|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is Bestiality Wrong? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5952 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Taz writes: Throwing out anything that you can cook up to support what you already admitted is something you're going to be stubborn about no matter what isn't going to be helpful, especially your cause on the matter. Taz, sometimes it is good to look at things rationally. Is there any rational reason to have sex with animals? Is there any really good empirical way to prove that it is a licit behaviour for humans? For the record, I thought Archer had a good point in general, but I also pointed out what you did about sanity. Read the whole thing. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5952 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Stile writes: What I have a problem with is anastasia saying bestiality is wrong for anyone else, and her only basis for saying so is "it's wrong for anastasia". If you aren't trying to say that bestiality is wrong for others. Than we really have nothing to discuss. If you do say that... what gives you the right to tell other people how to live their lives where no one else is affected? You know you don't have the right to tell me if I can wear green shoes or blue shoes. So why do you think you have the right to tell me I can't have sex with a cow? In both scenarios, no other people are affected. Stile, I don't think everyone must follow my personal standards, but all of us have a double standard. We have laws which say yes, all of us need to follow certain standards, but then we pick and choose which standards they will be. I could have a rational basis for telling you what to wear, and I DO have a rational basis for what I believe about bestiality. I can't control you, of course, but instead of telling me nothing is wrong with bestiality, give me a reason why it is useful.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
quote: No, what you see is your own ingrained prejudices, and those of those around you brought to the fore. I think that is overrated. I can't remember many times where the subject of beastiality has ever come up in part of the discussion. But when it did, everyone seemed disgusted by it, and wondered just how disturbed the (wo)man must be in order to bring themselves to do it. If you, on the other hand, are assured that its merely a cultural influence, would you allow for you wife, son, or daughter to have sex with animals? "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
anastasia writes: I can't control you, of course, but instead of telling me nothing is wrong with bestiality, give me a reason why it is useful. It is useful because some people gain pleasure from it, and hurt no one else in the process. But, I'm not even saying it's "useful". I'm saying it's "not wrong". So, if you're actually saying it is wrong, why do you say that? I'm saying I don't have the right to tell other people what to do when they aren't hurting any other person, or any other animal, or any other being. IF you are saying we should tell them not to engage in bestiality, what is your rational reason for saying that? I say "if", because you haven't actually said that you want to restrain others. In fact, your thoughts like this one:
Stile, I don't think everyone must follow my personal standards... ...imply that you don't think we should stop others from being involved in bestiality. If that's what you do think, then I really have no problem with anything you've said so far. Again, the only thing I have a problem with is if you want to stop others from being involved in bestiality. And if you want to do that, what is your rational reason? Why do you think you should be able to stop someone from having sex with a cow, but not have a say if they want to plant tomatoes in their garden?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
What difference does it make that I wouldn't or wouldn't? All that would tell you is whether or not I'm prejudiced.
As it happens, my girlfriend does engage in sexual practices I find pretty disgusting (not bestiality!). But she does so with the informed consent of all involved, enjoys it and no one gets harmed. Why would whether I am disgusted by it or not be a relevant factor? So, once again, Bestiality is an issue of animal welfare and public health - nothing more.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
What difference does it make that I wouldn't or wouldn't? All that would tell you is whether or not I'm prejudiced. Or you refuse to answer the question because you understand fully the implications involved. Why not just answer the question, instead of answering a question with a question, which is no answer at all?
As it happens, my girlfriend does engage in sexual practices I find pretty disgusting (not bestiality!). I noticed you stated this emphatically and with an exclamation point, no less. You seemed to make a point of letting us all know that your illustration was not about beastiality. What are you concerned about if it is not immoral?
Bestiality is an issue of animal welfare and public health - nothing more. Ever seen a dog humping a persons leg? Suppose a female human allows for a male dog to copulate with her. Is the issue really about the welfare of the animal, since he seems more than willing, of his own volition, to do so? Do you acquire consent from an animal right before you eat it? Do you acquire consent from a cow before you drink her milk? Do acquire consent from her when you wear leather? Probably not. Therefore, the issue is not with the well-being of the animal. There is something inherent in man that says such practices are taboo. I never learned that through prejudice, because no one ever had to inform me that beastiality is squalid. I figured that out without any help from anyone else. Why then is it so universally unaccepted? "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3597 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Stile: And what if the professional's opinion was simply that nothing was going on, nothing was wrong, and your teenager only enjoyed having sex with a Great Dane? Is that your professional opinion? But you haven't even interviewed the teenager! Your procedure is highly unprofessional, doctor. A professional psychologist would insist on conducting at least one personal interview before issuing a pronouncement of any kind. It's unethical to do otherwise. But wait--maybe you're not a professional. Your profile identifies you as a 'controls engineer.' Do you help people write their wills, too?
Lots of things seem "abnormal". Yes, some are from crazy folk. But plenty are not. That's the whole problem, isn't it? Figuring out if bestiality is a part of "crazy folk" or just something some people do differently than others. It can be difficult for us amateurs, yes. That's why, in real life, I don't expect amateurs to figure it out. This is a complex area of human behaviour. I call someone with expertise. You are entitled to your unprofessional opinion, though, of course. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Archer Opterix writes: Stile writes: And what if the professional's opinion was simply that nothing was going on, nothing was wrong, and your teenager only enjoyed having sex with a Great Dane? Is that your professional opinion? But you haven't even interviewed the teenager! Um... it's not an opinion. It's a question. Why do you think I'm stating a fact? It starts with an obvious "And what if..." and finishes with a question mark.
Archer Opterix writes: It can be difficult for us amateurs, yes. That's why, in real life, I don't expect amateurs to figure it out. This is a complex area of human behaviour. I call someone with expertise. Yeah, I agreed with that part. And my question remains, unanswered by you: What if the professional's opinion was simply that nothing was going on, nothing was wrong, and your teenager only enjoyed having sex with a Great Dane? Or are you trying to say that it's impossible for a sane, socially productive person to also have a sexual fondness for animals? I'll even change my stance to this, if it pleases you: "As long as the person is clinically sane, bestiality should be considered okay for them to participate in". The same as we don't allow clinically insane people to go around propositioning other humans for sex. Now, again, what's your objection? Because, as I stated before: If you actually have a rational reason why negative results are unavoidable when engaging in bestiality, I'd like to know about them. No one (including you) has been able to identify any, yet. Until then, I'm going to assume that you don't have a rational reason, and you're just making this up because you find it "gross".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
quote:Please address the position held by your opponent and not judge their refusal to answer personal questions. Keep it academic. Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread. Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout. Thank you
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3597 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Stile: it's not an opinion. Very well.
Now, again, what's your objection? I never made an objection. If I had, you would hardly have to ask for one, would you? I have discussed what I would do in a real life situation.
If you actually have a rational reason why negative results are unavoidable when engaging in bestiality, I'd like to know about them. Invalid premise. I never said negative results are unavoidable when engaging in bestiality.
No one (including you) has been able to identify any, yet. Invalid conclusion. I offered no defence of an assertion I never made. A conclusion about my 'ability' on that basis is irrational.
Until then, I'm going to assume that you don't have a rational reason, and you're just making this up because you find it "gross". You might want to go easy on those sweeping dismissals. You've done plenty of assuming already, and 'rational reasons' are lacking in more areas than you've considered. In the case of the teen, I would still contact a professional. ___ Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
That story was interesting and eloquently told.
I enjoyed it. BUT I think your argument is flawed. When does abnormality become a psychosis of some sort? Who decides? There was a time not all that long ago where unmarried mothers and gay men would have met with exactly the sort of treatment you are espousing for bestialists. Isn't that which is considered mad and that which is considered acceptable deviation from the norm wholly dependant on the prevailing culture of the time and place?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
delete content
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given. "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I have been pondering the question of bestiality and have come to the conclusion that rationally bestiality is immoral.
I realise that this is somewhat contradictory to many of my earlier posts where I have accepted the rational arguments that conclude that there is no rational basis for considering bestiality immoral (despite recognising some emotional misgivings) I also realise that this new stance will trigger off a stream of derision from my fellow moral relativists. So let me explain myself. Let’s go back to the root of the problem. On what rational basis should we consider something immoral?I, and I think the majority of moral relativists, would consider anything that harms another person or stands in the way of others enjoying the same freedom to pursue happiness that we expect for ourselves to be immoral. This is pretty general and sweeping but the exact details are not important. The gist seems pretty universal amongst moral relativists. From this we can derive that activities between consenting adults should not be considered immoral. No one is harmed and the general outcome is happiness for the individuals concerned. Gay sex, straight sex, oral sex, S & M etc. etc. are all examples of consenting sexual activities.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. For this reason paedophilia should be considered immoral. By this criteria sex with a brain-dead or comatose individual should also be considered immoral. Consent, and the ability to give it, is very much the KEY criteria when it comes to sex. By these principles bestiality would very much fall into the category of immoral. Without question. In response to this it has been quite rightly pointed out that we treat animals in all sorts of ways that we would not treat humans without ever considering the issue of consent or morality. This is indisputably true.Rationally it would therefore seem hypocritical to suddenly treat sex any differently. THEREFOREWe have rationally managed to determine that bestiality is rationally not immoral? Rational thought also suggests that sex without consent or with those unable to give consent should be considered immoral Animals cannot give consent so obviously there is some irrationality going on somewhere. The question is where? This is the crux of the matter. The questions boils down to WHY we treat animals differently? Why is it that the founding moral principles of harm and consent apply to persons but not to animals. Not just sexually but in every way. Is this based on conscious thought? Self awareness?No. We have already concluded that sex with a brain dead or comatose humans is immoral. What about the potential for consciousness and self awareness? Well would it be any more acceptable even if we knew the brain dead individual in question would definitely never recover? I don’t think it would. The fact is that we treat animals in rationally unjustifiable ways. By heaping rationality on top of this irrationality in order to abandon the founding concept of consent we are not coming to a rational conclusion regarding bestiality. Rationally bestiality is wrong because animals cannot consent to sex. Irrationally we disregard the founding principles of our morality when it comes to animals. We are irrationally specieistic For this argument to be wrong I think someone would have to demonstrate why it is rationally acceptable to disregard notions of harm and consent on animals whilst maintaining them in cases of humans incapable of consciousness. Your thoughts appreciated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3978 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
Straggler writes: If it makes it safer and therefore more acceptable a law could be passed allowing only protected sex with animals. Maybe even 'bestial brothels' with only clean livestock. Does that help? Mustang Ranch? Real things always push back. -William James Save lives! Click here!Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC! ---------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
I will respond to everyone in another couple days or so. I'm giving ample time for some people to calm down.
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!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024