AronRa: "healthy sex should be between equals". Discuss.

[*SD*]

That would be necro something-or-other and in my view is a different matter. However, the deceased cannot consent either, so I'd probably be forced to say yes, that should be illegal too, even if only in the interest of being consistent in my argument. Which is something I strive to be, at all times.

 

[tsarenvy]

But if somebody else would rather screw an animal rather than eat it, should he/she be a criminalised?

I can only say, yes, it should. My view is that it's without consent, as animals that can't communicate in a way sufficiently effective to consent to it cannot.... umm.. consent.

'Consent' implies a yes / no dichotomy. It's not that an animal can't answer 'yes', it can't answer 'no' either. We can't really relate our abstract conception of sex with an animals instinctual behaviour.

For most of us bestiality is inherently icky, but killing them and eating them (when there is no alternative food sources) is more immoral.

 

[*SD*]

For most of us bestiality is inherently icky, but killing them and eating them (when there is no alternative food sources) is more immoral.

Killing it and eating it is more "immoral" than fucking it without consent? Am I misunderstanding you here? Food sources aside, am I misunderstanding you?

 

[pookylies]

Prolescum,
I still think you're the best thing on this channel but if you had bothered to read a few more posts you would have realised that yes, I find the idea of fucking another man abhorrent. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN I WOULD BAN HOMOSEXUALITY. Because those gay dudes ain't doing no harm to anybody else, ya dig? Hence the analogy with bestiality. Now if one or other of you geniuses can tell me why bestiality should be illegal, I would be eternally grateful.

 

[tsarenvy]

For most of us bestiality is inherently icky, but killing them and eating them (when there is no alternative food sources) is more immoral.

Killing it and eating it is more "immoral" than fucking it without consent? Am I misunderstanding you here? Food sources aside, am I misunderstanding you?

No! :lol:

I feel the same about fur and leather. An animals pelt can provide you warmth for decades, it's meat can feed you once.

I suppose it depends how one defines 'immoral'. I don't include my sense of 'ickyness' in determining the morality of something. As has been mentioned, the thought of two men having sex, or my parents having sex gross me out. But I don't include experiencing this sensation in my moral determinations.

 

[Vivre]

@pookylies

1. you missed to leave the source of your referring quote. It's an impertinence to send people to search it themselves to checkback on your validity and the circumstances of the statement.

2.

I find the idea of having sex with a man abhorrent.

I hope you don't have a girlfriend. Or do you hate her?


3. Animals are quite capable to state their consent.

 

[*SD*]

Prolescum,I find the idea of fucking another man abhorrent. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN I WOULD BAN HOMOSEXUALITY. Because those gay dudes ain't doing no harm to anybody else, ya dig? Hence the analogy with bestiality. Now if one or other of you geniuses can tell me why bestiality should be illegal, I would be eternally grateful.

Sure, two men fucking each other (rape aside) is consensual - a man fucking a billy goat in the ass isn't - unless you have some way of demonstrating that the goat gave consent. Which you don't. Or do you?

 

[australopithecus]

Laws banning bestiality seemingly do so on the inference of cruelty or abuse, so there's a definitive reason for its illegality. Before the inevitable is dragged up, yes, cruelty and abuse in the farming/meat industry should also be criminal.

So what you're saying is that if you could prove the animal was enjoying it, it would be OK?

That's for the courts to decide. So long as they're not harming anything, and I don't have to hear about it then they can fill their boots.

 

[Prolescum]

Prolescum,
I still think you're the best thing on this channel

This isn't a channel, it's a rational discussion forum.

but if you had bothered to read a few more posts you would have realised that yes, I find the idea of fucking another man abhorrent. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN I WOULD BAN HOMOSEXUALITY.

1) This isn't YouTube, you may emphasise with either italics or bold fonts. Even colours, if you prefer.
2) Yes, you said that and yes, I did read your other posts. I have no reason to believe it, given your unfathomably emotive choice of words to describe it.

Because those gay dudes ain't doing no harm to anybody else, ya dig?

Indeed I do.

Hence the analogy with bestiality. Now if one or other of you geniuses can tell me why bestiality should be illegal, I would be eternally grateful.

It's already been noted. Perhaps you didn't notice in your rush to find a term to indirectly insult us "geniuses".

*Now be a good lad and act like an adult, hmm?


*To be read in Tom Baker's voice

 

[pookylies]

So in summary. My 'tone' is still not quite right (sorry, will try harder).

But as far as I'm aware, nobody has given a reason why bestiality should be illegal. People have raised the issue of 'consent' but this is a bit lame considering its OK to arbitrarily kill animals without their consent and stuff their dead flesh into our gobs. And what about sex with dead animals?

Whilst I'm here, can I just mention that (for the same reasons) I despise people who say they only eat animals that are reared humanely. Once you decide it's OK to take a life for your eating pleasure, why the hell would you worry about how that beast had been reared? It's akin to someone walking into Auschwitz and commenting on the cramped living conditions whilst ignoring the gas chambers.

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

Is someone trying to peer deep into the human psyche by attempting to equate equals as being part of the same clan or tribe? And perhaps why some view others as 'animals'? And perhaps what particular tribes or clans will permit within that tribe or clan? Perhaps someone is trying to connect the dots between western societies hangup with sex and yet its apparent willingness to kill at its own discretion?

BTW I'm not attempting to defend bestiality just perhaps trying to make a couple of connections as it relates to our somewhat primitive human behavior.


Is that where this topic is trying to go? Greg from Fox News are you reading this?

 

[*SD*]

But as far as I'm aware, nobody has given a reason why bestiality should be illegal.

I did, perhaps you didn't see it.

People have raised the issue of 'consent' but this is a bit lame considering its OK to arbitrarily kill animals without their consent and stuff their dead flesh into our gobs.

Consent was always going to come up. It's not "lame" - I already pointed out that I think there's a difference between eating an animal and having conjugal relations with it.

And what about sex with dead animals?[/quote[

I responded to this too - please pay attention if you want to have a discussion. No sarcasm intended, but you seem to have overlooked my replies.

Whilst I'm here, can I just mention that (for the same reasons) I despise people who say they only eat animals that are reared humanely. Once you decide it's OK to take a life for your eating pleasure, why the hell would you worry about how that beast had been reared? It's akin to someone walking into Auschwitz and commenting on the cramped living conditions whilst ignoring the gas chambers.

[

Happy to discuss this further, but it would be off topic for this thread. I mentioned I'm a field sportsman, and I'm more than happy to have a conversation surrounding that, with you and anyone else, but a new thread is necessary (in my opinion) - feel free to make one.

 

[*SD*]

I would edit that to fix the quotes, but my edit button has done a disappearing act again.

 

[TheAtheistJehovah]

But as far as I'm aware, nobody has given a reason why bestiality should be illegal. People have raised the issue of 'consent' but this is a bit lame considering its OK to arbitrarily kill animals without their consent and stuff their dead flesh into our gobs. And what about sex with dead animals?

From an ethical position you're not going to get the exact same answer from everybody. If you ask a moral nihilist: 'So tell me why it's wrong' what do you expect to hear? The word 'wrong' is an arbitrary word, just like if you was to ask 'why is it bad'. If you personally feel it is wrong then it will be so, it will not follow that everybody else will think it's bad; whether the law says it is, or my neighbor says it is. Some people don't have enough empathy, rationality or values to judge things objectively, thus this creates a difference of opinion for what constitutes for noble and abhorrent behaviors.

A society will have to some degree inherent values imprinted on it, for instance Christian values seeps in culture, many people will think it's wrong to have sex with an animal due to carrying these values; atheist or not. Laws are made based on values, but an agent might not value the law enough to follow it. So called moral laws doesn't create moral values.

I personally think it is immoral to kill an animal if you are in a position to avoid eating meat (i personally eat meat which is hypocritical, but I know it is wrong due to me causing suffering - I'm slowly becoming a vegitarian -_-) I also think it is wrong to have sex with an animal due to it not being consensual and infringing on its freedom whilst chances of harm. (Also I 'personally don't want to fuck an animal) This is an arbitrary decision, objectively the only reasoning I can see for it being wrong is based on the affects of an act - but this again comes down to the agents rationality, empathy and values. The former 3 properties determine what judgments an agent makes.

Just to add certain tribes and cultures have to eat meat to ensure their survival, they don't have the choice of Tesco or Asda. Humans (like all other life on earth) survives by devouring all other organisms, this is the inescapable result of living.

Talking about moral dilemmas in theory is easy, practical is another matter :geek:

 

[Prolescum]

So in summary. My 'tone' is still not quite right (sorry, will try harder).

It's not the tone that concerns me.

But as far as I'm aware, nobody has given a reason why bestiality should be illegal.

Yet you refer to reasons given. Odd.

People have raised the issue of 'consent' but this is a bit lame considering its OK to arbitrarily kill animals without their consent and stuff their dead flesh into our gobs.

It isn't arbitrary.

And what about sex with dead animals?

What about it? Are you also going to compare this to gay sex? You know, where two men start frottaging and kissing, stubble on stubble, before subtly (or quickly) removing each other's clothing, grabbing hold of the other's willy?

Whilst I'm here, can I just mention that (for the same reasons) I despise people who say they only eat animals that are reared humanely.

You can, yes.

Once you decide it's OK to take a life for your eating pleasure, why the hell would you worry about how that beast had been reared?

See: Battery hens or cattle and the diseases that must be controlled with anti-biotics. You're not trying very hard, are you?

It's akin to someone walking into Auschwitz and commenting on the cramped living conditions whilst ignoring the gas chambers.

No it isn't. At all.

Edit: Familiarise yourself with Godwin's law.

 

[tsarenvy]

Prolescum,I find the idea of fucking another man abhorrent. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN I WOULD BAN HOMOSEXUALITY. Because those gay dudes ain't doing no harm to anybody else, ya dig? Hence the analogy with bestiality. Now if one or other of you geniuses can tell me why bestiality should be illegal, I would be eternally grateful.

Sure, two men fucking each other (rape aside) is consensual - a man fucking a billy goat in the ass isn't - unless you have some way of demonstrating that the goat gave consent. Which you don't. Or do you?

As I said a bit above, we can't apply the dichotomy of 'consent' to an animal, which is why we don't refer to two cats having sex as one cat raping another cat. Their sexuality operates at the level of instinct and we can scientifically determine when an animal is instinctively up for some loving. And even if they are not, what harm is being doing by having sex with an elephant or knocking one out over a whale? Is it immoral to expose yourself to a field mouse? I think if you are going to arbitrarily endow animals with the sexual rights (consent) we afford humans, you leave yourself open to these sort of questions.

 

[pookylies]

But as far as I'm aware, nobody has given a reason why bestiality should be illegal.

I did, perhaps you didn't see it.

People have raised the issue of 'consent' but this is a bit lame considering its OK to arbitrarily kill animals without their consent and stuff their dead flesh into our gobs.

Consent was always going to come up. It's not "lame" - I already pointed out that I think there's a difference between eating an animal and having conjugal relations with it.

And what about sex with dead animals?[/quote[



I have read all responses and I thought your argument was that bestiality was wrong because animals can't give consent. Will technically, I think it would be possible to prove if an animal was enjoying having sex. But my point was who cares? If our society thinks so lowly of animals that we can go around killing them for (a) food (b) sport (c) they're getting in the way, then who cares about consent? But if I've misunderstood your argument, please re-post.

 

[*SD*]

Will technically, I think it would be possible to prove if an animal was enjoying having sex.

Go on then, how? If you're including a wagging tail and convulsing body in this I'll blow your argument right out of the water right now before you get started. When I shoot animals, let's say rabbits for a moment, I aim for the head, between the eye and the ear. This disables the brain, the animal (rabbit) is dead. Yet it twitches around, or sometimes violently convulses for anything up tp 15 mins after. Is the rabbit indicating it would like to have sex with me?

But my point was who cares?

I do, animal welfare is important to me. And I'll be happy to explain why, but not here, that would be derailing the thread.

If our society thinks so lowly of animals that we can go around killing them for (a) food (b) sport (c) they're getting in the way

All 3 are valid arguments. I eat most of what I kill, where it's edible. The sport element is legal (this doesn't apply to the argument I'm presenting.) "Getting in the way" - if you are referring to pest control, I support that too. Unlike bestiality, this is an area I know something about. And as mentioned, I'm happy to continue the conversation in a separate thread.

then who cares about consent?

Again - I do.

 

[TheAtheistJehovah]

I wonder what Frankenstein would think?

 

[pookylies]

Prolescum, I can't seem to get the hang of multi quotes. But just to let you know, I disagree with just about everything in your last couple of posts. If you would like to pick one, or maybe two, of your criticisms, maybe we could discuss further. Personally, I'm up for discussing my Auschwitz analogy. So it would be nice to know exactly why you disagree with my argument. Afterall, this "isn't a channel, it's a rational discussion forum".