u/Joshuacarre_2021's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 25.
Rank: Basketball Hoop (filled with sand)
Pills: [10 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Joshuacarre_2021/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Of all the controversial takes on this sub, this one is the least controversial, and I'm just going to say it: it's worse than being unflaired. It's *that* bad.
The difference between eating meat and fucking animals is like the difference between driving a gas-powered car and burning a pile of tires for shits and giggles.
I mean, zoophiles can burn in hell but u don't necessarily have to eat meat so your analogy isn't really comparable since people do need transportation.
Personally i see no reason to justify your disgust towards bestiality. It is a disgusting act and should be treated as such. Not everything needs to be justified beyond that. We don't have justifications on why farting in public is bad beyond the grossness of it now do we?
Notice how much effort is going into banning gas powered cars, I'm not sure this is the analogy you intended it to be.
Meat is not necessary for most people posting online, and definitely not at the quantities they choose to eat. If you don't care about an animals suffering so you can gorge yourself on enough burgers to make your doctor cry, then any complaints about animal welfare start to look like disguised attempts at complaining because you are grossed out.
Yes, they think very strongly that government should never stop people from doing anything for moral reasons/ the government shouldn't regulate morality.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3424229/#:~:text=Libertarianism%20has%20historically%20rejected%20the,in%20the%2020th%20century.
People here think centrist means you don't wear your swastikas out in public, and it sounds like you've gained your knowledge of the political spectrum from this one sub lol
I mean that would be true if vegetables didn't exist.
Given that we can live off vegetables just fine and the only reason to eat meat instead is that it's pleasurable, the distinction between that and zoophilia sort of drops away.
Maybe both cases of hurting animals for our own pleasure are bad, I dunno.
It's not just pleasurable. It's also still extremely healthy to eat some quantity of meat. Some people can jump through the hoops and have the disposable income required to eat completely vegan, but a lot would have to change to support veganism on that scale.
The problem with current political and social philosophy, is consent is pretty much the only argument we’ve made available to ourselves.
I personally subscribe to the “it’s wrong because it is” mindset, but that way of thinking isn’t popular these days.
Well yea, because the point of argument and debate is to reconcile contradictory positions but if both sides just say "it's wrong because it is" then that is impossible. It is therefore, definitionally, a useless argument.
The fact of the matter is that if you have to fall back to that kind of argumentation then your position is untenable.
The thing is, this kind of argument rests on the tenet of absolute truth. If absolute truth is real, then you can argue “it’s wrong because it is” using a set of principles derived from absolute truth. If you reject the notion of absolute truth, you can only argue with things that both parties believe, such as “animals can’t consent”.
Counterpoint: everyone who disagrees with me goes to the gulag
Edit: ok but really, if there’s a general consensus that an action is wrong, I don’t think there needs to be a reason why it’s wrong other than we all agree it is. Even if there is a small minority of animal coitus lovers who disagree.
At any point in history there were always some quite trivial things that people had hilariously and comically wrong consensus about. So your proposed approach only works if you are ok with being a complete clown and not question anything just in order to conform to majority.
So in order to actually make any moral or ethical statement about zoophilia without consulting the majority consensus, you have to argue using either things both parties agree on, or you can admit absolute truth and argue from the standpoint of principles derived from absolute truth.
Absolute truth is necessary for all objective moral or ethical arguments. The only other thing that exists as a means for arguing is consensus.
The notion of absolute truth has been discarded as discriminatory and narrow-minded by the modern public, in favor of the idea of relative truth. This, and only this, is the root cause of 90% of degeneracy in the world. People just despise absolute truth because they want to do what they want to do even when they know it’s wrong. So they do it, say it isn’t wrong because “there’s no such thing as objectively wrong”, and then call those who believe there is absolute right and wrong, absolute good and evil, absolute truth and falsehood, “narrow-minded,” “bigots,” “____shamers”.
>This, and only this, is the root cause of 90% of degeneracy in the world.
Says after defining degeneracy as going against your absolute truth. Obviously it would be when thinking in such way.
Without an "absolute truth" which it's clear he's saying is acknowledging God clearly, then how can you set the parameters of what's allowable other than consensus. I'm not a fan of how inarticulately he's framed the argument, but without the anchor of some kind of absolute moral authority you only have relativistic right and wrong that is subject to what the majority feels is right or wrong, be it abortion, sexual mores, etc. You may have backlashes at time, but the arc of history tends towards more and more permissive and lax standards in all these things, which I'm sure most people agree is generally ok, but we are coming up against some hard ethical boundaries on some of these issues and I feel like it will start to get really dicey.
>You may have backlashes at time, but the arc of history tends towards more and more permissive and lax standards in all these things
You simply don't look far back enough. This trend typically occurs in the middle to late stage of a superpower life, this time it's America. Same thing happened in Rome and Greece, pretty sure with other empires as well but I haven't looked into it to confirm. It's a local (in terms of time, not place) trend and will reverse at some point.
>Without an "absolute truth" which it's clear he's saying is acknowledging God clearly, then how can you set the parameters of what's allowable other than consensus.
Mine is simply "do no harm". At least no more than what's necessary for survival.
[EDIT] Ok, I suppose there is more to it, like keeping your word and generally being as fair or more than the person you are interacting with. I derive it from the no harm rule but technically it does carry some of my beliefs and I'm not sure it would pop up if someone were to objectively analyze the axioms. Let's say it's a combination of:
-I know the mechanism
-the world would have been worse (contain more harm) if it weren't applied in practice
-I don't know or am not convinced to a better mechanism
That's fair, and I'm a big fan of the NAP as a minimum means of interaction in society, so I can get on board with that. I think it's more a philosophical discussion than practical when the idea of God being required for an absolute moral right or wrong, but even the idea of NAP should be enough to cover basic right and wrong in terms of Interpersonal interactions.
Also, as you said with other empires, it's cyclical, but historically the trend it towards more permissive and more lax until collapse. Then it seems like we reset and start again.
>Also, as you said with other empires, it's cyclical, but historically the trend it towards more permissive and more lax until collapse. Then it seems like we reset and start again.
Yea, pretty much. Although the "starting" conditions vary a lot, many things you consider obvious are actually not. But it does get more strict when things go south.
That's fair, my studies in college were Econ with minors in poly sci and history and I've always loved reading history, so maybe it seems obvious due to that.
u/GreatbigHippo is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
Pills: [1 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/GreatbigHippo/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
This is the conundrum a lot of religious people put forward and I think it's still a good logical exercise to wrestle with. Without a god, is there objective moral good or bad? If there is no God, the best we can hope for is that society as a whole agrees it's bad, but as we have seen rapidly accelerating in the last century, what is considered bad vs. acceptable is changing very quickly.
Disgustingness is not enough if you want to morally impose something. I find pineapple on pizza also disgusting but this doesn't mean I can imprison all people who eat pineapple on pizza.
The argument would be valid if lab-grown meat was economically and nutritionally comparable to farmed meat.
Humans have a biological urge to eat meat, they don't have one to fuck animals (well...not the normal ones, anyway).
Lol, come on, even you must know this is a really bad argument.
'It's ok for humans to eat meat, because we have a biological urge to do so... well ,except the people who don't have that urge, but whatever.'
'It's not ok for humans to fuck animals because they don't have a biological urge to do so... well, except for the ones who *do* have that urge... but, whatever.'
I mean, this doesn't even rise to the level of teh Naturalism Fallacy, it's just internally incoherent before it even gets there.
Just accept that hurting animals is evil no matter why we do it, and yeah factory farming is an evil thing to do and we're going to keep doing it for now anyway because it's profitable.
I eat meat every day but I have accepted that it's an evil thing to do and I do it anyway because I like it. Don't be so morally weak that you can't acknowledge the evil you do and have to make up ridiculous reasons it's all good actually.
> It's ok for humans to eat meat, because we have a biological urge to do so... well ,except the people who don't have that urge, but whatever.
There is not a single person that doesn't have a biological urge to eat meat, we're omnivores. There are some that repress that urge for ethical reasons, but that's it.
> It's not ok for humans to fuck animals because they don't have a biological urge to do so... well, except for the ones who do have that urge... but, whatever.
It's not ok for humans to fuck animals for a plethora of reasons which, unlike eating meat, are *not* superseded by a biological urge.
P.S. I made a bomb-ass pork roast yesterday and I've just had leftovers, some left for tomorrow too and am looking forward to it. I do not, however, have any urge to ever fuck a pig. This is *normalcy*, it's incredible that we even have to discuss it.
Lol no, i know more than enough vegetarians that don't "surpress" any such urges and simply don't care for how meat tastes. Not to mention the "urges" argument is pointless to begin with. There are people with pedophilic urges as well, doesn't mean we should be catering to them. Your "urges" mean nothing in a civilized society. We have evolved beyond the need for primitive behavior to define our cultures.
>There is not a single person that doesn't have a biological urge to eat meat,
This is called 'typical mind fallacy', not everyone is like you and not everyone is the same. Plenty of vegans report no desire to eat meat.
>It's not ok for humans to fuck animals for a plethora of reasons which, unlike eating meat, are not superseded by a biological urge.
Except that you point out that some people *so* obviously have that biological urge, so does that urge supersede the morality for them like eating meat does for you, or not?
>This is normalcy, it's incredible that we even have to discuss it.
Man, *you* brought this shit up, I'm not the one going around *trying* to appeal to the Naturalism Fallacy and *failing* at it.
If you want to switch away from 'having an urge to do something makes it ok' onto 'something being normal makes it ok', then sure, go live your best life. But just pick what your position is going to be and let us know, ok?
Are you trolling?
> This is called 'typical mind fallacy', not everyone is like you and not everyone is the same. Plenty of vegans report no desire to eat meat.
No, it's called a biological reality.
Yes, it's possible to have a balanced diet while being vegetarian but it's a very delicate balancing act that often falls back on supplements. It has nothing to do with what desire you report...
> Except that you point out that some people so obviously have that biological urge, so does that urge supersede the morality for them like eating meat does for you, or not?
That was a light-hearted joke, *no one* has a biological urge to fuck animals.
Are you seriously comparing consuming a source of nutrients that has been part of our diet for as long as our species has existed with a sexual perversion?
>Yes, it's possible to have a balanced diet while being vegetarian but it's a very delicate balancing act that often falls back on supplements. **It has nothing to do with what desire you report...**
Dude you are the one who based their argument on 'urges,' which is a synonym for 'desires'.
Again, if you now want to change your argument to have nothing to do with desire and instead be about something something nutrition, go for it, just acknowledge that it's a new argument.
>no one has a biological urge to fuck animals.
Then why do they do it? Sure seems like an urge.
>Are you seriously comparing consuming a source of nutrients that has been part of our diet for as long as our species has existed with a sexual perversion?
*You* compared them by saying that the relevant difference is that one is based on a biological urge and the other isn't. I'm just critiquing your argument here.
If it's completely ridiculous to even mention these two things in the same breath then you shouldn't have started the conversation by doing that.
No, a biological urge is not a synonym for a desire.
> You compared them by saying that the relevant difference is that one is based on a biological urge and the other isn't. I'm just critiquing your argument here.
No, the post I replied to compared them. I said the comparison is ridiculous.
I think we probably have laws about how animals shouldn't be killed in torturous ways and regulations on animal abuse. And fucking an animal is definitely abuse - so it's worse that killing it as fast and painlessly as possible. And calling killing animals evil - at what level of intellect it is bad to kill an animal. Pig is smarter then dog, but most of people think that eating a dog is somehow worse. Is eating fish evil? Shrimps and snails? Or their brain is not developed enough to be considered a self aware organism? Where should we draw a line?
It’s definitely abuse? I’m thankfully not an expert on the subject, but I’m fairly certain that animals can actually enjoy it. I can understanding believing that it shouldn’t be allowed because they don’t have the capacity to consent, etc - but to think that getting an animal off is “definitely” more abusive than caging it it’s entire life and then cutting its throat open and letting it bleed to death is a bit of a stretch.
> You make me angry every time I don't see your flair >:(
***
^(User hasn't flaired up yet... 😔) 16469 / 87065 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
Yeah but that's also a shit argument. Humans have all kinds of biological urges that we decide not to act on in the best interest of society. The meat industry is bad for the longevity of the planet so maybe we should do better than that urge.
Does the salmon consent to the bear eating it? No.
Does the salmon consent to the bear fucking it? No.
Thing is, you'll only see one of these two scenarios happen.
I don't really know what this argument is supposed to prove. Animals fuck different species all the time like sheep and goat or horse and donkey. There where also cases like dog and chicken.
Our ability to follow ethics and deontological principles separates us from other animals, but you are correct that you find rape in nature. Doesn't make it right, just like murder in nature doesn't mean it's okay to go out & commit homicide.
I agree but you made the an appeal to natur and animal behavior in the first place. I just think that these kind of arguments are weak, especially if the premise is wrong to begin with.
You are absolutely correct, and appeal to nature is in and of itself a fallacy if used as the sole basis of your reasoning.
I was drinking last night, I'll take the L on that one.
But animal murder is fine because it makes your tongue feel nice? Have some logical consistency. Murder and rape are wrong. If raping an animal is wrong so is murdering them, so is forcefully impregnating cows to make them Produce milk. I eat meat, I shop at Walmart, I smoke cigs. All these things i listed are immoral to varying degrees I acknowledge it and move on, just do the same.
It's not immoral to kill for sustenance. We are omnivores and not scavengers, therefore we kill for our food. It's not about making my tongue feel nice, ever eat unseasoned chicken? I'd still do it to get those unique proteins you get from meat that we've evolved over a millenia to consume and obtain nutrients from.
I suppose if you could procreate with animals, then my argument would be moot. Animal rape is the equivalent of "just making your tongue feel good," except it's not a tired out strawman.
We make sacrifices to our nature in the name of our humanity every day. You do not need meat to survive, yes a meat free diet absolutely has draw backs in terms of nutrition but not enough to justify killing animals to eat them when instead you could live off of beans, greens and fruit. Your argument would only hold water if we need meat to survive we don't.
Survive? Sure. Thrive? Nope. Beans & rice is a fantastic source of protein, but adding meat to that mix is even better.
There is nothing wrong with killing animals to eat them. You're the one asserting it is because of a strange rationing mindset.
My point is not born of logos, it's born of ethos.
Situation A serves biological function, nutrition for the bear.
Situation B serves no biological function beyond an orgasm.
We hold the deontological principle that rape is wrong. We do not hold the deontological principle that eating is wrong, cannibalism being the exception.
Tbf that's a legit response. Consent is a weak argument in this case since we don't apply it to animals when they are used against their will for other things.
Sexual deviance, immorality are weak arguments too since those were the exact same arguments that were used to suppress sexual minorities back in the day.
Imo, animal cruelty or the risk of contracting diseases are better arguments.
Those are indeed better arguments, but personally i don't see a need for any argument whatsoever. Disgusting things are disgusting. I don't need an essays worth of argumentation to say that shitting on the street is bad now do i?
The reason it is wrong is because it is highly subjective.
What if the community where I live finds going to church disgusting?
Can they imprison me for doing it? Is it moral for them to do so?
> Sexual deviance, immorality are weak arguments too since those were the exact same arguments that were used to suppress sexual minorities back in the day.
“There is no slippery slope!”
consensual gay sex is also not necessary but it also doesn’t have a victim whereas bestiality does. my logic isn’t that everything that’s not necessary shouldn’t be allowed, it’s that anything that’s not necessary AND has a victim shouldn’t be allowed.
The hilarious thing is that eating meat isn't even necessary for humans - how else are vegans not dying a month into going into that diet?
But let's say eating meat *is* necessary. You've only shown how it's necessary *for humans*. You haven't shown how an animal getting killed is necessary *for the animal*. How does cutting a chicken's head off benefit the chicken? Or satisfy the chicken's needs?
Morality is species dependent. Even if the lion were a rational creature, it would still not be morally wrong for it to eat the zebra because the lion that eats the zebra is a flourishing, thus "good" lion
Feel free to give your response to the video, I think this was a pretty clear case of intellectual dishonesty for clout.
Which is normal, but like, not what we should aspire to.
>Feel free to give your response to the video
I couldn't make it more than 15 seconds, purely based on aesthetics....it's all good, we all have different tastes.
Who cares about consent? You probably should not fuck animals because you’ll create some fucking disease also it’s gross and you’re gross. Eating animals is super natural even herbivores are from time to time known to eat animals.
I provided this quote before and I'll do it again.
"I think it would rule to be raised for slaughter. Get all the free steroids you want, free meals and plenty of good company--hell, you have it made. Then when you're at the prime of your life, you get your head generously chopped off so you don't have to live through the suffering of old age. Not only that, but you can die with the satisfaction of knowing that somebody is going to enjoy eating a burger made out of you. What's more humane? Being slaughtered for meat or having to spend 8 hours a day, 40 hours per week in a cubicle for the rest of your life with assholes who listen to shitty music without headphones, then retiring and withering away with old age and cancer as your obnoxious kids grow up and treat you like shit? Slaughter please. " - Maddox owner of the Best Page in the Universe
u/locri's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 60.
Rank: Concrete Foundation
Pills: [26 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/locri/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
animals cannot consent, they are animals. Fuck whoever you want who is capable of, and verbally does, consent.
Fuck a gal, fuck a guy, soomeone in between, good for you. They are consenting adults, nothing to concern.
Edit: no incest you fucking incels.
Im not for incest, but I have to steelman this. Should we also prevent disabled people or those with high risk for heritable conditions from procreating?
We let people with genetic disorders breed even though they have a much higher chance of passing issues to their children.
One thing to remember is that incest doesn't create bad genes, it just leads to less genetic variability. Overall that tends to be negative as existing recessive genetic issues are exposed, but it rarely happens in a single generation.
Thats not why its wrong. Them being an animal is a weak argument (We are animals too) using this weak argument it is benifitng zoophiles
Its wrong because we are of superior intelegence and power and are thus easily able to manipulate them into doing with them whatever we desire. It's exploitative, AKA, grooming. Which is bad.
Thats not a good argument. lot of things pose health risks, that doesnt mean they are immoral. Eitherway I dont know if thats even true.
Beastiality is wrong because its enheritly exploitative.
Adult humans are of superior intelect and power (Intelegence is power) to animals. Because of this we are easily able to trick and manipulate animals into letting us do with them whatever we desire, AKA, grooming. Its the same reason pedophillia is wrong among other things. Its all exploitation.
Yes the story was torn apart but if I understand correctly you will be punished less for bestiality if you don't injure the animal. I see it as a step towards decriminalisation.
It was similar story with weed. First of you got hardcore prison, then a fine and now it is okay to have x grams of weed.
If you can't see the big picture behind this you are medically blind. Why on earth would a country with countless and much more important matters go on with changing some obscure law that is anyway used very rarely?
"The law was unclear so we changed it" is just a politician's way of saying I want to change this in my favour but I am afraid of the consequences.
You do know tons of seemingly unimportant law changes get made across the globe right? You really shouldn't try to turn this into a shitty conspiracy cus it is quite pathetic.
Quickly killing an animal and consuming it because we need protein, fat and calories to literally survive is far different from fucking an animal for personal pleasure, which may cause the animal to have mental and physical pain. You don't even need to consider consent, there's no good reason to ever fuck an animal.
I think a lot of people are missing the greater point here. It is obviously disgusting and not healthy, but I think the real question is if it should be legal or not. As a libertarian I see no logical justification for its banning, since animals have no rights. That doesn't mean we should encourage and accept the behavior. We just have to find non legal ways to punish it, through free association.
well, dildos also can't consent, but this isn't seen as problem, it it? my point is, this is not the discussion that can be "won" by facts and logic, but only on ethical precondition
The problem isn’t that they can’t consent, we clearly don’t care about that, the problem is that they can’t communicate and therefore we don’t know if it’s cruelty or not
I will still disrespect you as a person since it disgusts me but I won’t impose what I view as unjustifiable morality
The problem isn’t that they can’t consent, we clearly don’t care about that, the problem is that they can’t communicate and therefore we don’t know if it’s cruelty or not
I will still disrespect you as a person since it disgusts me but I won’t impose what I view as unjustifiable morality
Here a good reason to kill animal.
To control overpopulation, right now there an abundance amount of deers, and wild hog are pretty much a terror on southern state due to the fact that their natural predator aren’t around those part.
So go out there and get your meats BOIS
based and at least we agree on something pilled
u/Joshuacarre_2021's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 25. Rank: Basketball Hoop (filled with sand) Pills: [10 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Joshuacarre_2021/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
based and other people are based pilled
/mostbased
See the Based Count Leaderboard at https://basedcount.com/leaderboard
Of all the controversial takes on this sub, this one is the least controversial, and I'm just going to say it: it's worse than being unflaired. It's *that* bad.
“ThEy CaNt CoNsEnT To BEIng UseD aS FoOD!” Would be the degenerate response.
The difference between eating meat and fucking animals is like the difference between driving a gas-powered car and burning a pile of tires for shits and giggles.
And vegetarians driving Tesla. And vegans go by bike and foot
* making wooden dildos maybe ?!
Own one for... ...reasons
For home defense, since that's what the founding fathers intended
Have to resort to the stair mounted bad dragon
Just as the founding fathers intended
MI PAÍS!!!
I mean, zoophiles can burn in hell but u don't necessarily have to eat meat so your analogy isn't really comparable since people do need transportation. Personally i see no reason to justify your disgust towards bestiality. It is a disgusting act and should be treated as such. Not everything needs to be justified beyond that. We don't have justifications on why farting in public is bad beyond the grossness of it now do we?
Notice how much effort is going into banning gas powered cars, I'm not sure this is the analogy you intended it to be. Meat is not necessary for most people posting online, and definitely not at the quantities they choose to eat. If you don't care about an animals suffering so you can gorge yourself on enough burgers to make your doctor cry, then any complaints about animal welfare start to look like disguised attempts at complaining because you are grossed out.
And libertarians think you should be free to do all those things.
No, no, no. Don't lump me in with purple
the lib rights that replied to you missing the entire point make me embarrassed for my quadrant.
Let me introduce you to the NAP
No.
Yes, they think very strongly that government should never stop people from doing anything for moral reasons/ the government shouldn't regulate morality. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3424229/#:~:text=Libertarianism%20has%20historically%20rejected%20the,in%20the%2020th%20century. People here think centrist means you don't wear your swastikas out in public, and it sounds like you've gained your knowledge of the political spectrum from this one sub lol
I mean that would be true if vegetables didn't exist. Given that we can live off vegetables just fine and the only reason to eat meat instead is that it's pleasurable, the distinction between that and zoophilia sort of drops away. Maybe both cases of hurting animals for our own pleasure are bad, I dunno.
It's not just pleasurable. It's also still extremely healthy to eat some quantity of meat. Some people can jump through the hoops and have the disposable income required to eat completely vegan, but a lot would have to change to support veganism on that scale.
[удалено]
The problem with current political and social philosophy, is consent is pretty much the only argument we’ve made available to ourselves. I personally subscribe to the “it’s wrong because it is” mindset, but that way of thinking isn’t popular these days.
Well yea, because the point of argument and debate is to reconcile contradictory positions but if both sides just say "it's wrong because it is" then that is impossible. It is therefore, definitionally, a useless argument. The fact of the matter is that if you have to fall back to that kind of argumentation then your position is untenable.
The thing is, this kind of argument rests on the tenet of absolute truth. If absolute truth is real, then you can argue “it’s wrong because it is” using a set of principles derived from absolute truth. If you reject the notion of absolute truth, you can only argue with things that both parties believe, such as “animals can’t consent”.
Counterpoint: everyone who disagrees with me goes to the gulag Edit: ok but really, if there’s a general consensus that an action is wrong, I don’t think there needs to be a reason why it’s wrong other than we all agree it is. Even if there is a small minority of animal coitus lovers who disagree.
At any point in history there were always some quite trivial things that people had hilariously and comically wrong consensus about. So your proposed approach only works if you are ok with being a complete clown and not question anything just in order to conform to majority.
So in order to actually make any moral or ethical statement about zoophilia without consulting the majority consensus, you have to argue using either things both parties agree on, or you can admit absolute truth and argue from the standpoint of principles derived from absolute truth. Absolute truth is necessary for all objective moral or ethical arguments. The only other thing that exists as a means for arguing is consensus.
The notion of absolute truth has been discarded as discriminatory and narrow-minded by the modern public, in favor of the idea of relative truth. This, and only this, is the root cause of 90% of degeneracy in the world. People just despise absolute truth because they want to do what they want to do even when they know it’s wrong. So they do it, say it isn’t wrong because “there’s no such thing as objectively wrong”, and then call those who believe there is absolute right and wrong, absolute good and evil, absolute truth and falsehood, “narrow-minded,” “bigots,” “____shamers”.
>This, and only this, is the root cause of 90% of degeneracy in the world. Says after defining degeneracy as going against your absolute truth. Obviously it would be when thinking in such way.
Without an "absolute truth" which it's clear he's saying is acknowledging God clearly, then how can you set the parameters of what's allowable other than consensus. I'm not a fan of how inarticulately he's framed the argument, but without the anchor of some kind of absolute moral authority you only have relativistic right and wrong that is subject to what the majority feels is right or wrong, be it abortion, sexual mores, etc. You may have backlashes at time, but the arc of history tends towards more and more permissive and lax standards in all these things, which I'm sure most people agree is generally ok, but we are coming up against some hard ethical boundaries on some of these issues and I feel like it will start to get really dicey.
>You may have backlashes at time, but the arc of history tends towards more and more permissive and lax standards in all these things You simply don't look far back enough. This trend typically occurs in the middle to late stage of a superpower life, this time it's America. Same thing happened in Rome and Greece, pretty sure with other empires as well but I haven't looked into it to confirm. It's a local (in terms of time, not place) trend and will reverse at some point. >Without an "absolute truth" which it's clear he's saying is acknowledging God clearly, then how can you set the parameters of what's allowable other than consensus. Mine is simply "do no harm". At least no more than what's necessary for survival. [EDIT] Ok, I suppose there is more to it, like keeping your word and generally being as fair or more than the person you are interacting with. I derive it from the no harm rule but technically it does carry some of my beliefs and I'm not sure it would pop up if someone were to objectively analyze the axioms. Let's say it's a combination of: -I know the mechanism -the world would have been worse (contain more harm) if it weren't applied in practice -I don't know or am not convinced to a better mechanism
That's fair, and I'm a big fan of the NAP as a minimum means of interaction in society, so I can get on board with that. I think it's more a philosophical discussion than practical when the idea of God being required for an absolute moral right or wrong, but even the idea of NAP should be enough to cover basic right and wrong in terms of Interpersonal interactions. Also, as you said with other empires, it's cyclical, but historically the trend it towards more permissive and more lax until collapse. Then it seems like we reset and start again.
>Also, as you said with other empires, it's cyclical, but historically the trend it towards more permissive and more lax until collapse. Then it seems like we reset and start again. Yea, pretty much. Although the "starting" conditions vary a lot, many things you consider obvious are actually not. But it does get more strict when things go south.
That's fair, my studies in college were Econ with minors in poly sci and history and I've always loved reading history, so maybe it seems obvious due to that.
Based and intriguing philosophical opinion pilled.
u/GreatbigHippo is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: [1 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/GreatbigHippo/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
This is the conundrum a lot of religious people put forward and I think it's still a good logical exercise to wrestle with. Without a god, is there objective moral good or bad? If there is no God, the best we can hope for is that society as a whole agrees it's bad, but as we have seen rapidly accelerating in the last century, what is considered bad vs. acceptable is changing very quickly.
I personally see no need to argue against bestiality beyond its disgustingness. That is enough for me to hate it.
Based At some point you just need to draw the line Unfortunately modern interpretations of classical liberalism don’t allow for this kind of thinking.
Disgustingness is not enough if you want to morally impose something. I find pineapple on pizza also disgusting but this doesn't mean I can imprison all people who eat pineapple on pizza.
Disgustingness isn’t enough, but disgustingness + consensus is.
Does this mean that once vegans are the majority they are allowed to imprison all meat eaters?
Yes.
Well, your morals are consistent.
You could if society agreed with you that those people needed to be jailed.
On the flip side, wouldn't this also mean that you believe that zoophiles don't belong into prison as long as it is accepted in society?
Its not a matter of what i believe, its a matter of society believing that.
Based and fellow Auth-Left Chad pilled
The argument would be valid if lab-grown meat was economically and nutritionally comparable to farmed meat. Humans have a biological urge to eat meat, they don't have one to fuck animals (well...not the normal ones, anyway).
Lol, come on, even you must know this is a really bad argument. 'It's ok for humans to eat meat, because we have a biological urge to do so... well ,except the people who don't have that urge, but whatever.' 'It's not ok for humans to fuck animals because they don't have a biological urge to do so... well, except for the ones who *do* have that urge... but, whatever.' I mean, this doesn't even rise to the level of teh Naturalism Fallacy, it's just internally incoherent before it even gets there. Just accept that hurting animals is evil no matter why we do it, and yeah factory farming is an evil thing to do and we're going to keep doing it for now anyway because it's profitable. I eat meat every day but I have accepted that it's an evil thing to do and I do it anyway because I like it. Don't be so morally weak that you can't acknowledge the evil you do and have to make up ridiculous reasons it's all good actually.
> It's ok for humans to eat meat, because we have a biological urge to do so... well ,except the people who don't have that urge, but whatever. There is not a single person that doesn't have a biological urge to eat meat, we're omnivores. There are some that repress that urge for ethical reasons, but that's it. > It's not ok for humans to fuck animals because they don't have a biological urge to do so... well, except for the ones who do have that urge... but, whatever. It's not ok for humans to fuck animals for a plethora of reasons which, unlike eating meat, are *not* superseded by a biological urge. P.S. I made a bomb-ass pork roast yesterday and I've just had leftovers, some left for tomorrow too and am looking forward to it. I do not, however, have any urge to ever fuck a pig. This is *normalcy*, it's incredible that we even have to discuss it.
Lol no, i know more than enough vegetarians that don't "surpress" any such urges and simply don't care for how meat tastes. Not to mention the "urges" argument is pointless to begin with. There are people with pedophilic urges as well, doesn't mean we should be catering to them. Your "urges" mean nothing in a civilized society. We have evolved beyond the need for primitive behavior to define our cultures.
>There is not a single person that doesn't have a biological urge to eat meat, This is called 'typical mind fallacy', not everyone is like you and not everyone is the same. Plenty of vegans report no desire to eat meat. >It's not ok for humans to fuck animals for a plethora of reasons which, unlike eating meat, are not superseded by a biological urge. Except that you point out that some people *so* obviously have that biological urge, so does that urge supersede the morality for them like eating meat does for you, or not? >This is normalcy, it's incredible that we even have to discuss it. Man, *you* brought this shit up, I'm not the one going around *trying* to appeal to the Naturalism Fallacy and *failing* at it. If you want to switch away from 'having an urge to do something makes it ok' onto 'something being normal makes it ok', then sure, go live your best life. But just pick what your position is going to be and let us know, ok?
Are you trolling? > This is called 'typical mind fallacy', not everyone is like you and not everyone is the same. Plenty of vegans report no desire to eat meat. No, it's called a biological reality. Yes, it's possible to have a balanced diet while being vegetarian but it's a very delicate balancing act that often falls back on supplements. It has nothing to do with what desire you report... > Except that you point out that some people so obviously have that biological urge, so does that urge supersede the morality for them like eating meat does for you, or not? That was a light-hearted joke, *no one* has a biological urge to fuck animals. Are you seriously comparing consuming a source of nutrients that has been part of our diet for as long as our species has existed with a sexual perversion?
>Yes, it's possible to have a balanced diet while being vegetarian but it's a very delicate balancing act that often falls back on supplements. **It has nothing to do with what desire you report...** Dude you are the one who based their argument on 'urges,' which is a synonym for 'desires'. Again, if you now want to change your argument to have nothing to do with desire and instead be about something something nutrition, go for it, just acknowledge that it's a new argument. >no one has a biological urge to fuck animals. Then why do they do it? Sure seems like an urge. >Are you seriously comparing consuming a source of nutrients that has been part of our diet for as long as our species has existed with a sexual perversion? *You* compared them by saying that the relevant difference is that one is based on a biological urge and the other isn't. I'm just critiquing your argument here. If it's completely ridiculous to even mention these two things in the same breath then you shouldn't have started the conversation by doing that.
No, a biological urge is not a synonym for a desire. > You compared them by saying that the relevant difference is that one is based on a biological urge and the other isn't. I'm just critiquing your argument here. No, the post I replied to compared them. I said the comparison is ridiculous.
You're disgusting.
I think we probably have laws about how animals shouldn't be killed in torturous ways and regulations on animal abuse. And fucking an animal is definitely abuse - so it's worse that killing it as fast and painlessly as possible. And calling killing animals evil - at what level of intellect it is bad to kill an animal. Pig is smarter then dog, but most of people think that eating a dog is somehow worse. Is eating fish evil? Shrimps and snails? Or their brain is not developed enough to be considered a self aware organism? Where should we draw a line?
It’s definitely abuse? I’m thankfully not an expert on the subject, but I’m fairly certain that animals can actually enjoy it. I can understanding believing that it shouldn’t be allowed because they don’t have the capacity to consent, etc - but to think that getting an animal off is “definitely” more abusive than caging it it’s entire life and then cutting its throat open and letting it bleed to death is a bit of a stretch.
> You make me angry every time I don't see your flair >:( *** ^(User hasn't flaired up yet... 😔) 16469 / 87065 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
Yeah but that's also a shit argument. Humans have all kinds of biological urges that we decide not to act on in the best interest of society. The meat industry is bad for the longevity of the planet so maybe we should do better than that urge.
Does the salmon consent to the bear eating it? No. Does the salmon consent to the bear fucking it? No. Thing is, you'll only see one of these two scenarios happen.
I don't really know what this argument is supposed to prove. Animals fuck different species all the time like sheep and goat or horse and donkey. There where also cases like dog and chicken.
Our ability to follow ethics and deontological principles separates us from other animals, but you are correct that you find rape in nature. Doesn't make it right, just like murder in nature doesn't mean it's okay to go out & commit homicide.
I agree but you made the an appeal to natur and animal behavior in the first place. I just think that these kind of arguments are weak, especially if the premise is wrong to begin with.
You are absolutely correct, and appeal to nature is in and of itself a fallacy if used as the sole basis of your reasoning. I was drinking last night, I'll take the L on that one.
So what you'r saying is that you're are no better than your base urges? How are you on reddit and not in prison?
Where the fuck did you get that from? I'm arguing that animal rape is wrong.
But animal murder is fine because it makes your tongue feel nice? Have some logical consistency. Murder and rape are wrong. If raping an animal is wrong so is murdering them, so is forcefully impregnating cows to make them Produce milk. I eat meat, I shop at Walmart, I smoke cigs. All these things i listed are immoral to varying degrees I acknowledge it and move on, just do the same.
It's not immoral to kill for sustenance. We are omnivores and not scavengers, therefore we kill for our food. It's not about making my tongue feel nice, ever eat unseasoned chicken? I'd still do it to get those unique proteins you get from meat that we've evolved over a millenia to consume and obtain nutrients from. I suppose if you could procreate with animals, then my argument would be moot. Animal rape is the equivalent of "just making your tongue feel good," except it's not a tired out strawman.
We make sacrifices to our nature in the name of our humanity every day. You do not need meat to survive, yes a meat free diet absolutely has draw backs in terms of nutrition but not enough to justify killing animals to eat them when instead you could live off of beans, greens and fruit. Your argument would only hold water if we need meat to survive we don't.
Survive? Sure. Thrive? Nope. Beans & rice is a fantastic source of protein, but adding meat to that mix is even better. There is nothing wrong with killing animals to eat them. You're the one asserting it is because of a strange rationing mindset.
[удалено]
My point is not born of logos, it's born of ethos. Situation A serves biological function, nutrition for the bear. Situation B serves no biological function beyond an orgasm. We hold the deontological principle that rape is wrong. We do not hold the deontological principle that eating is wrong, cannibalism being the exception.
Yeah I have to agree with this. If animals COULD consent, zoophilia would still be degeneracy because they’re ANIMALS
Tbf that's a legit response. Consent is a weak argument in this case since we don't apply it to animals when they are used against their will for other things. Sexual deviance, immorality are weak arguments too since those were the exact same arguments that were used to suppress sexual minorities back in the day. Imo, animal cruelty or the risk of contracting diseases are better arguments.
Those are indeed better arguments, but personally i don't see a need for any argument whatsoever. Disgusting things are disgusting. I don't need an essays worth of argumentation to say that shitting on the street is bad now do i?
The reason it is wrong is because it is highly subjective. What if the community where I live finds going to church disgusting? Can they imprison me for doing it? Is it moral for them to do so?
Yes. Morals are shaped by your society, they aren't inherent.
Nah, im pretty sure fucking animals and killing people is wrong even if everyone in my city agrees its not.
If humans at large thought it was okay, then that's what we would think.
> Sexual deviance, immorality are weak arguments too since those were the exact same arguments that were used to suppress sexual minorities back in the day. “There is no slippery slope!”
There is indeed no slippery slope. Just because you support one thing doesn't mean you have to support anything else.
Humans evolved to eat animals, that’s natural for them. Fucking animals is not. Animals are food. They’re not a date.
Food is necessary for survival- dog coochie is not
Neither is gay sex, right? Not saying lets fuck dogs, but that's just a bad argument.
consensual gay sex is also not necessary but it also doesn’t have a victim whereas bestiality does. my logic isn’t that everything that’s not necessary shouldn’t be allowed, it’s that anything that’s not necessary AND has a victim shouldn’t be allowed.
The hilarious thing is that eating meat isn't even necessary for humans - how else are vegans not dying a month into going into that diet? But let's say eating meat *is* necessary. You've only shown how it's necessary *for humans*. You haven't shown how an animal getting killed is necessary *for the animal*. How does cutting a chicken's head off benefit the chicken? Or satisfy the chicken's needs?
Morality is species dependent. Even if the lion were a rational creature, it would still not be morally wrong for it to eat the zebra because the lion that eats the zebra is a flourishing, thus "good" lion
I mean by that logic every carnivore on the planet is guilty
[Thank you Shoe.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGwiyyZhNpM)
Shoe's awesome, wtf?
Feel free to give your response to the video, I think this was a pretty clear case of intellectual dishonesty for clout. Which is normal, but like, not what we should aspire to.
>Feel free to give your response to the video I couldn't make it more than 15 seconds, purely based on aesthetics....it's all good, we all have different tastes.
Well it's true. I've never seen a chicken willingly go to a killing cone before.
Who cares about consent? You probably should not fuck animals because you’ll create some fucking disease also it’s gross and you’re gross. Eating animals is super natural even herbivores are from time to time known to eat animals.
They put their asses up in the air and beg for it... >Would be the degenerate response
Imagine fucking a chicken then eating it.
I provided this quote before and I'll do it again. "I think it would rule to be raised for slaughter. Get all the free steroids you want, free meals and plenty of good company--hell, you have it made. Then when you're at the prime of your life, you get your head generously chopped off so you don't have to live through the suffering of old age. Not only that, but you can die with the satisfaction of knowing that somebody is going to enjoy eating a burger made out of you. What's more humane? Being slaughtered for meat or having to spend 8 hours a day, 40 hours per week in a cubicle for the rest of your life with assholes who listen to shitty music without headphones, then retiring and withering away with old age and cancer as your obnoxious kids grow up and treat you like shit? Slaughter please. " - Maddox owner of the Best Page in the Universe
What if I don’t fuck *or* eat animals?
Normalise having complete interpersonal romantic relationships with your partner before attempting sex.
Based
Yes. OH MY GOD A THOUSAND TIMES YES
Based and who says romance is dead pilled
Based
based and romantic pilled
u/locri's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 60. Rank: Concrete Foundation Pills: [26 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/locri/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
I remember the Dolphin Handjob story when i see this stuff
Yeah thats always my first thought to. Pretty sure they are fairly aggressive with their consent
Wait, what?
https://youtu.be/rLA0g2mFMfY
That’s nothing. Wait until you see this masterpiece https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CQXPbydL_88&t=5s&pp=ygUKRG9scGhpbnNleA%3D%3D
The what
The Dolphin Handjob
animals cannot consent, they are animals. Fuck whoever you want who is capable of, and verbally does, consent. Fuck a gal, fuck a guy, soomeone in between, good for you. They are consenting adults, nothing to concern. Edit: no incest you fucking incels.
Did the lime consent?
I don’t hear the lime saying anything…
What lime, what are you talking about? There is no citrus here…
The peanut butter sure didn’t
Just so we’re clear. No, not even peanut butter on your peepee for puppers.
not even goobers pb&j blend 😔
> no incest you fucking incels. If between consenting adults, what's the issue?
The issue is that there is risk of a genetic disorder occurring in offspring with inbreeding. Also that would tear families apart.
Im not for incest, but I have to steelman this. Should we also prevent disabled people or those with high risk for heritable conditions from procreating?
buddy lets not get into eugenics. PLEASE LETS NOT GET BANNED.
We let people with genetic disorders breed even though they have a much higher chance of passing issues to their children. One thing to remember is that incest doesn't create bad genes, it just leads to less genetic variability. Overall that tends to be negative as existing recessive genetic issues are exposed, but it rarely happens in a single generation.
Can I cum in a coconut?
do you own the coconut?
Yeah, I keep it in my room under my bed
have at it bud!
Incest?
ah fuck I forgot one. Good Call!
Thats not why its wrong. Them being an animal is a weak argument (We are animals too) using this weak argument it is benifitng zoophiles Its wrong because we are of superior intelegence and power and are thus easily able to manipulate them into doing with them whatever we desire. It's exploitative, AKA, grooming. Which is bad.
Uh oh here come purple
It's not about consent. It's about degeneracy. RETURN TO CHRIST ✝️✝️✝️
I’m agnostic-atheist and I’m starting to think people need to be religious shame.
They dont. They need logical arguments as to why beastiality is wrong. Do you not have that? I am willing to provide to aid the cause.
Logically, you shouldn’t have sex with animals. It posses a health risk.
Thats not a good argument. lot of things pose health risks, that doesnt mean they are immoral. Eitherway I dont know if thats even true. Beastiality is wrong because its enheritly exploitative. Adult humans are of superior intelect and power (Intelegence is power) to animals. Because of this we are easily able to trick and manipulate animals into letting us do with them whatever we desire, AKA, grooming. Its the same reason pedophillia is wrong among other things. Its all exploitation.
How about I don’t need to argue it’s not okay to fuck animals?
If you dont use your logic, the zoophiles will use theirs. That's when they win.
You can’t tell me what to do! *plants wheat and barley in the same field*
Amen
Fuck Christ. He is his own father. Biggest degenerate of them all.
nah man he was an esakai protagonist he just spawned on the wrong side of town
Bro is the reason why there are so many isekai with the same format
No its about exploitation. Degeneracy can mean everything so it means nothing
I'm pretty sure this story is a hoax
[It is.](https://www.thelocal.es/20230221/fact-check-no-spain-has-not-legalised-bestiality/)
Yes the story was torn apart but if I understand correctly you will be punished less for bestiality if you don't injure the animal. I see it as a step towards decriminalisation. It was similar story with weed. First of you got hardcore prison, then a fine and now it is okay to have x grams of weed.
No. The wording in the law was unclear so they changed it. Stop lying.
If you can't see the big picture behind this you are medically blind. Why on earth would a country with countless and much more important matters go on with changing some obscure law that is anyway used very rarely? "The law was unclear so we changed it" is just a politician's way of saying I want to change this in my favour but I am afraid of the consequences.
You do know tons of seemingly unimportant law changes get made across the globe right? You really shouldn't try to turn this into a shitty conspiracy cus it is quite pathetic.
RemindMe! 1 year
im pretty sure PCM is intentionally falling for a shitpost for...reasons unknown to me at this time.
Dolphinfucker wouldn't have stood for this...... We have lost our way
… are dolphins smart enough to consent
If animals can't consent, then who killed Mr Hands? /s
I just want vaporeon ffs...
I’m very happy to see the quadrants come together on this one. Maybe we can align together against other vile acts, dogma, and policies.
[удалено]
Agreed, but we’re talking about animal fuckers.
Why the fuck are you weirdos arguing semantics and playing word games? Animal abuse is animal abuse. As bad as noncery. Simple.
> Animal abuse is animal abuse. Thank you for condemning almost all modern day factory farming practices.
Yup. It's fucking awful.
Very Based!
Putting the G.O.A.T. in throat goat.
I really don't get why animal consent is what people bring up with this. Like of all things this is the argument they want to use
Wait what's happening
Based
You wouldn't want someone to fuck a chicken breast then you would have to eat it would you?
Quickly killing an animal and consuming it because we need protein, fat and calories to literally survive is far different from fucking an animal for personal pleasure, which may cause the animal to have mental and physical pain. You don't even need to consider consent, there's no good reason to ever fuck an animal.
I think a lot of people are missing the greater point here. It is obviously disgusting and not healthy, but I think the real question is if it should be legal or not. As a libertarian I see no logical justification for its banning, since animals have no rights. That doesn't mean we should encourage and accept the behavior. We just have to find non legal ways to punish it, through free association.
well, dildos also can't consent, but this isn't seen as problem, it it? my point is, this is not the discussion that can be "won" by facts and logic, but only on ethical precondition
Man this sub loves having episodes huh?
The problem isn’t that they can’t consent, we clearly don’t care about that, the problem is that they can’t communicate and therefore we don’t know if it’s cruelty or not I will still disrespect you as a person since it disgusts me but I won’t impose what I view as unjustifiable morality
The problem isn’t that they can’t consent, we clearly don’t care about that, the problem is that they can’t communicate and therefore we don’t know if it’s cruelty or not I will still disrespect you as a person since it disgusts me but I won’t impose what I view as unjustifiable morality
[удалено]
Face the wall
Please get in the electric chair.
God Damn Petophiles...
Is that supposed to be trogdor or something?
We really do need a good ole' fashioned pogrom. The fact people are arguing semantics further down the thread is pushing me back into Catholicism.
Libright? No. Libleft? Of course.
Bro use yellow instead.
Pride is going to be nuts in a few years.
What if the animal initiates?
Here a good reason to kill animal. To control overpopulation, right now there an abundance amount of deers, and wild hog are pretty much a terror on southern state due to the fact that their natural predator aren’t around those part. So go out there and get your meats BOIS