-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
AronRa: "healthy sex should be between equals". Discuss.
- Thread starter pookylies
- Start date
Well....
There are no rights in nature, without humans (AFAWK) there is no good or evil, a star devouring a planet is not good, a lion killing a gazelle is not bad, a disease wiping off a whole species of plant life is not object able by itself.
With the advent of intellect (which is not limited to humans as some primate seem to be able to make value judgments) comes the idea that some things are desirable while others aren't by themselves; while an elephant can find a lion gnawing in its trunk undesirable (AFAWK) it can´t make the connection that harming others is generally undesirable the way Kant did while talking about the categorical imperative (that which is good by being desirable in all situations I believe (life has this in the survival and reproductive instincts but they don't come from introspection and can't be expanded to other's needs (again primates do have societies in which individuals make decisions that seem to show a kind of ability to recognize the other as worthy (the gorilla saving the kid that fell into the pen)))
The ability to recognize that the other is also worthy of enjoying some quality of life is one of the things that separate us from animals, especially when the other belongs to another species, (we are not quite there since we adore cats but continue to feel cows are fair game, respect dolphins but treat tuna like shit, Go Vegan!).
When we recognize that the other is worthy of respect we do so because we can sympathize with he/she /it, recognizing that animals deserve respect is sympathizing with them in that we can understand (even if not really feel) their pain and plight.
Now, recognizing that the other is worthy of respect and sympathizing with it means that we understand that we can do harm to it and also that we wish to do it no harm so the question is; is having sex with an animal harmful?
First let's see it from the human side:
Sex is supposed to be the act through which we reproduce, as a way of incentivizing this, a reward has been wired into our brains so that we seek to reproduce as often as "convenient", those ancestors of ours that had lesser sex drives reproduced less and after millions of years their genetic influence diminished while those with higher sex drives (but not pathological) got to be more influential so now we like sex quite a lot.
Part of the sexual reward is a cocktail of hormones, endorphins etc... that make the sexual act to be something "special" especially when enjoyed with another person, the chemicals in the brain create bonds that makes us care more for the person we just had sex with than we would before (this however does not mean that one can’t go on a one night stand or have revenge sex).
Sex also has a social and personal component to it, expectations are met, egos get inflated or deflated, and life changes a little or a lot depending on the significance the people that had sex and those that find out they did place on it.
As genders, sex is also rather different, given the significant compromise that sex represents for a woman, she tends (though not in all cases) to place greater importance upon the act than the man, since for a man his best strategy for sexual reproduction is having sex with as many fertile females as possible (hence our ability to impregnate a different woman every couple of days) and for the woman what makes sense it to find a man that will stay and help her survive the pregnancy and provide for the offspring (since the last trimester doing anything more than light work is extremely dangerous for both the mother and the child).
From this we try to arrive to "healthy sex"
What does it mean to have "healthy" sex? From a biological point, it will be sex that doesn't damage either of the participants, however the personal and social aspects of sex means that "healthy" is rather indefinable, there are places where people can have sex legally as young as 14 years old, other where the age is 18, others when you can have sex with only one person, others where your parents decide who you are going to have sex with, others where you gain "prestige" by having as many casual partners as possible, there is drunk sex, tantric sex, domination scenarios, cosplay furries, and then there is Japan where it seems it is our lord Cthulhu who decides what the fuck is in this week.
So let’s just try to stick with it does no bodily harm to the either of the participants.
Now, when can we say that there will be psychological harm?
Let’s say that rape is almost universally despised (the bible has this one passage where the lord commands some light rape but eve Christians tend to see it as more of a blooper than anything else) and say that rape is not healthy sex, also lets (just for a guideline) that sex can't be healthy before a girl menstruates or a boy ejaculates for the first time (which is awful young I believe but all other standards seem to be arbitrary and this one at least is based in nature and is different in every case thus adapting better to each individual)
Now when can we say that there will be social harm?
Cheating is often consider bad since it inflicts psychological distress on the one who is being cheated upon so let's say no cheating, if you want a new sexual relation, make sure the last one understands it's over.
So now healthy sex is between not cheating, consenting, reproductively capable people. They may be different sex, the same sex, 2 or 3 or 17, black white, red, rich, poor, attractive or not.
Now, what is healthy sex for an animal?
Animals have a social component to mating, great pains are taken to find the "best mate" and in many animal societies cheating is frowned upon (especially with the alpha female or the harem of the alpha male) males will defend territories etc... So let’s go again with no cheating
A psychological component is also had by animals (primates at least), Coco the sign talking gorilla refused some suitors for being ugly (“toilet face” I believe is the construct she used), Some dogs have shown stress after being forcibly impregnated, so let's say no rape
And we will again include the no bodily harm clause (even though tons of insects kill or die after having sex, bees only reproduce if they belong to certain casts of be, so do ants etc... But Baby Jesus help me if there are people wanting to have sex with insects other than the loathsome Drow (But they live in the underdark so fuck them).
The key here is how long will the social and psychological aspects have an impact upon the animal, this will vary of course but while a raped woman or a betrayed man will most likely be scarred for life, an animal seems to be back to normal behavior within a few weeks.
Now, the fact that the animal "forgets" the harm done upon it doesn't mean that the harm was not inflicted just as a woman being raped while drugged is no less raped if she doesn't remember it.
So, can humans have healthy sex? yes,
Can animals have healthy sex? yes,
Can animals and humans have healthy sex together?
Well...
Assuming that neither the human nor the animal is being hurt, and is not cheating (on the husband or the stallion’s mare for example), we only need to check if it is adversely affecting them in a psychological level.
Animals can't give consent to have sex with a human but this is not the crux of the argument since the cat may not mind being fucked while in heat, the problem is that the human can't GET consent to have sex with the cat and thus is committing tacit rape in the interaction.
So no, I believe that there can't be "healthy" sex between humans and animals, not for the human at least since psychologically the human is inflicting rape upon a non-consenting animal.
Now healthy sex between "equals"
Fucking hell, what is an equal? Is it the same species? Same age category? Same sex? Same pay grade? Same IQ? Same culture?
A case can be made for and against having sex with members of the same and different categories I just listed. So using the word "equals" is a problem.
Should mentally challenged people be allowed to only have sex whit other mentally challenged people? Should Hugh Hefner give up the pimp life he so much loves just because he is old?
We have come up with rules of thumb for some of these scenarios, no adults fucking children, no humans fucking cats, but do these restrictions come from a lack of equality or are there other concerns being addressed? I believe the later.
I think that when we say that an adult priest can’t be “Special Jesus friends” with the altar boy or the fellow from Alabama can’t marry his sister’s “sexy” goat it is not equality we are taking into consideration but rather the possibility to do harm on one, the other or both by such a liaison.
So in conclusion
Should sex only be had between equals?
No, sex should be had by differents as long as it is not harming (bodily, psychologically or socially to either of the parts) (in those 3 categories however no one can really tell what is right for all cases so it is a rather fuzzy line the one we are not crossing) so we arrive again at the no cheating, no harming, no kids rule.
Should humans have sex with animals?
No, humans hurt themselves by engaging in an unconsesual relationship with an animal.
There are no rights in nature, without humans (AFAWK) there is no good or evil, a star devouring a planet is not good, a lion killing a gazelle is not bad, a disease wiping off a whole species of plant life is not object able by itself.
With the advent of intellect (which is not limited to humans as some primate seem to be able to make value judgments) comes the idea that some things are desirable while others aren't by themselves; while an elephant can find a lion gnawing in its trunk undesirable (AFAWK) it can´t make the connection that harming others is generally undesirable the way Kant did while talking about the categorical imperative (that which is good by being desirable in all situations I believe (life has this in the survival and reproductive instincts but they don't come from introspection and can't be expanded to other's needs (again primates do have societies in which individuals make decisions that seem to show a kind of ability to recognize the other as worthy (the gorilla saving the kid that fell into the pen)))
The ability to recognize that the other is also worthy of enjoying some quality of life is one of the things that separate us from animals, especially when the other belongs to another species, (we are not quite there since we adore cats but continue to feel cows are fair game, respect dolphins but treat tuna like shit, Go Vegan!).
When we recognize that the other is worthy of respect we do so because we can sympathize with he/she /it, recognizing that animals deserve respect is sympathizing with them in that we can understand (even if not really feel) their pain and plight.
Now, recognizing that the other is worthy of respect and sympathizing with it means that we understand that we can do harm to it and also that we wish to do it no harm so the question is; is having sex with an animal harmful?
First let's see it from the human side:
Sex is supposed to be the act through which we reproduce, as a way of incentivizing this, a reward has been wired into our brains so that we seek to reproduce as often as "convenient", those ancestors of ours that had lesser sex drives reproduced less and after millions of years their genetic influence diminished while those with higher sex drives (but not pathological) got to be more influential so now we like sex quite a lot.
Part of the sexual reward is a cocktail of hormones, endorphins etc... that make the sexual act to be something "special" especially when enjoyed with another person, the chemicals in the brain create bonds that makes us care more for the person we just had sex with than we would before (this however does not mean that one can’t go on a one night stand or have revenge sex).
Sex also has a social and personal component to it, expectations are met, egos get inflated or deflated, and life changes a little or a lot depending on the significance the people that had sex and those that find out they did place on it.
As genders, sex is also rather different, given the significant compromise that sex represents for a woman, she tends (though not in all cases) to place greater importance upon the act than the man, since for a man his best strategy for sexual reproduction is having sex with as many fertile females as possible (hence our ability to impregnate a different woman every couple of days) and for the woman what makes sense it to find a man that will stay and help her survive the pregnancy and provide for the offspring (since the last trimester doing anything more than light work is extremely dangerous for both the mother and the child).
From this we try to arrive to "healthy sex"
What does it mean to have "healthy" sex? From a biological point, it will be sex that doesn't damage either of the participants, however the personal and social aspects of sex means that "healthy" is rather indefinable, there are places where people can have sex legally as young as 14 years old, other where the age is 18, others when you can have sex with only one person, others where your parents decide who you are going to have sex with, others where you gain "prestige" by having as many casual partners as possible, there is drunk sex, tantric sex, domination scenarios, cosplay furries, and then there is Japan where it seems it is our lord Cthulhu who decides what the fuck is in this week.
So let’s just try to stick with it does no bodily harm to the either of the participants.
Now, when can we say that there will be psychological harm?
Let’s say that rape is almost universally despised (the bible has this one passage where the lord commands some light rape but eve Christians tend to see it as more of a blooper than anything else) and say that rape is not healthy sex, also lets (just for a guideline) that sex can't be healthy before a girl menstruates or a boy ejaculates for the first time (which is awful young I believe but all other standards seem to be arbitrary and this one at least is based in nature and is different in every case thus adapting better to each individual)
Now when can we say that there will be social harm?
Cheating is often consider bad since it inflicts psychological distress on the one who is being cheated upon so let's say no cheating, if you want a new sexual relation, make sure the last one understands it's over.
So now healthy sex is between not cheating, consenting, reproductively capable people. They may be different sex, the same sex, 2 or 3 or 17, black white, red, rich, poor, attractive or not.
Now, what is healthy sex for an animal?
Animals have a social component to mating, great pains are taken to find the "best mate" and in many animal societies cheating is frowned upon (especially with the alpha female or the harem of the alpha male) males will defend territories etc... So let’s go again with no cheating
A psychological component is also had by animals (primates at least), Coco the sign talking gorilla refused some suitors for being ugly (“toilet face” I believe is the construct she used), Some dogs have shown stress after being forcibly impregnated, so let's say no rape
And we will again include the no bodily harm clause (even though tons of insects kill or die after having sex, bees only reproduce if they belong to certain casts of be, so do ants etc... But Baby Jesus help me if there are people wanting to have sex with insects other than the loathsome Drow (But they live in the underdark so fuck them).
The key here is how long will the social and psychological aspects have an impact upon the animal, this will vary of course but while a raped woman or a betrayed man will most likely be scarred for life, an animal seems to be back to normal behavior within a few weeks.
Now, the fact that the animal "forgets" the harm done upon it doesn't mean that the harm was not inflicted just as a woman being raped while drugged is no less raped if she doesn't remember it.
So, can humans have healthy sex? yes,
Can animals have healthy sex? yes,
Can animals and humans have healthy sex together?
Well...
Assuming that neither the human nor the animal is being hurt, and is not cheating (on the husband or the stallion’s mare for example), we only need to check if it is adversely affecting them in a psychological level.
Animals can't give consent to have sex with a human but this is not the crux of the argument since the cat may not mind being fucked while in heat, the problem is that the human can't GET consent to have sex with the cat and thus is committing tacit rape in the interaction.
So no, I believe that there can't be "healthy" sex between humans and animals, not for the human at least since psychologically the human is inflicting rape upon a non-consenting animal.
Now healthy sex between "equals"
Fucking hell, what is an equal? Is it the same species? Same age category? Same sex? Same pay grade? Same IQ? Same culture?
A case can be made for and against having sex with members of the same and different categories I just listed. So using the word "equals" is a problem.
Should mentally challenged people be allowed to only have sex whit other mentally challenged people? Should Hugh Hefner give up the pimp life he so much loves just because he is old?
We have come up with rules of thumb for some of these scenarios, no adults fucking children, no humans fucking cats, but do these restrictions come from a lack of equality or are there other concerns being addressed? I believe the later.
I think that when we say that an adult priest can’t be “Special Jesus friends” with the altar boy or the fellow from Alabama can’t marry his sister’s “sexy” goat it is not equality we are taking into consideration but rather the possibility to do harm on one, the other or both by such a liaison.
So in conclusion
Should sex only be had between equals?
No, sex should be had by differents as long as it is not harming (bodily, psychologically or socially to either of the parts) (in those 3 categories however no one can really tell what is right for all cases so it is a rather fuzzy line the one we are not crossing) so we arrive again at the no cheating, no harming, no kids rule.
Should humans have sex with animals?
No, humans hurt themselves by engaging in an unconsesual relationship with an animal.
Now, as a Vegan....
I can see the argument that has been given here that if you don't get the animals consent to kill it, chop it and eat it, why do you care about getting it's consent to fuck it?
It does seem rather hypocritical to be against fucking the cow but all for killing it, I think the cow would rather have a sore ass than be dead (then again I highly doubt the cow would even notince the dude reliving himself, "Are you in yet?" doesn't quite seem to cover it).
I can say that I find it wrong (why would I be a Vegan if I didn't'?) to kill animals when you don't have to, I abhor sport killing as I find it the hight of human hubris and disrispect for animals (how insecure must you be to kill for fun?).
IF you are starving and a cow is the only food source in sight, by all means, your survival is just as important as the cow's, an may the best one win, if there are poisonous black widows threatening your children's safety, nuke the motherfuckers. But as long as you have an option (and believe, you have, I have been vegan for 3 years, take yearly blood samples and I am doing a ok in most if not all categories (last time it said I need a wee bit more cholesterol)) I believe you owe it to the animals to leave them the fuck alone, not because Jesus said so, not because the law says so, but because you recognize that the deer has as much right to be on the planet as you do, and while yes you can eat it becasue you are smarter and stronger it is within you to let it be and this shows much more strenght and smarts and compasion for creatures that have not wronged you.
I can see the argument that has been given here that if you don't get the animals consent to kill it, chop it and eat it, why do you care about getting it's consent to fuck it?
It does seem rather hypocritical to be against fucking the cow but all for killing it, I think the cow would rather have a sore ass than be dead (then again I highly doubt the cow would even notince the dude reliving himself, "Are you in yet?" doesn't quite seem to cover it).
I can say that I find it wrong (why would I be a Vegan if I didn't'?) to kill animals when you don't have to, I abhor sport killing as I find it the hight of human hubris and disrispect for animals (how insecure must you be to kill for fun?).
IF you are starving and a cow is the only food source in sight, by all means, your survival is just as important as the cow's, an may the best one win, if there are poisonous black widows threatening your children's safety, nuke the motherfuckers. But as long as you have an option (and believe, you have, I have been vegan for 3 years, take yearly blood samples and I am doing a ok in most if not all categories (last time it said I need a wee bit more cholesterol)) I believe you owe it to the animals to leave them the fuck alone, not because Jesus said so, not because the law says so, but because you recognize that the deer has as much right to be on the planet as you do, and while yes you can eat it becasue you are smarter and stronger it is within you to let it be and this shows much more strenght and smarts and compasion for creatures that have not wronged you.
Firstly I'd like to note that here in Finland we have no laws agaist beastiality. They were taken off the books in the 70s same time as the laws agaist homosexual sex, both were in on the same statues, and people responsible just thought that it'd be easiest to delete those alltogether. That aside we do have laws agaist animal cruelty and abuse and those are used in cases of beastiality.
On the matter of consent I have to admit that if one takes the stand that an animal can't really consent to an sexual act I've had unconsensual sex quite a few times. This is because my (quite Homo sapiens) partner would not actually say "yes", or similar, to sex even when they were perfectly capable in doing so but instead just let me have my way with them. I am quite sure that our actions were consensual. So I do think an animal can state it's consensuality by actions. On totally offtopic sidenote consensuality doesn't seem to be an end-all argument either, since practicly no one says that haveing sex with a consenting 12 year old is ok, as pointed out by a recent local case where a 12 year old not only consented to sex with a 19 year old but actually demanded it (as proven not only by multiple witnesses but also by the 12 year old herself). That is ofcourse a case where consent is totally opposite to a beastiality discussion (as in "what kind of consent can be accepted" opposed to "what kind of consent can be demanded"). Can one consent only if one can be considered legally fit?
There must be a distinction made between something being wrong and something being illegal also. Personally I tend to think beastiality, and male homosexual sex (but not female, ain't that strange?), is "wrong" and disgusting. But does that mean I think they should be illegal? On the matter of male homosexual sex (assuming it's the consenting, non-physically harming variety), clearly not. On beastiality I'm not quite sure, but I think the Finnish legistation is, at least in principle, right in keeping beastiality legal while having laws against animal crualty. In practice this is a bit more complicated since it seems every case of beastiality is considered animal cruelty even is the animal wasn't harmed (physically that is, psychological damage to an animal is a bit hard to determine).
Since there has been talk about the morality of not only beastiality but also killing animals for food I think I'll throw another wrench of offtopicness into the disgussion and ask; is not keeping pets the same as slavery if animals can not consent to things?
On the matter of consent I have to admit that if one takes the stand that an animal can't really consent to an sexual act I've had unconsensual sex quite a few times. This is because my (quite Homo sapiens) partner would not actually say "yes", or similar, to sex even when they were perfectly capable in doing so but instead just let me have my way with them. I am quite sure that our actions were consensual. So I do think an animal can state it's consensuality by actions. On totally offtopic sidenote consensuality doesn't seem to be an end-all argument either, since practicly no one says that haveing sex with a consenting 12 year old is ok, as pointed out by a recent local case where a 12 year old not only consented to sex with a 19 year old but actually demanded it (as proven not only by multiple witnesses but also by the 12 year old herself). That is ofcourse a case where consent is totally opposite to a beastiality discussion (as in "what kind of consent can be accepted" opposed to "what kind of consent can be demanded"). Can one consent only if one can be considered legally fit?
There must be a distinction made between something being wrong and something being illegal also. Personally I tend to think beastiality, and male homosexual sex (but not female, ain't that strange?), is "wrong" and disgusting. But does that mean I think they should be illegal? On the matter of male homosexual sex (assuming it's the consenting, non-physically harming variety), clearly not. On beastiality I'm not quite sure, but I think the Finnish legistation is, at least in principle, right in keeping beastiality legal while having laws against animal crualty. In practice this is a bit more complicated since it seems every case of beastiality is considered animal cruelty even is the animal wasn't harmed (physically that is, psychological damage to an animal is a bit hard to determine).
Since there has been talk about the morality of not only beastiality but also killing animals for food I think I'll throw another wrench of offtopicness into the disgussion and ask; is not keeping pets the same as slavery if animals can not consent to things?
pookylies said:
The idea of consent doesn't cover this? I personally said that I could think of circumstances where it didn't strike me as wrong, but these are rare cases. The reason why it is illegal is simply consent, animals can't give it and humans can take advantage of that.
It isn't arbitrary, but it is a fact of nature. As far as I can tell, raping other species isn't a necessary part of the natural order.
I'm fine for now, ta.
And why is that?
So because people eat an animal to preserve their own lives, by extension they HAVE to be ok with torturing that animal first? Are you actually serious, or is this just a stupid point you are making?
1 - No it isn't
2 - I can't imagine anyone would actually do that.
The reason point 1 is "no it isn't", is because the people killed in Auschwitz were murdered for no reason, there was no point behind it. It's (to me) a sad fact of nature that it is necessary to sometimes eat other animals, but I recognise it as a fact.
In case that point hasn't come across to you, let me ask you this; what happened to the bodies of the people killed in Auschwitz? And what happens to the animals killed in farms?
Hopefully now, you see why your analogy was piss poor.
Apparently, the whole "consent" part seems to be misunderstood by a few people here.
I would draw on the following similarities:
Why is it OK for an American soldier to shoot a Taliban insurgent, but it is not OK for said soldier to torture, rape, etc. the insurgent?
Hint: The operation is to be carried out with minimal interference, while all the while having regard for that person's rights.
I think the same very much applies to animals. If we want animals for food, we should make their lives as comfortable as possible (free-range, etc.) and kill them as quickly and painlessly as possible. There is no justification to skin them alive, torture them, bleed them alive... fuck them...
Yes, in some cases (e.g. a dog literally jumping someone) it could theoretically be viewed as consent. It's much harder given other situations (A cow letting you have your way with it? Is that to be considered consent?) and it can be considered downright cruel in other situations. (The Kinsey report recently found that a few percent of males had had intercourse with chickens! I doubt they'd like the size of a male member, no matter the situation. But how can you tell if they're OK with it or not?)
There's another problem: The animal can't report you to authorities, can't deny you if you're the stronger species. (Man vs Chicken)
A third problem: Where does sex end and torture start? The above chicken example should be enough for this point. But we could include fetishes (golden showers, bdsm, that kinda stuff... does a zoophile bdsm fetish exist? I have no idea.)
Now with all these exceptions you'd have to make, with special cases you'd have to consider, it is more practical to ban the practice as a whole. Laws are not always perfect because they also have to consider feasibility. This is one such case.
I already mentioned the problems above and you've mentioned some too, but there's another one you didn't consider: There is no universal consent regarding what is wrong or not, as at least some people are doing it and some people just don't care.
So I would take a rather radical view: I don't care if anyone thinks it's wrong or not, we should be more concerned with it being legal or not. (And I clearly think that it shouldn't.)
Now considering necrophilic zoophilia: Go right ahead. You're not harming the animal and as long as you're not planning on selling the meat I'm not going to object.
I would draw on the following similarities:
Why is it OK for an American soldier to shoot a Taliban insurgent, but it is not OK for said soldier to torture, rape, etc. the insurgent?
Hint: The operation is to be carried out with minimal interference, while all the while having regard for that person's rights.
I think the same very much applies to animals. If we want animals for food, we should make their lives as comfortable as possible (free-range, etc.) and kill them as quickly and painlessly as possible. There is no justification to skin them alive, torture them, bleed them alive... fuck them...
Visaki said:
Yes, in some cases (e.g. a dog literally jumping someone) it could theoretically be viewed as consent. It's much harder given other situations (A cow letting you have your way with it? Is that to be considered consent?) and it can be considered downright cruel in other situations. (The Kinsey report recently found that a few percent of males had had intercourse with chickens! I doubt they'd like the size of a male member, no matter the situation. But how can you tell if they're OK with it or not?)
There's another problem: The animal can't report you to authorities, can't deny you if you're the stronger species. (Man vs Chicken)
A third problem: Where does sex end and torture start? The above chicken example should be enough for this point. But we could include fetishes (golden showers, bdsm, that kinda stuff... does a zoophile bdsm fetish exist? I have no idea.)
Now with all these exceptions you'd have to make, with special cases you'd have to consider, it is more practical to ban the practice as a whole. Laws are not always perfect because they also have to consider feasibility. This is one such case.
Visaki said:
I already mentioned the problems above and you've mentioned some too, but there's another one you didn't consider: There is no universal consent regarding what is wrong or not, as at least some people are doing it and some people just don't care.
So I would take a rather radical view: I don't care if anyone thinks it's wrong or not, we should be more concerned with it being legal or not. (And I clearly think that it shouldn't.)
Now considering necrophilic zoophilia: Go right ahead. You're not harming the animal and as long as you're not planning on selling the meat I'm not going to object.
I imagine it's related to my biological programming, required for the continuation of the species. As a result, I would pay money rather than be forced to watch gay porn. Of course I would not seek to impose my personal preferences in this regard on anybody else.Rizla said:
pookylies said:
Your answer is a load of crap. My biological programming requires me to continue the species, yet I don't have the same problems. A lot of my friends are gay, I have no problems going to gay bars with them, see them make out and heck, I don't have a problem watching two men have sex. And yet, I'm heterosexual. I love the boobies and vaginas.
I do not feel the same way you do.
That's the question: Why do you? Don't try to evade it. You think it's unnatural, don't you? You think it's an abomination before god. You're scared you might like it.
Inferno said:
Inferno said:
Neither is OK, in any case I believe that an insurget would be rather tortured than killed. (but that is my opinion) discussing this would be a derail and I have done so many times with Hytegia, if you wish we can start another thread but don't say that killing another person is OK, it is never OK, sometimes might be the lesser of two evils but it is never OK.
Inferno said:
Animals were not put on this earth to be usefull to us, we evolved together, as the "smart" brother on earth I believe we owe it to other species to spare them death and sufering (both) whenever possible, yes, free range is better tha factory farming but it is still wrong, no matter how humanely you are still killing them for no reason, you can survive with plants and a fucking B12 suplement derived from bacteria, why do you need to kill them? If there was no other way then ok, but ther is, seriously look up veganism, it is not a weird cult, it doesn't hurt you (unless you forget to teke your B-12) and you can save a lot of animal lives not to mention, the environment, and other people as a vegan diet alows for more people to eat worldwide. Veganism is not a natural diet, it is not natural to eat only plants and mushrooms, but is a kinder diet, we should strive to be kinder to those that can't defend themselves.
Nemesiah said:
Hmm. I had a feeling something like this might come up. Without trying to turn this into a vegan vs non-vegan punch-up - I object only to your implication, actually no not implication - statement, that it is "wrong" to eat animals. You may feel uncomfortable with it, and choose to not do so, and that is entirely your perogative and I support in every sense your right to live your life like that and hold the views that you do, but to state that it's "wrong" I think is a position you'll struggle to support. I say that as I've had this chat with a few vegans before, and that's the way it's always gone. Not trying to start an argument and no offense intended.
I fail to see the relevance of this analogy when talking about an animal's ability to give 'consent'. The question should be: would the Taliban insurgent consent to being murdered or tortured? and if he could choose one or the other, which would it be? Most would probably choose to be tortured rather than murdered. For an animal, we don't require its consent if we wish to kill it for our eating pleasure (and if animals were able to talk, I'm pretty sure few would give their consent). Despite this, you seem to be arguing that consent is required for acts less serious than slaughter.Inferno said:
That's why the Auschwitz analogy works. If you walked into a concentration camp, you would be so appalled by the mass murder, the fact that people were being kept in cramped conditions prior to their deaths would hardly register. By extension, the fact that we think so little of animals that we believe it's OK to breed them, kill them, slice them up, cook them and eat them means that I struggle to understand why people get worked up if they're kept in cramped conditions prior to slaughter.
*SD* said:
Eating animals is not wrong, certanly we evolved to have some animal protein in our diet, I'm saying it is unnecesary, nowadays you can have a perfectly healthy nutrition without having to kill or torture animals, so why not take it? Going vegan spares animals suffering, puts less preasure on the environment and allows for a better distribution of food since people can very well live by eating some of the grains (like corn and soy) that are fed to farm animals, it also seems to be better for one overal's health as it introduces no cholesterol (one of the leading causes for heart disease) and does away with many so called "cancerogenic" chemicals nowadays present in most of the animal foods (this is mostly a claim many vegans make but it relays on studies that people tend to discredit all the time so you might want to take it with a gram of salt)
But yes, If you wish to discuss this further let's open a new topic so we don't derail this one
Rizla said:
Strangely not. But of course, I can't participate in lesbian sex so it won't affect my chances of passing on my genes. And of course, this disproves Inferno's wild assertion that I'm homophobic because God told me it's bad (although he also thinks I might be in the closet
)pookylies said:
Becasue it shines light on the horrors of factory farming, eating a steak is very easy when the image associated with it is a happy cow dancing in a green pasture while singing "meat is good for you", peolpe squirm when confronted with the utold horrors of hundreds of cows living all cramped up to their knees in shit with pustulent tumors that are passed as food.
It is the same reason that people accept war as "necesary" when they witness it from afar, while having some pocpcorn whatching foxnews' war coverage to some acdc montage; when you show them the reality of the invasion, the children murdered by drone strikes that shat themselves when half their brain got blown to pieces so that Bush and friends could get some cheap oil they squirm and instead of facing the horific implications of the war rever to the propaganda: WMDs, The need to police the world, the need for torture as an information gathering tool etc...
As long as we don't have to witness it, violence is all good and fine, I believe it was Paul McCartney who said "If slaughterhouses had glass walls nearly nobody would eat meat", sadly recent legislation has made it ilegall to film animal abuse inside farms since it would interfere with business.
IF you are interested, check out the following films
Earthlings
Meet your meat
Food inc
The world according to monsanto
Vegucated
this video is a good place to start