|
On October 08 2006 07:30 BeSiGeR wrote:
i would say i am against fucking animals, and im totaly antireligious too, so its got nothing to do with that.
Let's say God doesn't exist. A step further, let's say nothing metaphysical/non-tangible exists.
OK.
The secular method of deciding what constitutes an "immoral act" is usually, with some variation, utilitarian. In short, if an act causes more harm than good, it is "immoral"; it's a consequence-based ethical paradigm. Also, the Golden Rule is built-in by intuition; treat other people how you want to be treated.
So by these standards, if the animal is enjoying the sex, there is really no objective way to claim that it's a "wrong" act.
Most people have an aversion to animal sex. The intelligent secular mind will see this as "bias" or "prejudice"; you simply aren't enlightened enough to recognize the inherent neutrality of all behavior. To give any credibility to your moral intuition is to imply that such an act is inherently wrong. This view is not compatible with the moral relativism of contemporary society. You are claiming that the act is absolutely, inherently wrong.
Therefore, all consistent, moral relativists cannot responsibly judge the Dutch or any other culture for their sexual tendencies, up to and including sex with animals, without contradicting their belief system.
This is why I'm a moral absolutists and gives a bit of insight to my last post. I made this post as the "obvious" version, for those who knee-jerk-flame people for religious appeals.
|
On October 08 2006 13:42 Chill wrote:
[removed quote within quote]
Umm people test on animals for a reason. So, I think so.
Yes, they test cosmetics so they can make money on VANITY products. You could define it as torturing animals in vain. Anyone who supports this deserves to have the living shit beat out of them.
|
On October 08 2006 13:57 HeadBangaa wrote:
So by these standards, if the animal is enjoying the sex, there is really no objective way to claim that it's a "wrong" act.
If someone raises a daughter to enjoy incest, is it wrong even though she would enjoy it?
|
errr, why am i being quoted, i wrote that in response to somebody saying that all my moral values come from religion, that is that i dont realy have a oppinion but is rather forced upon me by my religion, wich it is not, although religion teaches moral, i think people would still know the difference between right and wrong without religion
|
On October 08 2006 13:56 Servolisk wrote:
I don't know why I clicked this thread again... curious why it hadn't been settled..
Anyway... I think the ways of measuring animal willingness are short sighted. It neglects that humans have a responsibility to train/educate animals to be normal. It's like some isolated person on a farm with three daughters who brought them up to enjoy incest. When considering what animals do willingly, remember that there is almost no such thing as a bad pet, only a bad owner. They wouldn't be doing these things willingly if they weren't brought up in a specific way.
I think animals are closer to humans than given credit (though I don't want to argue them as equals in all things, I think they have equal rights). It is true they are stupid, often, and posess other bad qualities, but I believe that like humans, they act how they are treated. I find my dog to be smarter than most because I make an effort to adapt my communication to her and take her seriously. I can communicate with her better than I could communicate with most humans that do not speak, or speak my language.
This is very circular logic.
The premise of your post, I'm assuming, is that consent is indeed the parameter by which "animal sex" must be judged, which is why you delve into determining animal consent.
"Animal consent must be judged in the context of responsible animal-socialization."
"Animals should be socialized to dislike sex with humans, because ___?"
"Therefore, sex with animals is wrong, because a properly socialized animal will not enjoy sex with humans."
At no point did you explain why animals should be trained to abhor sex with humans.
EDIT: i agree with your conclusion, but not the methods you used to arrive there 
|
On October 08 2006 14:03 BeSiGeR wrote:
errr, why am i being quoted, i wrote that in response to somebody saying that all my moral values come from religion, that is that i dont realy have a oppinion but is rather forced upon me by my religion, wich it is not, although religion teaches moral, i think people would still know the difference between right and wrong without religion
I quoted you because you claim that religion is not needed to judge the morality of the situation. And not just any moral absolutism, but based on moral intuition alone...
I'm just making sure you know that your beliefs do require a sort of absolutism in order to be consistent. Mores based on religion are absolutes, but of course, not all absolutist views of morality are religious based. I'm just making sure you know that, in order to call animal sex "immoral", you must be an absolutist, because otherwise: "no harm, no foul"
|
Calgary26004 Posts
And what do you think they're testing? That the cosmetics look pretty, or that they don't harm thousands of people?
"The Draize Eye Irritancy Test is used to evaluate the ability of a test substance to cause damage to the tissues of the eye."
Stop trying to stir shit. We hurt a few animals to avoid hurting many humans. The fact that cosmetics aren't life essential doesn't avoid that pain people would feel if the tests weren't done on animals.
|
On October 08 2006 14:03 HeadBangaa wrote:
"Animals should be socialized to dislike sex with humans, because ___?"
Like with humans in the example I gave, I think if they had a choice between one life or another, they'd choose the normal one. I could probably give a variety of biological reasons as to why it is wrong, but since we are focusing on this moral hypothetical I will try and stick to that.
I think the best type of life could be defined as the one that someone (including animals) would choose out of all possible others if they could. In this case, it would be the one the animal would choose out of all typically available for animals in the modern world. I am very confident in saying that no animals would choose the life where they could have sex with humans.
|
I like to try to explain why I think sex with animals is wrong. Maybe it is bias but I would like a more logical basis for my opinions. A respect for living things. For some creatures more then other. I think someone who exploits sex from a position where he has much more power or influnece over the other as an obscenety. Client over slave prostitute. Adult over a child (has less awareness and assertion over the situation to decline needs no further explanation I hope). Rapist over victim (force intimmidation). Sentient over unsentient creatures fits in this line of thinking. It is corrupted and obsene and should therefore be banned. The utilitarian comparisson does not apply because it is on an obscene plane that fits with other obscene corrupting behavior.
|
On October 08 2006 14:11 Chill wrote:
And what do you think they're testing? That the cosmetics look pretty, or that they don't harm thousands of people?
"The Draize Eye Irritancy Test is used to evaluate the ability of a test substance to cause damage to the tissues of the eye."
Stop trying to stir shit. We hurt a few animals to avoid hurting many humans. The fact that cosmetics aren't life essential doesn't avoid that pain people would feel if the tests weren't done on animals.
Lol @ "we hurt a few animals to avoid hurting many humans".
What you said has nothing to do with my argument. Cosmetics are VANITY items. They are not necessary. Humans would not need be harmed if there were not animals to test products that are not at all necessary. In fact, they would still be able to develop these things safely without animals, it would just cost more money.
|
Sweden33723 Posts
On October 08 2006 14:11 Chill wrote:
And what do you think they're testing? That the cosmetics look pretty, or that they don't harm thousands of people?
"The Draize Eye Irritancy Test is used to evaluate the ability of a test substance to cause damage to the tissues of the eye."
Stop trying to stir shit. We hurt a few animals to avoid hurting many humans. The fact that cosmetics aren't life essential doesn't avoid that pain people would feel if the tests weren't done on animals.
Testing cosmetics on animals is fucking sick and I consider people who do, or condone this, to be bottom of the barrel, grade-A fucking scum.
Here's an idea: STOP PUTTING HAZARDOUS INGREDIENTS IN THE FUCKING MAKEUP.
I'm not gonna argue about testing done for medical purposes (even though I'm sure you could find willing human test subjects.. ie people dying in the disease you are trying to find the cure for, but yeah, wouldn't be enough probably).
|
Sweden33723 Posts
On October 08 2006 13:37 HeadBangaa wrote:
[removed quote within quote]
In the context of today's ethical slippery slopes, you're totally correct.
But then, animal sex is glaringly wrong simply by moral intuition, and to accept such acts as "natural" or even "neutral" requires a bit of socialization.
Of course, this is because God never intended humans to have sex with animals.
I can't tell if your last line is a complete joke or if you are just dumb :[ Or trying to get people to flame you, I really have no idea what you are trying to do. I find it hard to believe you are serious but uh I dunno.
|
damn it's sick indeed
animals gone wild
|
Netherlands19141 Posts
This thread really needs a: "If it ain't dutch it ain't much".
And it's a damn good laugh to read this thread. Ow and p.s. I never heard of an animal brother roflmao. Personally I don't have anything with or against sex with animals so if people get off on getting fucked by a horse, its wine with me. And if the girl gets off on getting 2 litres of horse cum all over her.. well the stallion had fun to if you ask me. :p
This thread is awsome lol.
|
United States44402 Posts
As people other people should be our priority. Not animals, no matter how cute they are. Thus, in my opinion, the only time the suffering of an animal is important is if it causes a human to suffer through empathy. Then I would act, but only to help the human. Animals do not have human rights. This is because they are not human. Just as the fox can butcher far more chickens than it intends to eat, simply because it is stronger and wants to have some fun, so humans can test cosmetics on animals simply because it's more cost effective. If anything more cost effective has more reason behind it for that would lower prices and thus decrease the net amount of work a human would have to do to possess it. Nature is cruel, strong animals use weak animals. Deal with it.
On an aside, any issue like this is incredibly democratic. Take animal testing, if people are against it they don't buy products tested on animals. Thus the companies testing on animals stop doing this. The amount of animal testing done will always be proportional to the publics view on it. And that is as democratic as things come. Absolute proportional representation. The same applies with animal porn. If you don't like it don't buy it and by doing so your voice has made an impact. Something doesn't need to be illegal to disappear.
Btw, I'm a strict vegetarian and have been for years, I never buy stuff tested on animals or buy anything like battery farmed eggs. I have made a choice to reduce the amount of suffering I cause to animals. But this is a personal choice and I defend the right of anyone else to torture animals should it bring a slight smile to their face, or should they have nothing to do.
|
On October 08 2006 10:48 NewbSaibot wrote:
[removed quote within quote] No, you can only eat meat once it has been preprocessed by 20th century technologies. If i were to go shoot a deer, and throw him on your table and make you eat it, aside from the fact that you probably couldnt even bite through the hide, if you were to get any of that raw bloody tissue in your mouth, you would probably contract any number of diseases, vomit, or just plain get sick in general for a week.
Fire: the great 20th century technology. lol..
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
Yeah assuming you could move that dead carcass on a squared wheel. Haha, cannot wait until they event circular shapes...
|
On October 08 2006 14:11 Chill wrote:
"The Draize Eye Irritancy Test is used to evaluate the ability of a test substance to cause damage to the tissues of the eye."
We hurt a few animals to avoid hurting many humans. The fact that cosmetics aren't life essential doesn't avoid that pain people would feel if the tests weren't done on animals.
A certain company rubbed nail-polish remover on the exposed eyeballs of living rabbits so that their warning labels could be correct as to the amount of damage done to ones eyes if they should come into contact with the product. This test simply isn't needed. We all know not to put nail-polish remover in our eyes. There was no reason to permanently blind those animals so they could find the best way of wording their warning. Although maybe there is a substantial argument for the testing of pharmecuticals on animals, cosmetics should not be tested on animals, at least to that extent.
|
i'm surprised this thread isn't banned.
|
PETA does it all the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
