[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/his/ - History & Humanities


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: 1673331833570312.jpg (37 KB, 960x952)
37 KB
37 KB JPG
I don't want to condone anything, but the deontological argument against bestiality is the most braindead shit ever, we don't make social contracts with animals, we use and exploit them in a slavery-like system. So why do people consider it active here magically? you can make a good argument against it, but most "intellectuals" prefer to invoke some deontological contract as if it's the same between humans and between animals and humans, instead of something more logical and consistent. Why is this?
>>
It's an appeal to emotion because when most people think of bestiality they immediately think of some freak sticking their dicks inside a dog's asshole and not something less gross per se like Dolphins wanting to have sex with divers. Not saying either are okay, but I just think that's generally where this reaction comes from. Maybe the term "bestiality" is too broad because humans are just one species but animals are many with varying degrees of "compatibility" I guess.
>>
>>18422833
>>18422836
Stop having sex with animals, you sick degenerate fucks
>>
>>18422846
agreed, race mixing needs to be re-stigmatized
>>
>>18422846
You and we me we aint nothing but mammals so let's do it like they do it on the Discovery Channel
>>
>>18422846
I never had any sex with them you stupid mongoloid, I just asked why in debating philosophical spaces you have people arguing against it using this deontological route most often, especially as it doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.
>>
>>18422853
If it doesn't make sense to you why people shouldn't bang animals, that means you want to bang them yourself.
>>
>>18422857
Not OP but why shouldn't people bang animals in logical terms?
>"If it doesn't make sense to you why people shouldn't bang animals, that means you want to bang them yourself."
Appeal to self-evident truth fallacy
>it's disgusting
appeal to emotion
This is exactly what OP is talking about by the way. Not a freak who wants to have sex with animals either, I'm just playing devils advocate
>>
>>18422860
>appeal to emotion
So what? Why shouldn't I use force to prevent people from doing things *I* think is disgusting?
>>
Look, all I'm saying is that if you've ever seen a dolphin's vagina and have ever heard stories about dolphins being horny motherfuckers who want to have sex with divers, you would also be a little curious about what sex with them is like. Dolphins are fully sentient and capable of consent
>>
File: pepeskeptic.jpg (20 KB, 306x306)
20 KB
20 KB JPG
>>18422860
>I'm just playing devils advocate
Sure, sicko...
>>
>>18422833
AIDS is harmless to monkeys, but too many of our movers and shakers are gay, making it an economic risk we should minimize.
>>
>>18422846
This
>>
>>18422857
>I don't think certain argument makes sense so I'm curious why people bring it up all the time, but that doesn't mean (you) can't make other good, logical ones instead
>erm akchually you just want to bang animals, mkay?
I thought this board was meant for philosophical discussions
>>18422872
this guy gets it, even if he bought into the whole "aids comes from monkey sex you guys" nonsense.
>>
>>18422846
SBPB
>>18422853
Stop debating retarded shit. You’re just letting some freak justify fucking a dog. Laugh and deride those people and move on to something that actually matters.
>>
>>18422900
in what world is criticizing certain arguments = justification and support of the criticized group... hypothetically, if I make the case that we should build better supports around a building, does that mean I support people not living in houses?
>>
>>18422912
I see you are too retarded and debate-brained to actually read my post. Take a break, buddy.
>>
>>18422915
I understand it and whether you like it or not everything matters, if we introduce policy based around our feelings instead of a logical framework, it sets a shit precedent for society going forward. If some 0.02 % of the population wanna fuck a dog, I'd rather take that than 100% of the population making Trumpian, nonsensical decisions based around what we ought to do and potentially dooming us into a stone age.

It is NOT unreasonable to expect a certain level of logical competency from the masses who want to criticize something, especially on the internet, whatever it might be. Or are they too stupid or willfully ignorant to do it?



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.