Beauty and the Beast

[Two Toed Sloth]

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?

 

[I Ratant]

Animals need to be protected from the grosser human acts on defenseless creatures.

 

[This One Guy]

Why?

 

[Two Toed Sloth]

Is killing and eating not a gross act on a defenceless creature?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Is killing and eating not a gross act on a defenceless creature?

the grossness of killing and eating an animal is proportional to the cuteness of the animal in question

for example, killing na eating a pig is fine
killing and eating a kitten is not

 

[I Ratant]

Is killing and eating not a gross act on a defenceless creature?

.
Cockfighting, dogfighting, starvation, abandoment, neglect.... these are gross human acts performed on defenceless creatures.
Inhumane raising pens for food animals.
Old tame pet animals in pain and distress need to be quietly euthanized.
There is no justification for animal abuse.
No animal on this planet is safe from human abuse.

 

[Two Toed Sloth]

.
Cockfighting, dogfighting, starvation, abandoment, neglect.... these are gross human acts performed on defenceless creatures.
Inhumane raising pens for food animals.
Old tame pet animals in pain and distress need to be quietly euthanized.
There is no justification for animal abuse.
No animal on this planet is safe from human abuse.

This is not really an argument as such, you are simply stating things you find repugnant without saying why they are immoral.

Also I do not think that it is the condition that you keep the animal in before you eat it which makes the act immoral or moral, do you have reason to think it does?

 

[Vic Vega]

I have no problem with it, Two Toed Sloth. Give it a try and let us know how it was.

 

[mortimer]

I would recommend ordering with extra mayo.

ETA: or so I've heard.

 

[This One Guy]

.
There is no justification for animal abuse.
No animal on this planet is safe from human abuse.

What constitutes animal abuse? Is it just suffering on the part of the animal? If it's only this is bestiality included? What reason do you have to think that causing animal suffering is immoral?

Also, we have to remember that while no animal on earth is safe from human abuse (maybe), they're not safe from the same treatment by other animals either. That is, humans don't introduce animal suffering into the world.

 

[Delscottio]

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?

You've got me convinced, right where are my velcro gloves for Flossie....

 

[sadhatter]

One needs to eat.

One doesn't need to have sex with something that cannot breed with it.

I think the difference is pretty obvious. One is something that provides us survival, if someone is in a plane wreck, for example, and has to eat a dead individual, i find nothing wrong with this, eating keeps one alive. The other is simply an act that by all scientific research is harmful to the animal , and provides no survival advantage to the human.

It is the difference between killing someone who wants to end your life. And killing someone who annoys you. Once survival comes into the picture a lot of things change.

 

[This One Guy]

One needs to eat.

One doesn't need to have sex with something that cannot breed with it.

I think the difference is pretty obvious. One is something that provides us survival, if someone is in a plane wreck, for example, and has to eat a dead individual, i find nothing wrong with this, eating keeps one alive. The other is simply an act that by all scientific research is harmful to the animal , and provides no survival advantage to the human.

It is the difference between killing someone who wants to end your life. And killing someone who annoys you. Once survival comes into the picture a lot of things change.

Right, but animals aren't the same as people. Killing someone who wants to end your life is self-defence, if they're just annoying it's murder. However, in the case of animals, it's not the animal that's threatening your life. If you starve to death, it's not the animal's fault. But we still think it's okay to eat them. Also, not every animal that's killed and eaten is killed and eaten for survival - sometimes just because we want a steak. Also, I don't know how you're defining 'harmful to the animal' - and I'm unaware of this scientific research into the effects of bestiality. First of all, having sex with an animal doesn't necessarily cause it suffering. Secondly, I can't think of a reason why animal suffering is immoral - if we have reason to think that animals have rights, why can people kill and eat them at all (after all, we wouldn't tolerate someone killing and eating another human being, no matter how hungry they are).

 

[kuroyume0161]

Right, but animals aren't the same as people. Killing someone who wants to end your life is self-defence, if they're just annoying it's murder. However, in the case of animals, it's not the animal that's threatening your life. If you starve to death, it's not the animal's fault. But we still think it's okay to eat them. Also, not every animal that's killed and eaten is killed and eaten for survival - sometimes just because we want a steak. Also, I don't know how you're defining 'harmful to the animal' - and I'm unaware of this scientific research into the effects of bestiality. First of all, having sex with an animal doesn't necessarily cause it suffering. Secondly, I can't think of a reason why animal suffering is immoral - if we have reason to think that animals have rights, why can people kill and eat them at all (after all, we wouldn't tolerate someone killing and eating another human being, no matter how hungry they are).

Something about this argument doesn't jive. Is it immoral for a lion to kill and eat the first prey animal it catches? The prey animal certainly didn't pose a 'threat' to the lion. Your argument is moot....

 

[sadhatter]

Right, but animals aren't the same as people. Killing someone who wants to end your life is self-defence, if they're just annoying it's murder. However, in the case of animals, it's not the animal that's threatening your life. If you starve to death, it's not the animal's fault. But we still think it's okay to eat them. Also, not every animal that's killed and eaten is killed and eaten for survival - sometimes just because we want a steak. Also, I don't know how you're defining 'harmful to the animal' - and I'm unaware of this scientific research into the effects of bestiality. First of all, having sex with an animal doesn't necessarily cause it suffering. Secondly, I can't think of a reason why animal suffering is immoral - if we have reason to think that animals have rights, why can people kill and eat them at all (after all, we wouldn't tolerate someone killing and eating another human being, no matter how hungry they are).

First off you completely misunderstand my analogy. I am not arguing that killing the animal is because the animal is going to kill you. I am saying that eating the animal gives a direct benefit to the person doing the eating that aids in survival. No matter how you slice it, eating something helps you survive. You could eat other things, but that is not the point. The point is you are killing an animal in order to gain a benefit to survival. We are omnivores, we have evolved to eat meat, which gives us protein in order to keep up body and brain mass.



Second, search " horse ripping" and you will find many, many studies relating to the harmful effects of bestiality. If you havn't heard this term, you havn't done enough research into the subject to warrant making a thread about it. There are physical differences between animals and humans that cause many unpleasent effects for both sides.

 

[This One Guy]

No, I don't think it's immoral for the lion to kill and eat another animal, but then I'm arguing that animals don't have rights (or, indeed, the ability to reason - we can't hold a lion responsible for its actions). That was the point of my argument - if we thought animals did have rights, wouldn't it be wrong to kill and eat it under any circumstances?

 

[sadhatter]

Something about this argument doesn't jive. Is it immoral for a lion to kill and eat the first prey animal it catches? The prey animal certainly didn't pose a 'threat' to the lion. Your argument is moot....

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.

 

[This One Guy]

First off you completely misunderstand my analogy. I am not arguing that killing the animal is because the animal is going to kill you. I am saying that eating the animal gives a direct benefit to the person doing the eating that aids in survival. No matter how you slice it, eating something helps you survive. You could eat other things, but that is not the point. The point is you are killing an animal in order to gain a benefit to survival. We are omnivores, we have evolved to eat meat, which gives us protein in order to keep up body and brain mass.

Second, search " horse ripping" and you will find many, many studies relating to the harmful effects of bestiality. If you havn't heard this term, you havn't done enough research into the subject to warrant making a thread about it. There are physical differences between animals and humans that cause many unpleasent effects for both sides.

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.

 

[Two Toed Sloth]

First off you completely misunderstand my analogy. I am not arguing that killing the animal is because the animal is going to kill you. I am saying that eating the animal gives a direct benefit to the person doing the eating that aids in survival. No matter how you slice it, eating something helps you survive. You could eat other things, but that is not the point. The point is you are killing an animal in order to gain a benefit to survival. We are omnivores, we have evolved to eat meat, which gives us protein in order to keep up body and brain mass.



Second, search " horse ripping" and you will find many, many studies relating to the harmful effects of bestiality. If you havn't heard this term, you havn't done enough research into the subject to warrant making a thread about it. There are physical differences between animals and humans that cause many unpleasent effects for both sides.

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?

 

[sadhatter]

No, I don't think it's immoral for the lion to kill and eat another animal, but then I'm arguing that animals don't have rights (or, indeed, the ability to reason - we can't hold a lion responsible for its actions). That was the point of my argument - if we thought animals did have rights, wouldn't it be wrong to kill and eat it under any circumstances?

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.