• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Beauty and the Beast

Unless you are a vegan then it is unlikely that you give animals the same moral rights as humans.

Bestiality is Illegal.

Necrophilia is also Illegal.

However having sex with a ham sandwich is totally fine.

I would assert that if it is okay to kill and eat animals then they do not have moral rights, this leads me to the conclusion that bestiality is completely fine and should hence be legalized.

Does everyone agree with me or do people think that we should give animals some moral rights but not others?

Bestiality in most places is not against the law to protect the animal. It is illegal because most legal systems have a religious element to them and most religions are not cool with bestiality and other uncontrolled sex. Especially among the common folk.:)
 
The problem ( beyond the fact this guy is obviously having a laugh.) is that he is not looking at it from a natural standpoint. In nature my pointy stick would trump a horses hide, and let me take it out. In nature i would want as much meat as possible due to a higher amount of protein. The only difference between this and modern times is our sticks have gotten better, and we now have an abundance of food versus having to hunt it on an individual basis.

So the argument that both are simply things we do for fun is silly. We evolved to eat meat, meat has a distinct niche in our dietary structure. Having harmful sex with animals provides no survival benefit at all, and has at no point been a part of our evolutionary journey.

But we're talking about whether there's anything morally wrong with bestiality and should it be legal, not whether it's natural. The two things are not the same, otherwise it would be illegal to have sex with contraception. It's for fun, not for nature. I understand that sex with contraception isn't harmful, per se, but then I've yet to see any reason to think that bestiality it either.
 
Not at all, regardless of our buildings and slaughterhouses, we are still in nature. We are the top of the food chain, and we have evolved to eat these things. It is not our fault we do this better than any other animal. Wolfs hunt in packs, we hunt in much larger packs. Neither of us can be faulted for eating what we have evolved to eat.

Hell in certain situations eating another individual isn't something i would consider wrong. If i ever die on a hiking trip , and people have to eat me to live, they have full permission to do so. Hell don't even wait till i get cold, eating is a necessity. Sex is not.

But are you cool with them killing you to eat you, for their survival of course?
 
Actually I started this thread, also to start a thread does not imply that I have done research into the harmful effect of bestiality especially as my argument is that it is moral because animals do not have moral rights (hence making any harm done simply unpleasant rather than immoral), if you disagree then where do you draw the line and why?

I believe i have already stated that.

We have evolved to eat meat. We have not evolved to have sex with other creatures. Meat has had it's niche in our diet for quite some time, *********** sheep has not. MEat provides protein which has let us climb the evolutionary ladder through larger brains. *********** animals has provided nothing but legionaire's disease and a gwar song.

I draw the line when the action has no benefit to the survival of the person. Actually to somewhat concede a point, if someone had a gun to their head and was told **** that horse, i would say bestiality is fine. Because in that particular situation it is impacting the person's survival.
 
But are you cool with them killing you to eat you, for their survival of course?

If it is a case of me dying for 2 or more people to live, i sure am. If it is one person, well myself and he/she will battle it out and to the victor go the spoils.
 
Not at all, regardless of our buildings and slaughterhouses, we are still in nature. We are the top of the food chain, and we have evolved to eat these things. It is not our fault we do this better than any other animal. Wolfs hunt in packs, we hunt in much larger packs. Neither of us can be faulted for eating what we have evolved to eat.

Hell in certain situations eating another individual isn't something i would consider wrong. If i ever die on a hiking trip , and people have to eat me to live, they have full permission to do so. Hell don't even wait till i get cold, eating is a necessity. Sex is not.

You may be okay with people eating your dead body to stay alive (I am too), but would you be okay with a starving person killing you in order to eat you? My point wasn't that eating people is wrong, it's that killing people is wrong. My point isn't that eating animals is okay, it's that killing them is okay - and if that's okay, why not having sex with them?
 
But we're talking about whether there's anything morally wrong with bestiality and should it be legal, not whether it's natural. The two things are not the same, otherwise it would be illegal to have sex with contraception. It's for fun, not for nature. I understand that sex with contraception isn't harmful, per se, but then I've yet to see any reason to think that bestiality it either.

You obviously didn't read my post about the harmful effects it has on people and animals. Again, search horse ripping, or any of the diseases you can get from it, or any of the horrible consequences of mismatched genitalia.

A dangerous act that can cause a slow painful death to either party, is something that shouldn't be legal. Especially when one party has no choice in the matter. Now please go tell your friends on 4chan that this didn't go as planned, and leave us alone.
 
Secondly, I didn't post this thread, and it doesn't matter to me whether animals suffer. I don't think they have rights. I don't think it's immoral to hurt them. I do think it's immoral to send someone to jail for doing so. I'll look that up now, but bare in mind that it's not relevant to my argument.

I do. I find it immoral to cause harm to an animal for the sake of harming them, for the same reason that I would consider it immoral to harm another human being under similar circumstances. Cruelty to animals is especially repugnant to me, along the same lines as cruelty to children, i.e., child abuse.
 
I believe i have already stated that.
I draw the line when the action has no benefit to the survival of the person.

You can't possibly draw the line there. People do all kinds of things that have no benefit to their survival. We're doing one now - debating on the internet. We fly in planes, and, as I said, we have protected sex. We read books and watch films and eat foie gras. Are all those things immoral?
 
You obviously didn't read my post about the harmful effects it has on people and animals. Again, search horse ripping, or any of the diseases you can get from it, or any of the horrible consequences of mismatched genitalia.

A dangerous act that can cause a slow painful death to either party, is something that shouldn't be legal. Especially when one party has no choice in the matter. Now please go tell your friends on 4chan that this didn't go as planned, and leave us alone.

Would you be okay if a condom was used? Two condoms?
 
I do. I find it immoral to cause harm to an animal for the sake of harming them, for the same reason that I would consider it immoral to harm another human being under similar circumstances. Cruelty to animals is especially repugnant to me, along the same lines as cruelty to children, i.e., child abuse.

And what is the reason you'd consider it immoral to harm another human under similar circumstances? Just because pain is bad? For me, it's because people have free will, they're sovereign over their own bodies and harming them would be a violation of that. The same doesn't apply to animals, and if it does, killing and eating them must be immoral too.
 
You obviously didn't read my post about the harmful effects it has on people and animals. Again, search horse ripping, or any of the diseases you can get from it, or any of the horrible consequences of mismatched genitalia.

A dangerous act that can cause a slow painful death to either party, is something that shouldn't be legal. Especially when one party has no choice in the matter. Now please go tell your friends on 4chan that this didn't go as planned, and leave us alone.

Once again, I started this thread, not 'this one guy'. I am not from 4chan, and that is a pretty low tactic in an attempt to avoid approaching the argument, I shall ask a simple question; do you grant animals moral rights as you would a human?
 
And what is the reason you'd consider it immoral to harm another human under similar circumstances? Just because pain is bad?

Kindly don’t put words in my mouth. If you wish to express your own opinion, feel free to do so. But you’re setting up a straw-man here, and that’s not really appreciated.

For me, it's because people have free will, they're sovereign over their own bodies and harming them would be a violation of that. The same doesn't apply to animals, and if it does, killing and eating them must be immoral too.

You’re conflating too notions, both of which have been dealt with already. The idea that killing and eating an animal, because it causes that animal pain, is immoral is an oversimplification of the issue in an attempt to draw a parallel that doesn’t exist. As sadhatter already noted, “We have evolved to eat meat.” Other animals have likewise evolved along a similar pattern. We do not consider it immoral when they attack a human, although we will put a stop to that because it impacts our own survival.

But abuse of an animal, whether directly or through neglect is immoral for the same reason that it’s immoral to abuse a child under one’s care.

And before you trot out the “kill and eat a child” argument, recall that this, too, was already dealt with by sadhatter: “If i ever die on a hiking trip , and people have to eat me to live, they have full permission to do so. Hell don't even wait till i get cold, eating is a necessity.”

Now, if you have something new to add to the discussion, please feel free. If this is some set up for a vegan rant, please arrive at it. If you’re just trolling the forums to see what bites, then I second the opinion that you are better served fishing elsewhere.
 
Kindly don’t put words in my mouth. If you wish to express your own opinion, feel free to do so. But you’re setting up a straw-man here, and that’s not really appreciated.



You’re conflating too notions, both of which have been dealt with already. The idea that killing and eating an animal, because it causes that animal pain, is immoral is an oversimplification of the issue in an attempt to draw a parallel that doesn’t exist. As sadhatter already noted, “We have evolved to eat meat.” Other animals have likewise evolved along a similar pattern. We do not consider it immoral when they attack a human, although we will put a stop to that because it impacts our own survival.

But abuse of an animal, whether directly or through neglect is immoral for the same reason that it’s immoral to abuse a child under one’s care.

And before you trot out the “kill and eat a child” argument, recall that this, too, was already dealt with by sadhatter: “If i ever die on a hiking trip , and people have to eat me to live, they have full permission to do so. Hell don't even wait till i get cold, eating is a necessity.”

Now, if you have something new to add to the discussion, please feel free. If this is some set up for a vegan rant, please arrive at it. If you’re just trolling the forums to see what bites, then I second the opinion that you are better served fishing elsewhere.

No, honest to god I think it's okay for people to have sex with animals and there should be no law against it. I wasn't setting up a strawman, I was asking if that was why you thought it was immoral. You didn't answer. And I've already dismissed the argument from evolution: the way we've evolved has no impact on what is an isn't moral. And it's a different thing to think that it's okay to eat a child's corpse if you're starving and to think that it's okay to kill a child in order to eat it (I would say it's not - i think people are different to animals). Furthermore, do you think it's okay to raise free-range children for the express purpose of killing and eating them. Again, and I know I'm going to sound like a whackjob here: I don't.
 
Furthermore, do you think it's okay to raise free-range children for the express purpose of killing and eating them. Again, and I know I'm going to sound like a whackjob here: I don't.



ETA(read as chickens.... whoops retracted)
 
Last edited:
"Unusual" treatment of animals is immoral because it is voluntary on the part of the human, and not done for the benefit of the animal at all.
Some of it is due to ignorance.. the old lady with the 250 cats.. some of it is done because of aberrative behavior by the human.. (insert animal here)fighting.
Animals have a "right" to not be deliberately abused.
We give them that right through our intelligence.
 
"Unusual" treatment of animals is immoral because it is voluntary on the part of the human, and not done for the benefit of the animal at all.
Some of it is due to ignorance.. the old lady with the 250 cats.. some of it is done because of aberrative behavior by the human.. (insert animal here)fighting.
Animals have a "right" to not be deliberately abused.
We give them that right through our intelligence.

Again, I don't see how you deal with the issue of killing and eating animals here - why is having sex with the abuse and killing them not? Please explain, and without appealing to the arbitrary whims of nature.
 
I wasn't setting up a strawman, I was asking if that was why you thought it was immoral.

Yes you did, when you asked a question, answered it, and then dissected said answer. That’s a strawman argument. Whether you intended it or not, that’s what you did.

You didn't answer.

Yes, I did.

And I've already dismissed the argument from evolution: the way we've evolved has no impact on what is an isn't moral.

Clearly, I disagree. The fact that you’ve dismissed it doesn’t change my opinion the matter or morality and cruelty to animals.

And it's a different thing to think that it's okay to eat a child's corpse if you're starving and to think that it's okay to kill a child in order to eat it (I would say it's not - i think people are different to animals).

Is this a question? If so, please restate. A s provided, this makes no sense.

Furthermore, do you think it's okay to raise free-range children for the express purpose of killing and eating them.

Yes. I’ve already addressed this issue.

Again, and I know I'm going to sound like a whackjob here: I don't.

Bully for you. That’s your opinion. Questions of morality are not resolved by argument. There isn’t going to be someone who wins this debate. In a discussion of this nature, the best that can be hoped for is education on the sides of an issue and an understanding of those sides.

You asked for opinions, and then claim those opinions are incorrect. That bespeaks of a troll, not someone interested in discussion.
 
Yes you did, when you asked a question, answered it, and then dissected said answer. That’s a strawman argument. Whether you intended it or not, that’s what you did.

No, I didn't. I asked whether you thought harming people was immoral just because of the pain caused to the victim. I didn't answer that question - I want on to say why I thought it was immoral. If you doubt me go back and look at the post. I'm still waiting for your reply: why do you think it's wrong to harm humans? Just because of the pain caused, or for some other reason?

Clearly, I disagree. The fact that you’ve dismissed it doesn’t change my opinion the matter or morality and cruelty to animals.

I did offer an argument against your position: we do many things that are not natural or that help our survival. For example, for the third time, using contraception. Do you think that using contraception is wrong? If not, do you still think that it's wrong to act against our evolutionary instincts? If the answer to the first is no, and the answer to the second is yes, why are these not contradictory?

Is it okay to kill and eat a child to survive. What I mean by this is not 'is it okay to to eat a child's corpse to survive', but whether it's okay to kill a living child if you're doing so to stay alive.

I also suspect that you've misread my last post. I asked if it was okay to raise free range CHILDREN with the express purpose of slaughtering and eating them. As I said, I don't think it is. If you also don't think it is, why is it different from raising and killing animals? My suggestion is that children and animals have different moral rights.


Bully for you. That’s your opinion. Questions of morality are not resolved by argument. There isn’t going to be someone who wins this debate. In a discussion of this nature, the best that can be hoped for is education on the sides of an issue and an understanding of those sides.

You asked for opinions, and then claim those opinions are incorrect. That bespeaks of a troll, not someone interested in discussion.

I like the way you dismiss hundreds of years of philosophy out-of-hand, including the work of Socrates, Hume, Kant, Mill, and Karl Marx, who all thought that questions of morality were resolved by argument. The reason legislation is debated in parliament all over the world is because people think that questions of morality can be resolved by argument. Maybe it will turn out that you're right, but you haven't demonstrated that. And yes, I know it's my opinion. It's me who said it. You can't very well expect me to represent anyone else's opinion now, can you? So far all I've claimed about your opinion is that I disagree with it, and that it's internally inconsistent, so yes, I think it's wrong. You think I'm wrong as well. That's the nature of disagreement and debate - if it makes us both trolls, then so be it.
 
But you wouldn't say it's okay for a human to kill another human and eat them, even if they were hungry. It would aid their survival, but it would be wrong, right?
Secondly, I didn't post this thread, and it doesn't matter to me whether animals suffer. I don't think they have rights. I don't think it's immoral to hurt them. I do think it's immoral to send someone to jail for doing so. I'll look that up now, but bare in mind that it's not relevant to my argument.

I think anyone who says it is never immoral to needlessly hurt any living creature who is capable of feeling pain is a danger to society because they obviously are lacking in empathy. So what if an animal is less intelligent than me? I don't go around torturing those with down syndrome. So what if the animal has less rights than I do? So do illegal aliens, and I'm not torturing any of them in my basement. It doesn't matter if they have less intelligence or less rights than me. All that matters to me is that they have the same capacity to suffer as I do.

Why would you ever cause any harm to anything if you didn't need to, if you knew that creature would suffer?

I think intentionally and needlessly causing suffering to any living thing that has the capacity to suffer is in itself immoral and anathema to basic human decency.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom