Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Bestiality Wrong?
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 136 of 170 (416001)
08-13-2007 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Straggler
08-11-2007 12:06 PM


Why are animals unable to give consent?
Straggler writes:
Consent, and the ability to give it, is very much the KEY criteria when it comes to sex.
Yes.
By these principles bestiality would very much fall into the category of immoral. Without question.
No.
Definitely not "without question", anyway. Here's my thoughts:
You say animals are incapable of giving consent. I agree that they are incapable of giving human-written or human-language consent. However, I think that on a practical level, it's quite simple to learn of an animal's consent.
If the animal attempts to get away by any means, then obviously the answer is "no". If the animal continues, and even promotes the actions, then obviously the answer is "yes".
I have a cat at home. Sometimes she sits beside me while I watch TV and lets me pet her. She jumps up beside me, nuzzles my leg, and purrs while I pet her.
Sometimes she doesn't want to be petted. Sometimes she just runs off. And sometimes she even bites at my fingers. It's pretty obvious to me that at this point my cat no longer wants to be petted.
Are you going to tell me the cat isn't giving consent for me to pet her or not? If you want to say "animals cannot consent to (anything, including sex)", you'll have to do more than just say so. In order to convince me, anyway
From the founding principle of harm we can also conclude that sexual activity with those unable to consent should be considered immoral. One person should not have the right to inflict themselves sexually on another who is incapable of determining whether or not they will be harmed by these actions.
I agree completely.
I simply disagree that animals are "unable to consent".
Again, bestiality is not "a person raping an animal". I would agree that such an act would be immoral.
But if bestiality is simply "a person and an animal sharing un-forced, and individually-promoted sexual activities", then it certainly is not immoral.
That being said, I agree that such things are very easily taken advantage of by certain less-than-moral human beings. With the amount of stupid-selfish people in this world, I think that a large amount of "animal raping" would be going on. Probably more than would be acceptable. But, I'd need to see some facts from a study with some numbers before creating a law that would remove this freedom from those who do treat animals with respect. Regardless of such a law being in place, I'd still find bestiality "not immoral".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Straggler, posted 08-11-2007 12:06 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 137 of 170 (416016)
08-13-2007 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Straggler
08-07-2007 9:51 AM


Re: Consent
But still we do take the eggs of hens without their consent. We do force animals into lives of domesticity and hard labour work without asking their opinion first. We do effectively imprison animals in farms and zoos and homes to the point where they are institutionalised and can no longer survive in natural environments.
...
If consent is the only issue as regards morality then is keeping a pet rabbit, hamster or goat (against it's will) just as immoral as sexual intercourse with a sheep?
If consent is the only issue, then keeping a rabbit is certainly equally immoral, but consent isn't the only issue. When any given person is making a moral decision there are a number of ways of doing it. A common way (these days at least) is to look to moral philosophies that are consequentialist. We start with a moral premise such as 'minimize harm' and then examine the consequences of any given action to see if it agrees with the premise.
Penetrating an animal's genitals with your own might minimize the psychological harm to you (not suppressing desire), but it might increase the harm to the animal. We need a decision on this - I say, another premise needs to be put forward: Err on the side of a party that might be harmed if in doubt. Thus, we cannot know if the animal's welfare is being harmed by the act, but since it is likely to do so in some cases we should err on their side. This second premise is inline with the first in my opinion.
If an animal shows consent, if it is doing the penetration for example, we might consider the act moral, or at least not sufficiently immoral to bother us.
I consider there is more good done in keeping and protecting animals, than harm is done. I equally realize that paying breeders to breed more animals to be kept might be more morally grey - then again breeding animals for the sake of conservation is probably more moral than for the sake of company.
Likewise I consider it more harmful to not farm animals than it is to farm them. It is easier to maintain stock levels through farming them than if we do not, and with the population density the way it is - we'd wipe out whole species to feed ourselves (see the result of not farming animals but hunting them, America lost its bovine friend, the seas are losing stock faster than it is able to replenish them etc).
With a simple moral premise or two and a philosophy up to the task, as well as some subjective judgements) it is straightforward to determine that bestiality is often morally wrong but stealing eggs is morally right.
As shown, 'bestiality' can no more be said to be wrong than 'killing' can. One thing is forever true: we can never have complete information and we will tend to draw a line even if we accept morally grey exists. The questions are 'where?' and 'why?'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Straggler, posted 08-07-2007 9:51 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 138 of 170 (416072)
08-13-2007 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Stile
08-13-2007 9:00 AM


Calling a Pro - why not?
I have said that I would call a psychology professional in the case of a minor.
It's obvious, Stile, that this choice bothers you. You have been eager to challenge me ever since over statements you imagined me making, or wish me to make, rather than thoughts I have actually shared. This is disappointing, as I took some time and trouble to share them, and many address issues in the fights you seem eager to pick.
What you have not done is explain to all of us on this board why, in the case of a minor in our care, you think seeking the advice of a professional is a bad idea.
Please do so. Provide rational support for your objection.
If you actually have no objection to the idea, please say as much for the sake of clarity.
In the absence of a rationally supported objection, I have no cause to question the belief underlying my action. That belief is this: It is at least as rational, caring, and responsible for a person to seek the advice of an expert, who has access to relevant research, as it is to accept the opinion of a lay person with no little or no training.
____
Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Stile, posted 08-13-2007 9:00 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Stile, posted 08-14-2007 9:20 AM Archer Opteryx has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 139 of 170 (416094)
08-13-2007 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Stile
08-13-2007 9:28 AM


Re: A walk in the park
Stile writes:
You A -> "Meh, I wish he wouldn't do that, that's so wrong, let's continue our walk."
So you want me to feel about the same way I would if I saw a couple slobbering all over each other at a bar, or a guy mooning me, or someone's underwear left in a pubic restroom?
We can be disgusted at many things and look the other way. We can't look the other way when something really wrong is happening. You are not being sensible here. You are using your opinion that nothing very strange or wrong is going on, and judging my hypothetical reaction based on that.
I'm no longer discussing if it's simply "right" or "wrong". That, really, doesn't mean very much. What I'm discussing is whether or not we should stop others from engaging in bestiality.
Yes, I know. You are concluding that bestiality is distasteful to you, but ok in general.
I really have no problems with differing opinions. In fact, I believe that different opionions is exactly why life is so amazing. The only thing I have a problem with is when people try to force their views on others simply to restrict another's freedom.
Since you have dicided that bestiality is not wrong, you feel that you should force this view on others.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Stile, posted 08-13-2007 9:28 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Taz, posted 08-14-2007 1:15 AM anastasia has replied
 Message 142 by Stile, posted 08-14-2007 9:45 AM anastasia has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 140 of 170 (416124)
08-14-2007 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by anastasia
08-13-2007 8:16 PM


Re: A walk in the park
anastasia writes:
Since you have dicided that bestiality is not wrong, you feel that you should force this view on others.
Nope, not what he was saying at all. He's just trying to prevent you from forcing your view on others. Other than that, you can consider it as wrong as you want to.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by anastasia, posted 08-13-2007 8:16 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by anastasia, posted 08-15-2007 12:48 PM Taz has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 141 of 170 (416166)
08-14-2007 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Archer Opteryx
08-13-2007 5:03 PM


You don't bother me
Archer Opterix writes:
It's obvious, Stile, that this choice bothers you. You have been eager to challenge me ever since over statements you imagined me making, or wish me to make, rather than thoughts I have actually shared. This is disappointing, as I took some time and trouble to share them, and many address issues in the fights you seem eager to pick.
No, the choice doesn't bother me in the slightest. In fact, all I asked was a simple question after you provided the idea. I haven't "challenged" you, nor am I eager to pick a fight. Or even an arguement. In fact, I believe it was you who thought I was trying to be a psychologist for some reason? Wasn't that so?
If you'd rather not answer the question, that's fine, I just wish you had of said so, it would have been easier than needing to guess. I'm just going to assume that you don't want to answer the question then.
However, I'll still answer the opposite question. If the professional's opinion is that the person is clinically insane, then I think they should seek out help. Whether in the form of psychology or even being institutionalized.
Archer Opterix writes:
What you have not done is explain to all of us on this board why, in the case of a minor in our care, you think seeking the advice of a professional is a bad idea.
Please do so. Provide rational support for your objection.
From my last post to you:
Stile writes:
Personally, I find bringing someone into a professional to seek help a bit out of the ordinary. Especially if having sex with a cow is the only motive for thinking they're crazy. Just like with the dirty underwear on the outside. That alone isn't much of a reason to think someone's crazy. Sure, it's a good starter, then you have a chat with them. If they're jumping around from idea to idea, seem incredibly paranoid, cannot focus, and seem very out-of-touch with reality... then yes, bringing them into a professional would be a good idea.
But it's also quite possible that they're down-to-earth, very calm, very intelligent, very productive and seem just as sane as everyone else. In this situation, why would we think a professional is even needed? Isn't it simply possible that different people find different things sexually desirable? It would seem by the obvious large variety of sexual fetishes out there... that yes, it's quite possible that perfectly sane people are capable of having differing sexual attractions.
If someone seems just as capable as any other socically productive person, what's the reason for questioning their sanity?
We want to do what's in the best interest of the minor, of course. But the main point remains: bestiality on it's own isn't a reason to think someone's insane. There are other indicators to look into for that (inability to focus, paranoia, persistant fears over minor events...)
The point is, that "happening to like one thing that most people find gross" isn't a reason to question someone's sanity. In fact, bringing someone to a psychologist only for this reason would most likely be more harmful then helpful. Especially on a minor who's likely extremely worried about how they are viewed by their peers since such an act would imply that "there's something wrong" with them.
I'm not against bringing someone in to see a professional. I just think that such people should be brought in to see professionals for the same reason they're always brought in to see professionals. That is, if they're showing multiple, persistant signs that would indicate that they're crazy.
It's a fact of life that different people like different things. There are always people who agree with a certain thing, and those who don't. People are always going to find themselves in the majority on some of the things they like, and in the minority on others.
I don't see how finding animals sexually attractive jumps from "one more thing some people like different then others" right into "we better question their sanity".
I think that questioning someone's sanity should be based on their sanity, not on their personal preferences.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-13-2007 5:03 PM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-16-2007 10:08 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 142 of 170 (416171)
08-14-2007 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by anastasia
08-13-2007 8:16 PM


Wrong motives
anastasia writes:
So you want me to feel about the same way I would if I saw a couple slobbering all over each other at a bar, or a guy mooning me, or someone's underwear left in a pubic restroom?
Yes. How is bestiality any different? Why is "a couple slobbering all over each other at a bar" simply wrong, but bestiality is "really wrong"? What makes it really wrong? What's the difference?
Yes, I know. You are concluding that bestiality is distasteful to you, but ok in general.
Since you have dicided that bestiality is not wrong, you feel that you should force this view on others.
No, you're putting me into class B here.
I'm not forcing my view on others. I'm not banging on his window and cheering him on.
I do not conclude that bestiality is distasteul to me, but ok in general.
I conclude that bestiality is distasteful to me.
That's it, end of sentence. Nothing about "in general". I have no say on what other people choose to do or not do when they're not hurting anyone, or any animal.
How am I forcing my view on others?
anastasia writes:
We can't look the other way when something really wrong is happening. You are not being sensible here. You are using your opinion that nothing very strange or wrong is going on, and judging my hypothetical reaction based on that.
You're right here, but you're confused with the motives you're applying to me.
I am judging your hypothetical reaction. But on the basis that you shouldn't be allowed to restrict anyone's freedoms. Not on the basis that I think bestiality should be okay.
This is my thinking process:
1. I think bestiality isn't for me.
2. anastasia think's bestiality isn't for her.
3. Bob likes bestiality.
4. Good, I'm happy.
Next thoughts:
1. anastasia decides she needs to stop Bob from engaging in bestiality.
2. I'm no longer happy, I need to stop anastasia from trying to stop Bob.
I want to stop you because you're trying to restrict Bob's freedom. Not because I think bestiality is okay.
The same way I would want to stop you from trying to tell Bob he can't drive a red car.
I am not forcing my view that bestiality is not wrong on you. I'm protecting Bob's freedom to do what Bob wants. Because if today you stop Bob from his acts of bestiality simply because it's "really wrong"... then tomorrow you may very well decide to stop me from living with my girlfriend before we're married because it's "really wrong". I can't allow you to stop anyone from doing anything simply because it's "really wrong". You need a rational reason. I'm not saying there isn't one, I'm just saying you haven't told me of one yet. If you do think of one, I would like to know, if it is a valid reason (that is, if Bob's act of bestiality is actually hurting someone) than I agree that we should stop him. But no one's provided a single hint that Bob's hurting anyone, or any animal. They just say he's "really wrong". Well, that's not good enough to destroy someone's freedom.
What makes bestiality really wrong? What makes you think you need to restrict Bob's bestiality freedom, but not Bob's choice of girlfriend?
In order for your obliteration of Bob's freedom to be rational, you need to answer that question, rationally.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by anastasia, posted 08-13-2007 8:16 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Dr Jack, posted 08-14-2007 11:36 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied
 Message 145 by anastasia, posted 08-15-2007 12:51 PM Stile has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 143 of 170 (416182)
08-14-2007 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Stile
08-14-2007 9:45 AM


Re: Wrong motives
What he said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Stile, posted 08-14-2007 9:45 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 144 of 170 (416366)
08-15-2007 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Taz
08-14-2007 1:15 AM


Re: A walk in the park
Tazmanian Devil writes:
Nope, not what he was saying at all. He's just trying to prevent you from forcing your view on others. Other than that, you can consider it as wrong as you want to.
What if someone were to forcibly prevent me from forcing my views on others?
You don't see that making something a 'freedom' is legitimizing it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Taz, posted 08-14-2007 1:15 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Taz, posted 08-15-2007 5:13 PM anastasia has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 145 of 170 (416367)
08-15-2007 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Stile
08-14-2007 9:45 AM


Re: Wrong motives
Stile writes:
I am judging your hypothetical reaction. But on the basis that you shouldn't be allowed to restrict anyone's freedoms. Not on the basis that I think bestiality should be okay.
Sure. I guarantee you that if you passed a house where a man was raping a woman, you would not care about freedoms, because you have determined that act to be wrong. This is not an attempt to trip you up or talk in circles, it is a plain fact that whether or not ana finds something wrong doesn't matter one bit when society makes it's determination.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Stile, posted 08-14-2007 9:45 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Stile, posted 08-15-2007 4:41 PM anastasia has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 146 of 170 (416403)
08-15-2007 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by anastasia
08-15-2007 12:51 PM


Wrong motives, again
anastasia writes:
Sure. I guarantee you that if you passed a house where a man was raping a woman, you would not care about freedoms, because you have determined that act to be wrong.
Again, you are mis-guessing the motives.
You are correct that I "have determined the act to be wrong" but I certainly do "care about freedoms". In fact, my intervention again would be soley to protect the freedom (of the woman, in this particular case).
As stated earlier in this thread, I am acting from this point of view:
All people deserve equal respect in regards to their pursuit of life and happiness.
In the case of a man raping a woman, the man has decided that the woman's pursuit to happiness is less than his own. Therefore, I decide to stop the man.
In the case of you stopping Bob, you have decided that Bob's pursuit of happiness is less than your own. Therefore, I decide to stop you.
Again, in the case of bestiality, no person's or animal's pusuit of happiness is being stopped. Bob's not restricting anyone elses freedom. He's not forcing anyone to egage in bestiality. He's not stopping anyone else from doing it. He simply decides to do it himself.
In terms of obliterating other people's freedom's, your decision to stop Bob from engaging in bestiality is equal to this man's decision to rape that woman. I will stop the man from raping the woman's freedom. And I will equally stop you from raping Bob's freedom.
This is not an attempt to trip you up or talk in circles, it is a plain fact that whether or not ana finds something wrong doesn't matter one bit when society makes it's determination.
Society's determinations don't depend on anyone's particular findings. They depend on whatever that society as a whole have agreed to use in order to live together. They should however, be based on rational reason. Rational reasons like this decision of mine:
All people deserve equal respect in regards to their pursuit of life and happiness.
If you do not agree with this statement, you can put forward your own rational basis for how to treat other people. If it's better, I'll switch to yours. Until then, I'll stick with it. And according to it, I need to stop you from stopping Bob.
If you're saying that respecting people's freedom's equally is as fair as not respecting their freedom's equally... you're going to have to give me some rational reason why that is so.
If you agree that we should respect people's freedom's equally, then you need to give me a rational reason why you don't treat Bob's freedom of Bestiality the same as Bob's freedom of girlfriend choice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by anastasia, posted 08-15-2007 12:51 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by anastasia, posted 08-15-2007 4:53 PM Stile has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 147 of 170 (416406)
08-15-2007 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Stile
08-15-2007 4:41 PM


Re: Wrong motives, again
Stile writes:
In terms of obliterating other people's freedom's, your decision to stop Bob from engaging in bestiality is equal to this man's decision to rape that woman. I will stop the man from raping the woman's freedom. And I will equally stop you from raping Bob's freedom.
In turn, raping my freedom, and thus illustrating that freedom is not the real objective. I am only free to do what you think is ok. We all suffer from that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Stile, posted 08-15-2007 4:41 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Taz, posted 08-15-2007 5:01 PM anastasia has not replied
 Message 163 by Stile, posted 08-15-2007 9:36 PM anastasia has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 148 of 170 (416409)
08-15-2007 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by anastasia
08-15-2007 4:53 PM


Re: Wrong motives, again
ana writes:
In turn, raping my freedom, and thus illustrating that freedom is not the real objective. I am only free to do what you think is ok. We all suffer from that.
Such is the price to live in a society that promotes liberty, life, and pursuit of happiness.
I'm sure you can go to another country elsewhere in the world where you are allowed to rape Bob's freedom. Don't be surprised if they also allow other people to rape your freedom as well.
Pure and simple, ana. If you want life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, you should mind your own business. People like Stile and me will do our best to make sure you won't have a right to rape someone else's freedom of their private lives. If you hate people's private lives so much, go to Iran or a myriad of other countries where people are still allowed to do honor killings and such.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by anastasia, posted 08-15-2007 4:53 PM anastasia has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 149 of 170 (416412)
08-15-2007 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by anastasia
08-15-2007 12:48 PM


Re: A walk in the park
ana writes:
What if someone were to forcibly prevent me from forcing my views on others?
You don't see that making something a 'freedom' is legitimizing it?
There are tradeoffs when you want to live in a country that promotes life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. One of those tradeoffs is that you can't violate other people's private lives. Your wanting to stop bob from having sex with his dog is the same as the anti-sodomy laws. Your stubbornness is unjust, and people like me and stile are here to remind you that your christian sense of morals are unjust.
Since empathy isn't a big thing in christianity, let me put it another way. Suppose you decide to have a kid and have sex with your husband to beget this kid. But a man, who has a different view of sex, walks by and wants to stop you from having sex to procreate. He reasons that there are plenty of children in this world are orphans and that it is "really wrong" for you to be both catholic and want to produce your own children instead of adopting a child, especially since your husband was adopted himself. How would you react? You would invariably ask yourself "should this man have any right to interfere with my procreative life?"
Look, if you're going to be stubborn about this, fine. Just don't try to rationalize your way through this. Just be stubborn and we won't bother you. We will stop you from robbing someone else's freedom in his private life. Yes, if we want to keep this society a place that promotes life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, than people like myself must prevent you from interfering with other people's private lives.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by anastasia, posted 08-15-2007 12:48 PM anastasia has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 150 of 170 (416417)
08-15-2007 5:25 PM


A note for those who are waiting for my response to your posts. I've written some responses but then deleted them. I just can't write anything that is not a repeat or simple logical extensions of what I've already said before. Like a reverend telling his flock to look in the bible for answers, I must ask you to look back to my previous posts for answers. They're all there. Stile has also been very good at reading my mind and projecting my thoughts into his posts. I have decided not to sue Stile for plagarizing my ideas.
As for the issue of consent. Everyone seems to get along with life just fine without ever considering the concept of animal consent. You've eaten chicken without ever considering whether the chicken consented to being butchered and supermarketed. You've chained down your dogs without ever considering whether the dog consented to be chained down or not.
But when it comes to someone else you've never even heard of having sex with his dog, all of the sudden animal consent is the most important part of your moral argument. Are you sure it's not the bigotry in you that's doing the talking?
One should live one's life consistent with one's principles and human reason. For those that think consent is now THE issue, I ask you to think about this again the next time you eat dinner. Are you being consistent with your moral stance or are you just using it as an excuse for your bigotry?

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Omnivorous, posted 08-15-2007 5:53 PM Taz has replied
 Message 154 by Jaderis, posted 08-15-2007 7:31 PM Taz has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024