Meat-Eating vs. Bestiality

[dgirl1986]

*blind post*

Two totally different kettle of fish. One is ending all feeling, the other is creating suffering.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

The evidence is mounting that they do.

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ligent-sentient-book-brilliant-green-internet

Science is merely catching up to what animists and others in tune with all life have known for many thousands of years. Life is life and all is consciousness. There are no true ontological differences between an animal, a plant, a bacteria, etc.

I'll have to add that to the reading list.

As an animist, I believe that all life is to some degree sentient. Being sentient, living things deserve respect. Non-living things also deserve respect. Having respect for something does not mean you don't use it, that you don't kill it if you need to, that you don't eat it. Living entails death, and death is the source of life for other living things; eventually, every human becomes the food of something else, of everything else--we exist in a web of life, with very porous boundaries, and are not separate from everything else.

 

[Aquitaine]

As said before, plants don't have feelings, emotions, nor do they feel pain to the extent sentient beings do (if they do at all). Isn't it better to kill a non-sentient animal than a sentient, loving creature? As a thought experiment, do you really think that mowing the lawn is the same as beating puppies with a baseball bat?
Also, since you really like plants, you should know that a vegan diet save more plants than a meat-eater diet. And humane slaughter does not exist as it is an oxymoron.

I still insist that humane slaughter can be achieved, through NA.
At least if we're merely talking about the process of killing, rather than the concept of killing.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'll have to add that to the reading list.

As an animist, I believe that all life is to some degree sentient. Being sentient, living things deserve respect. Non-living things also deserve respect. Having respect for something does not mean you don't use it, that you don't kill it if you need to, that you don't eat it. Living entails death, and death is the source of life for other living things; eventually, every human becomes the food of something else, of everything else--we exist in a web of life, with very porous boundaries, and are not separate from everything else.

Well said. I'm an animist and a non-dualist. I don't see the world as flawed, broken or something to escape from. I also don't view humans as more moral/ethical/spiritually evolved/better/etc. than any other species. (So I reject the idea that's commonly found in Hinduism that souls of plants, non-human animals, etc. are somehow at a "lower" state than the souls of humans.) Truly, there is no death, but merely transformation. All of life - the beautiful, the ugly, the gentle, the cruel, the good, the evil, etc. - are part of Nature. Nature is part of the Cosmos and the Cosmos is the Womb of The Infinite Mother. Furthermore, all those dualisms/dualities are merely products of subjective perception. At the highest level of perception, all dualisms/dualities dissolve and there is only One and the One is all of those things, none and nothing at the same time.

Aum Hrim Chandikayai Namah = I bow to Her who tears apart all dualities.

 

[Tiberius]

I'm a meat eater myself. Just a preemptive clarification in case someone thinks about accusing me of repeating vegetarian propaganda (whatever that is).

So, I have been thinking about why I and many others who have no religion oppose bestiality, and one of the most common reasons given is that one can't have the consent of animals to acts of bestiality. However, we also don't have the consent of animals to use them for labor or in industrial farming. We don't have their consent to slaughter them either.

With the above in mind, what makes meat-eating acceptable and bestiality unacceptable?

Who says an animal can't consent?

Let's say a woman is naked on all fours, and her pet dog comes up and mounts her from behind. How can she force the animal to do it?

 

[Valjean]

The evidence is mounting that they do.

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ligent-sentient-book-brilliant-green-internet

Science is merely catching up to what animists and others in tune with all life have known for many thousands of years. Life is life and all is consciousness. There are no true ontological differences between an animal, a plant, a bacteria, etc.

The article describes reactions, survival strategies, communication, defense and such, but this does not equal sentience or intelligence in the sense we're talking about. These actions aren't conscious choices, there's no evidence the plant is aware or weighing options. They are automatic responses. Machines can be built to react, choose, communicate, &c as well, but this is not sentient awareness.

A self driving car acts for all the world like an animal negotiating its environment, but it's not sentient and commands no moral consideration.

 

[Skwim]

Who says an animal can't consent?

Let's say a woman is naked on all fours, and her pet dog comes up and mounts her from behind. How can she force the animal to do it?

And I'm quite sure that any animal, at least largish animal, can easily withhold consent from being penetrated if they chose.

 

[Smart_Guy]

I dunno guys. I personally do not recommend talking about it. I once been thru similar discussion and someone brought child porn to it trying to find an excuse that it is okay in a debate with someone, with supporters, saying bestiality is okay. It was like a year ago on YTube. That conversation really ruined my life around that time.

Darn it, now that remembered that day, I feel sick now

 

[Quintessence]

As said before, plants don't have feelings, emotions, nor do they feel pain to the extent sentient beings do (if they do at all). Isn't it better to kill a non-sentient animal than a sentient, loving creature?

No, I don't find it "better" - killing is killing, and it is what it is. I find making sentience a litmus test to be nauseatingly anthropocentric, to be honest. That, and considering I'm an animist, I would classify everything as sentient. Regardless, I thought this thread was about the (ridiculous) comparison between bestiality and consuming meat in one's diet... the "morality" of which I honestly don't care about either way considering I'm a moral nihilist.

 

[Father Heathen]

I'm a meat eater myself. Just a preemptive clarification in case someone thinks about accusing me of repeating vegetarian propaganda (whatever that is).

So, I have been thinking about why I and many others who have no religion oppose bestiality, and one of the most common reasons given is that one can't have the consent of animals to acts of bestiality. However, we also don't have the consent of animals to use them for labor or in industrial farming. We don't have their consent to slaughter them either.

With the above in mind, what makes meat-eating acceptable and bestiality unacceptable?

Slaughter is usually done for sustenance, and can be done humanely. Bestiality, essentially animal rape, is done for selfish gratification, and is of course inhumane due to causing distress, trauma, pain, etc.

 

[Father Heathen]

Most objections to bestiality stem from the "ick!" factor. Ickyness may carry weight as a social index, but does it have a place in law, barring other, more relevant considerations?

The ethical objections toward animal cruelty goes well beyond any "ick factor".

 

[Skwim]

I dunno guys. I personally do not recommend talking about it.

Are you saying that because the subject of bestiality disturbs you, you might seek to have it banned or moderated?

I once been thru similar discussion and someone brought child porn to it trying to find an excuse that it is okay in a debate with someone, with supporters, saying bestiality is okay.

With almost a quarter of the states in the USA regarding it as either legal or not worth bothering with (See the map I posted in post #56 ) I would say that contending it's okay is quite legitimate. And even if only 2% of the states, 1 out of 50, thought it was okay, I believe that contending it's okay would still be legitimate.

 

[Valjean]

The ethical objections toward animal cruelty goes well beyond any "ick factor".

I agree, but I was speaking particularly of bestiality. I think here the initial reaction of many people is disgust, not concern with cruelty.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Are you saying that because the subject of bestiality disturbs you, you might seek to have it banned or moderated?
With almost a quarter of the states in the USA regarding it as either legal or not worth bothering with (See the map I posted in post #56 ) I would say that contending it's okay is quite legitimate. And even if only 2% of the states, 1 out of 50, thought it was okay, I believe that contending it's okay would still be legitimate.

Not necessarily. Naturally, there are things that rules don't address and are wrong or not recommended to say, just like in real life. My main complaint about talking about bestiality is that it concerns consent and understanding of the practice by the target; i.e. the animal here. Consent and understanding by animals is not a solid proof of anything since we don't know how they think nor their language in full, specially pets being usually completely submissive even towards abuse. That guy I talked about before seemed to use the reasoning in his attempt to have child porn as okay since children can be talked into so many things with offerings they like, hence the consent and the claimed understanding due to consent, of the case. Now that I think of it, could I have misunderstood him that maybe he was actually using the fact the child porn is wrong and disgusting as a means to say bestiality is wrong too? It was a while back I think even more than two years unlike what I thought it was in my last post. It was when YTube did not allow more than 500 letters in single comments. When was that?

My concern was that I had fears of an emergence of a discussion like that. Human mentalities can get tainted when discussions of wrong things get extended and weird thoughts are said.

That map shows me that it is ~50% a felony, which means illegal. I believe that puts it under illegal more than the others in the chart? Or at least in the grey area?

 

[Skwim]

Not necessarily. Naturally, there are things that rules don't address and are wrong or not recommended to say, just like in real life.

I fail to see the reasoning here. You seem to be saying that we shouldn't talk about anything that doesn't have what, a majority of consensus? That unless a certain percentage of people agree with it, it's off limits? No discussion of minority opinions or positions at all? If this is the case then according to Gallop Poll figures (42%) discussions of creationism would be verboten.

My main complaint about talking about bestiality is that it concerns consent and understanding of the practice by the target; i.e. the animal here. Consent and understanding by animals is not a solid proof of anything since we don't know how they think nor their language in full, specially pets being usually completely submissive even towards abuse.

Really not understanding you here. However, it's good to keep in mind all the things we do to animals without giving any thought to their consent: Horse racing where the jockey is allowed to whip their mounts to go faster. Sled dogs forced to pull sleds for over a month and over 1,000 miles in the dead of winter. Bull fighting where the bull has sharp barbed sticks jabbed into its shoulders. Or fox hunting where a pack of 12 to 24 dogs chase down and actually kill a hapless fox. I'm not advocating bestiality here, but merely putting it in perspective in the context of consent. And, as I and others have pointed out, it doesn't appear that animals involved in bestiality are coerced against their consent at all. Certainly nowhere near race horses, sled dogs, bulls, and foxes.

My concern was that I had fears of an emergence of a discussion like that. Human mentalities can get tainted when discussions of wrong things get extended and weird thoughts are said.

I would think twice about pre-censoring an issue based on supposition. And if "weird thoughts are said," so what? I would be careful about taking any position that smacks of morality policeman. My suggestion is that if a subject disturbs you, for whatever reason, simply ignore it.

That map shows me that it is ~50% a felony, which means illegal. I believe that puts it under illegal more than the others in the chart? Or at least in the grey area?

I counted 19 states (18 orange-red and 1 orange) where zoophilia is considered a felony: 38%. In any case, we' seem to be back with the issue of possibly rejecting a discussion because it revolves around a minority position, like creationism.

 

[Smart_Guy]

I fail to see the reasoning here. You seem to be saying that we shouldn't talk about anything that doesn't have what, a majority of consensus? That unless a certain percentage of people agree with it, it's off limits? No discussion of minority opinions or positions at all? If that was the case then according to Gallop Poll figures (42%) discussions of creationism would be verboten.

Really not understanding you here. However, it's good to keep in mind all the things we do to animals without giving any thought to their consent: Horse racing where the jockey is allowed to whip their mounts to go faster. Sled dogs forced to pull sleds for over a month and over 1,000 miles in the dead of winter. Bull fighting where the bull has sharp barbed sticks jabbed into its shoulders. Or fox hunting where a pack of 12 to 24 dogs chase down and actually kill a hapless fox. I'm not advocating bestiality here, but merely putting it in perspective in the context of consent. And, as I and others have pointed out, it doesn't appear that animals involved in bestiality are coerced against their consent at all. Certainly no where near like race horses, sled dogs, bulls, and foxes.

I would think twice about pre-censoring an issue based on supposition. And if "weird thoughts are said" so what? I would be careful about taking any position that smacks of morality policeman. My suggestion is that if a subject disturbs you, for whatever reason, simply ignore it.

I counted 19 states (18 orange-red and 1 orange) where zoophilia is considered a felony: 38%. In any case, we' seem to be back with the issue of possibly rejecting a discussion because it revolves around a minority position, like creationism.

Are you a bestiality supporter?

 

[Skwim]

Are you a bestiality supporter?

I'm agnostic in the sense that although it kind of grosses me out, I wouldn't outlaw it. From how I understand it no harm is done--no coercion---and lacking harm I see no reason to ban it.

Are you a bestiality opponent? If so, why? Do you see some harm that I'm missing?

 

[Smart_Guy]

I'm agnostic in the sense that although it kind of grosses me out, I wouldn't outlaw it. From how I understand it no harm is done--no coercion---and lacking harm I see no reason to ban it.

Are you a bestiality opponent? If so, why? Do you see some harm that I'm missing?

Understood.

Yes, I'm against it because it feels like sexual assault to me. Many sexual assaults against even humans turn out to do no harm.

 

[Rival]

Who says an animal can't consent?

Let's say a woman is naked on all fours, and her pet dog comes up and mounts her from behind. How can she force the animal to do it?

Fyi this isn't actually how dogs mate afaik. It's just a sign of dominance over another dog.

 

[Valjean]

But the puppies!