Is Bestiality Wrong?

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. From my last post to you: 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.

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? 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? 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.

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. 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.

Okay, aside from the sillyness that this leads us into (such as me being free to steal your kids), let's try to walk through this.Do you agree that some freedoms must be restricted? I mean, if not, I'm free to steal your kids, right? So I'm going to assume you don't believe this ridiculous position that your quote implies.So, if some freedoms must be restricted, how do we rationally decide which ones? Since there is nothing to tell us if any person's subjective feelings are better than any other person's, I suggest that we should treat the situation as fairly as possible.I propose that everyone should be treated equally with respect to their freedom to life and pusuit of happiness.Do you propose that certain people's freedoms to life and happiness shouldn't be as important as others? Because your quote certainly strongly implies that you do. How do you decide who's subective view is better than anothers? Do you just selfishly decide that your subjective view should be taken over everyone elses? How do you rationally defend that?You can rationally defend that "what anastasia says" should be taken as morally right. But, well, you're pretty much forced to throw out any notion of human equality or fairness. Personally, I find such ideals to be very important.But this is starting to get away from "is bestiality okay." I have stated that I think it's okay because I think we should treat beings equally. I now seem to be defending why "treating beings equally" should actually be considered "good". Such a chat should probably be done elsewhere.

Okay, I'll create another thread so we can go through this and not derail the focus of this topic.

I'm just going to skip all your junk about me "being this" or "never considering that". I'm here to talk about issues, not reduce a debate to a grade-school, mud-slinging arguement.Let's look for issues in your long Message 166: Um... it's irrational to question someone's sanity by observing... their sanity??You go on to say: And I completey agree with this. Because, as you seem to do a lot, you're assuming I'm saying something I've clearly stated otherwise on. "Questioning someone's sanity based on their sanity" does not mean "demand someone be demonstrably insane before questioning their psychological health." Why would you think the two are even comparable?All it means is that there should be at least some indication that someone is crazy before anyone starts assuming they need to see a psychologist. That is, some indication beyond "they like one thing I personally dislike."But I see where the problem is. I'm trying to talk about bestiality in general, you're trying to talk about bestiality with a minor in your care.As with anything with a minor in someone's care, the situation is different. I see nothing socially wrong with you bringing a minor in your care to see a psychologist everyday, or just when they show signs of bestiality, or just when you see they like anything else you don't like. As far as I'm concerned, you should be able to raise your kids the way you best see fit. And I agree that seeing a psychologist isn't abusing them in anyway, and can very much help them (in a multitude of areas), and should never be deemed "a bad idea". However, this doesn't stop the fact that teens are socially crazy, and their peers are most likely going to place that label of "something's wrong" on them. But this would go on a case-to-case basis as well.All I'm saying is that it's not right for you to attempt to force a stranger to see a psychologist for the simple reason that the stranger likes something you happen to dislike. Excellent. I think we agree, then. Bestiality should be considered socially acceptable.