>killing animals for food is alright >having sex with them

>>2313688
there is such thing as a painless death, but an animal can't consent to sex

>>2313688
Mankind was given dominion over the earth, but you lose it if you can't figure out that you're not supposed to have sex with a tree.

>>2313688
I would never admit this anywhere but an anonymous message board, but I agree.

Are you saying we shouldn't be allowed to eat animals or that we should be allowed to have sex with them?

>>2313722
This is why we can't have nice things.

>>2313695
>an animal can't consent to sex

And? An animal can't consent to getting killed either

>>2313688
I never realized that having sex with an animal is required to survive.

>>2313728
Can I refuse consent to the grim reaper?

>>2313732
No

>>2313730
It isn't. And neither is eating animals.

>>2313746
Unless you're a plant, you need food to survive.

>>2313688
People might say it's for the sake of the animals these days, but I'm pretty sure the prohibition on animal fucking was and still is more about not being a degenerate.

>The Kinsey reports rated the percentage of people who had sexual interaction with animals at some point in their lives as 8% for men and 3.6% for women, and claimed it was 40–50% in people living near farms,[9] but some later writers dispute the figures, because the study lacked a random sample in that it included a disproportionate number of prisoners, causing sampling bias. Martin Duberman has written that it is difficult to get a random sample in sexual research, and that even when Paul Gebhard, Kinsey's research successor, removed prison samples from the figures, he found the figures were not significantly changed.[15]

>By 1974, the farm population in the USA had declined by 80 percent compared with 1940, reducing the opportunity to live with animals; Hunt's 1974 study suggests that these demographic changes led to a significant change in reported occurrences of bestiality. The percentage of males who reported sexual interactions with animals in 1974 was 4.9% (1948: 8.3%), and in females in 1974 was 1.9% (1953: 3.6%). Miletski believes this is not due to a reduction in interest but merely a reduction in opportunity.[16]

>>2313752
You can eat plants.

>>2313688
You're sick and diseased. Bestiality is disgusting. Lying down with beasts is perverted.
Putting down animals for food is disgusting but it's not as if mindless, diseased beasts care if they live or die. It's not as if beasts have feelings. Only desperate people need to believe a filthy animal loves them.

>>2313763
t.goat

>>2313772
Does anyone really care where people put their privates? What's next, making it illegal to hug your dog?

>>2313688
kill yourself

I had a guinea pig and when I petted her she would sometimes make a purring noise and angle her hips back at which point I stopped and she went back to her normal position and looked kind of embarrassed. Am I a bestialphil?

>>2313814
Yes.

>>2313814
she wanted the BHC (Big Human Dick)

A WOMAN who arranged to meet a Limerickman via the internet and have sex with his dog died after the alleged activity, Limerick Circuit Court has heard.

In what is the first case of its kind in recent Irish history, the local man appeared before the court charged with buggery with a German shepherd in a house in Patrickswell, County Limerick, four years ago.

Sean McDonnell, 58, who has now moved out of Limerick to an undisclosed location due to publicity surrounding the case, appeared visibly upset in court as details of the case emerged. The former bus-driver, who has no previous convictions, pleaded guilty this September to the offence under section 61 of the Offences Against The Person Act 1861.

Judge Carroll Moran heard that a number of text messages had been sent between the defendant and a woman identified only in court as XY, who died after having sexual activity with the dog belonging to Mr McDonnell on October 7, 2008, in Laurel Park, Patrickswell.

One of the messages from the defendant to the woman said that he was looking forward to her enjoying her “fantasy”, after her text saying: “I can’t believe I’m actually going to do this”.

“Just think nice, naughty thoughts and all will be Okay,” wrote McDonnell to her around 3pm on the day of the offence, as he gave her directions to his house.
http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/local-news/137604/Court-told-mother-died-after-acting.html

>>2313688
This serms like a legal or political issue.
Please take this thread to /pol/.

>>2313755
this, it is sad that people don't realize this anymore, and when someone trys to explain it they basicly say that it is wrong cause the animal doesn't like it at which point it is only a matter of time, thats the problem with consent morality and not thinking about anything higher than yourself, realizing that fucking an animal hurts you on a spiritual level. Also you don't want to be known as a horse cock sucker desu senpai

>>2313688
I don't think fucking animals is morally wrong, I just think it's fucking disgusting.

>>2313828
Was doggy alright?

>>2313688
Because the majority of us think it's disgusting and should be illegal.
Do we need any more reason than that? Might makes right.

>>2314520
>Do we need any more reason than that?
Legally, yes.

>>2313858
Law and morality are perfectly fine /his/ subjects.

>>2313794
Yes, we do, because it's degenerate and disgusting, and this is our country, so why should we let you besmirch our good name with your degeneracy?

>>2314526
We do? Who makes these laws?
Oh, yeah, I remember!
People who hate degeneracy make these laws!
So, no, legally, we need not any reason but that it's disgusting.

>>2314533
Which country would that be, because mine sold its good name for reality television.

>>2314533
Why should things that some people find disgusting be banned?

>>2314542
Because those people make the laws, Jackass.
Might makes right.

>>2314526
It's the other way around.

Legally, yes.
But morally, no - which is why it optimall should be legally no.

>>2313688
I don't understand how these opinions constitute hypocrisy.

>>2314549
People justify eating meat by claiming that it gives pleasure.
Similarly, having sex with an animal gives pleasure and doesn't even harm it in the way that creating meat (killing the animal) does, but people don't allow the pleasure argument there. This is hypocritical.

>>2314545
Should people be allowed to pass any law they want, if they can?

>>2314557
Yes.

>>2314558
If people decided to torture and execute you and your family for the amusement of the community, would you find that to be perfectly fine?

>>2314549
Most people would agree that killing humans for food is worse than having sex with them for pleasure.
Switching these moral judgements around for nonhuman animals needs some kind of justification for them to not be hypocritical.

Of course, if you believe that having sex is worse than being killed, you can hold these opinions without being a hypocrite, but not without being severely mentally disturbed.

>>2314568
Well, that'd be their choice, not mine.
But the fact is, people have enough sense not to do that.

>>2313688
this kind of argument is what lead me to religion

>>2314587
That's what happens to people who don't think for themselves, they give up and let other people do it for them.

>>2314581
>Well, that'd be their choice, not mine.
But would you find it to be morally justified?

>But the fact is, people have enough sense not to do that.
Are you suggesting that governments never pass laws some people would find to be blatantly immoral?

One doesn't have to modify the example much to gain laws like the Nuremberg Laws.

>>2314589
I'm no philosopher but I have the feeling that beastiality is wrong

>>2314595
People should probably focus more on what's right than the infinite ways things can go wrong.

File: image.png (28KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 250x250px

>>2313688
What do you mean? SEX WITH ANIMALS ARE VERY DANGEROUS. Check 'em:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_health

>slaughter animals
In the least painful way. That's the law of nature anon. Either we go extinct or eat their meat.

>>2314592
I'd certainly find it to be legally justified.

>>2314598
is that you're way of telling me to mind my own business?

>>2314613
No, but if you spend all your time making it illegal to lick sidewalks or sleep in excrement you won't get to focus on good things that progress society.

>>2314603
That depends on the legal framework (constitution), but it wasn't the question.

>>2314633
Well, if the constitution opposed it, then they wouldn't be able to make it pass.
The question was, should people be able to pass any law, if they can?
It wouldn't happen, if they couldn't, making the question moot.
And my original point was against >>2314526 , which said that it, legally, wasn't justified.

>>2314557
Your argument hinges on whether or not the animal is harmed during killing. If we assume that the animal is killed painlessly, then killing it for food is compatible with rejecting bestiality. Since you are not harming the animal for either type of pleasure, you are simply choosing your fancy - which is not hypocrisy.
Do you think that animals can be killed without harm, anon?

>>2314638
This >>2314520 was just someone's followup to >>2314520. I thought you meant to defend the latter, since whether laws that were passed within a legal framework while conforming to the legal framework do conform to the legal framework or not is obviously not an interesting question.

>>2313688
Furry friday is celebrated on /b/, you idiot newfaggot.

>>2314662
Did you misquote?

>>2314671
Yes.

Fixed: This >>2314526 was just someone's followup to >>2314520.

>>2314656
>If we assume that the animal is killed painlessly, then killing it for food is compatible with rejecting bestiality.
That assumes that harm only comes in the form of pain and that there being an absence of pain would mean that something is harmless.
A different type of harm could be the deprivation of the joys an animal would be able to receive during a life, if it wasn't slaughtered. The simple joys like eating food or having sex.

>>2314656
Isn't your life being taken harmful regardless of whether there's pain or not?

>>2314662
>>2314676
Well, in defense of the latter, I have to ask what justifies passing laws. Is it the common benefit of the people? Or, is it a sufficient power (Majority of votes in a democracy) wanting to pass the law?
If it can be made to happen, and enough people want it (And, I guarantee you, the vast, vast, majority of Americans want it) what's the issue with it?
It may be an illogical gut reaction that makes us hate it, but that reaction is just a natural human response. Really, think about the millions who would be uncomfortable. Is the comfort of millions not sufficient reason to deny the pleasure of thousands?

>>2313688
If it hurts/makes the animals uncofomratble than its wrong. I've heard farmers would commonly have sex with their horse though so idk how that works.

>>2313695
You'd have a point if their your average slaughtered animal's life was painless.

>>2313722
Point is that it's retarded to have one above the other. If you think otherwise and that rape is worse than death you can fuck off to Tumblr.

>>2313710
Same. It's true.

>>2314731
leaving aside how the animals feel, eating animals is what keeps people alive, and until rather recently it was very difficult to have sufficient nutrition without consuming meat. Many vegetarians need to take supplements to get what they're missing in their diet. Increased variety of foods has helped with this, but we're still a long way from Meat being obsolete. It's still very much needed.

Additionally, sex with animals is dangerous as it can expose you to diseases, viruses, and even break your genitals in some cases. It's unsafe behavior.

>>2314731
Why can you kill a person for their crimes but not rape a person for their crimes?

Anyways the real answer is disease. If you fuck an animal, you are transmitting disease from those animals to the human population. If you kill and eat an animal, there is no disease transfer (if done right). Morality is largely just based on reproduction, and rules that let you maximize chance of reproduction. Fucking your dog does not maximize chance of reproduction.

>>2314707
Most people, even in the US, would tell you that "the comfort of the many" is not "sufficient reason to deny the pleasure of the few" if you phrased it in the context of things like homosexual relationships, slavery, or the holocaust.
Exposing that cognitive dissonance is valuable in itself, even if it doesn't change the reality of modern democracy: In its theory a ban on bestiality is indefensible, but in its practice anything can and will be legislated if you let them get away with it.

File: yotsuba_b_001_beauty_simplicity_perfection_best_colour.png (1KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

1KB, 250x250px

>>2314707
I don't think that disgust should play a role in policy making, rather than reason. It is an emotion that evolved to prevent us from contaminating ourselves with diseases, not to make good policy decisions. It can so easily misfire:

The sight of an amputee disgusts us, even if you can't "catch amputation" from the amputee.
The thought of eating crickets disgusts us, despite them being very nutritious - moreso than regular meats, actually.
Some African nations ban homosexuality and justify killing them on the grounds of "it being disgusting".
There were nazis that justified killing Jews on the grounds of them "being disgusting like rats".
We prefer dogs to octopi and give them higher protection simply because octopi look disgusting to us, despite them being very intelligent.

As for what the foundation of law should be, I hold it with Kant's famous saying: Law should be the embodiment of those conditions which enable citizens to be united by a universal law of freedom which respects the free will of all and the common will.

>>2314822
What is really wrong with pandering to disgust, especially in such a case that inconveniences so few, and in such small ways?
>>2314792
There are so many fewer animalfuckers than any of those others, though, and they are affected in such a smaller way.

>>2313688
>>having sex with them for pleasure is bad

Not so much bad as unnatural.

To eat an animal is natural. To fuck it is not.

>>2314910
How natural something is is irrelevant to how moral it is.

>>2313688

>Choosing to take an animals life for the purpose of survival and the formation of sustenance is the same as the choice of whether or not you should fill your sexual urge with something you cannot successfully reproduce with

I hate you children.

>>2314919
Not at all.

Morality is derived from our feelings, which are derived from our instincts which steer us away from unnatural things for useful evolutionary reasons.

>>2314920
>>Choosing to take an animals life for the purpose of survival and the formation of sustenance
Meat can be substituted nowadays.

If you're eating meat, you're not eating it because there is no alternative to sustain yourself.

>>2314947
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-non-naturalism/#NatFal

File: 1479966302460.jpg (12KB, 179x179px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 179x179px

>>2313688
I know you're being ironic but you actually kind of have a point. I guess I'd fuck a dolphin or something if I had the chance, but I'm not weird enough to go out of my way for it.

>>2314972
This has nothing to do with where morals are derived from or how actions considered natural for humans to do are essentially evolutionary adaptations.

What you posted is the response to someone arguing that drinking 5 energy is good for them because they are all natural.

Kind of makes me think you don't understand what I am saying.

>>2314822
>As for what the foundation of law should be, I hold it with Kant's famous saying: Law should be the embodiment of those conditions which enable citizens to be united by a universal law of freedom which respects the free will of all and the common will.
So basically you believe in arbitrary bullshit because it makes you feel good?

>>2314992
Why would you post that at all then, if not to make a naturalistic argument? Nobody disputes that these are evolutionary adaptions, just like pretty much anything else.

>>2314993
Haven't found a better alternative. Give a better one, I'll consider it.

>>2313688
The idea is that unlike rape, you need to kill to survive, but yes, it is bullshit, there's plenty of nutrients in vegan diet that any human that lives near a supermaket can get within the same price range, if not less.

>>2314786
You can get plenty of nutrients even with the much more strict vegan diet. People who need those supplements are those who think they can just remove meat from their current diet and not change anything else.

>>2315012
You might need to read again.

To eat an animal is considered natural for humans to do, to fuck them is not.

What is "natural" for people to do is a concept ingrained in ourselves in our instincts, which are evolutionarily derived. Our morals are an articulated extension of this. Hence why it is ok to eat animals but "wrong" to fuck them.

>>2315055
Are you making a descriptive or a normative claim? I don't think that anyone ITT cares about the descriptive version.

>>2313814
Before castrating my cat she was constantly laying down and lifting her butt towards me. What the hell was her end game, did she thought she could take a dick nearly the size of her body?

>>2315062
Neither, It is a simple logical argument.

I just realized I am arguing with people trying to convince themselves fucking their pets is ok. I feel a bit bad for myself now.

>>2314542
Because everybody hates anchovies!
MIGHT MAKES RIGHT!

>>2314656
So if I pull a Bill Cosby, it is ok to fuck goats?

>>2315097
What's the mightiest?

>>2314727
Or if the slaughter itself was painless. They make the animals suffer on the end so the adrenalin makes the meat tender.

File: free_shrugs_001.jpg (84KB, 449x642px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 449x642px

>>2315093
Huh.

>>2315116
>They make the animals suffer on the end so the adrenalin makes the meat tender.

Did you get that from PETA? It's the complete opposite, you want them to die relaxed for the best quality meat.

>>2314872
You know how your grandnanny says that now everybody is gay? That's because on her time, homosexuality was a disease and a crime, so not many people were brave enough to assume they were gay.

>>2313755
>>2314539

>unironically using the word "degeneracy"

>>2314984
Well, Dolphins can fall in love with humans, it seems: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/08/the-dolphin-who-loved-me

Althought... they're psychotic compulsive rapists.

>>2315125
I've actually heard on a doc about chinese dog meat. The butchers said it, not the journalist.

>>2315145
Call degeneracy a meme if you want. Just saying the segment of society who are likely to take a stand against zoophilia because of fuzzy "save the animals" motivations instead of disgust are probably going to lean vegan in the first place. It's only hypocrisy if there's the pretense of altruism involved.

>>2315193
Just because some Chinese guy who eats dogs says something does not make it true anon.