Literally everything, even the most baby brained shit, you should ask why we do or do not do it. If you don't have an answer past "because it's wrong" you don't have a set of ethics and morals, just gut impulses and whatever you were taught was normal growing up.
uhhhh that's just (unfortunately) very well-documented to be false. like, extremely well documented.
edit: also that's an incomprehensible answer to the question. why would something being impossible make it wrong? I don't think it would be morally wrong to sidestep through the 8th dimension to get to work faster
i guarantee someone would have a moral stance against teleportation if it existed. but it doesn't so i don't very much care to speculate.
but handfuls of unverified and whispered-about videos doesn't constitute 'extreme' documentation, i'd welcome an actual study proving there's more than dozens of actual bestia--uh--tists? and a widespread occurrence of the act, but i know of no such studies and no opinions on it that aren't painted by the cultural baggage attached
it's akin to people wingsuit flying through a suspension bridge and getting cheese-grated, there's certainly footage of it and it was a bad idea but i don't think it's a very pressing concern for most people
so, bestiality is wrong because you can't do it, in other words it's impossible. therefore the people who have done it on video are evil because they're doing something impossible.
my op was 99.99%, that is not absolute, i was never making an absolute rule, my claim is that discourses about bestiality are mostly talking about the imaginary and fetishes but failing to recognize that. the article/tweet we're talking about is a thinly disguised sexual fantasy with no interface with material reality. and people itt are conflating that with the extraordinarily rare real world acts, that are nothing like that sexual fantasy.
in the 'article' they're imagining a consensual sexual relationship with a dog, which the dog consents to. this is impossible not just from a dog's faculty to consent, but because dogs do not experience sexual attraction to humans. if a male dog has ever fucked people, which i seriously doubt, it'd be through transparently nonconsensual training or something. it's not a real argument or a real situation, and i think it's silly when people give it the airs of a moral debate
if a male dog has ever fucked people, which i seriously doubt
ok, so you're just talking from a position of ignorance. when i say this is extremely well-documented, i mean that there used to be a subreddit called /r/sexwithdogs where people were posting hundreds of videos of precisely this.
it'd be through transparently nonconsensual training or something
this is true, yeah, you have to groom animals for stuff like this, just like any other vulnerable party.
if a male dog has ever fucked people, which i seriously doubt, it'd be through transparently nonconsensual training or something.
When I was growing up, we had a family dog that was constantly humping legs. This isn't a defense, mind, since "but they made the first move" isn't any more justifiable with animals than it is with children, but it does happen.
i think it's a long way from leg-hump (which isn't sexual in all situations, it's often about dominance) to fucking an animal with incompatible morphology, wrong pheromones, and incorrect behavior
First, right off the bat, you can and I've seen it. With that out of the way, you're not addressing if it is moral or not. Morality is about what it is right or wrong to do, not what is possible to do. If I could, with a sweep of my hand, either kill every poor person in the US or slaughter every millionaire, then there is a moral reason why I should perform the latter and not the former.
Because if you’re too undesirable to fuck your fellow species, you don’t get to just move on to the next species. You either fuck a non-living sex toy produced in a factory or don’t fuck anything and live with it.
Also there has not been a single normal human being who’s been exposed for bestiality. Usually they’re serial killers, abusers, pedophiles, and so on. So not a lot of good representatives in the Animal Sex Having population
Your first argument is restating the concept, not presenting why it is wrong. It's tautological. Actually it's a little worse than tautological, it sneaks in a motive. If someone was desirable and had sex with humans, would it be okay? I don't think you or I think that.
The antecedent to it was bestiality. You know, the thing we were talking about. You said people can't fuck animals because if they can't fuck humans they can't fuck animals. This not only didn't answer the question, but added unnecessary and potentially wrong information. If someone was fucking humans, could they fuck animals? Is not having sex with humans the motivation? Or eat makes it wrong? You didn't address the problem at all.
And I can't believe I have to explain the second one. "It's bad because only bad people do it" is insane. If bubble gum was only chewed by bad people then chewing gum wouldn't be evil. Moreover, people are bad for doing bad things, things are not bad for having been done by bad people. Your answer is fairy tale logic. I do think everyone who's had sex with animals is a bad person, but because they've had sex with animals, every other detail is irrelevant. Your statement would make it permissible to have sex with animals if I found even one person who didn't do anything else bad and just fucked animals. Do you see how that does not define the action as wrong?
Anyway, the reason it is wrong is because animals cannot give informed consent, so any action non-medically necessary actions between humans and animals is automatically bad. This is because violating consent makes it impossible for two people to interact in a society fairly and have good outcomes. At the core of my argument is an axiom, that we should uphold a society which produces good outcomes. You can disagree with it, but just asking why to it will not reveal a deeper truth nor dispute my argument. Murder is also wrong because it unjustly removes the ability of someone to interact with society.
Asking why something is wrong is not the same as saying it is okay. It's actually a good thing to take a step back and consider why certain things are right and wrong ON PRINCIPLE, not gut reaction or associations. That's the only way to have a developed moral code and draw meaningful conclusions about the world. Asking why something is pious was literally the foundation of philosophy in the west, when Socrates was being killed for questioning things.
Congratulations, you won the debate and spelled out the exact reasons why having with animals is wrong. Now what? People will nod on and the next time they’re confronted about it, they’ll simply say “because you’re a freak of a human if you do it.”
Do you really think the tens, hundreds of millions of socialists who existed during the 20th century pondered about simple things like “why is murder wrong” and “why is fucking my dog wrong” beyond “because you shouldn’t do it?”
You should give a shit about being normal because otherwise socialism is just a fun little thought experiment and not something you try to convince people of. Save the “legit debate” criteria for matters that actually affect people like exploitation and poverty and why they’re bad and not attention seeking posits like “bestiality is okay, actually.”
![[CW: bestiality] Professional "moral philosopher" ponders whether it's OK to sexually assault animals, featuring AI art](https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/f26b2dce-7254-4537-acd1-5de623b591e0.png){kind=link}
Literally everything, even the most baby brained shit, you should ask why we do or do not do it. If you don't have an answer past "because it's wrong" you don't have a set of ethics and morals, just gut impulses and whatever you were taught was normal growing up.
my answer to bestiality would be "because you can't" animals won't fuck you and they'll probably kill you if you try to fuck them.
uhhhh that's just (unfortunately) very well-documented to be false. like, extremely well documented.
edit: also that's an incomprehensible answer to the question. why would something being impossible make it wrong? I don't think it would be morally wrong to sidestep through the 8th dimension to get to work faster
I recently had an argument with my boss when something similar was said, so they would steal even more of your labour.
i guarantee someone would have a moral stance against teleportation if it existed. but it doesn't so i don't very much care to speculate.
but handfuls of unverified and whispered-about videos doesn't constitute 'extreme' documentation, i'd welcome an actual study proving there's more than dozens of actual bestia--uh--tists? and a widespread occurrence of the act, but i know of no such studies and no opinions on it that aren't painted by the cultural baggage attached
it's akin to people wingsuit flying through a suspension bridge and getting cheese-grated, there's certainly footage of it and it was a bad idea but i don't think it's a very pressing concern for most people
so, bestiality is wrong because you can't do it, in other words it's impossible. therefore the people who have done it on video are evil because they're doing something impossible.
my op was 99.99%, that is not absolute, i was never making an absolute rule, my claim is that discourses about bestiality are mostly talking about the imaginary and fetishes but failing to recognize that. the article/tweet we're talking about is a thinly disguised sexual fantasy with no interface with material reality. and people itt are conflating that with the extraordinarily rare real world acts, that are nothing like that sexual fantasy.
in the 'article' they're imagining a consensual sexual relationship with a dog, which the dog consents to. this is impossible not just from a dog's faculty to consent, but because dogs do not experience sexual attraction to humans. if a male dog has ever fucked people, which i seriously doubt, it'd be through transparently nonconsensual training or something. it's not a real argument or a real situation, and i think it's silly when people give it the airs of a moral debate
ok, so you're just talking from a position of ignorance. when i say this is extremely well-documented, i mean that there used to be a subreddit called /r/sexwithdogs where people were posting hundreds of videos of precisely this.
this is true, yeah, you have to groom animals for stuff like this, just like any other vulnerable party.
you've never seen a dog hump someone's leg?
a leg is not analogous to someone's sex organs?
If someone rubbed a dick on your leg that would definitely be a form of assault. There's at least one sex organ involved here, the dogs.
When I was growing up, we had a family dog that was constantly humping legs. This isn't a defense, mind, since "but they made the first move" isn't any more justifiable with animals than it is with children, but it does happen.
i think it's a long way from leg-hump (which isn't sexual in all situations, it's often about dominance) to fucking an animal with incompatible morphology, wrong pheromones, and incorrect behavior
First, right off the bat, you can and I've seen it. With that out of the way, you're not addressing if it is moral or not. Morality is about what it is right or wrong to do, not what is possible to do. If I could, with a sweep of my hand, either kill every poor person in the US or slaughter every millionaire, then there is a moral reason why I should perform the latter and not the former.
Because if you’re too undesirable to fuck your fellow species, you don’t get to just move on to the next species. You either fuck a non-living sex toy produced in a factory or don’t fuck anything and live with it.
Also there has not been a single normal human being who’s been exposed for bestiality. Usually they’re serial killers, abusers, pedophiles, and so on. So not a lot of good representatives in the Animal Sex Having population
Your first argument is restating the concept, not presenting why it is wrong. It's tautological. Actually it's a little worse than tautological, it sneaks in a motive. If someone was desirable and had sex with humans, would it be okay? I don't think you or I think that.
Your second is also not an argument.
What? If someone was desirable and fucked humans, why wouldn’t it be okay?
And why is this wrong?
What the fuck are you talking about? How is “action has only been done bad people, therefore action bad” not an argument?
You're not good at this.
The antecedent to it was bestiality. You know, the thing we were talking about. You said people can't fuck animals because if they can't fuck humans they can't fuck animals. This not only didn't answer the question, but added unnecessary and potentially wrong information. If someone was fucking humans, could they fuck animals? Is not having sex with humans the motivation? Or eat makes it wrong? You didn't address the problem at all.
And I can't believe I have to explain the second one. "It's bad because only bad people do it" is insane. If bubble gum was only chewed by bad people then chewing gum wouldn't be evil. Moreover, people are bad for doing bad things, things are not bad for having been done by bad people. Your answer is fairy tale logic. I do think everyone who's had sex with animals is a bad person, but because they've had sex with animals, every other detail is irrelevant. Your statement would make it permissible to have sex with animals if I found even one person who didn't do anything else bad and just fucked animals. Do you see how that does not define the action as wrong?
Anyway, the reason it is wrong is because animals cannot give informed consent, so any action non-medically necessary actions between humans and animals is automatically bad. This is because violating consent makes it impossible for two people to interact in a society fairly and have good outcomes. At the core of my argument is an axiom, that we should uphold a society which produces good outcomes. You can disagree with it, but just asking why to it will not reveal a deeper truth nor dispute my argument. Murder is also wrong because it unjustly removes the ability of someone to interact with society.
Asking why something is wrong is not the same as saying it is okay. It's actually a good thing to take a step back and consider why certain things are right and wrong ON PRINCIPLE, not gut reaction or associations. That's the only way to have a developed moral code and draw meaningful conclusions about the world. Asking why something is pious was literally the foundation of philosophy in the west, when Socrates was being killed for questioning things.
That’s great. Normal people do not care
Bro you're on a socialist forum, I really don't give a shit about being normal. Are you in fucking high school?
Congratulations, you won the debate and spelled out the exact reasons why having with animals is wrong. Now what? People will nod on and the next time they’re confronted about it, they’ll simply say “because you’re a freak of a human if you do it.”
Do you really think the tens, hundreds of millions of socialists who existed during the 20th century pondered about simple things like “why is murder wrong” and “why is fucking my dog wrong” beyond “because you shouldn’t do it?”
You should give a shit about being normal because otherwise socialism is just a fun little thought experiment and not something you try to convince people of. Save the “legit debate” criteria for matters that actually affect people like exploitation and poverty and why they’re bad and not attention seeking posits like “bestiality is okay, actually.”