Meat-Eating vs. Bestiality

[Nous]

They are in some respects grouped with community health and public safety.

Cite the statutes.

Do you think that animal welfare does not or has not used public safety and health as reasoning?

No, public health and safety is not the premise on which anti-cruelty laws are enacted. That idea was tried back in the 19th century, and everyone quickly understood how ridiculous an attempt at justification that was.

A case line is a line of reasoning developed of several cases. Reading these cases that you keep citing it should be apparent how the courts use reasoning in past cases to help them come to a decision in specific cases.

I assure you I am well aware of courts' use of arguments from previous decisions. I've never come across the term "case line" before.

Again, what's the "case line" in which children have been found to have equal rights as adults? That is part of your "argument" in attempt to distinguish human from animal law. Isn't it?

For instance, if I am not mistaken animal cruelty cases were used in some of the first child welfare cases.

Cite these cases.

 

[Curious George]

I know exactly what omnivores are. All I asked for are the biological adaptations that humans have that are common to omnivorous mammals and that distinguish humans from other apes. Name them.

You mean like apes like the chimpanzees?

"Our closest relatives among the apes are the chimpanzees (i.e., anatomically, behaviorally, genetically, and evolutionarily), who frequently kill and eat other mammals (including other primates)." Supra.

 

[Curious George]

Again, what's the "case line" in which children have been found to have equal rights as adults? That is part of your "argument" in attempt to distinguish human from animal law. Isn't it?
.

No, actually children have not been found equal, however the arguments are based on equality. The constitution does obviously provide for all citizens and people and children are usually both citizens and people. Children have greater limitations on their rights. But yes, ultimately children are looked at under equality as opposed to animals, this evident because children have rights animals do not.

 

[Nous]

I know exactly what omnivores are. All I asked for are the biological adaptations that humans have that are common to omnivorous mammals and that distinguish humans from other apes. Name them.

You mean like apes like the chimpanzees?

"Our closest relatives among the apes are the chimpanzees (i.e., anatomically, behaviorally, genetically, and evolutionarily), who frequently kill and eat other mammals (including other primates)." Supra.

So you can't name any biological adaptations that humans have that are common to omnivorous mammals and that distinguish humans from other apes?

 

[Nous]

No, actually children have not been found equal, however the arguments are based on equality.

What arguments are you talking about? Cite the cases.

 

[Curious George]

So you can't name any biological adaptations that humans have that are common to omnivorous mammals and that distinguish humans from other apes?

Apes are omnivores, with some exceptions.

 

[Nous]

Apes are omnivores, with some exceptions.

Common chimpanzees eat the largest amount of animal matter of any living ape, estimated by Jane Goodall at less that 10%, which is insignificant, and the largest portion of which consists of insects. Chimpanzees do not as a habit eat other mammals equal or larger in size to themselves, as canines and bears do, and as humans do only out of perversion, not biological adaptation.

 

[Curious George]

Common chimpanzees eat the largest amount of animal matter of any living ape, estimated by Jane Goodall at less that 10%, which is insignificant, and the largest portion of which consists of insects. Chimpanzees do not as a habit eat other mammals equal or larger in size to themselves, as canines and bears do, and as humans do only out of perversion, not biological adaptation.

It is your contention that all apes are not omnivores?

 

[Smart_Guy]

Aggression is also part of our human nature. Do you suggest that we give into it rather than curb it just because it's part of our nature?

So your moral compass is based on stuff we're "suppose to do"? Don't do anything unless we're suppose to do it? Give me a break.

Did you read what I said before ? Here:

I believe that all natural practices should be moderated and controlled. No need to completely cancel them. Some of them seem to be valid to cancel, but I don't think eating animals is one of them.

I'll give you an example just so you can understand. We humans have to eat to live. That does not mean we eat until our stomach explodes. As for doing needless stuff, I never said not for that. But if they involve unacceptable reasons, or even controversial reasons, then it should be considered well.

FYI, this amounts to an exception fallacy. Argument by exception is unacceptable.

This statement does not prove anything. And where is the exception?

Then how about showing us why you think bestiality is inhumane.

in·hu·mane
ˌin(h)yo͞oˈmān/
adjective
adjective: inhumane
without compassion for misery or suffering; cruel.​

Are you saying having sex with a being without knowing they want it or fine with it for sure (from our side) is compassionate? This thinking is destructive.

 

[Nous]

It is your contention that all apes are not omnivores?

My contention is that no one here has specified any biological trait that humans have that is common to omnivorous mammals and that distinguishes humans from other apes.

I also contend that if you (or anyone else) wish to argue that it is OK for humans to eat the amount and type of animal matter that other apes do, I have no problem with that. I encourage you to eat especially lots of mosquitoes and roaches. It's the cruelty to intelligent, sensitive mammals, birds and fish that is the obvious perversion, as well as the horrific effects on the environment and climate that result from raising and using livestock and from fishing the oceans dry.

 

[Skwim]

Did you read what I said before ? Here:

I'll give you an example just so you can understand. We humans have to eat to live. That does not mean we eat until our stomach explodes. As for doing needless stuff, I never said not for that. But if they involve unacceptable reasons, or even controversial reasons, then it should be considered well.

Which still doesn't answer my questions.

"So your moral compass is based on stuff we're "suppose to do"? Don't do anything unless we're suppose to do it?​

This statement does not prove anything. And where is the exception?

"Exception fallacy
The exception fallacy occurs when data about an individual is used to draw conclusions about a group of people."
You can read more about this fallacy HERE ​

Are you saying having sex with a being without knowing they want it or fine with it for sure (from our side) is compassionate?

Nope, I'm saying... *sigh*... "Then how about showing us why you think bestiality is inhumane."

Wait, are you a bestiality advocate/supporter?

Question already asked and answered. (See previous posts somewhere else in the thread.)


.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Which still doesn't answer my questions.

"So your moral compass is based on stuff we're "suppose to do"? Don't do anything unless we're suppose to do it?​

Where did I mention "suppose to do"? I talked about our nature. Doing what's in our nature is not necessarily what we are suppose to do. There is a huge difference. Dude, that's simple English, come on now!

"Exception fallacy
The exception fallacy occurs when data about an individual is used to draw conclusions about a group of people."
You can read more about this fallacy HERE

Please point out the exception in the discussion. You're just defining stuff and copy pasting them from somewhere without clarifying for what exactly.

Nope, I'm saying... *sigh*... "Then how about showing us why you think bestiality is inhumane."

Oh God! You answered it yourself. You said "nope" for having sex with animals being compassionate, as an answer to my question. Not compassionate means inhumane. That question, tho being a question not a statement, is my answer.

Question already asked and answered. (See previous posts somewhere else in the thread.)

I edited that out like a minute after posting it and before you quoted it. Sorry about that.

 

[Curious George]

My contention is that no one here has specified any biological trait that humans have that is common to omnivorous mammals and that distinguishes humans from other apes.

I also contend that if you (or anyone else) wish to argue that it is OK for humans to eat the amount and type of animal matter that other apes do, I have no problem with that. I encourage you to eat especially lots of mosquitoes and roaches. It's the cruelty to intelligent, sensitive mammals, birds and fish that is the obvious perversion, as well as the horrific effects on the environment and climate that result from raising and using livestock and from fishing the oceans dry.

Ok, so what you are saying is that yes, you understand that apes are omnivores so a distinguishing characteristic of an omnivore which distinguishes them from apes is a silly little idea.

If you want to make an ethical argument- sure that is different. But Humans ARE omnivores.

 

[Valjean]

Ten or fifteen million years ago the various hominids probably lived pretty similar lifestyles. Over the years some clades became vegetarians, others became/remained generalists. Our closest ancestors like meat when they can get it, but aren't very good hunters. Humans are better hunters and have been actively hunting for pretty much our whole history -- enough time for our hunter-gatherer lifestyles to be reflected in our anatomy and physiology. We can see even more recent adaptations to herding (dairy) and agriculture (grains) spreading through the genome. It doesn't take that long.

I appreciate that there are arguments to be made regarding the morality of eating or exploiting animals, but I don't think our history of carnivory factors into this. Most animal rights arguments don't hinge on history.

 

[Skwim]

Where did I mention "suppose to do"? I talked about our nature. Doing what's in our nature is not necessarily what we are suppose to do. There is a huge difference. Dude, that's simple English, come on now!

In post 132 you said

"I forgot to mention something... meet-eating is part of our nature as humans, but bestiality is not
Or are we suppose to mate with animals?" ​

This implied that your "suppose" (def: "to be required to do something because of the position one is in or an agreement one has made") could function as a basis for morality. Hence my questions:

"So your moral compass is based on stuff we're "suppose to do"? Don't do anything unless we're suppose to do it?​

A "yes" or "no" would have sufficed.

Please point out the exception in the discussion. You're just defining stuff and copy pasting them from somewhere without clarifying for what exactly.

You said:

"A pet could fall a victim to rape without giving any signs of rejection due to it's love to the owner. Pet are known to submit to the owners. Some of them even take physical damage and just stay there doing nothing but giving suffering sounds. I think bestiality is inhumane."​

The fallacy of exception arises because you picked a single incident, "A pet could fall a victim to . . . ." in order to make a case against bestiality in general. It's a "People shouldn't own guns because my cousin once shot himself in the foot." kind of argument.

Oh God! You answered it yourself. You said "nope" for having sex with animals being compassionate, as an answer to my question. Not compassionate means inhumane. That question, tho being a question not a statement, is my answer.

Oh my. My "nope" was meant to merely indicated that you got my request "Then how about showing us why you think bestiality is inhumane," quite wrong. Sorry that my frustration with ignored questions and requests mislead you. So, I still await your evidence that bestiality is inhumane. What ya got? "Prove" that bestiality is "without compassion for misery or suffering; cruel." (Try doing it without falling back on a question.)


.

 

[Valjean]

How do we judge cruelty/abuse? Inflicting pain? harm? shame? Restriction of freedom or self determination?
Does sex with an animal hurt or harm it? Is the animal aware that human cultures consider the act shameful or degrading? Does the act entail restrictions the animal isn't already subject to?

Something to consider...

 

[Smart_Guy]

In post 132 you said

"I forgot to mention something... meet-eating is part of our nature as humans, but bestiality is not
Or are we suppose to mate with animals?" ​

This implied that your "suppose" (def: "to be required to do something because of the position one is in or an agreement one has made") could function as a basis for morality. Hence my questions:

"So your moral compass is based on stuff we're "suppose to do"? Don't do anything unless we're suppose to do it?​

A "yes" or "no" would have sufficed.
.

Hmm... I meant that it is certainly not in our nature so I used the exaggeration form. But the answers are no and no.

You said:

"A pet could fall a victim to rape without giving any signs of rejection due to it's love to the owner. Pet are known to submit to the owners. Some of them even take physical damage and just stay there doing nothing but giving suffering sounds. I think bestiality is inhumane."​

The fallacy of exception arises because you picked a single incident, "A pet could fall a victim to . . . ." in order to make a case against bestiality in general. It's a "People shouldn't own guns because my cousin once shot himself in the foot." kind of argument.

Oh, my arguments wasn't meant for that. I gave that example as a proof that animals cannot have valid consent in being a sexual target.

Oh my. My "nope" was meant to merely indicated that you got my request "Then how about showing us why you think bestiality is inhumane," quite wrong. Sorry that my frustration with ignored questions and requests mislead you. So, I still await your evidence that bestiality is inhumane. What ya got? "Prove" that bestiality is "without compassion for misery or suffering; cruel." (Try doing it without falling back on a question.)

Hmm... it is because we cannot have their valid consent and full understanding in it. This is cruel in my book. It also would degrade animals to sex objects.

 

[dawny0826]

Yes.

I don't suppose you have any logical argument by which to conclude that it is moral to cause another creature to suffer and die merely to satisfy one's momentary and non-essential desires, do you?

Clearly, I don't condone the suffering of animals.

 

[Skwim]

Hmm... it is because we cannot have their valid consent and full understanding in it. This is cruel in my book. It also would degrade animals to sex objects.

Then how do we know animals consent to being whipped in a horse race, being harnessed together to pull a sleigh for over a month in the dead of winter for over 1,000 miles, or being confined to milking stalls day in and day out, hunted by dogs until killed, stuck with sharp pikes in the shoulder, or confined to extremely small egg-laying cages their entire life? Think these animals were ever asked if they'd like to do these things?

And while being used as a sex object may sound objectionable, is this some how worse than being used for any other form of human entertainment? How about training dogs to jump through hoops night after night for our entertainment, or horses being made to run around a track to near exhaustion, or calves being roped and yanked to the ground in rodeos? Think these forms of entertainment don't degrade the animal? If you don't then you'll have to explain---without questions---why sex is degrading. My suspicion is that, for whatever reason, you have a skewed sense sexual propriety.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Then how do we know animals consent to being whipped in a horse race, being harnessed together to pull a sleigh for over a month in the dead of winter for over 1,000 miles, or being confined to milking stalls day in and day out, hunted by dogs until killed, stuck with sharp pikes in the shoulder, or confined to extremely small egg-laying cages their entire life? Think these animals were ever asked if they'd like to do these things?

I don't do any of those. Ask those who do them. I see them cruel.

And while being used as a sex object may sound objectionable, is this some how worse than being used for any other form of human entertainment? How about training dogs to jump through hoops night after night for our entertainment, or horses being made to run around a track to near exhaustion, or calves being roped and yanked to the ground in rodeos? Think these forms of entertainment don't degrade the animal? If you don't then you'll have to explain---without questions---why sex is degrading. My suspicion is that, for whatever reason, you have a skewed sense sexual propriety.

Yes, I do see them degrading.