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
Juberu at 29 Apr 2006: 12:18

Remember what I said earlier; in their mind, they've already defeated any arguement one brings up.

Interesting fact: hypnotized people, once made to do something silly, will come up with all sorts of Post Facto rationalizations for what they did. Make me wonder if the same applies here.

at 29 Apr 2006: 12:26

>>81 the exact same argument can be happily applied in the same manner towards what you are proposing. you are convinced therfore you must be right and will refuse to ponder that there could be any thing different, otherwise you could be wrong, cant have that.
ergo you are right and they are wrong and all logic shall be lost.

Janglur at 29 Apr 2006: 12:39

The simple fact is, noone has presented a counter-point yet, because noone has attempted to define consent.
Why is rational thought required for consent?  Consent is the basis of understanding of one's own desired, and expressing acceptance for it's result.
Most animals are capable of this.
Noone has yet proven that an animal is incapable of making a choice.  Only that they are not as intelligent as humans, which is irrelevant.
So i'll sit back and wait, longer, for someone to prove that animals cannot make a choice.

It should also be noted I live in a state that HAS ruled that Bestiality, while ethically questionable and obscene, does not harm the animal physically or psychologically, and that it poses minimal risk to humans.  In other words:
It's not just 'not illegal', it's fully legal.  It's gone to court and come back clean.
So you might want to be less selective about where you look at your law that you use to weakly support your case.  The law does not argue the morality of the issue anyway.
Morality is defined as a sense of right and wrong un-affected by religion, creed, upbringing, or culture.  Based on the end effects of the actions on others.  This, or ethics (see below) is what lawmakers generally consider when making laws.  And here, they have decided that it is morally acceptible, because noone is hurt in any manner.

That is what we're arguing here.  The morality.  Not the ethics or your religious beleifs:  Ethics are a pre-disposed teaching specific to religions, societies and cultures, and upbringing.  They are not legal fodder because they differ between cultures.
For example:  It is ethically wrong, by most western culture, to radically modify one's body.  For example, lip disks.  While it poses no considerable health risk, it is 'wrong' because it is not accepted by western culture traditionally.  But in many parts of the world, NOT having one is ethically wrong.
You cannot argue Ethics to justify legal decisions.  Only morals.

And noone has yet argued any point of morality besides 'inability to consent', in which consent is falsely defined as 'Verbal communication by human langauges' or 'Complex rational thought'.  Consent only requires the subject to be intelligent enough to weigh the decisions and reply yes for consent, or no for dissent.  Which animals can do.
Before you aruge this, go to your pet (if you have one) and call it to you.  It will choose to come or not.  You have witnessed rational thought.
Don't make the ignorant mistake of beleiving that rational thought must be complex.  If it was, most of your own decisions would not be rational.  "Am I hungry?  Yes?  Let's eat."  This is the precise same rationing animals perform when hungry.

So until someone can provide a valid, correctly defined argument, the issue remains in my stance that Bestiality is morally acceptible.  Just like scat, watersports, heavy bondage, and other ethically 'wrong' sexual acts that aren't illegal, because there is no moral consequence.

at 29 Apr 2006: 12:48

Lol... Self-indulgence rules.  You can only be one person in this lifetime, so you might as well enjoy it.  Morality, except where it tells entity A not to injure entity B, is generally useless.

I think >>77's point was that slaughter/injury to an animal is considered more legally acceptable than having sex with it.  You won't get years in jail for physically abusing an animal, you will if you have sex with it under some localites.  The law allows many things to be done to animals that it says are wrong to be done on humans.  Law and morality don't always go hand in hand.

So, is a horny person seeking sexual contact from another person in some form of "hypnosis" and therefore unable to give true consent?  Take the words "horny"/"sexual contact" and insert any other word that represents an instinct telling you to do something, such as "hungry"/"food", "scared"/"comfort", etc.

at 29 Apr 2006: 13:14

what follows fits well, in recent times blacks were considerd to be property and or animals in many ways and one could happily get themselves killed for "laying" with such .
 in that point and time it was considerd moral to look down on blacks, now it is considerably different.
dont automaticly assume that this is different. 

at 29 Apr 2006: 14:10

Lol, don't have sex with things that get fleas and eat there own poo.  It's not difficult.  They are inferior lifeforms that aren't even aware of there own existence.  Resorting to  having sex with them is the ultimate failure of life, when you're not good enough for you're own species and you have to go for one that you don't need to impress.

Juberu at 29 Apr 2006: 14:27

I hate to sound wanky, but continuing debate, on my part, is rather futile. I can't see either side budging.

I'm postulating that Zoos pre-form their defenses to just about any point made against them, instead of actually thinking about it.

>The simple fact is, noone has presented a counter-point yet, because noone has attempted to define consent.<
Ever hear of 'selective ignorance'? There are several point in the thread on exactly that.

Wow, straw manning like crazy. For some reason, I'm not surprised. That analogy doesn't even make sense. As I postulated earlier in the thread, desires do not equal needs. For some reason, I've never seen anyzoo explain why, if sexual desire is hardcoded into humans, why it would involve going outside the species.

And you're showing what to indicate that it's the same?  Somethings are permanently considered wrong.

at 29 Apr 2006: 14:52

didn't Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ post definitions of consent in like great detail? didn't seem very complicated to me. has any court ever ruled that an animal can consent, or did they just rule that bestiality os gross but not criminal, cause those are two different things.

at 29 Apr 2006: 14:54

>>87 its "your" belief that some things are permenantly considerd wrong - im sure there were plenty of people who thought blacks would always be property and that it was their god given right to kill them if they rebeled.
*buzzer sound* try again.

you have just as fully locked yourself into what you are postulating as any others have into their defences etc.

at 29 Apr 2006: 14:59

Animals don't have any concept of 'being used for sex'. Most animals have sex because of procreation, while there are a few species which use sex for other purposes, the majority of sex in the animal kingdom takes place for the sole purpose of reproduction.

That said, the animals typically 'used' in regards to beastiality are species which use sex for procreation. When a dog humps its owners leg, for example, it's eager to engage in sex for the purpose of reproducing. Because dogs see their owners as part of their 'pack', this behavior is perfectly naturally, especially in scenarios where the family is very small. Were the dog to have the knowledge that the sex with his owner would be in vain, because no pups would ever result, then he would seek out another sexual partner who COULD bear pups. This really applies to any species who has sex mostly for procreative purposes. Also, keep in mind that a male dog will attempt to have sex with any female dog that is in heat. If she allows it, she's receptive. If she disallows it, she is not. Were a female dog to allow a male to have sex with her, even out of heat, he would do so with the 'understanding' that she is receptive, and he would continue to do so until she disallowed it (no longer fertile).

Also, referring back to my statement regarding dogs and their seeing their owners as the pack, it's important to keep in mind that the submissive in a pack tolerates a lot of abuse from the alpha. A submissive wolf, for example, will tolerate an alpha snapping his teeth down around his muzzle, and yet he will continue to wag his tail and try to appease his alpha with licks to the muzzle and face. He tolerates this behavior because of his position in the pack...and because not tolerating it would cause an uproar in the pack, and possibly a fight (where more serious injury could occur).

So to say a dog humps your leg because he wants to engage in sex with you for the sole purpose of sexual gratification is not correct. The dog humps your leg because his biological urge, the driving force in his, and many animals' lives, is to reproduce. He sees you as a member of his pack, and as such, a potential carrier of his offspring...nothing more. He continues to hump your leg because you allow it (or rather, don't disallow it), and so he believes you to be fertile.

In regards to dogs being on 'bottom', this is something that is inexcusable. I've seen people argue that some dogs just 'like to be bottom'. Just because a dog does not growl, bite, or run away, does not mean he (or she) is willingly engaging in sex. Rather, the dog, the one lower in the pack hiearchy, is simply tolerating the behavior of his (or her) 'alpha'. Keep in mind that humping, in the canid world, is also a show of dominance. Essentially, the submissive is tolerating the alpha's display of dominance over him, and nothing more. To imply that the dog enjoys the act is ridiculous, since the dog cannot communicate such, and what communication does exsist during the act is unreliable, since, as mentioned, the submissive tolerates high levels of abuse in a pack setting without complaint, and sometimes even with eagerness or enthusiasm. By the logic being applied here (pro-beastiality), the submissive -enjoys- his muzzle being bitten and torn open by such, because he does not object, and eagerly laps at the alpha's muzzle.

Horses work in much the same way. Stallions engage in sex because they too are driven by the biological need to reproduce. They see you as members of their herd and again, as a potential partner. They continue their behavior because you allow it, whereas their real sexual partners (mares), dictate when there is sex based on their receptiveness. Also, as far as horses being bottom, horses are used to having things inserted into their genitalia...they lack the ability to understand that a penis, for example, is no different than an arm, which they are probably used to having inserted into their anus for medical purposes. To take advantage of the horse being trained to tolerate such things for medical purposes is just disturbing to me.

Now, that all said...note how I have not said whether it is moral or not. In my opinion, having sex with an animal whereupon the animal is made to be bottom, and it is not a female in season (receptive to sex), is rape...nothing more, nothing less, because of the reasons I've listed above.

Having a male animal hump you? Well, it's not rape so much as taking advantage of that animal's biological drive to reproduce, and also taking advantage of their inability to understand no offspring will result from the sexual encounter. Taking advantage of anything is wrong, but it's not rape. Is the animal emotionally scarred? No, but that certainly doesn't make it right since the animal can't consent for the reasons I've stated above. And trying to defend it is just silly. No matter how many different terms one uses, it's still utilizing an animal for your own personal gain, which is no different than, say, medical experiments on animals, or butchering animals for meat/fur. Just because the animal isn't traumatized in any way doesn't mean it's not being taken advantage of in the same way.

Juberu at 29 Apr 2006: 15:28

Do you have anything besides wordplay, convenient misinterpretations, and straw manning? Cause I'd really like to see it.

I didn't refer to racism. I'm talking of acts that are considered wrong cross-culturally. And don't try that "It's just what YOU believe" fallacy. Just because someone does or does not believe something does not make it true or untrue.

Janglur at 29 Apr 2006: 16:40

I'll ignore the relevent points and go to your first and only.  Male dogs frequently mate each other.  As do dolphins, horses, rodents, primates, apes, and elephants.
They do so out of season and incongruously with their instincts.
This indicates they are aware the act will not be procreative in nature.
Dolphins have been proven to be able to distinguish gender, and communicate it to humans, in laboratory tests.  Meaning they have understanding concept of male and female, procreation and recreation.
Dolphins in the wild are less prone to homosexual tendencies than those in captivity, due to boredom.  Furthermore, Dolphins have exhibited behavior in the wild of reduced procreational sex during times of reduces food or increased stress, indicating they are capable of contemplating the negative effects of increased population.  Or, in english, they abstain.

Nice attempt.  But arguing that animals are incapable of consent because they only perceive procreative sex, is false in many species.  Utterly false.
It is furthermore still incongruous with the definition of consent.  It still does not present facts to support that they cannot make a decision.
And most importantly, it presents no facts that harm is brought upon the animal in any way, thus making it immoral.

Please try to stay on topic with me if you're going to debate with me.  We're arguing the morality.  Whether it is harmful to the animal.  Not whether it's natural (which it is.  Google it, hundreds of pictures of inter-species mating) or whether it's ethical (because ethics vary and, intrinsically, are not to be considered in lawmaking.)

We also aren't arguing it's legality.  Because i've won that.  My state says it's morally and legally sound.
(As a mild supporting side note, the state outlaws purchase of alcohol on Sundays or during major holidays where DUI/DWI danger may increase due to higher traffic volumes.  A morally responsible law.)

Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 29 Apr 2006: 16:52

Actually that does make me feel better. ^_^

What?  You understood what I posted?  You mean it wasn't just a bunch of gibberish that apparently made me look like a judgmental prick?  Thank you sir!  A pie and ice cream to you an all your friends and family! ^_^

You are doomed my friend.  They will take a word, or perhaps a sentence, and apply their own definition to what you say.  Take my advice and save yourself the grief while you still have respect for this community.

Juberu, you are a patient man... what are you doing here still?  And never mind the irony. :p

Jangular, you baffle me sir.  I copied the definition of legal consent itself and pasted it in my post, yet you still ask for a definition?  I apologize... it is a habit of many to scroll past copious amounts of text, so these things are often missed.

Consent (as in Informed or Legal Consent): An agreement to do something or to allow something to happen, made with complete knowledge of all relevant facts, such as the risks involved or any available alternatives.

The kind of consent referred to in trials concerning, among other things, rape.  In your state, animals are, I would wager, not considered capable of consent... but sex with them is legal.  This tells me that animals amount to so little in your state, that raping them is fully legal.

Reason may be a false idol to you sir, but the laws of western cultures the world over acknowledge its existence, so I’m afraid your definition hold no legal validity... though it would be fun watching someone try such a defense in a court.  “Your honor, I deny your reality and replace it with mine!”

Janglur at 29 Apr 2006: 16:56

Again.  I am arguing the morality, not the legality.  I have already won the legality without a debate being necessary.
It's legal.  Thus, it's legal.  Can't get much more cut and dry than facts.

So please save your insults, they only serve to further weaken your position.

Morality.  Not legality.  Not ethics.
Morality.  Whether it is right or wrong on the basis that it harms someone.

DragonFlame at 29 Apr 2006: 17:03

Hahaha I love this thread. It was about time the thread name changed now its getting interesting.

Heres some thing to think about.
Lets say you have a retarded male and a normal female. If the female were to have sex with him technically it would be the same situation which you call rape. It funny tho that most people that I have talked to have said "good for them it lovely that she can love him even tho he is retarded". I have even seen movie with this in. Forest Gump has it in it. Why is this particular situation where a retarded male that cant give consent (and is actually not as smart as an animal) is social acceptable and bestiality is not. Is it because you think animals cant give consent or because they are just animals. I don’t know my self. Think it over.

Mess with your minds Ohhhhhhhh.

Janglur at 29 Apr 2006: 17:15

Very, very well said.
In a debate of this nature, one can only validly look at logic, principles, and concepts.  Ethical impressions too often end up making the entirety of arguments, making the debate unproductive.  So I ignore them until another valid argument is made, one not made on assumptions, opinions, and fallacies.

My religion forbids me to own an animal, much less have sexual relationships with it.  (Owning another creature is to say you are above all other of God's creations, and is blasphemy.)  It also forbids eating insects and certain seafood (shrimp), to damage or alter my body (peircings, tattoos), work on Saturday, eat the meat of cloven hooved animals (Pigs), to eat food prepared in an unclean way (cruel treatment of animals), or raise a fist against another living thing except in defense of my life.
These are my beleifs.  But I do not beleive they have any place in a debate.  Because they are MY religion, MY beliefs.  They are not congruous with man's intrinsic sense of morality, or even necessarily with the majority.

at 29 Apr 2006: 17:25

Why is everyone arguing about a bunch of illustrations? The vast majority of artwork here is a depiction of how the artist wishes the world was, not how it really is. No one believes that they can climb into their picture and experience that situation which is depicted. A lot of people who do zoo art probably wish they could experience that situation as the animal or as the person, but they know it is not a real and true representation of life. It is a fantasy that will never come true and as long as everyone understands that, then there is no harm.

Janglur at 29 Apr 2006: 17:33

Somewhat, I agree.

It would not fit my moral argument for a man to try to lay with, mm, say... a lion.  It would bring HIM harm.  Which, though his choice, would harm others in the sense that his friends and loved ones would be hurt emotionally.

at 29 Apr 2006: 17:44

>>91 the refernce was to what is at the base of discusions like this ---->what you or anyone believes<---- it shapes what you say and what you do. it becomes apparent that you cannot open the blinders far enough to see beyond what you are trying to say.
the point you made was valid when seen from inside your world space. i acknowledge your thinking in this commentary yet so far you have chosen to use a carefull dodgeing of reasonble logic as a way to simply say im wrong,  so thereby  I find that your words loose value.

Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 29 Apr 2006: 18:42

Ah, so that’s how that works.  Well as ever, sex without consent is rape, and apparently, raping animals is legal where you come from.  Get to that then, and trouble yourself with my words no more, which don’t apply to you it would seem.

Whoa, I must admit this shocked me.  I heard of a similar situation locally once where a man had sex with a woman who had so much brain damage that she couldn’t speak properly.  He was charged with assault, and settled out of court for a lesser sentence, which included a restraining order.  He was hospitalized not long after by the victim’s brother who attacked him, and he dropped the charges for some reason before moving.  I never found out if he had harmed the woman or not, but it caused a bit of debate for a few weeks.

The laws where you are seem much more forgiving than they are here.  At best, if someone’s intelligence were so damaged as to be reduced to animal level, I can’t imagine anyone allowing them to be taken advantage of sexually.  On the other hand, I know a man with reduced IQ if you will.  He’s a nice enough sort, though he needs a bit of extra explaining.  He attends classes at the university and studies astronomy, though it is a special class that runs longer semesters with less students.  Nonetheless, he has a girlfriend, and indeed she has been looked upon as somewhat charitable, which I find a bit moving in a sorrowful way.

On the other hand, if you were to say he has no more intelligence than an animal, you would hurt his feelings greatly.  While it takes him longer to learn than the average measure, he does learn, and understands what is going on around him with sufficient clarity.

What I don’t understand is why I was considered to have failed for involving the delicate trouble of children when discussing consent, as it is largely on behalf of children that informed sexual consent needed to be developed for courts.  I suppose it involves some logical fallacy of course, or another large, important sounding word that carries lots of force... but I see little complication in linking, at least, your example of the mentally deficient with a young, mentally underdeveloped child...

at 29 Apr 2006: 19:05

I will weigh in here and say difintively, that if an animal doesn't want to have sex, he/she will very much let you know.  With animals, it's about timing. 

1)  A human male is attempting to have sex with a female horse.  The mare may or may not be in season but she refuses his advances anyway by moving away from whatever he's trying to do under her tail.  The human procedes to use restraints (halter, tiedowns, hobbles, etc.) on the horse and has sex with her anyway. 

This is clear cut and dry.  It's rape of an animal.

2)  A human male is attempting to have sex with a female horse.  The horse may or may not be in season, but she does not refuse his advances.  In fact, the mare only tries to push herself back onto the human in whatever he's doing, or stands quietly with tail raised and allows the male to finish the sex act.  The mare is never restrained in any way and is at all times free to move away from the human.

This is not rape and an indication of consent.

3)  A human male is attempting to have sex with a female dog.  If the dog doesn't want it, she will bite, struggle, or otherwise indicate that she is not willing to participate.

End morality examples.

Legal ramblings:

Texas is very lenient on such laws.  IANAL, but I did read the state statute on this.  One can only be prosecuted for a misdemenor cruelty to animals and only then if a person makes a complaint against the perpetrator.  Therefore it's legal for a person to have sex with his/her own animals, unless he/she files a complaint against him/her self.  To my knowledge, there are no laws in Texas forbidding the posession of bestial porn unless it involves a child, and that's a whole other ball of wax that does not fall within the scope of this thread. 

For the record, I abhorr child pornography and pedophiles.  I was abused as a child.  I've survived it.  Bestiality does not bother me in the least.  My first sexual experince ever was with a horse, and if you wish to get technical, I've had more sex with animals than humans.  If farmer Brown wants to bang his sheep instead of his wife, that's not my problem as long as neither the farmer, nor the sheep get hurt.

Interspecies sex is not uncommon outside of the human species.  It's more common than most would like to believe.  Bestiality (human sex with animals) is also much...much more common than most would like to admit.

Janglur at 29 Apr 2006: 19:19

1)   Agreed.
2)   Agreed.
3)   Agreed.

I think the argument speaks for itself at this point.  Noone can yet say how it hurts the animal if there is no force involved.

Juberu at 29 Apr 2006: 19:25

>"They do so out of season and incongruously with their instincts.
This indicates they are aware the act will not be procreative in nature.<
What, did you ask them?

I have no idea. Probably Masochism.

And I "believe" that you keep using logical fallacies. In this case, ad hominem. I also made the point, earlier, that one's belief in a given statement has jack-all to do with the validity of said statement. I will acknowledge readily that belief may inform one's argument.

Please give one or more examples of logic-dodging I have done. Please.

2) That's exactly what's under debate here.
It's also mildly ironic that Texas, of all states, is lenient on the matter.

104Report (sage)
Juberu at 29 Apr 2006: 19:26

Lack of force=consent? Did I miss a memo?

Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 29 Apr 2006: 19:27

As mush as it seems popular to demonize me and those like me, I would plead for this bit of understanding at least.  This is a rather big step for me to come in here and remain civil on the matter.  Whether you agree with me or not, I consider those who practice bestiality to be a tiny step removed from pedophiles for almost all of the same reasons.  Every admission is like a vile stab of something I consider extremely evil.  I react in a similar manner to those who cut a cat's head in half and then post a picture for all to see... it's a horrid thing.

I'm trying to understand... really I am.  I want to know why so many people are not only apparently doign this, but neigh celebrating it!  When I hear talk of love, I see the creepy, sadistic psychos who claim the same thing about their lusts for children.  When I hear talk about the consent of silence, I think of an animal who would let you put a gun to its head and pull the trigger.  None of this seems reasonable in the slightest, yet I am trying to understand, and also, I am trying to find a basis for... your understanding.

Now... I see a lot of claims that informed consent doesn't matter, and that animal instinct can be defined as fully rational consent, or, that the rationality of the second involved is irrelevant.  I must admit that every instance of this blatant dodging of the only point that I care about it maddening, but the taunting that follows, attacking my morality and judgement, and labeling me as closed minded... it goes beyond mere hypocrisy, because again, I feel if something akin to pedophiles are mocking me for being the "true" enemy!

All of this will amount to shit I suppose, but there you have it.  A "judgemental prick" trying to figure out how the subject of his hatred ticks in a vague attempt to see if, perhaps, it is I who have been wrong all along.  So far, I've been mocked, I've had my words butched and thrown back in my face in some puerile word game, and I've had my moral values spat upon and been likened to an ignorant thing.

Have I really wasted my time?

Janglur at 29 Apr 2006: 19:41

Basically, yes.

See, cutting a cat's head off harms it.  Bestiality, non-forced, does not.

Making stark comparisons does not validate your argument.

Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 29 Apr 2006: 19:46

Okay sure.

I don't suppose I can get an answer from someone other than Janglur?

Janglur at 29 Apr 2006: 19:53

I think i'm the only one who's still arguing.  Everyone else who isn't interested in actually proving it one way or the other have left.

I'm still waiting for someone to try to teach me how it's wrong.

Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 29 Apr 2006: 19:58


And I'm still trying to figure out how informed consent seems irrelevant.  I suppose if I just discount complications I can rationalize anything... but that isn't how things work.  Still, I'll try again I suppose.

Your way of pointing out how pointless rational consent is involves the law.  It's legal where you are.  Well, dog fights are legal in Thailand.  Doesn that make them right over there, or is it still wrong?

Janglur at 29 Apr 2006: 20:00

Perhaps you missed my obvious previous statements.

Morality.  Not legality.

Still awaiting the answer.  'How is it wrong'?

Juberu at 29 Apr 2006: 20:01

Neither does begging the question.

Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 29 Apr 2006: 20:04


Look mate, the morality is that sex without consent is rape.  Do I need to explain how rape is wrong, or can I at least have THAT as a given?

Janglur at 29 Apr 2006: 20:09

Animals have displayed the ability to consent.

Sex with consent is not rape.

It's obvious at this point I will have to argue with myself.  So let me begin.

at 29 Apr 2006: 20:10

I can't believe I'm getting involved in this issue...

What if you were asleep nakid and a dog were to mount you in your sleep. Would you still be raping the misinformed dog?

115Report (sage)
at 29 Apr 2006: 20:13

Yeah, I'd say you wasted your time.  Arguing on the internet is rarely ever productive, especially when the vast majority of those involved seem to be ill-informed, under-educated and generally incapable of engaging in anything vaguely resembling intelligent debate. 

It's an amusing read though, I suppose.  In that sad sort of 'humanity is doomed to devolve into a species of morons' sort of way... 

Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 29 Apr 2006: 20:18


You're creating your own definition of consent.  Can I at least have an instance... some example where anyone with any sort of academic credibility has ever defined animals as capable of the kind of consent that actually defines rape?  You like to discout the entire legal system as somehow being totally irrelevant, and you refuse to discuss that.  You haven't even remotely shown how the legal and moral systems are so completely exclusive that they have no possibility of baring on each other.  What I happen to be discussing is both a moral AND legal matter.

So it's legal where you are.  Again, it's legal to host a dog fight in thailand.  The point of that being that laws don't make it right.  Just because it's legal where you are doesn't mean you're somehow right to do it.  It does, rather, indicate that animals have absolutely no, or very little autonomy where you live.

Every time I mention that, your response is "Nope, that doesn't matter, everything you say therefore doesn't matter".  How does dismissing what I say without challenge constitute anything even kin to a valid argument?

Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 29 Apr 2006: 20:21


Well, at least some good is coming from this then...


What?  Worry about the fringe cases and acceptions after some grounds at least have been established.  Sheesh... what if I get hit by a meteor right now?  Jeez, I guess I'd be killed.

Janglur at 29 Apr 2006: 20:32

(AntiB = Anti bestiality.  Pro B = Pro-bestiality.  Clar = Clarification needed for logical argument to continue.)

AntiB:  Bestiality is wrong.
Clar:  Define 'Wrong'.
Clar:  Wrong is defined as morally unacceptible actions.
Clar:  Define 'Morality'
Clar:  Morality is the basis of acceptible or unacceptible actions based on the sum of the effects of actions upon another living thing.
ProB:  What is immoral about it?
AntiB:  It is unethical/against my religion/against my beleifs.
Clar:  Subjective personal views.  Invalid response.
AntiB:  It is rape.
ProB:  How is it rape?
AntiB:  Animals cannot consent.
Clar:  Definition:
Acceptance or approval of what is planned or done by another; acquiescence. See Synonyms at permission.
Agreement as to opinion or a course of action: She was chosen by common consent to speak for the group.)
Clar:  Define 'Acquiescence'
Clar:  Definition:
Passive assent or agreement without protest.
The state of being acquiescent. )
ProB:  Animals can display lack of consent through hostility, violence, verbal or physical resistance.  Acquiescence is present when such behavior is not displayed.
AntiB:  Animals are not intelligent enough to consent.
ProB:  Animals are able to display sexual desires unprompted and unqueued.  Animals are able to display choice.  Animals are able to display acquiescence.
AntiB:  Consent is not possible with higher thought or intelligence.
Clar:  Define 'intelligence'
Clar:  Definition:
The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.)
ProB:  Many animals are capable of learning and applying knowledge.  Primates and dolphins and apes can even communicate with humans on their level.  They are all able to display emotion.  They are capable of quantifying and abstract thought.  The requirements for intelligence have been met.
AntiB:  A child is too, but cannot consent.
Clar:  A child is capable of consent.  They are only legally restricted.  Argument invalid.
AntiB:  A retarded person is incapable of consent.
Clar:  Depending on degree of retardation, consent is capable.  They are only legally restricted.  Argument invalid.
ProB:  Additional suppositive reply:  A retarded man should still be able to choose for their own happyness if no harm occurs.
AntiB:  Neither the mentally handicapped nor animals are capable of making decisions informedly to prevent self-damage.
Clar:  Possibly true, situational.  AntiB is assuming all retardation results in loss of logic function.
ProB:  Guidance is necessary to prevent damage.  Agreed.  But Bestiality does not harm or damage them in any way.
AntiB:  Raping a child is wrong.  Raping a retard is wrong.
Clar:  Invalid statement.  Solely 'shock' value.  Rape is defined by consent and repurcussions.  Statements are not alligned with situation outlined in Bestiality of acquiescent consent without forceful or coercive methods or restraints.

(HERE is where all arguments on this board ended.  I go on to argue my own internal dissent to bestiality:)

AntiB:  It is socially/mentally damaging to underage humans to engage in sexual behavior.
ProB:  Underage humans are not animals.  Underage humans are harmed by social stigmas, ethical rejection and ostracization, and conflicting taught knowledge.  Animals lack social structures of this nature and cannot be mentally anguished or emotionally damaged, as animals do not ostracize or persecute for such acts.  Animals lack complex ethical structures.
Clar:  No further rebuttals conceived for either side.  End debate.  AntiB failed to prove how Bestiality is damaging.

Draw your own conclusions.

The best argument i've heard so far is from a friend that it may be immoral on the grounds that disease could transmit from animal to man, or vise versa, via the form of mutation.
The best and almost only morality argument thus far.  This is still invalid, however, because the transmission is often possible without physical contact, much less sexual.  It would be no different from a child sharing icecream with her dog.
Furthermore, human disease transmission is much more common.  Even with no known identified diseases, new diseases occur periodically which prevent prior knowledge to make such rational decisions even in humans.
Which further supports that ignorance does not invalidate consent.  Consent is situational in humans.  Thus it is in animals.

I am unable to convince myself it is wrong.
I am also unable to convince myself it is right.

The purpose of a debate is to inform others of ideas, and to convince one party of the others' views.
I still welcome any who would like to attempt this.

Janglur at 29 Apr 2006: 20:39

I have not stated this.  I am arguing morality.  You argue that, because it is legal or illegal, it is right or wrong.
Legality is not intrinsic in many cases with morality.
In Georgia, all sodomy is illegal.  Consenting or not.  Punishable as a form of assault.
In Alabama, it is illegal to have ice-cream in your pocket.
These are clearly not immoral acts.  As such, legality only adds a complexity which serves only to obfuscate the issue being debated.

If you desire to discuss a legal debate, you are wasting your time.  I am not arguing such, and even if I were, it is legal where I live.  Argument ended.
I don't see why you have such a difficult time removing obstructive facts unsupporting of your argument, or why you insist on arguing legality rather than morality.  I see these as clearly admitting inability to argue the issue due to lack of content or personal refusal to accept foreign concepts.

So let's start again, more simply, like in my mock-debate.

Simple question, simple answer.

What makes Bestiality wrong?

Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 29 Apr 2006: 20:51


What?  Are you serious?  Well, I should like to meet this Clar fellow.  The most adept minds have spent thousands of years attempting to define morality, and here he did it in a neet little sentence that could have only taken a few seconds to write!  Awesome!

That, or, you know, it's a personal view, and thus invalid.

I've taken philosophy.  If you want to get existential, you can't even prove that I exist... or anything but yourself for that matter.  Assumption is required in order to function, and logical assumptions are those generated by observation and rational thought.  Whether animals have intelligence or not has never been disputed.  They aren't rocks or anything.  What my point is, and ever has been, is that they lack sufficient intelligence to be capable of informed consent, and informed consent is required for sex to not be rape.  Non-coessential  sex is legally defined as rape.

And why is it necessary to prove that it is damaging in order to prove that the motives are depraved?  All I would have to do for that is to show a thought process that disregards the autonomy of the second subject before making decisions to benifit the self.

"A child is capable of consent.  They are only legally restricted.  Argument invalid."

Okay seriously, your third little dude on the shoulder just said that the only thing that makes sex with children wrong is the law.  You've just, in a "logical" (to you) manner, decided that there's nothing morally reprehensible about sex with children.  Now, I'm sure Janglur isn't saying that, because that would be wrong, but this makes me reconsider what I've said about fictional character Clar.  Clar is an extremely terrible entity, and I'm glad he doesn't exist.

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.