I've missed an important step in your argument here. If I'm following correctly it goes like this 1) Animals are incapable of communicating their wishes to us 2) We shouldn't do things to them if we don't know whether or not they consent 3) 2 only applies to sex with them, not eating them or domesticating them or using them as farm tools or keeping them as pets or doing medical research on them I don't understand how 3 logically follows from 2. Logically, yeah, we'd not capture them/eat them by that logic. However realistically it becomes a moral issue. It turns out that domesticating them and eating them in some cases greatly benefits humans. With raping animals, however, there is no real gain to humans on the whole. So it doesn't seem as worthwhile to violate their autonomy. It's tricky, and it's probably why it remains a 'hot topic' in bioethics To me your post reads "I like meat so consent doesn't matter if I want a steak but I don't like fucking them so consent is really important for that". It's a colossal hypocrisy, you don't get to argue one is fine and the other isn't, especially when your argument is rooted in animal welfare and the thing you claim is fine is killing them and the thing you claim is not fine is non harmful sex. Your desire for a steak is not a necessary thing for the good of the species. KwarK, may I ask why this topic is so important to you? somebody is wrong on the internet, thats very important. on topic: Kwark, if we asume that eating animals is wrong, would you agree with the points of falldownmarigold? No, I would still disagree with his premises but his argument would at least be internally consistent. I think animal consent has no value, I'm fine with eating them. If someone were to genuinely believe that animal consent had value, that beastiality was literally equivalent to rape and that slaughtering an animal to eat was literally equivalent to murder then their argument would be internally consistent but based upon premises which I did not agree with. However instead we've been getting that animal non-consent only matters when they're not being harmed and when the thing happening is something that I personally don't want to do which is just bullshit. I'd be happy to debate the value of animal consent but the only person in this topic to argue that animals are literally people is Evangelist who QQed out earlier. Everyone else has gone with "animals are people only when it suits me". Eating animals is OK because it's a normal, healthy and unavoidable aspect of life (if humans don't eat them, something else will). Having sex with an animal seems optional. Society can then have a say in if it's OK to use that option or not.
Society gets to have a say in whether or not an individual gets to do something optional? Even if it doesn't harm another member of society?
Since when?
Why?
How do you reconcile that with liberty?
|
Well, now what am I supposed to do when I visit Sweden? This sucks.
|
United States24709 Posts
On June 17 2013 05:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 04:48 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 04:41 Paljas wrote:On June 17 2013 04:35 butchji wrote:On June 17 2013 04:34 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 04:29 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 17 2013 04:23 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 04:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 17 2013 04:11 Millitron wrote:On June 17 2013 03:59 D10 wrote:
Problem is animals cant consent, they are almost biological machines, with the right conditioning anyone can get themselves a beast that will act as if its the shit.
Personally I wouldnt make it something criminal unless theres some serious abuse involved, but I wouldnt make it legal either, maybe give zoophile some psychological evaluation, if the guy is pathologically a zoophile, well id rather have him fuck a sheep than killhimself.
Also, a hefty fine and be done with it, that way at least the government is earning some money to turn a blind eye to something no one wants to see anyways. Are you sure animals can't consent? Does the animal try to prevent it, i.e. fight back/avoid the person? If yes, it doesn't consent. If no, it does.
I personally think zoophilia is pretty gross, but I'm not going to try to impose that view on everyone else. I was thinking about it and that's something I wasn't sure about. Even if the animal does not physically show that it does not want to have sex by fighting back or by displaying some kind of physical and observable behavior, is this necessary and sufficient proof that the animal consents to sex? What if the animal would prefer not to have sex, but would not dare or does not understand how to display behavior indicating this to be the case? I don't think it's radical to imagine that could be the case in some instances. I think it makes more sense to conclude that because there is no communication possible, that we have to err on the side of not allowing any sex with animals, on the off chance that it may be violating the animal in many or even just some cases. I think it makes less sense to err on the side of allowing sex with animals just because it may be okay with some or even many animals. Sorry, I think I've missed an important step in your argument here. If I'm following correctly it goes like this 1) Animals are incapable of communicating their wishes to us 2) We shouldn't do things to them if we don't know whether or not they consent 3) 2 only applies to sex with them, not eating them or domesticating them or using them as farm tools or keeping them as pets or doing medical research on them I don't understand how 3 logically follows from 2. Logically, yeah, we'd not capture them/eat them by that logic. However realistically it becomes a moral issue. It turns out that domesticating them and eating them in some cases greatly benefits humans. With raping animals, however, there is no real gain to humans on the whole. So it doesn't seem as worthwhile to violate their autonomy. It's tricky, and it's probably why it remains a 'hot topic' in bioethics To me your post reads "I like meat so consent doesn't matter if I want a steak but I don't like fucking them so consent is really important for that". It's a colossal hypocrisy, you don't get to argue one is fine and the other isn't, especially when your argument is rooted in animal welfare and the thing you claim is fine is killing them and the thing you claim is not fine is non harmful sex. Your desire for a steak is not a necessary thing for the good of the species. KwarK, may I ask why this topic is so important to you? somebody is wrong on the internet, thats very important. on topic: Kwark, if we asume that eating animals is wrong, would you agree with the points of falldownmarigold? No, I would still disagree with his premises but his argument would at least be internally consistent. I think animal consent has no value, I'm fine with eating them. If someone were to genuinely believe that animal consent had value, that beastiality was literally equivalent to rape and that slaughtering an animal to eat was literally equivalent to murder then their argument would be internally consistent but based upon premises which I did not agree with. However instead we've been getting that animal non-consent only matters when they're not being harmed and when the thing happening is something that I personally don't want to do which is just bullshit. I'd be happy to debate the value of animal consent but the only person in this topic to argue that animals are literally people is Evangelist who QQed out earlier. Everyone else has gone with "animals are people only when it suits me". Eating animals is OK because it's a normal, healthy and unavoidable aspect of life (if humans don't eat them, something else will). Having sex with an animal seems optional. Society can then have a say in if it's OK to use that option or not.
I don't get why you think eating animals isn't just as optional as having sex with animals. You call it 'normal' as though that gives your point some time of justification... but it doesn't. You also call eating animals healthy... and while eating a little bit of animal can be healthy, eating animals is generally not healthier to eating alternatives. You also call it unavoidable which isn't true either.
I'm sure having sex with animals seems quite optional to you, who ostensibly does not have a sexual attraction to animals. I don't either, but I don't consider the sexual tendencies of others to be optional and the sexual tendencies of myself to be somehow less optional, as you might.
|
On June 14 2013 16:01 Orangered wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 16:00 TOCHMY wrote:
I've not much experience with beastiality... But I don't see why it should not be illegal The issue is why need to legislate at all? Is it that mainstream in your country?
Do you feel 200 cases in 40 years suggest that?
|
I've seen enough animals with history of physical abuse to rather easily tell if an animal has been abused. Physical abuse is obviously very harmful to the well being of an animal.
Has anyone here actually encountered an animal that they can confirm has had regular sexual interaction with a human that was also not abused in other ways?
Of course an animal that is beaten, starved, and otherwise mistreated while also being sexually abused will be very damaged. What I am curious about is the effect that sexual interaction alone has on the well being of an animal. Unfortunately, sexual abuse is often coupled with other forms of abuse, so it's difficult to discern the impact of one specific behavior.
|
On June 17 2013 05:03 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 05:01 [Agony]x90 wrote:On June 17 2013 04:58 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 04:54 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:On June 17 2013 04:34 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 04:29 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 17 2013 04:23 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 04:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 17 2013 04:11 Millitron wrote:On June 17 2013 03:59 D10 wrote:
Problem is animals cant consent, they are almost biological machines, with the right conditioning anyone can get themselves a beast that will act as if its the shit.
Personally I wouldnt make it something criminal unless theres some serious abuse involved, but I wouldnt make it legal either, maybe give zoophile some psychological evaluation, if the guy is pathologically a zoophile, well id rather have him fuck a sheep than killhimself.
Also, a hefty fine and be done with it, that way at least the government is earning some money to turn a blind eye to something no one wants to see anyways. Are you sure animals can't consent? Does the animal try to prevent it, i.e. fight back/avoid the person? If yes, it doesn't consent. If no, it does.
I personally think zoophilia is pretty gross, but I'm not going to try to impose that view on everyone else. I was thinking about it and that's something I wasn't sure about. Even if the animal does not physically show that it does not want to have sex by fighting back or by displaying some kind of physical and observable behavior, is this necessary and sufficient proof that the animal consents to sex? What if the animal would prefer not to have sex, but would not dare or does not understand how to display behavior indicating this to be the case? I don't think it's radical to imagine that could be the case in some instances. I think it makes more sense to conclude that because there is no communication possible, that we have to err on the side of not allowing any sex with animals, on the off chance that it may be violating the animal in many or even just some cases. I think it makes less sense to err on the side of allowing sex with animals just because it may be okay with some or even many animals. Sorry, I think I've missed an important step in your argument here. If I'm following correctly it goes like this 1) Animals are incapable of communicating their wishes to us 2) We shouldn't do things to them if we don't know whether or not they consent 3) 2 only applies to sex with them, not eating them or domesticating them or using them as farm tools or keeping them as pets or doing medical research on them I don't understand how 3 logically follows from 2. Logically, yeah, we'd not capture them/eat them by that logic. However realistically it becomes a moral issue. It turns out that domesticating them and eating them in some cases greatly benefits humans. With raping animals, however, there is no real gain to humans on the whole. So it doesn't seem as worthwhile to violate their autonomy. It's tricky, and it's probably why it remains a 'hot topic' in bioethics To me your post reads "I like meat so consent doesn't matter if I want a steak but I don't like fucking them so consent is really important for that". It's a colossal hypocrisy, you don't get to argue one is fine and the other isn't, especially when your argument is rooted in animal welfare and the thing you claim is fine is killing them and the thing you claim is not fine is non harmful sex. Your desire for a steak is not a necessary thing for the good of the species. The act of killing can take as little as a couple seconds. I find the abuse of an animal throughout their life a lot worse than the killing of an animal at the end. I'm perfectly happy eating meat and at the same time not being okay with the needless suffering of animals to get me that meat. Just because they die in the end to become food doesn't mean you can't have the opinion that they should have some sort of decent life. In fact, particularly because they die to be eaten by me is why I find it important that they are not mistreated. The whole "just because you do X to them you should also be okay with doing Y" is pretty absurd. You think animals reared for meat are treated better than a zoophile (someone who literally feels love towards an animal) treats their, in their eyes, partner and lover? I'm not sure you have any idea where your food comes from. Kwark, don't forget, in the battle of taboos, here in America, sex is a shit ton more taboo than violence. Therefore, sexual deviance is considered much more "weird" than any violence related. By violence, I mean slaughtering for the purposes of food. People have been eating animals since we were animals ourselves, you saying that we should have started eating people to complement our early diet ?
I never said we should. Murder = Violence, but doesn't infer cannibalism, but both are still either illegal or regarded as taboo. Eating meat is not taboo, slaughtering animals by the thousands for meat could be considered taboo if we gave into PETA.
Don't make assumed associations with partial logic.
|
On June 17 2013 05:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 05:00 D10 wrote:On June 17 2013 04:58 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 04:54 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:On June 17 2013 04:34 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 04:29 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 17 2013 04:23 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 04:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 17 2013 04:11 Millitron wrote:On June 17 2013 03:59 D10 wrote:
Problem is animals cant consent, they are almost biological machines, with the right conditioning anyone can get themselves a beast that will act as if its the shit.
Personally I wouldnt make it something criminal unless theres some serious abuse involved, but I wouldnt make it legal either, maybe give zoophile some psychological evaluation, if the guy is pathologically a zoophile, well id rather have him fuck a sheep than killhimself.
Also, a hefty fine and be done with it, that way at least the government is earning some money to turn a blind eye to something no one wants to see anyways. Are you sure animals can't consent? Does the animal try to prevent it, i.e. fight back/avoid the person? If yes, it doesn't consent. If no, it does.
I personally think zoophilia is pretty gross, but I'm not going to try to impose that view on everyone else. I was thinking about it and that's something I wasn't sure about. Even if the animal does not physically show that it does not want to have sex by fighting back or by displaying some kind of physical and observable behavior, is this necessary and sufficient proof that the animal consents to sex? What if the animal would prefer not to have sex, but would not dare or does not understand how to display behavior indicating this to be the case? I don't think it's radical to imagine that could be the case in some instances. I think it makes more sense to conclude that because there is no communication possible, that we have to err on the side of not allowing any sex with animals, on the off chance that it may be violating the animal in many or even just some cases. I think it makes less sense to err on the side of allowing sex with animals just because it may be okay with some or even many animals. Sorry, I think I've missed an important step in your argument here. If I'm following correctly it goes like this 1) Animals are incapable of communicating their wishes to us 2) We shouldn't do things to them if we don't know whether or not they consent 3) 2 only applies to sex with them, not eating them or domesticating them or using them as farm tools or keeping them as pets or doing medical research on them I don't understand how 3 logically follows from 2. Logically, yeah, we'd not capture them/eat them by that logic. However realistically it becomes a moral issue. It turns out that domesticating them and eating them in some cases greatly benefits humans. With raping animals, however, there is no real gain to humans on the whole. So it doesn't seem as worthwhile to violate their autonomy. It's tricky, and it's probably why it remains a 'hot topic' in bioethics To me your post reads "I like meat so consent doesn't matter if I want a steak but I don't like fucking them so consent is really important for that". It's a colossal hypocrisy, you don't get to argue one is fine and the other isn't, especially when your argument is rooted in animal welfare and the thing you claim is fine is killing them and the thing you claim is not fine is non harmful sex. Your desire for a steak is not a necessary thing for the good of the species. The act of killing can take as little as a couple seconds. I find the abuse of an animal throughout their life a lot worse than the killing of an animal at the end. I'm perfectly happy eating meat and at the same time not being okay with the needless suffering of animals to get me that meat. Just because they die in the end to become food doesn't mean you can't have the opinion that they should have some sort of decent life. In fact, particularly because they die to be eaten by me is why I find it important that they are not mistreated. The whole "just because you do X to them you should also be okay with doing Y" is pretty absurd. You think animals reared for meat are treated better than a zoophile (someone who literally feels love towards an animal) treats their, in their eyes, partner and lover? I'm not sure you have any idea where your food comes from. He never came a nautic mile close from infering that he thinks that. He characterised beastiality as a lifetime of abuse while food production killing as taking just a few seconds. I think that's somewhat missing the issue.
no, it is not missing the issue at all.
the way that most of our meat is produced is just fucking disgusting and should be illegal.
|
On June 17 2013 04:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 04:54 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:On June 17 2013 04:34 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 04:29 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 17 2013 04:23 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 04:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 17 2013 04:11 Millitron wrote:On June 17 2013 03:59 D10 wrote:
Problem is animals cant consent, they are almost biological machines, with the right conditioning anyone can get themselves a beast that will act as if its the shit.
Personally I wouldnt make it something criminal unless theres some serious abuse involved, but I wouldnt make it legal either, maybe give zoophile some psychological evaluation, if the guy is pathologically a zoophile, well id rather have him fuck a sheep than killhimself.
Also, a hefty fine and be done with it, that way at least the government is earning some money to turn a blind eye to something no one wants to see anyways. Are you sure animals can't consent? Does the animal try to prevent it, i.e. fight back/avoid the person? If yes, it doesn't consent. If no, it does.
I personally think zoophilia is pretty gross, but I'm not going to try to impose that view on everyone else. I was thinking about it and that's something I wasn't sure about. Even if the animal does not physically show that it does not want to have sex by fighting back or by displaying some kind of physical and observable behavior, is this necessary and sufficient proof that the animal consents to sex? What if the animal would prefer not to have sex, but would not dare or does not understand how to display behavior indicating this to be the case? I don't think it's radical to imagine that could be the case in some instances. I think it makes more sense to conclude that because there is no communication possible, that we have to err on the side of not allowing any sex with animals, on the off chance that it may be violating the animal in many or even just some cases. I think it makes less sense to err on the side of allowing sex with animals just because it may be okay with some or even many animals. Sorry, I think I've missed an important step in your argument here. If I'm following correctly it goes like this 1) Animals are incapable of communicating their wishes to us 2) We shouldn't do things to them if we don't know whether or not they consent 3) 2 only applies to sex with them, not eating them or domesticating them or using them as farm tools or keeping them as pets or doing medical research on them I don't understand how 3 logically follows from 2. Logically, yeah, we'd not capture them/eat them by that logic. However realistically it becomes a moral issue. It turns out that domesticating them and eating them in some cases greatly benefits humans. With raping animals, however, there is no real gain to humans on the whole. So it doesn't seem as worthwhile to violate their autonomy. It's tricky, and it's probably why it remains a 'hot topic' in bioethics To me your post reads "I like meat so consent doesn't matter if I want a steak but I don't like fucking them so consent is really important for that". It's a colossal hypocrisy, you don't get to argue one is fine and the other isn't, especially when your argument is rooted in animal welfare and the thing you claim is fine is killing them and the thing you claim is not fine is non harmful sex. Your desire for a steak is not a necessary thing for the good of the species. The act of killing can take as little as a couple seconds. I find the abuse of an animal throughout their life a lot worse than the killing of an animal at the end. I'm perfectly happy eating meat and at the same time not being okay with the needless suffering of animals to get me that meat. Just because they die in the end to become food doesn't mean you can't have the opinion that they should have some sort of decent life. In fact, particularly because they die to be eaten by me is why I find it important that they are not mistreated. The whole "just because you do X to them you should also be okay with doing Y" is pretty absurd. You think animals reared for meat are treated better than a zoophile (someone who literally feels love towards an animal) treats their, in their eyes, partner and lover? I'm not sure you have any idea where your food comes from.
I have no idea what that has got to do with what I said. I just disagree with the perspective that just because you are okay with killing animals for food you must also be okay with any type of abuse and mistreatment they go through to get there. None of your post even has anything to do with that.
Also, clearly you don't have a clue as to what type of meat I buy, nor is it relevant to my point.
|
On June 17 2013 05:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 05:00 D10 wrote:On June 17 2013 04:58 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 04:54 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:On June 17 2013 04:34 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 04:29 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 17 2013 04:23 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 04:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 17 2013 04:11 Millitron wrote:On June 17 2013 03:59 D10 wrote:
Problem is animals cant consent, they are almost biological machines, with the right conditioning anyone can get themselves a beast that will act as if its the shit.
Personally I wouldnt make it something criminal unless theres some serious abuse involved, but I wouldnt make it legal either, maybe give zoophile some psychological evaluation, if the guy is pathologically a zoophile, well id rather have him fuck a sheep than killhimself.
Also, a hefty fine and be done with it, that way at least the government is earning some money to turn a blind eye to something no one wants to see anyways. Are you sure animals can't consent? Does the animal try to prevent it, i.e. fight back/avoid the person? If yes, it doesn't consent. If no, it does.
I personally think zoophilia is pretty gross, but I'm not going to try to impose that view on everyone else. I was thinking about it and that's something I wasn't sure about. Even if the animal does not physically show that it does not want to have sex by fighting back or by displaying some kind of physical and observable behavior, is this necessary and sufficient proof that the animal consents to sex? What if the animal would prefer not to have sex, but would not dare or does not understand how to display behavior indicating this to be the case? I don't think it's radical to imagine that could be the case in some instances. I think it makes more sense to conclude that because there is no communication possible, that we have to err on the side of not allowing any sex with animals, on the off chance that it may be violating the animal in many or even just some cases. I think it makes less sense to err on the side of allowing sex with animals just because it may be okay with some or even many animals. Sorry, I think I've missed an important step in your argument here. If I'm following correctly it goes like this 1) Animals are incapable of communicating their wishes to us 2) We shouldn't do things to them if we don't know whether or not they consent 3) 2 only applies to sex with them, not eating them or domesticating them or using them as farm tools or keeping them as pets or doing medical research on them I don't understand how 3 logically follows from 2. Logically, yeah, we'd not capture them/eat them by that logic. However realistically it becomes a moral issue. It turns out that domesticating them and eating them in some cases greatly benefits humans. With raping animals, however, there is no real gain to humans on the whole. So it doesn't seem as worthwhile to violate their autonomy. It's tricky, and it's probably why it remains a 'hot topic' in bioethics To me your post reads "I like meat so consent doesn't matter if I want a steak but I don't like fucking them so consent is really important for that". It's a colossal hypocrisy, you don't get to argue one is fine and the other isn't, especially when your argument is rooted in animal welfare and the thing you claim is fine is killing them and the thing you claim is not fine is non harmful sex. Your desire for a steak is not a necessary thing for the good of the species. The act of killing can take as little as a couple seconds. I find the abuse of an animal throughout their life a lot worse than the killing of an animal at the end. I'm perfectly happy eating meat and at the same time not being okay with the needless suffering of animals to get me that meat. Just because they die in the end to become food doesn't mean you can't have the opinion that they should have some sort of decent life. In fact, particularly because they die to be eaten by me is why I find it important that they are not mistreated. The whole "just because you do X to them you should also be okay with doing Y" is pretty absurd. You think animals reared for meat are treated better than a zoophile (someone who literally feels love towards an animal) treats their, in their eyes, partner and lover? I'm not sure you have any idea where your food comes from. He never came a nautic mile close from infering that he thinks that. He characterised beastiality as a lifetime of abuse while food production killing as taking just a few seconds. I think that's somewhat missing the issue.
I wasn't referring to bestiality at all, you were talking about animal welfare.
|
United States43142 Posts
On June 17 2013 05:16 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 04:58 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 04:54 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:On June 17 2013 04:34 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 04:29 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 17 2013 04:23 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 04:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 17 2013 04:11 Millitron wrote:On June 17 2013 03:59 D10 wrote:
Problem is animals cant consent, they are almost biological machines, with the right conditioning anyone can get themselves a beast that will act as if its the shit.
Personally I wouldnt make it something criminal unless theres some serious abuse involved, but I wouldnt make it legal either, maybe give zoophile some psychological evaluation, if the guy is pathologically a zoophile, well id rather have him fuck a sheep than killhimself.
Also, a hefty fine and be done with it, that way at least the government is earning some money to turn a blind eye to something no one wants to see anyways. Are you sure animals can't consent? Does the animal try to prevent it, i.e. fight back/avoid the person? If yes, it doesn't consent. If no, it does.
I personally think zoophilia is pretty gross, but I'm not going to try to impose that view on everyone else. I was thinking about it and that's something I wasn't sure about. Even if the animal does not physically show that it does not want to have sex by fighting back or by displaying some kind of physical and observable behavior, is this necessary and sufficient proof that the animal consents to sex? What if the animal would prefer not to have sex, but would not dare or does not understand how to display behavior indicating this to be the case? I don't think it's radical to imagine that could be the case in some instances. I think it makes more sense to conclude that because there is no communication possible, that we have to err on the side of not allowing any sex with animals, on the off chance that it may be violating the animal in many or even just some cases. I think it makes less sense to err on the side of allowing sex with animals just because it may be okay with some or even many animals. Sorry, I think I've missed an important step in your argument here. If I'm following correctly it goes like this 1) Animals are incapable of communicating their wishes to us 2) We shouldn't do things to them if we don't know whether or not they consent 3) 2 only applies to sex with them, not eating them or domesticating them or using them as farm tools or keeping them as pets or doing medical research on them I don't understand how 3 logically follows from 2. Logically, yeah, we'd not capture them/eat them by that logic. However realistically it becomes a moral issue. It turns out that domesticating them and eating them in some cases greatly benefits humans. With raping animals, however, there is no real gain to humans on the whole. So it doesn't seem as worthwhile to violate their autonomy. It's tricky, and it's probably why it remains a 'hot topic' in bioethics To me your post reads "I like meat so consent doesn't matter if I want a steak but I don't like fucking them so consent is really important for that". It's a colossal hypocrisy, you don't get to argue one is fine and the other isn't, especially when your argument is rooted in animal welfare and the thing you claim is fine is killing them and the thing you claim is not fine is non harmful sex. Your desire for a steak is not a necessary thing for the good of the species. The act of killing can take as little as a couple seconds. I find the abuse of an animal throughout their life a lot worse than the killing of an animal at the end. I'm perfectly happy eating meat and at the same time not being okay with the needless suffering of animals to get me that meat. Just because they die in the end to become food doesn't mean you can't have the opinion that they should have some sort of decent life. In fact, particularly because they die to be eaten by me is why I find it important that they are not mistreated. The whole "just because you do X to them you should also be okay with doing Y" is pretty absurd. You think animals reared for meat are treated better than a zoophile (someone who literally feels love towards an animal) treats their, in their eyes, partner and lover? I'm not sure you have any idea where your food comes from. I have no idea what that has got to do with what I said. I just disagree with the perspective that just because you are okay with killing animals for food you must also be okay with any type of abuse and mistreatment they go through to get there. None of your post even has anything to do with that. Also, clearly you don't have a clue as to what type of meat I buy, nor is it relevant to my point.
I misread your post as calling beastiality a lifetime of abuse rather than industrialised meat farming as a lifetime of abuse. Sorry.
|
On June 17 2013 05:07 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 05:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 17 2013 04:48 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 04:41 Paljas wrote:On June 17 2013 04:35 butchji wrote:On June 17 2013 04:34 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 04:29 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 17 2013 04:23 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 04:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 17 2013 04:11 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
Are you sure animals can't consent?
Does the animal try to prevent it, i.e. fight back/avoid the person? If yes, it doesn't consent. If no, it does.
I personally think zoophilia is pretty gross, but I'm not going to try to impose that view on everyone else. I was thinking about it and that's something I wasn't sure about. Even if the animal does not physically show that it does not want to have sex by fighting back or by displaying some kind of physical and observable behavior, is this necessary and sufficient proof that the animal consents to sex? What if the animal would prefer not to have sex, but would not dare or does not understand how to display behavior indicating this to be the case? I don't think it's radical to imagine that could be the case in some instances. I think it makes more sense to conclude that because there is no communication possible, that we have to err on the side of not allowing any sex with animals, on the off chance that it may be violating the animal in many or even just some cases. I think it makes less sense to err on the side of allowing sex with animals just because it may be okay with some or even many animals. Sorry, I think I've missed an important step in your argument here. If I'm following correctly it goes like this 1) Animals are incapable of communicating their wishes to us 2) We shouldn't do things to them if we don't know whether or not they consent 3) 2 only applies to sex with them, not eating them or domesticating them or using them as farm tools or keeping them as pets or doing medical research on them I don't understand how 3 logically follows from 2. Logically, yeah, we'd not capture them/eat them by that logic. However realistically it becomes a moral issue. It turns out that domesticating them and eating them in some cases greatly benefits humans. With raping animals, however, there is no real gain to humans on the whole. So it doesn't seem as worthwhile to violate their autonomy. It's tricky, and it's probably why it remains a 'hot topic' in bioethics To me your post reads "I like meat so consent doesn't matter if I want a steak but I don't like fucking them so consent is really important for that". It's a colossal hypocrisy, you don't get to argue one is fine and the other isn't, especially when your argument is rooted in animal welfare and the thing you claim is fine is killing them and the thing you claim is not fine is non harmful sex. Your desire for a steak is not a necessary thing for the good of the species. KwarK, may I ask why this topic is so important to you? somebody is wrong on the internet, thats very important. on topic: Kwark, if we asume that eating animals is wrong, would you agree with the points of falldownmarigold? No, I would still disagree with his premises but his argument would at least be internally consistent. I think animal consent has no value, I'm fine with eating them. If someone were to genuinely believe that animal consent had value, that beastiality was literally equivalent to rape and that slaughtering an animal to eat was literally equivalent to murder then their argument would be internally consistent but based upon premises which I did not agree with. However instead we've been getting that animal non-consent only matters when they're not being harmed and when the thing happening is something that I personally don't want to do which is just bullshit. I'd be happy to debate the value of animal consent but the only person in this topic to argue that animals are literally people is Evangelist who QQed out earlier. Everyone else has gone with "animals are people only when it suits me". Eating animals is OK because it's a normal, healthy and unavoidable aspect of life (if humans don't eat them, something else will). Having sex with an animal seems optional. Society can then have a say in if it's OK to use that option or not. I don't get why you think eating animals isn't just as optional as having sex with animals. You call it 'normal' as though that gives your point some time of justification... but it doesn't. You also call eating animals healthy... and while eating a little bit of animal can be healthy, eating animals is generally not healthier to eating alternatives. You also call it unavoidable which isn't true either. I'm sure having sex with animals seems quite optional to you, who ostensibly does not have a sexual attraction to animals. I don't either, but I don't consider the sexual tendencies of others to be optional and the sexual tendencies of myself to be somehow less optional, as you might.
Fwiw maybe there will come a day where eating an animal is seen worse than having sex with him, that day has certainly not yet arrived.
Regardless of the merits, unless one wants to isolate oneself into hermitage, he will be forced to interact with others, their cultures, societies and laws.
All of whom are created by their perception of reality, so yes, in the end, its all subjective, and most likely we are all wrong, but we must operate from where we are, and not a single one of the people condemning this, specially the ones at the top of the swedish parliament, are looking at these zoophiles and thinking.
"Oh how cute, she has decided to have a dog as a boyfriend"
No, they are thinking "Oh my god, what poor disturbed sick person, im gonna outlaw this out of pity for her wreched mind"
And thats how things work, one day someone is right, the other day someone is wrong, we can set our eyes high looking for the ultimate truth, and forget that despire it being right before our eyes we are forced to live in a world where everyone else is looking at the same thing from a different place experiencing a different perception.
I say it is natural that with a population of 7 billion people we will have people with all sorts of deviations from the norm in regards to behavior, psyche, sexual desire, etc... There will always be people with patterns of behavior and affinities that are outrageous to the great majority, same way we believe human trafficking, raping, killing are wrong but some dont give a crap and dont see peoples rights in quite the same light as we do. Im not trying to like one thing to the other, merely show that what is right or wrong is really subjective and no one should feel like they have the ultimate answer without ultimaty subscribing to some sort of heavy ideology.
When many countries created their modern court systems and legislature, they didnt wanted equality fraternity and liberty, they started to try to enforce the "ideal" way of life, and it is that mindset of trying to enforce on people which is the correct way to live, based on studies, averages, and etc that creates this feeling of empowerment at the people doing such deviations illegal or condemenable, they believe themselves empowered by the people for this very purpose, to proselityze the ideal of humanity.
Personally, I believe that having a sexual relationship with an animal, someone who doesnt talk back to you, who has a different lifespan than you, different sensorial perception, different priorities in life, incapable of basically any kind of cognitive hability that would allow him to actually fully comprehend what his human sex partner is feeling and intending, I feel its sort of cheap to say its a valid relationship because I get the impression that its a one way relationship.
The animal is owned by whoever is doing sex with him (more often than not), isnt it quite a medieval concept to have sex with your proprierty ?
|
United States24709 Posts
Actually, I think it's wrong to be able to own something capable of being emotionally damaged by statutory rape. The only close exception to this is being a parent/guardian of a child, of course. I don't believe non-sentient creatures are at risk of emotional damage from sex like humans are, and similarly believe animal ownership (but not physical abuse) is okay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
