Morality of bestiality (Was: End bestiality on Fchan!)

Pages:1 41 81 121 161 201 241 281 321 361 401 441 481 521 561 601 641 681 721 761 801 841 881 921 961 1001
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 27 May 2006: 16:45


Man... I don't have a problem with people doing crap to their animals, I just have a problem with the "I'm noble for doing it" attitude that keeps popping up. If you were THAT concerned about making sure animals would happy, you'd have gone to the animal shelter and bought some animals that were about to be put down instead of buying a computer and coming to a wank site. If you think what you're doing has actually crossed the bounds of being amoral, then you're either lying, or deluding yourself. At best, having sex with animals is harmless and not hurting anything, not an actual virtue.

WTF? So what, I jay walk and litter, so it's okay for you to vandalize? Jesus dude, that wouldn't even make it okay to jaywalk or litter. Ad hominem much there buddy?

Something else to worry about though, which has been largely ignored as far as I can see. Brought up, eluded to, but never answered: Can something that doesn't hurt anyone still be morally wrong?

If so, then bestiality could still be wrong, if not, then that's all you need to prove is that you aren't hurting the animal (signifigantly anyway, knock it off you "technically, everything hurts the animal" types).

So... can anyone come up with an example of something that doesn't physically or mentally harm someone or something, that is still wrong to do?  Hypotheticals welcome and all, this is a moral discussion after all.

1003Add Reply This thread is threadstopped. You can't reply anymore.

Powered by: Shiichan Version 3956
The contents of this page are asserted to be in the public domain by the posters.
The administrators claim no responsibility for thread content.