I know you're not interested in it, I see nothing wrong with trying to defend an unpopular opinion. I've tried to argue for incest before, and I'm not interested in that either.
I don't quite understand your argument. Are you suggesting that treating them similarly in regards to sexual law means we should treat them similarly in every single other aspect as well? That makes no sense to me, but perhaps I've misunderstood.
Are you instead arguing that if bestiality is immoral due to lack of consent, then slaughter should also be immoral for that reason? That doesn't make sense to me either - there are plenty of things that children may not "consent" to, like going to the dentist or something, but we will force them to because we know better. I think you're generalizing.
As cognitive superiors to both animals and children, we have a responsibility to take care of them. The difference in slaughter is a whole other can of worms - people have to eat. They should do it as humanely as possible, but the simple fact is that feeding on prey is necessary for survival.
Hm, i'm trying to argue on the basis of how we treat them.
Animals, even if we eat them for prey, should, as conscient creatures, have a "free natural life", with being able to act out behaiviours natural for their species.
In opposite, many of our main "food items/procudes", namely chickens, pigs, and cows, are often "held" in very unnatural, crowded areas, some never even see sunlight, and their whole life is based on producing as much in as little time as possible(including restraining movement e.g. for pigs, to make them gain weight faster, or caged batteries for chickens so cleaning is easier). We are even selectively BREEDING them to maximize gain.
Now what i'm trying to say is that while we may "disagree" with how they are treated, we all tolerate that, because a change would mean either a lot less animal produce and/or a significantly higher price.
So we accept that almost all "used" animals are used in unnatural, unconvenient ways because we personally stand to gain from it.
Basically i'm saying that we "abuse" our power, and our cognitive superiority, to mistreat animals for our own good, all the time.
Now if someone has intercourse with their dog, or a sheep, or anything else with more legs than 2(or two legs and wings, or fins, or...you get the picture), i don't really understand why _THIS_ abuse of power is so incredibly wrong it causes outcries, while the other is silently tolerated.
As mentioned, unless the animal is mistreated in general, i doubt sexual experiences with humans would "traumatize" them in the least. They will simply not care about what happened, or not even remember.
So even if an animal owner "abuses" his mental superiority to have sexual relations with that animal, but otherwise treats it great, I'd find him a whole lot more agreeable than someone that mistreats his animal but has no sexual relation with it.
We kill animals for food, for fur, we keep them in cages for our amusement, for centuries we used them to plow fields or as transport(also during war)...basically, we did or do as we please with them, abusing the fact they are our cognitive inferiors.
Saying "everything else is fine, but once it gets sexual you have gone wrong" just doesn't ring right to me. Why should sexuality be the big taboo here? I can mass slaughter small furry animals to make a expensive coat but someone else should go to jail(according to some people in this threat) for raping their dog when they had sex with him?
So basically i'm stating that if people want to take the moral high ground and say "there's the line, and it can't be crossed" then they will have to explain WHY that line goes exactly there, why so much else is this side of the line and acceptable and exactly this thing would have to be on the other side.
And from that perspective, i understand that the LAW in many countries allows sexual interaction with animals, as long as they are treated right(otherwise animal cruelty would kick in, anyway).
sorry for the long post, but i wanted to make my point clear, unlike angel you actually seem interested in an proper exchange :)
Well, that's the thing. I never said "everything else is fine, but once it gets sexual you have gone wrong". I absolutely DO think animals should be treated humanely. Just because I think it's okay to eat animals, doesn't mean I think it's okay to keep them in tiny cages and torture them. I never said sex is the only bad thing you can do to them.
Here are two ways I justify the moral line between sex and murder:
1. The (humane!) slaughter of animals provides an overwhelmingly significant ADVANTAGE to humanity. Having sex with them does not. I'm talking about food and important products (tires, glue, etc) and NOT useless expensive fur coats.
2. The (humane!) slaughter of animals is NECESSARY for our survival. Having sex with them is not. I don't think it would be possible for all of society to become vegan, and even if we could, I would question the line between animal morality and plant morality.
I don't think our power as superiors over animals should be abused, but there are exceptions (food, etc), just like I don't think our power over children should be abused, but there are exceptions (forcing them to go to school, etc). The exceptions are very specifically for things that are ADVANTAGEOUS and NECESSARY, as I described above.
As for the whole "they probably won't be traumatized" part, you don't have any way of knowing that. And just because they might "forget" (you also don't know that), doesn't mean it's okay. I can't molest someone while they're unconscious just because they'll never know. And like I said above, just because a thirteen year old girl wants sex and "won't be traumatized", does not make it okay, because she does not have the mental capacity to understand such a decision.
As for Angel, she once tried to argue with me that meat-eaters are scum that deserve to be ranked with serial killers and rapists, so I think she may not be the best person to try to reason with. :/
It is PART of our ancient diet, to be omnivores. But we can live pretty well without animal produce. Or a whole lot LESS of it...if you were to cut back 90% of meat, milk, and egg production, arguably as many people would start living healthier than now as the number of people having nutritional problems if reduced to vegetarianism.
I like meat, eggs, and milk, in many forms. And i accept how they are handled/produced. But at the same time i don't delude myself into believing this to be an absolute necessity for my life.
So we can agree that it's advantageous for humans, but i claim it's not necessary. And then the exception-part about using superiority has some holes in it's wall.
How is indulging in one pleasure(eating tasty meat)/gluttony worse than indulging in another(having sex)/lust.? Getting technical, the animal would actually survive the latter, while being doomed for the first...
As for the psychology of animals: It's researched pretty well. That kind of stuff does indeed not traumatize animals. In most cases they simply don't care. Actually quite a bit of that research was done during breeding and insemination research. As you may be aware, most of our animals don't actually have sex to reproduce, rather, the males are made to ejaculate and the females inseminated artificially. Actually, with your argumentation, that would also fall into heavy sexual harassment then? Just asking? They should be traumatized...also if a calf is unwanted(or slightly dangerous to the mother), it's actually sawed into parts IN it's mothers womb, and then those parts are extracted. Now, of course i can't properly feel myself into a cow, but getting my baby taken apart and ripped out of me(because it's too large and developed for an normal abortion) would definitely traumatize me a hell of a lot more then casual sex with someone i don't care about(or look up to).
Again, i do understand your position pretty well, but according to my best knowledge(admittedly not being an expert on this) animals will accept a lot of stuff "done" to them. It may also have to do with the degenerate state most of our domesticated animals are nowadays. And we do a lot of stuff to them. Over and over, and for our own joy. Sure, you can now claim that you are against horses being used to ride on, against seaparks that have shows, against "inhumane" holding of animals, against basically everything that would be "morally" wrong to do. Heck, you could even be advocating that we just HUNT our meat from free-living animals and don't interact with them otherwise.
But the laws have to be objective, and there's little motivation to have those evaluated closely, because a LOT of things allowed are rather...questionable. So forbidding sexual acts, which are ONLY for amusement of the owner, but POSSIBLY not harmful to the animal, would be quite ridiculous compared to the shitload of stuff that is ONLY for the perceived benefit(but not strictly necessary) of the population, but ALWAYS harmful to the animal.
As for Angel, yeah, i kind of understand what you're saying...
Is it normal to have sex with an animal?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
I know you're not interested in it, I see nothing wrong with trying to defend an unpopular opinion. I've tried to argue for incest before, and I'm not interested in that either.
I don't quite understand your argument. Are you suggesting that treating them similarly in regards to sexual law means we should treat them similarly in every single other aspect as well? That makes no sense to me, but perhaps I've misunderstood.
Are you instead arguing that if bestiality is immoral due to lack of consent, then slaughter should also be immoral for that reason? That doesn't make sense to me either - there are plenty of things that children may not "consent" to, like going to the dentist or something, but we will force them to because we know better. I think you're generalizing.
As cognitive superiors to both animals and children, we have a responsibility to take care of them. The difference in slaughter is a whole other can of worms - people have to eat. They should do it as humanely as possible, but the simple fact is that feeding on prey is necessary for survival.
--
TerryVie
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Hm, i'm trying to argue on the basis of how we treat them.
Animals, even if we eat them for prey, should, as conscient creatures, have a "free natural life", with being able to act out behaiviours natural for their species.
In opposite, many of our main "food items/procudes", namely chickens, pigs, and cows, are often "held" in very unnatural, crowded areas, some never even see sunlight, and their whole life is based on producing as much in as little time as possible(including restraining movement e.g. for pigs, to make them gain weight faster, or caged batteries for chickens so cleaning is easier). We are even selectively BREEDING them to maximize gain.
Now what i'm trying to say is that while we may "disagree" with how they are treated, we all tolerate that, because a change would mean either a lot less animal produce and/or a significantly higher price.
So we accept that almost all "used" animals are used in unnatural, unconvenient ways because we personally stand to gain from it.
Basically i'm saying that we "abuse" our power, and our cognitive superiority, to mistreat animals for our own good, all the time.
Now if someone has intercourse with their dog, or a sheep, or anything else with more legs than 2(or two legs and wings, or fins, or...you get the picture), i don't really understand why _THIS_ abuse of power is so incredibly wrong it causes outcries, while the other is silently tolerated.
As mentioned, unless the animal is mistreated in general, i doubt sexual experiences with humans would "traumatize" them in the least. They will simply not care about what happened, or not even remember.
So even if an animal owner "abuses" his mental superiority to have sexual relations with that animal, but otherwise treats it great, I'd find him a whole lot more agreeable than someone that mistreats his animal but has no sexual relation with it.
We kill animals for food, for fur, we keep them in cages for our amusement, for centuries we used them to plow fields or as transport(also during war)...basically, we did or do as we please with them, abusing the fact they are our cognitive inferiors.
Saying "everything else is fine, but once it gets sexual you have gone wrong" just doesn't ring right to me. Why should sexuality be the big taboo here? I can mass slaughter small furry animals to make a expensive coat but someone else should go to jail(according to some people in this threat) for raping their dog when they had sex with him?
So basically i'm stating that if people want to take the moral high ground and say "there's the line, and it can't be crossed" then they will have to explain WHY that line goes exactly there, why so much else is this side of the line and acceptable and exactly this thing would have to be on the other side.
And from that perspective, i understand that the LAW in many countries allows sexual interaction with animals, as long as they are treated right(otherwise animal cruelty would kick in, anyway).
sorry for the long post, but i wanted to make my point clear, unlike angel you actually seem interested in an proper exchange :)
--
flutterhigh
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Well, that's the thing. I never said "everything else is fine, but once it gets sexual you have gone wrong". I absolutely DO think animals should be treated humanely. Just because I think it's okay to eat animals, doesn't mean I think it's okay to keep them in tiny cages and torture them. I never said sex is the only bad thing you can do to them.
Here are two ways I justify the moral line between sex and murder:
1. The (humane!) slaughter of animals provides an overwhelmingly significant ADVANTAGE to humanity. Having sex with them does not. I'm talking about food and important products (tires, glue, etc) and NOT useless expensive fur coats.
2. The (humane!) slaughter of animals is NECESSARY for our survival. Having sex with them is not. I don't think it would be possible for all of society to become vegan, and even if we could, I would question the line between animal morality and plant morality.
I don't think our power as superiors over animals should be abused, but there are exceptions (food, etc), just like I don't think our power over children should be abused, but there are exceptions (forcing them to go to school, etc). The exceptions are very specifically for things that are ADVANTAGEOUS and NECESSARY, as I described above.
As for the whole "they probably won't be traumatized" part, you don't have any way of knowing that. And just because they might "forget" (you also don't know that), doesn't mean it's okay. I can't molest someone while they're unconscious just because they'll never know. And like I said above, just because a thirteen year old girl wants sex and "won't be traumatized", does not make it okay, because she does not have the mental capacity to understand such a decision.
As for Angel, she once tried to argue with me that meat-eaters are scum that deserve to be ranked with serial killers and rapists, so I think she may not be the best person to try to reason with. :/
--
TerryVie
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Matter of factly, no, it's not necessary.
It is PART of our ancient diet, to be omnivores. But we can live pretty well without animal produce. Or a whole lot LESS of it...if you were to cut back 90% of meat, milk, and egg production, arguably as many people would start living healthier than now as the number of people having nutritional problems if reduced to vegetarianism.
I like meat, eggs, and milk, in many forms. And i accept how they are handled/produced. But at the same time i don't delude myself into believing this to be an absolute necessity for my life.
So we can agree that it's advantageous for humans, but i claim it's not necessary. And then the exception-part about using superiority has some holes in it's wall.
How is indulging in one pleasure(eating tasty meat)/gluttony worse than indulging in another(having sex)/lust.? Getting technical, the animal would actually survive the latter, while being doomed for the first...
As for the psychology of animals: It's researched pretty well. That kind of stuff does indeed not traumatize animals. In most cases they simply don't care. Actually quite a bit of that research was done during breeding and insemination research. As you may be aware, most of our animals don't actually have sex to reproduce, rather, the males are made to ejaculate and the females inseminated artificially. Actually, with your argumentation, that would also fall into heavy sexual harassment then? Just asking? They should be traumatized...also if a calf is unwanted(or slightly dangerous to the mother), it's actually sawed into parts IN it's mothers womb, and then those parts are extracted. Now, of course i can't properly feel myself into a cow, but getting my baby taken apart and ripped out of me(because it's too large and developed for an normal abortion) would definitely traumatize me a hell of a lot more then casual sex with someone i don't care about(or look up to).
Again, i do understand your position pretty well, but according to my best knowledge(admittedly not being an expert on this) animals will accept a lot of stuff "done" to them. It may also have to do with the degenerate state most of our domesticated animals are nowadays. And we do a lot of stuff to them. Over and over, and for our own joy. Sure, you can now claim that you are against horses being used to ride on, against seaparks that have shows, against "inhumane" holding of animals, against basically everything that would be "morally" wrong to do. Heck, you could even be advocating that we just HUNT our meat from free-living animals and don't interact with them otherwise.
But the laws have to be objective, and there's little motivation to have those evaluated closely, because a LOT of things allowed are rather...questionable. So forbidding sexual acts, which are ONLY for amusement of the owner, but POSSIBLY not harmful to the animal, would be quite ridiculous compared to the shitload of stuff that is ONLY for the perceived benefit(but not strictly necessary) of the population, but ALWAYS harmful to the animal.
As for Angel, yeah, i kind of understand what you're saying...