https://nitter.net/PeterSinger/status/1722440246972018857

No, the art does not depict bestiality, don't worry.

  • BeamBrain [he/him]
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is why most bestiality laws (and animal cruelty laws, for that matter) read something like "you can't fuck or mutilate animals, unless it's for a farming purpose".

    Well OBVIOUSLY that doesn't count because flails arms wildly

      • BeamBrain [he/him]
        ·
        1 year ago

        Carnists stop misrepresenting our arguments challenge (rating: impossible)

      • Sephitard9001 [he/him]
        ·
        1 year ago

        Getting sexual gratification from an act is not the crime here lol. Is this protestant brainworms or something? If now on starting tomorrow via some magical means, all humans started orgasming after biting into a steak, would it then now suddenly be morally wrong to consume steak?

          • Sephitard9001 [he/him]
            ·
            1 year ago

            Find a better argument other than "Torturing and exploiting animals is okay as long as you're not horny while doing it"

              • Sephitard9001 [he/him]
                ·
                1 year ago

                The thread was somebody defending insemination of livestock, or at least trying to draw a distinction between bestiality and insemination because it is done to farm them rather than for sexual pleasure. My argument is that your intentions do not matter. Is the harm mitigated because you weren't horny while doing it? Why is it more important to view the crime through the lens of the perpetrator rather than through the lens of the victim in this scenario? It's a distinction without a difference.