Total Posts:75|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Bestiality hypocrisy

Skikx
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2014 6:07:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Having sex with animals, other than humans that is, is generally considered wrong, because they can not consent , due to their lack of understanding.
And since they can not consent, having sex with them is ultimately rape.

But these animals don't understand the concept of life and death either. Thus they can never consent to being killed. Whether it is via hunting, fishing, factory farming, euthanizing etc..

So killing an animal against its will is okay, but having sex with it is not.

Does anybody have a rational argument for this? Or am I right to assume that this is simply a societal convention?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2014 6:12:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2014 6:07:36 PM, Skikx wrote:
Having sex with animals, other than humans that is, is generally considered wrong, because they can not consent , due to their lack of understanding.

The Fool: I don't think that's the reason. LOL.
<(XD)

And since they can not consent, having sex with them is ultimately rape.

But these animals don't understand the concept of life and death either. Thus they can never consent to being killed. Whether it is via hunting, fishing, factory farming, euthanizing etc..

So killing an animal against its will is okay, but having sex with it is not.

Does anybody have a rational argument for this? Or am I right to assume that this is simply a societal convention?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Skikx
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2014 6:24:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2014 6:12:02 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/12/2014 6:07:36 PM, Skikx wrote:
Having sex with animals, other than humans that is, is generally considered wrong, because they can not consent , due to their lack of understanding.

The Fool: I don't think that's the reason. LOL.
<(XD)

Is it not? Because that is the argument I hear the most when it comes to zoophilia. When people say legalizing homosexual marriage will lead to legalizing zoophilia it is always countered by an argument about consent.
I mean, sure people are repulsed by it, but that isn't even an argument.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2014 6:38:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
What does consent have to do with killing?

Why is it logical to assume legalizing homosexual marriages will lead to legalizing sex with animals?
My work here is, finally, done.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2014 6:43:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2014 6:24:11 PM, Skikx wrote:
At 10/12/2014 6:12:02 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/12/2014 6:07:36 PM, Skikx wrote:
Having sex with animals, other than humans that is, is generally considered wrong, because they can not consent , due to their lack of understanding.

The Fool: I don't think that's the reason. LOL.
<(XD)

Skikx: Is it not? Because that is the argument I hear the most when it comes to zoophilia.

The Fool: I would suspect there may be some psychologically maladaptive effects on the mind of someone who has sex with animals over time. But that's just my gut feeling.

I don't think it is fair to compare it too homosexuality, especially homosexual marriage. I draw my line at humans. In humans homosexuals can still play an adaptive supporting role in society.

Skikx: When people say legalizing homosexual marriage will lead to legalizing zoophilia it is always countered by an argument about consent.

The Fool: Yeah its bad argument. Being a homosexual human doesn't mean you can't or won't reproduce when needed. In the past, homosexuals would have heterosexuals families with homosexual lovers on the side.

Skikx: : I mean, sure people are repulsed by it, but that isn't even an argument.

The Fool: I agree its a tough argument, but that doesn't mean we can't be pre-cautious..
Put it this way. If a bats could consent would it really be that much better?

Do we know what it is "Like"?

Against The Ideologist

I really don't know.
<(8D)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Skikx
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2014 7:10:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2014 6:38:15 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
What does consent have to do with killing?
The point is, that one act is considered wrong, because the animal can't consent , but the other is not. That is inconsistent.

Sex without consent is bad. Killing without consent is good. It is hypocritical, unless there is an argument why consent doesn't matter when it comes to killing the animal.

Why is it logical to assume legalizing homosexual marriages will lead to legalizing sex with animals?
Well, a lot of people think that. They see both as unnatural. Then they talk about moral decay and everything. It doesn't really matter.
I simply used that, because that is when the topic is often talked about, though I could have gone with just accepting homosexuality in general.
Just go to any Youtube video that is remotely related to homosexuality.

Point being, that homosexuality is generally accepted, because it is nobodys business what two consenting adults do in their bedroom.
And that is also why the slippery slope fails. Because in the case of zoophilia we do not have two consenting individuals.
Skikx
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2014 7:29:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2014 6:43:32 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/12/2014 6:24:11 PM, Skikx wrote:
At 10/12/2014 6:12:02 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/12/2014 6:07:36 PM, Skikx wrote:
Having sex with animals, other than humans that is, is generally considered wrong, because they can not consent , due to their lack of understanding.

The Fool: I don't think that's the reason. LOL.
<(XD)

Skikx: Is it not? Because that is the argument I hear the most when it comes to zoophilia.

The Fool: I would suspect there may be some psychologically maladaptive effects on the mind of someone who has sex with animals over time. But that's just my gut feeling.
Guess so, but that doesn't make the act wrong, does it? As long as it doesn't harm anybody, people are free to do what they want, regardless of motivation, no?

I don't think it is fair to compare it too homosexuality, especially homosexual marriage. I draw my line at humans. In humans homosexuals can still play an adaptive supporting role in society.

It wasn't my intention to compare the two in any sense that implies that they're equal. I simply was using it as an example situation, in which people talk about why sex with animals is considered wrong, compared to most other, lets say, uncommon sexual practices.

Skikx: When people say legalizing homosexual marriage will lead to legalizing zoophilia it is always countered by an argument about consent.

The Fool: Yeah its bad argument. Being a homosexual human doesn't mean you can't or won't reproduce when needed. In the past, homosexuals would have heterosexuals families with homosexual lovers on the side.

I don't know how you got to reproduction from here, actually. My point was, that a lot of people argue against homosexuality, because they see it as unnatural and as a form of moral decay. And then they ask, if we allow one unnatural sexual practice why not allow all of them?
And that question is usually answered by the argument, that homosexual relationship are between two consenting adults, and as such, there is nothing wrong with them.
Zoophilic relationships however are not between two consenting individuals. As such, they are considered wrong.

Skikx: : I mean, sure people are repulsed by it, but that isn't even an argument.

The Fool: I agree its a tough argument, but that doesn't mean we can't be pre-cautious..
Put it this way. If a bats could consent would it really be that much better?

Well, I don't even know how you would do it with a bat. Penetration would literally rip it apart and everything else, no clue. But take a dog for example or a cow. maybe it would be somewhat painful, but BDSM is painful as well, but it is still accepted, as long as everybody involved consented to it.

Do we know what it is "Like"?
No. But does a man know how is like to have or vagina penetrated? Or a women how it is to have your penis stimulated?
How is that relevant?

Against The Ideologist

I really don't know.
<(8D)
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2014 7:37:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2014 7:10:24 PM, Skikx wrote:
At 10/12/2014 6:38:15 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
What does consent have to do with killing?
The point is, that one act is considered wrong, because the animal can't consent , but the other is not. That is inconsistent.
It's not inconsistent, because consent has nothing to do with killing the animal. They are two different things. Unless you are implying that my wife can give consent, therefore I can kill her, the two are unrelated.

Sex without consent is bad. Killing without consent is good. It is hypocritical, unless there is an argument why consent doesn't matter when it comes to killing the animal.
Tell me, when I shoot you in the face for breaking into my home, did I have your consent to kill you? No? Then, clearly, the issue is not consent.

Why is it logical to assume legalizing homosexual marriages will lead to legalizing sex with animals?
Well, a lot of people think that. They see both as unnatural. Then they talk about moral decay and everything. It doesn't really matter.
A lot of stupid people think that, yes.
But, it does matter. Because we are talking about marriage, not sex, and in case you didn't know, retards and other people are not able to give consent either. We can neither legally have sex with them, nor marry them, nor kill them.

I simply used that, because that is when the topic is often talked about, though I could have gone with just accepting homosexuality in general.
And it's stupid. It ignores legal differences between marriage and sex, animals and people.
Just go to any Youtube video that is remotely related to homosexuality.
I'll pass.

Point being, that homosexuality is generally accepted, because it is nobodys business what two consenting adults do in their bedroom.
And that is also why the slippery slope fails. Because in the case of zoophilia we do not have two consenting individuals.

So, to be clear, can I have sex with a comatose patient, a retard, or a drunk girl? None of them can give consent, either. So, where is the hypocrisy?

Oh, because we kill animals....which has nothing to do with consent.
These issues are wholly unrelated, therefore it is not inconsistent.
Legally, if there is no consent, you cannot have sex. That is constant.
My work here is, finally, done.
Defro
Posts: 847
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2014 7:54:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2014 6:07:36 PM, Skikx wrote:
Having sex with animals, other than humans that is, is generally considered wrong, because they can not consent , due to their lack of understanding.
And since they can not consent, having sex with them is ultimately rape.

This rule applies to humans, not animals. If animals don't consent, then if an animal has sex with another animal of the same species, wouldn't it still be considered rape?

But these animals don't understand the concept of life and death either. Thus they can never consent to being killed. Whether it is via hunting, fishing, factory farming, euthanizing etc..

So killing an animal against its will is okay, but having sex with it is not.

This is different. We kill animals for food. Food keeps us alive. Food has a beneficial purpose: keeping us alive. We don't have to f*ck animals to stay alive.
Skikx
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2014 8:14:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2014 7:37:34 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/12/2014 7:10:24 PM, Skikx wrote:
At 10/12/2014 6:38:15 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
What does consent have to do with killing?
The point is, that one act is considered wrong, because the animal can't consent , but the other is not. That is inconsistent.
It's not inconsistent, because consent has nothing to do with killing the animal. They are two different things. Unless you are implying that my wife can give consent, therefore I can kill her, the two are unrelated.
Yes, I am implying that. Sure, legally you are not allowed to kill her. And anybody who consents to being killed would most likely be send to a mental institution. But in the hypothetical situation that your wife is absolutely clear in the head and consents to you killing her, then for me it would be acceptable. If the victim has no problem with the crime, then there is no victim and hence no crime.
When terminally sick people just want to die, instead of being strapped to a hospital bed for several more years. Then it is okay to pull the plug. if they do not, then it is not okay. There, consent matters.


Sex without consent is bad. Killing without consent is good. It is hypocritical, unless there is an argument why consent doesn't matter when it comes to killing the animal.
Tell me, when I shoot you in the face for breaking into my home, did I have your consent to kill you? No? Then, clearly, the issue is not consent.
Self defense is another issue.

Why is it logical to assume legalizing homosexual marriages will lead to legalizing sex with animals?
Well, a lot of people think that. They see both as unnatural. Then they talk about moral decay and everything. It doesn't really matter.
A lot of stupid people think that, yes.
But, it does matter. Because we are talking about marriage, not sex, and in case you didn't know, retards and other people are not able to give consent either. We can neither legally have sex with them, nor marry them, nor kill them.
Actually we talk about zoophilia. I just brought in gay marriage, because that topic usually sparks the conversation. It is irrelevant to the question at hand. Which is, why does sex require consent , but needless killing does not?
Did ever say we can have sex with all humans? No, but can you simply kill those retards? No. And That is consistent. But you can go hunt a deer and nobody bats an eye, but when you want to have sex with it first, you need its consent. That is inconsistent.

I simply used that, because that is when the topic is often talked about, though I could have gone with just accepting homosexuality in general.
And it's stupid. It ignores legal differences between marriage and sex, animals and people.
Can we just drop the whole marriage thing again. As I said, people compare those two as if they were the same. And then it gets refuted by other people, because homosexual relationships( whether it's just sex or marriage) are based on consent, zoophilic relationships are not.
Just go to any Youtube video that is remotely related to homosexuality.
I'll pass.

Point being, that homosexuality is generally accepted, because it is nobodys business what two consenting adults do in their bedroom.
And that is also why the slippery slope fails. Because in the case of zoophilia we do not have two consenting individuals.

So, to be clear, can I have sex with a comatose patient, a retard, or a drunk girl? None of them can give consent, either. So, where is the hypocrisy?

Oh, because we kill animals....which has nothing to do with consent.
These issues are wholly unrelated, therefore it is not inconsistent.
Legally, if there is no consent, you cannot have sex. That is constant.

I think you totally misunderstand what I mean. I am not saying that there is inconsistency when it comes to sex and consent across the species.
The hypocrisy is, that an animals consent, or lack thereof, matter when it comes to sex. But when it comes to killing it, its consent does not matter.
You are not allowed to kill people against their will. Actually, you're not allowed to kill people, even if they would want it.
Generally, you are not allowed to do something to someone, when they did not consent (besides minor and harmless interactions).

Again, would I want to have sex with a dog, I would need to get its consent first, but when I just wanted to kill it, I can just go to the next vet and get it euthanized.
When I go into the woods and punch a deer, that is not accepted, when I have sex with it, that is not accepted. But when I bring a rifle and shoot it, that is okay.
Does that seem consistent to you?
Skikx
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2014 8:31:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2014 7:54:31 PM, Defro wrote:
At 10/12/2014 6:07:36 PM, Skikx wrote:
Having sex with animals, other than humans that is, is generally considered wrong, because they can not consent , due to their lack of understanding.
And since they can not consent, having sex with them is ultimately rape.

This rule applies to humans, not animals. If animals don't consent, then if an animal has sex with another animal of the same species, wouldn't it still be considered rape?
I was only referring to humans having sex with animals. A dog having sex with a dog is not considered bestiality, is it?

But these animals don't understand the concept of life and death either. Thus they can never consent to being killed. Whether it is via hunting, fishing, factory farming, euthanizing etc..

So killing an animal against its will is okay, but having sex with it is not.

This is different. We kill animals for food. Food keeps us alive. Food has a beneficial purpose: keeping us alive. We don't have to f*ck animals to stay alive.
But we don't need to eat meat. With todays knowledge, technology and agriculture, you can eat only vegan and still eat healthy. At least if you're a healthy adult. But unless you have some really rare condition, you can still get all you need from eating a vegetarian diet.
And if all the people who eat meat about once a day would only eat it once a weak, that would drastically decrease the amount of animals that need to be slaughtered.
But not all animals that get killed even get eaten. Think about all the pets that get put down, just because their owners don't want them anymore.
Or animals that are killed for their pelt, skin, horns, etc or just for sport.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2014 8:32:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Garbage Reincarnated
Part 1

It Beez like that Sometimes.
Skikx: : Having sex with animals, other than humans that is, is generally considered wrong, because they can not consent , due to their lack of understanding.

The Fool: I don't think that's the reason. LOL.
<(XD)

Skikx: Is it not? Because that is the argument I hear the most when it comes to zoophilia.

The Fool: I would suspect there may be some psychologically maladaptive effects on the mind of someone who has sex with animals over time. But that's just my gut feeling.

Skikx: : Guess so, but that doesn't make the act wrong, does it? As long as it doesn't harm anybody, people are free to do what they want, regardless of motivation, no?

I don't think it is fair to compare it too homosexuality, especially homosexual marriage. I draw my line at humans. In humans homosexuals can still play an adaptive supporting role in society.

It wasn't my intention to compare the two in any sense that implies that they're equal. I simply was using it as an example situation, in which people talk about why sex with animals is considered wrong, compared to most other, lets say, uncommon sexual practices.

Skikx: When people say legalizing homosexual marriage will lead to legalizing zoophilia it is always countered by an argument about consent.

The Fool: Yeah its bad argument. Being a homosexual human doesn't mean you can't or won't reproduce when needed. In the past, homosexuals would have heterosexuals families with homosexual lovers on the side.

Skikx:: I don't know how you got to reproduction from here, actually.

The Fool: Because many anti-homosexuals use the lack of reproduction to dismiss homosexuality as wrong. I would think that was common enough to recognize.

Skikx: My point was, that a lot of people argue against homosexuality, because they see it as unnatural and as a form of moral decay. And then they ask, if we allow one unnatural sexual practice why not allow all of them?

The Fool: I know and I pre-countered it with an argument from "evolution" in advance.
<(89)

I beez like that sometimes.
<(8D)

Skikx:: And that question is usually answered by the argument, that homosexual relationship are between two consenting adults, and as such, there is nothing wrong with them.

The Fool: And I am answering it, by saying that sex in itself is not an immoral action.

Skikx:: Zoophilic relationships however are not between two consenting individuals. As such, they are considered wrong. I mean, sure people are repulsed by it, but that isn't even an argument.

The Fool: I agree its a tough argument, but that doesn't mean we can't be pre-cautious..
Put it this way. If a bats could consent would it really be that much better?

Skikx:: Well, I don't even know how you would do it with a bat. Penetration would literally rip it apart and everything else, no clue.

The Fool: You simply said "sex without consent". Is the only type of sex, penetration, or are you bias towards sex by males This is a giveaway. The Gig is up.
<(8D)

Skikx: But take a dog for example or a cow. maybe it would be somewhat painful, but BDSM is painful as well, but it is still accepted, as long as everybody involved consented to it.

The Fool: Accepted? What are you a relativist? You seem to have Moral Reasoning difficulties. It's not just for "show".

The Fool: : Do we know what it is "Like"?

No. But does a man know how is like to have or vagina penetrated? Or a women how it is to have your penis stimulated?

The Fool: This may sound like a gross explanation, but it beez like that sometimes.

Okay, for started woman's vagina wall and ovaries are simply the males scrotum and balls inverted. The clitoris is the same as the head of the penis. When a fetus is exposed to testosterone in the womb, the clitoris merely extends outward and becomes the penis. And the ovaries externalize, and are synonymous with the balls, and the stretchy vagina wall is synonymous with the stretchy scrotum.

The idea is that the brain and/or the mind of a "bat" or rather "most" animal's, is so far removed from the mind and/or brain of a human that we could hardly fathom its mental nature. It's not the same with humans.
QED

Against The Ideologist
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2014 8:37:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Skixx, you need to learn to form your arguments better.
Opening with gays in regards to consent is irrelevant, since the legal issue of bestiality is not really about consent.

But, if you want to speak about hypocrisy, is it not equally needless to kill plants to eat them? Why is one life more important than another?
My work here is, finally, done.
Defro
Posts: 847
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2014 8:41:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2014 8:31:52 PM, Skikx wrote:

But we don't need to eat meat. With todays knowledge, technology and agriculture, you can eat only vegan and still eat healthy. At least if you're a healthy adult. But unless you have some really rare condition, you can still get all you need from eating a vegetarian diet.

We don't need to eat meat. We can resort to veganism. But eating meat will keep us alive nevertheless.

And if all the people who eat meat about once a day would only eat it once a weak, that would drastically decrease the amount of animals that need to be slaughtered.

You are faltering from your argument and committing the middle ground fallacy.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

Eating meat once a week is still eating meat. You're arguing that eating meat is wrong because it is equivalent to bestiality, therefore we should not eat meat.

You cannot cooperate with your opposing argument.

But not all animals that get killed even get eaten. Think about all the pets that get put down, just because their owners don't want them anymore.

Most pets get put down because they are in extreme pain. I had an aunt whose dog had cancer and it was suffering and whimpering for 3 days. My aunt had the choice to either give it a quick, painless, peaceful death or a slow, painful death. I think it would be kinder to choose the first one.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2014 8:43:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2014 8:37:49 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Skixx, you need to learn to form your arguments better.
Opening with gays in regards to consent is irrelevant, since the legal issue of bestiality is not really about consent.
WOW!!!
Feel free to ignore this.
You didn't mention it.


But, if you want to speak about hypocrisy, is it not equally needless to kill plants to eat them? Why is one life more important than another?

Also, do you believe animals have rights?
My work here is, finally, done.
Skikx
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2014 9:00:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2014 8:32:09 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Garbage Reincarnated
Part 1

It Beez like that Sometimes.

Skikx:: I don't know how you got to reproduction from here, actually.

The Fool: Because many anti-homosexuals use the lack of reproduction to dismiss homosexuality as wrong. I would think that was common enough to recognize.
Yeah, well know that argument. It's just that I wasn't arguing against homosexuality. So I was a little confused why you brought it up.

Skikx: My point was, that a lot of people argue against homosexuality, because they see it as unnatural and as a form of moral decay. And then they ask, if we allow one unnatural sexual practice why not allow all of them?

The Fool: I know and I pre-countered it with an argument from "evolution" in advance.
Again, you don't need to defend homosexuality here. I just brought it up to point out how the consent argument is used against zoophilia.
<(89)

I beez like that sometimes.
<(8D)

Skikx:: And that question is usually answered by the argument, that homosexual relationship are between two consenting adults, and as such, there is nothing wrong with them.

The Fool: And I am answering it, by saying that sex in itself is not an immoral action.
I never said that it was.

Skikx:: Zoophilic relationships however are not between two consenting individuals. As such, they are considered wrong. I mean, sure people are repulsed by it, but that isn't even an argument.

The Fool: I agree its a tough argument, but that doesn't mean we can't be pre-cautious..
Put it this way. If a bats could consent would it really be that much better?

Skikx:: Well, I don't even know how you would do it with a bat. Penetration would literally rip it apart and everything else, no clue.

The Fool: You simply said "sex without consent". Is the only type of sex, penetration, or are you bias towards sex by males This is a giveaway. The Gig is up.
No, that is now what I meant. Maybe i am biased, could be. I am a human after all, can't expect to be free from failure. Anyway, what i wanted to say, that I can't really imagine how you could have sex with a bat at all. I guess you could carefully rub its genitals, or rub it against your own, among other things, but I don't really see it, you know. And I did point out penetration, which could include fingers, btw., would lead to the bats death. While other methods may would not.
<(8D)

Skikx: But take a dog for example or a cow. maybe it would be somewhat painful, but BDSM is painful as well, but it is still accepted, as long as everybody involved consented to it.

The Fool: Accepted? What are you a relativist?
Yes.

You seem to have Moral Reasoning difficulties. It's not just for "show".
I didn't make any moral judgement here, did I? I just pointed out hypocrisy.

The Fool: : Do we know what it is "Like"?

No. But does a man know how is like to have or vagina penetrated? Or a women how it is to have your penis stimulated?

The Fool: This may sound like a gross explanation, but it beez like that sometimes.

Okay, for started woman's vagina wall and ovaries are simply the males scrotum and balls inverted. The clitoris is the same as the head of the penis. When a fetus is exposed to testosterone in the womb, the clitoris merely extends outward and becomes the penis. And the ovaries externalize, and are synonymous with the balls, and the stretchy vagina wall is synonymous with the stretchy scrotum.
I do have a basic understanding of human anatomy, thanks. Still, technically two people could witness the same event, yet they could not truly know how it feels for the other one, as they can perceive things only trough their own perspective.

The idea is that the brain and/or the mind of a "bat" or rather "most" animal's, is so far removed from the mind and/or brain of a human that we could hardly fathom its mental nature. It's not the same with humans.
Guess that's true.
QED

Against The Ideologist

BTW. the video is not available.
Skikx
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2014 9:16:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2014 8:41:29 PM, Defro wrote:
At 10/12/2014 8:31:52 PM, Skikx wrote:

But we don't need to eat meat. With todays knowledge, technology and agriculture, you can eat only vegan and still eat healthy. At least if you're a healthy adult. But unless you have some really rare condition, you can still get all you need from eating a vegetarian diet.

We don't need to eat meat. We can resort to veganism. But eating meat will keep us alive nevertheless.

Without necessity, we lose our justification to kill them.
If killing them without consent is wrong, but dying is worse. We can justify killing them and it therefore becomes acceptable. If killing them is wrong, and we won't suffer for letting them live, we can no longer justify killing them and thus it becomes wrong.

And if all the people who eat meat about once a day would only eat it once a weak, that would drastically decrease the amount of animals that need to be slaughtered.

You are faltering from your argument and committing the middle ground fallacy.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

Eating meat once a week is still eating meat. You're arguing that eating meat is wrong because it is equivalent to bestiality, therefore we should not eat meat.

You cannot cooperate with your opposing argument.

I didn't say that eating meat once a weak is the right thing to do. Just within the context of needing meat to survive, that is, for those people who really need some meat, maybe because of allergies to certain food or because they do not have enough access to the right kind of plants to provide them with a healthy vegan or vegetarian diet, it is then the right thing to eat only acceptable to as much as needed and not more.

But not all animals that get killed even get eaten. Think about all the pets that get put down, just because their owners don't want them anymore.

Most pets get put down because they are in extreme pain. I had an aunt whose dog had cancer and it was suffering and whimpering for 3 days. My aunt had the choice to either give it a quick, painless, peaceful death or a slow, painful death. I think it would be kinder to choose the first one.
Most, but not all.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2014 9:22:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Garbage Reincarnated
Part 2.1/3

Confused
Skikx:: I don't know how you got to reproduction from here, actually.

The Fool: Because many anti-homosexuals use the lack of reproduction to dismiss homosexuality as wrong. I would think that was common enough to recognize.

Skikx:Yeah, well know that argument. It's just that I wasn't arguing against homosexuality.

RE: Garbanza: When people say legalizing homosexual marriage will lead to legalizing zoophilia it is always countered by an argument about consent.

http://www.debate.org...

Skikx: So I was a little confused why you brought it up.

The Fool: Your normally confused are you are you not? Either that or you often fake confusion right? But the evidence suggests that you're not confused.

Skikx: My point was, that a lot of people argue against homosexuality, because they see it as unnatural and as a form of moral decay. And then they ask, if we allow one unnatural sexual practice why not allow all of them?

The Fool: I know and I"pre-countered"it with an argument from "evolution" in advance.

I beez like that sometimes.
<(8D)

Skikx: Again, you don't need to defend homosexuality here. I just brought it up to point out how the consent argument is used against zoophilia.
<(89)

The Fool: I can defend what I damn well please.
<(89)

Skikx:: And that question is usually answered by the argument, that homosexual relationship are between two consenting adults, and as such, there is nothing wrong with them.

The Fool: And I am answering it, by saying that sex in itself is not an immoral action.

Skikx: I never said that it was.

The Fool: Good, just in case you do.

Against The Ideologist

How many accounts do you have?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Skikx
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2014 9:29:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2014 8:43:11 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/12/2014 8:37:49 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Skixx, you need to learn to form your arguments better.
Opening with gays in regards to consent is irrelevant, since the legal issue of bestiality is not really about consent.
WOW!!!
Feel free to ignore this.
You didn't mention it.


But, if you want to speak about hypocrisy, is it not equally needless to kill plants to eat them? Why is one life more important than another?

I just had an discussion about that over the last two days...
Anyway, I did not say that it is. And there are many hypocrisies and I can't address all of them. Especially not at the same time.
All I say is, while value is subjective and largely depends on usefulness, I will just say that one can argue that plants do no have a brain, nor a nervous system. Thus they can not be hurt, nor can their will be infringed. Insofar, they do not suffer from being eaten. This makes it easily acceptable for most people to kill them.

Also, do you believe animals have rights?
I believe "Right" is an social construct. An abstract concept that those in power grant those without, usually because their ancestors fought for those rights.
In that sense, animals have the rights that we grant them, mostly because animal rights activist fight for them.
I do not believe in the idea that we all have god given rights or something like that. We just have our rights, because it helped and probably still helps our society to survive.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2014 9:35:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Garbage Reincarnated
Part 2.2

Rubbing Ross The Wrong Way
The Fool: You simply said "sex without consent". Is the only type of sex, penetration, or are you bias towards sex by males This is a giveaway. The Gig is up.

Skikx: No, that is now what I meant.

The Fool: You did mean sex by the term sex?

Skikx: Maybe i am biased, could be.

The Fool: I could spot your sexism, by the way you use your language.

Skikx: I am a human after all, can't expect to be free from failure.

The Fool: But we should always keep trying.

Skikx: Anyway, what i wanted to say, that I can't really imagine how you could have sex with a bat at all.
I guess you could carefully rub its genitals, or rub it against your own, among other things, but I don't really see it, you know.

The Fool: What, you are quite imaginative here. Sound like you've done this before.
<(8D)

Skikx: And I did point out penetration, which could include fingers, btw. would lead to the bats death. While other methods may would not.

The Fool: How much penetration with fingers are you talking about? Most would not consider that rape, despite its definition in some places. My accusation, is based on not just this evidence, but your attitude in the past.
<(89)

Against The Ideologist
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Skikx
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2014 9:40:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2014 9:22:53 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Garbage Reincarnated
Part 2.1/3

Confused
Skikx:: I don't know how you got to reproduction from here, actually.

The Fool: Because many anti-homosexuals use the lack of reproduction to dismiss homosexuality as wrong. I would think that was common enough to recognize.

Skikx:Yeah, well know that argument. It's just that I wasn't arguing against homosexuality.

RE: Garbanza: When people say legalizing homosexual marriage will lead to legalizing zoophilia it is always countered by an argument about consent.

http://www.debate.org...

Skikx: So I was a little confused why you brought it up.

The Fool: Your normally confused are you are you not? Either that or you often fake confusion right? But the evidence suggests that you're not confused.

Evidence? Anyway, I am generally confused, but I'm usually good at acting like I'm not, I think.

Skikx: My point was, that a lot of people argue against homosexuality, because they see it as unnatural and as a form of moral decay. And then they ask, if we allow one unnatural sexual practice why not allow all of them?

The Fool: I know and I"pre-countered"it with an argument from "evolution" in advance.

I beez like that sometimes.
<(8D)

Skikx: Again, you don't need to defend homosexuality here. I just brought it up to point out how the consent argument is used against zoophilia.
<(89)

The Fool: I can defend what I damn well please.
<(89)

Sure you can, just said you don't need to.

Skikx:: And that question is usually answered by the argument, that homosexual relationship are between two consenting adults, and as such, there is nothing wrong with them.

The Fool: And I am answering it, by saying that sex in itself is not an immoral action.

Skikx: I never said that it was.

The Fool: Good, just in case you do.

Against The Ideologist

How many accounts do you have?
On DDO? Just this one.

And the video is not playing either. You know, I'm in Germany and a lot of videos are block here, due to copyright issues. And when i use a proxy it strangely just keeps loading forever or says an error occurred.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2014 9:52:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Garbage Reincarnated
Part 2.3

Running Ross
The Fool: Accepted? What are you a relativist?

Skikx: Yes.

The Fool: that's why You seem to have Moral Reasoning difficulties. It's not just for "show".

Skikx: I didn't make any moral judgement here, did I?

The Fool: The fact that you speak in "considerations", or in "acceptances", rather than facts, and moral principles, give it away. You not able to construct moral arguments, other than arguments from popularity.

Skikx: I just pointed out hypocrisy.

The Fool: Yes moral relativism is hypocrisy, because of its self-contradictory nature, as one moral and its opposite can both be moral of the same time. []...Do we know what it is "Like" To be a bat?

Skikx: No. But does a man know how is like to have or vagina penetrated? Or a women how it is to have your penis stimulated?

The Fool: This may sound like a gross explanation, but it beez like that sometimes: Okay, for started woman's vagina wall and ovaries are simply the males scrotum and balls inverted. The clitoris is the same as the head of the penis. When a fetus is exposed to testosterone in the womb, the clitoris merely extends outward and becomes the penis. And the ovaries externalize, and are synonymous with the balls, and the stretchy vagina wall is synonymous with the stretchy scrotum.

Skikx: I do have a basic understanding of human anatomy, thanks.

The Fool: Then why were you asking the question?

RE: Ross: But does a man know how is like to have or vagina penetrated? Or a women how it is to have your penis stimulated?

The Fool: The idea is that the brain and/or the mind of a "bat" or rather "most" animal's, is so far removed from the mind and/or brain of a human that we could hardly fathom its mental nature. It's not the same with humans.

Skikx: Guess that's true.[] Still, technically two people could witness the same event, yet they could not truly know how it feels for the other one, as they can perceive things only trough their own perspective.

The Fool: Really, then how would you know it's very the same event?
<(8D)
QED

In critical thinking, we call that "RUNNING" from refutation.

Against The Ideologist
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2014 9:55:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Garbage Reincarnated
Interlude

How many accounts do you have?
Garbanza: On DDO? Just this one.

The Fool: No way,. your at least Garbanza and Ross. .But I don't know who else.

Against The Ideologist
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Skikx
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2014 10:42:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2014 9:35:44 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Garbage Reincarnated
Part 2.2

Rubbing Ross The Wrong Way
The Fool: You simply said "sex without consent". Is the only type of sex, penetration, or are you bias towards sex by males This is a giveaway. The Gig is up.

Skikx: No, that is now what I meant.

The Fool: You did mean sex by the term sex?
I guess I could have been more precise , but i didn't think this would be an issue.
What I meant were all sexual acts, that are carried out only for pleasure.

Skikx: Maybe i am biased, could be.

The Fool: I could spot your sexism, by the way you use your language.
Really? Or maybe you just look for something that seems sexist, then accuse me of sexism, hoping that I will confess, maybe out of shame or humility, maybe just to avoid an unnecessary discussion. So that you then can say you knew it.

Skikx: I am a human after all, can't expect to be free from failure.

The Fool: But we should always keep trying.
I am.

Skikx: Anyway, what i wanted to say, that I can't really imagine how you could have sex with a bat at all.
I guess you could carefully rub its genitals, or rub it against your own, among other things, but I don't really see it, you know.

The Fool: What, you are quite imaginative here. Sound like you've done this before.
<(8D)
Not as far as I know.

Skikx: And I did point out penetration, which could include fingers, btw. would lead to the bats death. While other methods may would not.

The Fool: How much penetration with fingers are you talking about? Most would not consider that rape, despite its definition in some places. My accusation, is based on not just this evidence, but your attitude in the past.
<(89)
How much? I guess it depends on the bat and how much it can take. Well, if you consider rape to be intercourse, then I guess it wouldn't be rape. So it would "only" be sexual assault then, wouldn't it? Well, as I said above, the question is not about intercourse, but about all sexual act done for the sake of pleasure.
Keep in mind, that this thread is about how the general populace thinks about sexual acts between humans and other animals. So limiting it to intercourse would be nonsensical.

The Fool: The fact that you speak in "considerations", or in "acceptances", rather than facts, and moral principles, give it away. You not able to construct moral arguments, other than arguments from popularity.

That is true. But these are not logical fallacies, as I never stated that something is wrong, because the majority believes so. I only say that something is wrong or right according to a certain perspective. And in this case I only claimed that there is an inconsistency when it comes to having sexual acts with animals and killing them.

The Fool: Yes moral relativism is hypocrisy, because of its self-contradictory nature, as one moral and its opposite can both be moral of the same time.

There is no hypocrisy in moral relativism. It does not claim any moral to be objective true. Thus, it does not state that two contradictory positions are right. It only states that different individuals or groups can hold moral believes that contradict that of the other.

The Fool: Really, then how would you know it's very the same event?

Do you have to know it is the same event, for it to be the same event?
Well, ultimately, one can not prove beyond all doubt that is truly is the same event. But if one believes that we are all actual persons in a physical reality, then we are experiencing the same event right now.
And if we take a solipsistic approach, then I am the only real individual. And as such, I am the only one who really feels anything, am I not.
So how could I ever know how you feel, if I do not even know if you feel.

The Fool: In critical thinking, we call that "RUNNING" from refutation.

And what exactly did you refute?

The Fool: No way,. your at least Garbanza and Ross. .But I don't know who else.
Seems like you've made a false assumption.
Defro
Posts: 847
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 2:15:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2014 9:16:02 PM, Skikx wrote:

Without necessity, we lose our justification to kill them.
If killing them without consent is wrong, but dying is worse. We can justify killing them and it therefore becomes acceptable. If killing them is wrong, and we won't suffer for letting them live, we can no longer justify killing them and thus it becomes wrong.

I didn't say that eating meat once a weak is the right thing to do. Just within the context of needing meat to survive, that is, for those people who really need some meat, maybe because of allergies to certain food or because they do not have enough access to the right kind of plants to provide them with a healthy vegan or vegetarian diet, it is then the right thing to eat only acceptable to as much as needed and not more.

You have contradicted yourself.

Previously, you said "Without necessity, we lose our jurisdiction to kill them."

And now, you said "within the context of needing meat to survive."
In other words, you concede that there is necessity on meat.

But not all animals that get killed even get eaten. Think about all the pets that get put down, just because their owners don't want them anymore.

Other pets get put down for good reasons as well. They don't get put down just because like you say "owners don't want them anymore."

Why would an owner kill his/her pet if they don't want it anymore when he/she can sell the pet or pass the pet along to others who would want the pet?

The only other reason besides the animal suffering are if the animal is being problematic. If your dog bites someone's finger off, and they sue you for a huge amount of money and you have the choice to either pay the money or put down your dog, a financially unstable person would choose the latter.
Skikx
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 3:46:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/13/2014 2:15:22 AM, Defro wrote:
At 10/12/2014 9:16:02 PM, Skikx wrote:

Without necessity, we lose our justification to kill them.
If killing them without consent is wrong, but dying is worse. We can justify killing them and it therefore becomes acceptable. If killing them is wrong, and we won't suffer for letting them live, we can no longer justify killing them and thus it becomes wrong.

I didn't say that eating meat once a weak is the right thing to do. Just within the context of needing meat to survive, that is, for those people who really need some meat, maybe because of allergies to certain food or because they do not have enough access to the right kind of plants to provide them with a healthy vegan or vegetarian diet, it is then the right thing to eat only acceptable to as much as needed and not more.

You have contradicted yourself.

Previously, you said "Without necessity, we lose our jurisdiction to kill them."

And now, you said "within the context of needing meat to survive."
In other words, you concede that there is necessity on meat.

Read again. I clearly limited it to a small amount of people. Only those that can not eat a sufficient vegan/ vegetarian diet could claim to need meat.
Which means I admit that meat can be necessary for survival, in certain circumstances.
However, in the modern world, these circumstances are largely not given. Meaning that the most people do not need meat.
Conclusively, the vast majority of animals are killed needlessly and thus without justification.


But not all animals that get killed even get eaten. Think about all the pets that get put down, just because their owners don't want them anymore.


Other pets get put down for good reasons as well. They don't get put down just because like you say "owners don't want them anymore."

Why would an owner kill his/her pet if they don't want it anymore when he/she can sell the pet or pass the pet along to others who would want the pet?

The only other reason besides the animal suffering are if the animal is being problematic. If your dog bites someone's finger off, and they sue you for a huge amount of money and you have the choice to either pay the money or put down your dog, a financially unstable person would choose the latter.

I withdraw the point. Not because I do not believe that pets are put down without justification, even if it may be a very small minority. But because the people who do that don't care about the animal anyway and thus, if they would object to any zoophilic acts, then it would most likely not be based on concern for the animal anyway.
Therefore, the point is irrelevant.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 5:11:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Garbage Reincarnated
Part 2.2.1

The Evidence
The Fool: You simply said "sex without consent". Is the only type of sex, penetration, or are you bias towards sex by males This is a giveaway. The Gig is up.

Skikx: No, that is now what I meant.

The Fool: You did mean sex by the term sex?

Skikx: : I guess I could have been more precise, but i didn't think this would be an issue. : What I meant were all sexual acts, that are carried out only for pleasure.

The Fool: Really, because this after the fact defining/backtracking, that you're so famous for contradicts your example of penetration with fingers, which may not be for pleasure. And either way, it would contradict rape for reproduction.

And 1

Skikx: Maybe i am biased, could be.

The Fool: I could spot your sexism, by the way you use your language.

Skikx: : Really? Or maybe you just look for something that seems sexist, then accuse me of sexism, hoping that I will confess, maybe out of shame or humility, maybe just to avoid an unnecessary discussion. So that you then can say you knew it.

The Fool: You want even confess, to your multiple accounts, even when it's obvious, why would I expect you to confess about your sexism.

Did you not lie about being shut down on DDO because your woman?
<(8D)

http://www.debate.org...

Did you not lie about lots of men on DDO blaming women for abortions?

http://www.debate.org...

Did you not lie, and say that "I" want to maintain the right to have sex with woman to drunk to be aware of what's happening?

Re: Garbanza: You say you want to maintain the right to have sex with too drunk to be aware of what's happening.
http://www.debate.org...

Are not the bulk of your "lies" gender related?

Against The Ideologist

Just clean up your act and stop putting yourself into a deeper hole.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 5:57:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Garbage Reincarnated
Part 2.2.2

The Moralist
Garbanza: : Keep in mind, that this thread is about how the general populace thinks about sexual acts between humans and other animals.

The Fool: The thread is about killing animals, without consent. Your backtracking and trying to insert, "What the general population thinks about acts" as a post hoc manipulation.

Garbanza: So limiting it to intercourse would be nonsensical.

The Fool: That would mean you contradicted yourself.
<(8D)

The Fool: The fact that you speak in "considerations", or in "acceptances", rather than facts, and moral principles, give it away. You not able to construct moral arguments, other than arguments from popularity.

Garbanza: That is true. But these are not logical fallacies, as I never stated that something is wrong, because the majority believes so.

The Fool: What we consider something to be, is not the same as what the thing in consideration necessarily is. I can consider a square to be a circle, but they'll be false. Or I can accept that a square is circle but it would still not be the case.

(I know this is common sense, but it's necessary to counter future backtrack attempts)

Moral Relativity
Garbanza: I only say that something is wrong or right according to a certain perspective. And in this case I only claimed that there is an inconsistency when it comes to having sexual acts with animals and killing them.[] There is no hypocrisy in moral relativism. It does not claim any moral to be objective true. Thus, it does not state that two contradictory positions are right. It only states that different individuals or groups can hold moral believes that contradict that of the other.

Argument From Moral Progress
The Fool: We accept or reject things in this case, for the sake of practicality, but one should never lose touch of what were really getting at, as that is necessary for "moral progress" which by-the-way contradicts "moral relativism". That is, if there is to really be moral progress, then morality cannot be relative.

Eg.
We all understand generally enough that the creation of laws to protect against "violent random child rape and murder", constitute a type of "moral progress". For the only people who could think otherwise would be psychopaths and the mental disturbed who's understanding is justly discounted. Therefore, insofar as this is true than "moral relativity" is false.

You see, you, at least up until now, lack the ability to give those kind of strong crisp rational "moral arguments."
<(8O)

Against The Ideologist

Call it a philosopher's edge.
<(8D)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Skikx
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2014 12:32:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/13/2014 5:11:48 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Garbage Reincarnated
Part 2.2.1

The Evidence
The Fool: You simply said "sex without consent". Is the only type of sex, penetration, or are you bias towards sex by males This is a giveaway. The Gig is up.

Skikx: No, that is now what I meant.

The Fool: You did mean sex by the term sex?

Skikx: : I guess I could have been more precise, but i didn't think this would be an issue. : What I meant were all sexual acts, that are carried out only for pleasure.

The Fool: Really, because this after the fact defining/backtracking, that you're so famous for contradicts your example of penetration with fingers, which may not be for pleasure. And either way, it would contradict rape for reproduction.

I am famous?
You can't reproduce with an individual of another species, though. If you are talking about harvesting the sperm of e.g. a stallion, to inject it into a mare for breeding purposes, then that is deliberately left out. The same goes for acts done for medical purposes.
And when I said pleasure, I didn't limit it to physical pleasure.

Honestly though, I don't even know how this is relevant. Even if it was limited to intercourse, it would not change the hypocrisy of the issue.

And 1

Skikx: Maybe i am biased, could be.

The Fool: I could spot your sexism, by the way you use your language.

Skikx: : Really? Or maybe you just look for something that seems sexist, then accuse me of sexism, hoping that I will confess, maybe out of shame or humility, maybe just to avoid an unnecessary discussion. So that you then can say you knew it.

The Fool: You want even confess, to your multiple accounts, even when it's obvious, why would I expect you to confess about your sexism.

I didn't deny any sexism, either. I even admitted, that it is possible that I am sexist. You just seem overly interested in finding something sexist in my comments.
And I do not have multiple accounts.

The Fool: The thread is about killing animals, without consent. Your backtracking and trying to insert, "What the general population thinks about acts" as a post hoc manipulation.

The thread is about the inconsistency between the acceptance of killing animals and performing sexual acts on them.
http://www.debate.org...
-->"So killing an animal against its will is okay, but having sex with it is not.
Does anybody have a rational argument for this? Or am I right to assume that this is simply a societal convention?"

I am not Garbanza: So limiting it to intercourse would be nonsensical.

The Fool: That would mean you contradicted yourself.

I just broadened the definition of sex. Not that it matters in this context, whether it is limited to intercourse or all sexual acts done for the sake of pleasure.
Since neither are accepted as right or morally okay.

Argument From Moral Progress
The Fool: We accept or reject things in this case, for the sake of practicality, but one should never lose touch of what were really getting at, as that is : necessary for "moral progress" which by-the-way contradicts "moral relativism". That is, if there is to really be moral progress, then morality cannot : : be relative.

Eg.
We all understand generally enough that the creation of laws to protect against "violent random child rape and murder", constitute a type of "moral : progress". For the only people who could think otherwise would be psychopaths and the mental disturbed who's understanding is justly discounted. : Therefore, insofar as this is true than "moral relativity" is false.

Moral progress, in the sense, that the act of violent random child rape and murder is already considered wrong and thus the laws are simply adjusted to the general belief.
In the same sense, a lot of people consider legalization of gay marriage moral progress, while many others consider it moral decay.
Further, by stating that there are people who think otherwise, just shows that the idea of "moral progress" is a concept based on the subjective morals of the collective. And as such, it is relative to the moral beliefs of the populace.
Thus, moral progress is relative, as much as morals themselves are relative. And morals are relative, as they rely on perspective.

The Fool: You see, you, at least up until now, lack the ability to give those kind of strong crisp rational "moral arguments."

As i already said. It is not my intention to claim anything as wrong. As such, I do not need to justify any moral standpoint, as I have taken no stand.
I just pointed out that there is an inconsistency within the argumentation that many people use against zoophilia, as the argument against it also applies to killing animals, against which they do not argue.
In other words, I am just saying that it is unreasonable to keep the argument and not be against the killing of animals (with some justified exceptions).
jkerr3
Posts: 177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2014 3:23:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2014 6:07:36 PM, Skikx wrote:
Having sex with animals, other than humans that is, is generally considered wrong, because they can not consent , due to their lack of understanding.
And since they can not consent, having sex with them is ultimately rape.

But these animals don't understand the concept of life and death either. Thus they can never consent to being killed. Whether it is via hunting, fishing, factory farming, euthanizing etc..

So killing an animal against its will is okay, but having sex with it is not.

Does anybody have a rational argument for this? Or am I right to assume that this is simply a societal convention?

I don't really see the comparison between the two. Have sex with an animal is a form of torture/cruelty, killing an animal "in most cases" is not. Even amongst humans we have laws during war that prohibit raping and pillaging, which is very different than killing out of necessity. We need to kill animals for food/clothing/ect. However these animals are supposed to be killed w/o pain which is very different than raping/torturing the animal which is not necessary.