People often cite the lack of informed consent as the reason for why bestiality is bad, but in my autistic mind this statement doesn't make sense, because it's an impossible benchmark. It's like saying an animal shouldn't pull a wagon because it doesn't understand that people in it use it for travelling.
>>17429151You're making this thread to terrorize me for watching and thinking about porn. By making threads like this you're giving me your informed consent to cave your skull in with a hammer. The only reason why someone would ever rape my mind is if they're consenting to me driving nails into their brain for violating me. Violating my mind is an open invitation from you for me to violate your mind (violently, with objects "turn around!") You're a disgusting tranny, the only reason why you would gangstalk me and rape my mind is because you desperately want me to violate you back
>>17429170You're insane, I'm asking this question out of genuine curiosity.
>>17429151>People often cite the lack of informed consent as the reason for why bestiality is baddo they? That's not the arguments I frequently see advanced. I see people tend to say that it's cruel to the animal or that it's wrong for social reasons such as being depraved anti-social behavior that is strongly discouraged, so doing it means you're an anti-social person that doesn't respect society's norms, which is bad. Also that its unhygienic, potentially resulting in the spread of disease. I've also seen people make an appeal to divine authority, since the bible clearly states it is contrary to God's law. But lack of informed consent is a new one to me, so I wonder if you may be inadvertently setting up a strawman for yourself to knock down.Anyway, I've never engaged in sex with animals and I have no interest in doing it, but I've always found the arguments people advance against it lacking for a society that apparently has no problem with factory farming of animals, something FAR more inhumane. For instance it's ok to cripple a cow it by cutting tendons in its hind legs so its less likely to kick handlers, to force feed it, to feed it meal made from other cows, to forcibly impregnate it, to separate it from its offspring almost immediately after giving birth to not lose milk, to repeatedly impregnate it until it becomes prematurely infertile, then kill it at 1/6 of its natural lifespan for food because it will no longer produce milk. All of that is completely fine, but using a cow as a sex toy in a way that does not harm the animal at all is wrong?
>>17429180I'm mostly referring to the newer generations, they like to apply the human idea of consent as their main form of argument as that's what their influencers told them is the reason why bestiality is bad, back when there was a controversy around it a few years back. But as I've said I fid that one to be pretty non sensical.
>>17429186>fidfind*
>>17429180as for the apparent hypocrisy, it's not really a problem for people argument-wise I found, because they claim eating meat causes a net-good, and that supporting one bad thing doesn't mean you need support the other bad thing. Kinda bad arguments, but that's how it is.
If you need to be told why not to have sex with animals I don't want anything to do with you. Please leave the board.
>>17429255>I think applying deontological ideas to animals is non-sensical.>erm akchually you want to fuck animalsmindbroken.
>>17429255Also, why even have a philosophy board if you don't want to discuss certain philosophical concepts like dubious usage of deontological forms like consent? metaphysics are a human invention and thus not infallible.
>>17429255Good post.>b-but I just wanted to discuss the philosophy of hypothetical pig-fucking from a deontological perspectiveKill yourself.
>>17429261>>17429390Why shouldn't I chokerape and kill your family? I'm just wondering about the philosophical implications!
>>17429466>>17429436inability to process questions like this does not bode well for your intelligence. In fact, systems and dictators exploited failing of reason back in the day to facilitate power
>>17429484You learn what fits in where at age 1 my dude. Chicken pussy is not made for human dick.
>>17429515yeah, butts and mouths are also not made to take dick, this point is funny but irrelevant.
>>17429521Aight, you convinced me to give my honest take.My belief of morality is that a creature must be allowed to be that creature. For humans this means that the primary tool of survival is the mind. Our mind allows us to survive on earth even though we are weak clumsy and slow creatures compared to the animals around us. To deny a man's mind (by enacting force upon him) is thus evil as it reduces that human to something less than human. The same evilness can be compared to cutting off the wings of a bird and expecting it to survive in the wild. How could it if you take away its primary means of survival? Therefore, fucking a rabbit is not treating it as a rabbit but as a human pussy for your mansized dick. You are, in the exact sense of the word, "mistreating" it.
>>17429555so you oppose people owning farm animals or pets, as they're separated from their true environment unable to live their "true" lives, correct?
>>17429672Domesticated animals are kind of an unknown area which I haven't given a lot of thought to. Animals that have evolved next to humans like dogs, cows and pigeons have grown incredibly dependent on humans to survive. Their ancestors which were tamed and domesticated in the case of wolves was because of working together, the wolf gets more food security and the man gains a hunting partner which can smell/hear things humans can't. This is symbiosis. Working together I have no problem with, breeding wolves into modern dogs (especially "racepure" ones with a plethora of congenital health issues) to me is cruel.I can't speak for cows and pigeons however, they seem like they would've done fine by themselves eating grass and seeds.
>>17429691I'm mainly referring to exploitation in factory farming. Under your world view, you should in no way endorse such practices.>Animals that have evolved next to humans like dogs, cows and pigeons have grown incredibly dependent on humans to survive.You should at least advocate for their rewilding then, to reverse-engineer the selective breeding.
>>17429710I am not a fan of factory farming, correct. Whether re-wilding an animal species can work, no clue. Interesting idea at the least though.
>>17429714>The same evilness can be compared to cutting off the wings of a bird and expecting it to survive in the wild.Also, what's your opinion of pest control and the like? one could argue that killing an animal (even if humanely) stops them from survival and being themselves.
>>17429151https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlIy1F_rcLg
>>17429725It is ultimately up to the human owner of the location to decide whether they want to ward off pests and the like. You should be allowed to defend yourself from possible health hazards (plague rats violate the nap)
>>17429790But back to the broader point; given we don't need pets and such most of the time, and our society uses them in many ways that's definitely not their "intended purpose" actively and legally, how do you reconcile this societal behavior with your own point of view?
>>17429151Because it's historically been a necessity I think we make a lot of moral exceptions to the treatment of animals when it comes to utility. It's alright to use them as beasts of burden or feed them just to slaughter them (even though they can't give informed consent to this and presumably wouldn't want to given another option) but we don't make the same excuse when it comes to beastiality because we just view it as a perversion and not a necessary evil. If you want to be a philosophy debate bro it is weird how we're fine with the industrialized slaughter of animals but feel complete revulsion towards the idea of someone treating an animal nicely and occasionally having sex with it, but again I think that's just because we view that person as a deviant who traumatize the animal for no good reason while the rest of the population 'need' beef, eggs and wool.
>>17429151They use that excuse against relationships with "minors". Children can be informed and give consent. The problem people have isn't with this, but with the nature of these relationships: either as peers, natural or groomed; or just for sex. The first betrays a maladaptation in the adult, the other two have an element of manipulation. Similar to teacher-student relationships: not peers (usually).
>>17429925By not being a collectivist. I am not society and I disagree with society on a lot of things.
>>17429955but the traumatization aspect is just an assumption based on conjecture, I find there's a deviousness in it as people's disgust is the first step and motivator to warp perception and make bestiality always seem like it's the worst thing ever, when in fact we're actually mistreating animals constantly in far worse ways we prefer under the guise that we need to be mistreating them (we don't). There's just this false sense of order or justice in it that comes across as very slimy, dishonest and hypocritical to me.>>17431558Yes and that's why using consent as an argument is so lazy and brainless. A lot of other arguments can be used instead in the case of children, from our complicated ways of brain development, to simply putting the age of sexual permissibility at 18 because we have to draw the line somewhere. Truth be told I don't know much about these sorts of arguments, but it should stand to reason that animals and people are not really comparable and that we put much greater moral consideration on the latter.
>>17431621ok? you still probably support various degrees of society's bad practices, weather it's buying products that use animal materials, or vote for people who don't represent your views, and you're probably also helping with society's malpractices in a lot of ways you don't even know. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I've seen from people who claim they're very individualistic. Maybe you're different.
>>17431692I am objectivist, I am individualistic in the extreme. I don't vote because I don't want to enact force on another person and voting just means someone else gets to initiate force on my behalf which I absolutely despise. To return to yesterday's point, allowing an animal to be that animal does not constitute doing everything you can to have it live it's "best" life. Some birds just get caught by snakes for instance, that is morally neutral. A human in this manner is as much a predator of animals as animal predators themselves. My human reasoning also states that I need vitamin b12. I wouldn't fault a diabetic for using animal extracted insulin in order to survive.
>>17431677>but the traumatization aspect is just an assumption based on conjecture, I find there's a deviousness in it as people's disgust is the first step and motivator to warp perception and make bestiality always seem like it's the worst thing ever, when in fact we're actually mistreating animals constantly in far worse ways we prefer under the guise that we need to be mistreating them (we don't). There's just this false sense of order or justice in it that comes across as very slimy, dishonest and hypocritical to me.We have a tendency to treat sexual acts as incredibly severe in human morality too. You can find plenty of people who sympathize with people who commit murder but few (if any) who support the action of raping someone, even though murder should obviously be worse. Murder, like the slaughter of cattle can be done for good reasons but sexual violence and bestiality can't ever be justified in the minds of most people even though they are willing to justify 'worse' treatments. We just view sexual acts differently. The average man would be far more willing to forgive another man who punched him on the jaw than someone who grabbed his crotch, he'd probably prefer spending a time in jail or enduring physical pain like having a bone broken over being anally raped or forced to perform oral sex even if there was no pain involved. Violating sexual boundaries is just seen as way more severe than discomfort or even physical pain.
>>17429151It's not that it's "impossible", but that it is "usually" and "generally" impossible, but not "always" impossible, because there are rare cases where animal consent is possible to prove and in theory consent is provable for any form of sexuality.I'm Autistic and this concept is a little harder to grasp for me than others. There are times when animals exhibit the kind of behavior in a sexual way that is the same as humans do. This can happen with animals, but not as often with people. In other words, people are typically more able to comprehend that they are about to do something and stop. Animals, and my own brain for instance, are less likely to have this understanding and would act the same way in any situation. A human being who knows about animals would probably have this same thought about animals.
>>17429151I always found an argument to be circular> children/animals can't give consent!> but what if they willingly jump on dick?> eh... no they just can't by definition> are they lucking IQ or...> THEY JUST CAN'T ALRIGHT
>>17432363>sexual violence and bestiality can't ever be justifiedWhat justification there would be for beastiality?the only motives is usually a pleasure, and killing for pleasure is not really seem as justifiedDo you need to have sex with animals in self defense?Do you need it for revenge?Did any political movement need to have sex with animals to advance it's goals?I'd also argue it's easier to stop killing than to stop committing beastilityMost people don't feel an innate urge to kill, even if they might be capable of killing in some circumstances Most people have an innate urge to have sex,and if you are aroused by animals the idea will cross your mind oftenThis is also why sex in media was often seem as more innapropriate than violenceIt will influence the audience more since sexual urges are stronger in most people than violent urges
>>17432507> What justification there would be for beastiality?Sciencific research. We could create human/animal hybrids.
Why do you sick fucks have to debate and argue over the most basic shit. Just don’t fuck animals, relatives, and kids. For fucks sake. There doesn’t need to be a long, complicated response as to why not. You’re demented and malfunctioning if you think otherwise.
>>17432516There are no real documented cases of beastiality producing hybridsThe one experiment to create human ape hybrids failedHybrids are probably straight up impossibleOr would require IVF and genetic manipulation
>>17432395They are lacking IQ, yes
>>17432507>What justification there would be for beastiality?None, other than sexual gratification. At best you could argue that it's preferable for deviants to take out their perversions on animals instead of becoming so pent up they end up raping people instead, but it would be hard to measure how many (if any) rapes would be prevented if bestiality was legal and accessible as an alternative to fucking people.
>>17431692How would supporting YET ANOTHER bad pratice make it better?Just because you are not perfect does not mean you should comitt to doing wrong 24/7
>>17431558When it happens to children, it is usually found out because of the negative effect on behavior (agression, fear, hypersexual behavior...)I would not focus too much on the power thingAt the end of the day most relationships are in some sense unequal, because men are more powerful than women physically (without even entertaining muh sexism)
>>17429151You have to look at it historically: originally, bestiality was forbidden because God said so in the Torah. That's why in western society it was often made illegal under the same laws that dealt with homosexual intercourse, which was forbidden in the same place for the same reasons (hygiene).Modern, secular people (on both the right and the left) can't really use that excuse anymore, because they want gay sex to be legal, so instead they invented a modern dogma to replace God. Like God, it can't be rationally defended, so they made it taboo to even question it, like God used to be.
