This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Bestiality
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Gone
How is raping an animal
unnecessary
cruelty and eating one isn't? I bet there are more people who are only sexually attracted to animals than there are people who are only willing/able to eat meat. I could substitute meat in my diet for things like legumes and grains and what not. I prefer eating meat, but I do like legumes and grains and what not. Contrast that with someone who is literally
only
attracted to animals. There are no substitutes for such people.
Many a poor farmer in certin third world or underdeveloped countries would disagree with you on that. But yes in most of the world eating meat isn't necessary, but the same is true of having sex with an animal. You say that people with these preferences have no substitute, I say they do, it's called their right hand. To use your exact words they may "prefer" having sex with a real animal, but it's not required.
And as far as the word necessary goes, while neither may be a requirement, giving someone sustenance (to me at least) is more necessary than getting someone off. Even though animals might not be required for both.
Post by
MyTie
How is raping an animal
unnecessary
cruelty and eating one isn't? I bet there are more people who are only sexually attracted to animals than there are people who are only willing/able to eat meat. I could substitute meat in my diet for things like legumes and grains and what not. I prefer eating meat, but I do like legumes and grains and what not. Contrast that with someone who is literally
only
attracted to animals. There are no substitutes for such people.
Many a poor farmer in certin third world or underdeveloped countries would disagree with you on that. But yes in most of the world eating meat isn't necessary, but the same is true of having sex with an animal. You say that people with these preferences have no substitute, I say they do, it's called their right hand. To use your exact words they may "prefer" having sex with a real animal, but it's not required.
And as far as the word necessary goes, while neither may be a requirement, giving someone sustenance (to me at least) is more necessary than getting someone off. Even though animals might not be required for both.
I was actually going to reply to pezz, but I figured I would hold off and let someone else take the helm. I'm fairly impressed with this reply, and it covers just about everything I would have said.
I would also like to add that meat animals, cows, chickens, rabbits, pigs, etc, would not exist if they were not being raised for meat. The fact that they provide their meat is their reason for existence in most cases, and actually makes their quality of life, while alive, quite remarkably pleasant (or should). In the end, it matters very little to me if some people feel that killing animals for meat is unjustified. I have the freedom to do it, and I will. I don't believe it is wrong. It would be very difficult to be a farmer (which I am) and not eat meat. Some people take the argument all the way to things like milk. As if it is a horrible experience for the cow. These kinds of arguments just aren't rooted in reality. In the end, I don't care what people say or think. I really don't. It just isn't an important topic to me.
What is important is stopping people who genuinely abuse animals. Dog fights, chianed up animals, starving horses, etc. Those are true causes for change. This animal's right to life argument pushes people away from animal causes that really matter.
Post by
Gone
^ one could actualy say that humans and meat animals have formed a natural symbiosis over time in helping each other survive. We feed them, take care of them, provide them warmth and shelter, and then at the end the provide us with sustenance. I don't think it actualy qualifies as symbiosis since the animal dies in the end, but it's the closest thing I could think of. Particularly since as you said many species of meat animal would not exist if they weren't raised for food.
Also something I don't think anybody mentioned yet. While I'm sure there are exceptions, most people who have such a desire to have sex with animals that it becomes a necessity, are not well individuals. They are basically getting off while causing another creature a great deal of pain. Imagine while having sex your partner is screaming (in a bad way) and crying and trying everything they can to throw you off and get away. Would you be able to stay aroused with all of that? Kids who torture and kill animals for fun eventually move on to people, what does that say about a person who rapes animals?
I mean maybe there are perfectly normal individuals out there who just happen to enjoy sex with animals, but if there are they are most likely the exception rather than the rule.
Post by
MyTie
Particularly since as you said many species of meat animal would not exist if they weren't raised for food.Not the species, but the animal itself. I'm sure the species would exist without being raised on farmed, but meat animals that live on farms are bred for meat. If there is no demand for meat, those animals wouldn't be bred. Just a technicality.I mean maybe there are perfectly normal individuals out there who just happen to enjoy sex with animals, but if there are they are most likely the exception rather than the rule.
What about animals that don't mind the sexual encounter? If someone who enjoys sex with animals could demonstrate a pleasurable experience with an animal through sexual intercourse, or at least, not negative, would that make that encounter perfectly fine?
I'm really surprised by the double standard society places on sexuality. Some forms of it are ok, and further, how dare anyone question that they are not ok. Other forms of it are gross, and further, how dare anyone do them. Either sexuality is something that is BORN into a person, and they have no choice, but to want to breed with the opposite sex, the same sex, animals, children, a coffee grinder, etc... or WHATEVER, and that is perfectly ok, or there is a 'normal and acceptable' form of sexuality and others must be treated because they are wrong.
Post by
Gone
What about animals that don't mind the sexual encounter? If someone who enjoys sex with animals could demonstrate a pleasurable experience with an animal through sexual intercourse, or at least, not negative, would that make that encounter perfectly fine?
Like I said if it dosnt hurt the animals then it isnt as harmfull. I mean if somone wants to rub penut butter on their balls and have their dog lick it off, good for them. Though having this information I might not choose to invite this person to my dinner party...
I'm really surprised by the double standard society places on sexuality. Some forms of it are ok, and further, how dare anyone question that they are not ok. Other forms of it are gross, and further, how dare anyone do them. Either sexuality is something that is BORN into a person, and they have no choice, but to want to breed with the opposite sex, the same sex, animals, children, a coffee grinder, etc... or WHATEVER, and that is perfectly ok, or there is a 'normal and acceptable' form of sexuality and others must be treated because they are wrong.
Ive always believed that a persons sexual preference is the result of the cumilative experiences of their life. i read something once whethat said children who were victims of sexual abuse were much more likley to grow into pedophiles themselves one day. I mean Im sure its much more complicated than just that, but with my own limited knowledge I hold with the theory that peoples sexual preferences comes from the events of their life, rather than just being born into it. Or perhaps a bit of both actualy.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Humans are animals, animals eat other animals all the time in nature. So why shouldn't humans?
I tried this slant with him. His response is "naturalistic fallacy". So there you have it.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@Pikey- I understand that this is your belief, and imagine that you're a vegetarian, and I won't argue with you. I happen to disagree, though, and will leave it at that. If you feel that it's wrong to kill animals for food, then more power to you. I was a vegetarian for 3 years as a teenager for the same reasons. I just do not believe that we can equate animals to people, or that having a different standard for the rights of animals and people is the same as being racist against someone who is from another ethnicity. And you won't budge me on that.
Post by
gamerunknown
Animals eat animals of other genuses. They generally don't have sex with them.
I'm not going to link to them, but there are numerous youtube videos which disprove this. Ligers too. Still, it'd be a naturalistic fallacy to say that we need to follow the same precedent as non-human animals.
Do you know what special pleading means?
Yes, it is saying that the conclusions that apply from our premises on one topic do not apply on this topic without adequate grounds. I don't think “they're not human” is adequate grounds.
The whole population being able to eat meat daily is actually a fairly novel experience. One of the most emotive requests for me to eat meat came from the friend of a mother that lived in poverty during the Soviet Republic and that could eat meat perhaps once or twice a year: she baulks at the fact that someone could easily have access to meat and yet abstain from it (as I referred to in trophic levels).
I'm not a vegan, but I sympathise with them given the methods corporations use to obtain milk.
Warning, hideously left wing graphic footage
here
.
Edit: Oh and I've consistently said I care more about humans than other animals. I'm a vegetarian, but I don't think people should be punished for torturing or raping animals that they own (especially if they raise them).
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.