Bestiality

[Hereno]

Well yes I mentioned that in the OP. Talk of "consent" is mentioned however this seems to me to be a false point for the law puts forward no method for the animal to actually content, it could very well do so but it has been determined to be impossible. The law might as well say, "it's not allowed because it ain't" for all it matters when it comes to animals. Ultimately though children are not animals, there are very large differences between the two. Animals are possessions and many such animals experience mass killing on an industrial scale, in human terms it'd be referred to as genocide. 

 

Animals are not on our level and no one outside those who oppose such things wholesale believe that. If they were they'd never accept the genocide that goes on year in and year out. As such what exactly matters when it comes to animal consent, I mean the chicken didn't consent to being killed, it didn't consent to being drugged up, nor being jailed for it's whole life. It's a weird morality to me where such horrific things done to animals is perfectly fine but sex is just, well the reactions people have of even being asked to discuss the matter is telling enough. Ultimately if it is wrong to have sex with them, then it is wrong to imprison them wrongfully, to drug them, to kill them, to eat them. Sex cannot be morally wrong logically if unjustified death is seen as morally correct. Likewise if murder and even genocide is correct then what harm ultimately does sex do? 

 

To be clear I'm more putting this to any who will actually step past their prejudices to actually discuss the matter instead of just showing some buzzword like "SICK" and think they've made some intellectual statement. Not to you specifically Hereno though if you want to talk to me on the matter that'd be dandy. 

 

most of the people here are probably not really in favor of factory farming, and the death of an animal at the end of its lifespan for human food serves a very important purpose for us, whereas raping it over and over is cruel. you'd probably find that if they watched a video like earthlings they'd go "holy shit", but i think most people are sorta ignorant as to how their food is treated in the first place. just trying to give you some sort of discussion since i saw how poorly you were received.

[Rozalia]

most of the people here are probably not really in favor of factory farming, and the death of an animal at the end of its lifespan for human food serves a very important purpose for us, whereas raping it over and over is cruel. you'd probably find that if they watched a video like earthlings they'd go "holy shit", but i think most people are sorta ignorant as to how their food is treated in the first place. just trying to give you some sort of discussion since i saw how poorly you were received.

 

I agree that most would not like such scenes if they saw them, however that doesn't necessarily mean they'd swear off meat and the majority do live divorced from such a reality. They go to a shop and get their meat, they don't see the animal killed and processed in front of them. Would they give up all such killing and eating though is the question? I think bestiality has a higher chance of becoming legal before that ever happens.

 

Appreciated. 

[fistofdoom]

I cannot help but feel fear for you if you felt perfectly fine with bringing up a clearly taboo subject the way that you did here. You have got to have known it would not go 'swimmingly'.

[Stormrideron]

I agree that most would not like such scenes if they saw them, however that doesn't necessarily mean they'd swear off meat and the majority do live divorced from such a reality. They go to a shop and get their meat, they don't see the animal killed and processed in front of them. Would they give up all such killing and eating though is the question? I think bestiality has a higher chance of becoming legal before that ever happens.

 

Appreciated.

 

I really doubt that bestiality will even have a chance to become legal before that every happens. It is perfectly fine to kill and eat animal meats because they are also a source of food. Because as a customer, we do not get to see animals getting killed, the meats are already processed, wrapped in plastic sheet and thus it is not a sick thing to eat animal meats. Although, it is important to understand that how we get the meats and how it is processed, we are shielded by the methods that slaughterhouses uses to kill animals. The public would be outraged and it would promote animal activists to call that kind of action unethical because it is seen as animal abuse. But honestly, they are just executing animals in order to create raw meats to be distribute across the country to feed the people.

 

Bestiality would be the last thing to become legal because it is very abnormal and sick thing to do. I wonder what these people are thinking and why they chose to do it, even though it is against the moral standard. What is the point of !@#$ing with animal, what are they trying to achieve? Pleasure? Or are they doing it because they are loney? Or simply because their mind is so deviant?

[Doktor Avalanche]

Outside of religious beliefs and even outside of law, it is still an act which requires consent or else it is a violation.

 

I am not aware of anyone who can verify any consensual man-pig loving.

Edited March 25, 2016 by Lord Asmodeus

[Four]

Folks, 

 

Let us remember that this is a Debate Forum. Over the course of this forum's history there has been many controversial debates, some that have been closed due to rule breaks and the such. Debating about the legalities and ethics/morals associated with bestiality is not a rule break here in our community. 

 

Let's work to keep this thread clean and productive. Share your opinion in the debate and move on with the conversation.

[Hereno]

I agree that most would not like such scenes if they saw them, however that doesn't necessarily mean they'd swear off meat and the majority do live divorced from such a reality. They go to a shop and get their meat, they don't see the animal killed and processed in front of them. Would they give up all such killing and eating though is the question? I think bestiality has a higher chance of becoming legal before that ever happens.

 

Appreciated. 

 

for a few weeks afterward i felt a lot of guilt and nausea about eating meat, but i actually literally just fried up a cheeseburger

 

it's not necessarily always about the morality of it, though. boycotting as a method of social change has historically rarely worked (if ever), and not all animals are treated the same. i have a lot of respect for vegans but at the same time it's a very hard thing to do when you're broke and also just enjoy the taste of meat and wish the government would just ban treating animals like garbage

[Rozalia]

I cannot help but feel fear for you if you felt perfectly fine with bringing up a clearly taboo subject the way that you did here. You have got to have known it would not go 'swimmingly'.

 

Replace talk of bestiality with "blacks" or "Homosexuals" and we've successfully gone back in time. There is nothing wrong with bringing up a subject to discuss which like homosexuality and other things before it (women's rights being another) need asking and challenging such things to present an argument beyond "it's sick". It's "sick" that an inferior gender can rule over a man, it's "sick" that a "monkey/sub human" can breed with a human, it's "sick" that a man can stick his appendage where another man defecates from.

 

If discussions kept going the way some people in this thread have shown the desire to, then the world would be in a very bad way indeed. 

 

Also to be clear I do not obviously expose the views above of inferior genders and such, said it to make a point. Obvious but nevertheless there is always someone who doesn't quite understand. 

 

I really doubt that bestiality will even have a chance to become legal before that every happens. It is perfectly fine to kill and eat animal meats because they are also a source of food. Because as a customer, we do not get to see animals getting killed, the meats are already processed, wrapped in plastic sheet and thus it is not a sick thing to eat animal meats. Although, it is important to understand that how we get the meats and how it is processed, we are shielded by the methods that slaughterhouses uses to kill animals. The public would be outraged and it would promote animal activists to call that kind of action unethical because it is seen as animal abuse. But honestly, they are just executing animals in order to create raw meats to be distribute across the country to feed the people.

 

Bestiality would be the last thing to become legal because it is very abnormal and sick thing to do. I wonder what these people are thinking and why they chose to do it, even though it is against the moral standard. What is the point of !@#$ with animal, what are they trying to achieve? Pleasure? Or are they doing it because they are loney? Or simply because their mind is so deviant?

 

In regards to food we could live without meat if we so desired so I don't believe the food source argument is a magic bullet to avail people.

Well yes I mentioned that myself, people are shielded so don't care. They know it happens if they think about it but it's a reality far away from them. Would the reaction be the same were it human's be slaughtered into food however? I'd say it would be different because animals are seen by the large majority of people as inferior... but suddenly "consent" matters?

Logically looking at this dubious morality in place the wrongness of bestiality is called into question.

 

I've always taken the stance it is best not to judge, for even those who hold the bible up high have their vices. For example we have the vice of pain, of either inflicting pain on another person for sexual satisfaction or alternatively receiving pain. I remember the case of Max Mosley back in 2008 who was caught being spanked by 5 consenting women in military costume and what that lead to. Even though everyone was consenting and it was done behind closed doors (they breached privacy), he was attacked and ruined. People called him sick, that he should lose his job, and it was to me even then utter madness. 

There are of course other such fetishes beyond such things of course. Some people like to be defecated on, others to swallow urine, some to dress up as animals before having sexual contact. 

 

I have a couple of points I'm using here. One against talk of "sick" and the history that has, another being an argument based on personal freedom, and finally on the difference between us and animals. All three must be addressed. 

 

Outside of religious beliefs and even outside of law, it is still an act which requires consent or else it is a violation.

 

I am not aware of anyone who can verify any consensual man-pig loving.

 

Well that is something I've been addressing. With the dubious morality put forward the entire concept of consent for animals looks absurd. For children for example the argument is sound, it's consistent, but with animals it very much isn't. 

 

And if say a machine could? Would it then be enough to get around such things? Heck lets use bulls/studs for example who are strapped up and forced to esjaculate... do they consent to such things? If so, if a wo/man was the object being pierced would it be consensual?

 

for a few weeks afterward i felt a lot of guilt and nausea about eating meat, but i actually literally just fried up a cheeseburger

 

it's not necessarily always about the morality of it, though. boycotting as a method of social change has historically rarely worked (if ever), and not all animals are treated the same. i have a lot of respect for vegans but at the same time it's a very hard thing to do when you're broke and also just enjoy the taste of meat and wish the government would just ban treating animals like garbage

 

I'm not a vegan myself but I think in regards to morality they are consistent while everyone else not so much. 

 

No not all animals are equal but I got to thinking about the horse, an animal that people see as pretty high up there on the treating well scale. Having sex with it is wrong however... using it as a beast of burden is fine, forcing it to run for miles with you on top is fine, feeding it dubious supplements is fine, forcing it to race other horses for your entertainment/financial gain is fine... then if the horse suffers a leg break it's morally correct to kill it.  

 

Many such people would defend themselves by saying it is morally correct on an animal but are against the same for a human being. So the first point would be they are hypocrites, and secondly that then quite clearly animals are nowhere near equal to us and if so... what is "consent" really? Who really actually cares beyond Vegans and the like who the majority of people aren't?

[Rozalia]

If you can't reproduce with it, don't have sex with it. If it doesn't consent, don't have sex with it. If it would harm the gene pool, don't have sex with it.

Holy shit it's not that hard.

 

Barren men and women shouldn't have sex now? Already challenged the talk of consent in regards to animals, address that if you want to actually debate the matter. Animals and humans having sex doesn't harm the "gene pool".

 

Wasn't that hard not to have homosexual sex. Not that hard to not have interracial sex. Not that hard to beat your woman into being your slave. That isn't an argument., in fact it discredits you and by extension your position.  

[fistofdoom]

There is nothing good about what you're attempting to do, and you should feel ashamed of yourself.

[Rozalia]

There is nothing good about what you're attempting to do, and you should feel ashamed of yourself.

 

Merely discussing something and exploring the supposed morality and wrongness of it is something to feel ashamed of? No. I am not ashamed of those who talked about the equality of women, something that was firmly rooted as not being the case. I'm not ashamed of those who talked of homosexuality and asked why it is so wrong for two wo/men who are attracted to each other to have sex. I'm not ashamed of those who talked of the matter of race and asked why it was so wrong to have interracial sex. I'm not ashamed of those who question the ridiculousness of banning polygamy which will be the next issue in the slope I talked about.

 

I think a lot of people overlook the past and are as closeminded as those who lived 1000 years ago. In some areas for example homosexuality was acceptable, then came along religion (it almost always goes back to religion) and it was "wrong" but beyond some babble why was it wrong? What was so evil about homosexuality? Why was religion forcing it's often repulsive views on even non believers acceptable? 

 

In conclusion do not talk of shame to me. If anyone is to be ashamed it is the one who is close minded and will not even discuss, merely mock and attack.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Wait, a moral code exists due to our concept for religious practice thereby not asking for consent to sex  is not considered inappropriate to humanity if we nullify our subjugation to religion? Is this your argument for our "backward thinking" on not boinking alpacas?

 

Religion itself is not the basis for human morals. The fact that we have a structured intelligence and sophisticated means of communication allows for us to: end wars, establish moral code, debate without the use of clubs, build roads and- consent to sexual acts also without the use of clubs.

 

!@#$ing bears still requires the consent of the bear and having the moral sense not to is what separates us from the penguin getting raped by the walrus.

[Tali]

If you can't reproduce with it, don't have sex with it. If it doesn't consent, don't have sex with it. If it would harm the gene pool, don't have sex with it.

Holy shit it's not that hard.

Homosexuals have sex and they don't reproduce, because it's their right. They consented, and it isn't going to harm the general population if a select few have homosexual acts.

 

Some women can't reproduce do to health issues, so they shouldn't have the same right to have sex with someone?

 

Both scenarios, they do have every right to get laid, and nothing wrong with anyone over the age and consenting. However with the subject in mind Rozalia, personally I think bestiality is wrong, but that's just my opinion.

[Rozalia]

Wait, a moral code exists due to our concept for religious practice thereby not asking for consent to sex  is not considered inappropriate to humanity if we nullify our subjugation to religion? Is this your argument for our "backward thinking" on not boinking alpacas?

 

Religion itself is not the basis for human morals. The fact that we have a structured intelligence and sophisticated means of communication allows for us to: end wars, establish moral code, debate without the use of clubs, build roads and- consent to sexual acts also without the use of clubs.

 

!@#$ bears still requires the consent of the bear and having the moral sense not to is what separates us from the penguin getting raped by the walrus.

 

You're either ignoring or didn't read my posts as I've addressed that. I addressed consent and laid out why that talk of "consent" is dubious, how it's illogical. People do not see animals as equal and without consent they enslave them, make them labour, ride them, drug them, make 'em race, kill and eat them (look at the horse bit above). This killing is even done on a industrial scale. All that is fine and dandy, but having sex is wrong? Why does when it comes to sex consent suddenly matter especially if the animal is your own possession?

 

For example a man could go and buy a hen, sticking it in their backyard. It's their possession and they morally are allowed to plunder the eggs (children) of the animal to eat, heck even to make compost from them. More than that they can go into their backyard and kill the hen, cook it, and then eat it. All this is morally correct. Trying any form of sexual contact however is wrong? Why? If we do define it as "rape" is rape a worse crime than the absolute end that is murder? Killing the hen and then having sex is still wrong though so... It doesn't make sense to me. Unless someone is a Vegan I think their ground is very weak indeed. 

[Nadir Aminu]

You gotta be kitten meow. I can't bear this. This is so irrelephant.

[Franz Von Dietrich]

Honestly, it's based on how you view it. But again, I find it pointless and non-hygenic. Although, if you have a weird fettish, go for it, but don't expect us to encourage or allow it to be shown in public. If you wish to express your "personal freedom" do it in private.

[Rozalia]

Honestly, it's based on how you view it. But again, I find it pointless and non-hygenic. Although, if you have a weird fettish, go for it, but don't expect us to encourage or allow it to be shown in public. If you wish to express your "personal freedom" do it in private.

 

This is a very negative implication people are showing in this thread. I'm holding a discussion on bestiality, it's morality and legality, that does not mean I commit bestality myself (I don't). If this thread was about homosexuality that wouldn't mean I was homosexual (I ain't). If it was about legalising all drugs that wouldn't mean I take cocaine (I don't). In regards to it I'm not as solid as I am with Polygamy/Polyandry which is partly why a discussion is a good thing. Thus far no one has presented a credible/convincing argument. 

[Buorhann]

You can't tell if the animal is giving you consent.

[Franz Von Dietrich]

This is a very negative implication people are showing in this thread. I'm holding a discussion on bestiality, it's morality and legality, that does not mean I commit bestality myself (I don't). If this thread was about homosexuality that wouldn't mean I was homosexual (I ain't). If it was about legalising all drugs that wouldn't mean I take cocaine (I don't). In regards to it I'm not as solid as I am with Polygamy/Polyandry which is partly why a discussion is a good thing. Thus far no one has presented a credible/convincing argument. 

I never implied you on commiting such acts, I merely stated as a generalization; "Sure, you can commit it, you can do it in private, but don't go around expecting support on it". Sure, it can be legal(ish?) But, it's one of those type of things you should keep to yourself (once again, not referring to you).

 

I can agree with you on many concerns (mainly personal freedom) addressed here, but the risk factor is mainly having sexual intercourse animals (wild animals, you never really explained on that part?) of catching a disease? That's just purely and very profoundly non-hygenic. I believe you should study biology a bit more, before assuming that that morals are the only thing preventing it from becoming legal (If that's what your arguing?)? But of course, we as people (which generally alot of people would love to live clean) would not encourage this "sexual pleasure". Your main point is basically "why the hell not?". 

Edited March 25, 2016 by Comrade Enver Hoxha

[Rozalia]

You can't tell if the animal is giving you consent.

 

I have addressed that already several times in my posts. Everyone can throw out the word "consent" but nobody seems like they can actually defend it.

 

I never implied you on commiting such acts, I merely stated as a generalization; "Sure, you can commit it, you can do it in private, but don't go around expecting support on it". Sure, it can be legal(ish?) But, it's one of those type of things you should keep to yourself (once again, not referring to you).

 

I can agree with you on many concerns (mainly personal freedom) addressed here, but the risk factor is mainly having sexual intercourse animals (wild animals, you never really explained on that part?) of catching a disease? That's just purely and very profoundly non-hygenic. I believe you should study biology a bit more, before assuming that that morals are the only thing preventing it from becoming legal (If that's what your arguing?)? But of course, we as people (which generally alot of people would love to live clean) would not encourage this "sexual pleasure". Your main point is basically "why the hell not?". 

 

That was the implication and quite a number have already implied that.

Many sexual diseases cannot be spread human-animal though there are ones that can (zoonoses). To assume I don't know such basic things is an attempt to discredit me I don't appreciate, nor is it a strong point. An examiner with it no longer being underground could check it all out I'm sure, and drugs (which I support legalising in totality) also have health risks including even the ones legal even now. 

 

Summing up all my points/posts into, "why the hell not?" is to basically say I've presented no actual points. Just because people don't want to actually tackle my main points in regards to the dubious morality and the weak related "consent" no one can actually seemingly defend... does not mean I haven't presented any points. Perhaps if those throwing likes on anyone who posts "sick" or some variant spent some time thinking about the matter I might have to actually debate instead of this one sided affair. 

Edited March 25, 2016 by Rozalia

[Franz Von Dietrich]

I have addressed that already several times in my posts. Everyone can throw out the word "consent" but nobody seems like they can actually defend it.

 

 

That was the implication and quite a number have already implied that.

Many sexual diseases cannot be spread human-animal though there are ones that can (zoonoses). To assume I don't know such basic things is an attempt to discredit me I don't appreciate, nor is it a strong point. An examiner with it no longer being underground could check it all out I'm sure, and drugs (which I support legalising in totality) also have health risks including even the ones legal even now. 

 

Summing up all my points/posts into, "why the hell not?" is to basically say I've presented no actual points. Just because people don't want to actually tackle my main points in regards to the dubious morality and the weak related "consent" no one can actually seemingly defend... does not mean I haven't presented any points. Perhaps if those throwing likes on anyone who posts "sick" or some variant spent some time thinking about the matter I might have to actually debate instead of this one sided affair. 

Let's ask a simple question; "What's the point of it?".

[Rozalia]

Let's ask a simple question; "What's the point of it?".

 

 

The point of beastality? I am not of that inclination but it could I imagine be a number of reasons. Love. Sexual gratification. Experimentation. Some form of attempt at spirituality. Plenty of reasons I'm sure.

 

Homosexuality has to be mentioned again really as the same question can be asked there but I can go further. Zoosexuality is a sexual orientation just like homosexuality so what happens when homosexual arguments are co-oped for zoosexuality? For example some people would say they were born Zoosexuals, what then? Going to imprison them? "Re-educate" them? Kill them? Parallels can be drawn.

[Doktor Avalanche]

I assume the right of Prima Nocta is acceptable then, considering the Lord owns the peasants and can do with them as the Lord pleases? If animals are simply ownership, lord/master overseeing subject/slave I guess saddle up and ride your ferret til its eyes pop out then.

Or simply justify innately that such acts are abominable to humanity.

[Rozalia]

I assume the right of Prima Nocta is acceptable then, considering the Lord owns the peasants and can do with them as the Lord pleases? If animals are simply ownership, lord/master overseeing subject/slave I guess saddle up and ride your ferret til its eyes pop out then.

Or simply justify innately that such acts are abominable to humanity.

 

To begin with Prima Nocta is a load of cobblers. Now as for your point... I don't see it, unless you're trying to support what I said that is. Back in times of slavery men would simply have sex with their slaves, they were after all their possessions. However slavery is not in effect today and nobody owns anybody, though obviously some people are in higher positions of power than others that isn't the same deal. Of course there are places where slavery is still done (if they call it slavery or not) and in such cases once again the owners do indeed just have sex with their slaves.

 

Homosexuality. Interracial. Could go on. All are "abominable" for reasons when questioned people can't quite explain and eventually such people lose and it becomes normal. What I'm saying is that is not an argument. 

 

Aren't you a Libertarian by the way? I mean you've several times attacked me based on the matter of the "nanny state" so it seems odd that you'd now be saying this. All I can think of is perhaps you hold your bible high but I don't know that for definite. 

[EliteCanada]

A lot of the "opinions" here would be used on homosexuality and interracial love one hundred years ago. The stupidity in this thread. Please. Rozalia is one of the more intelligent people here. Stopped reading after first page of this toxicity.

 

While there are a lot of good reasons against bestiality comments like Domitri Valkos are backwards and could be used for as to why either of the two aforementioned things should be crimes. Please. Rozalia, don't respond to stupid. If you want to have a good discussion clearly it isn't to be found here.

 

Edit: if your reasoning is akin to "it's abominable" or "it isn't right" please do everyone a favour and leave now. That isn't justification for anything and has lead to many wars, homophobia, racism, hatred and holocausts. Please refine your medieval belief system and use logic, facts and reasoning to defend a point not subjective view points that give way under actual reasoning where your only response is to then post pictures of dogs and cats and asking OP how they make him feel rofl

Edited March 26, 2016 by EliteCanada