I don't think you do, but I think it's a contradiction to be sure. I'll say that I think it's fine to eat animals, but also I think it's not okay to have sex with them, and somewhere in between those two beliefs is artificial insemination of pigs and in practical terms that's a practice that just makes me shrug, so I suppose that my belief that it's not okay to have sex with animals is weaker than my belief that it's fine to eat them.
Let's back up to square one. Is it wrong to perform sex acts on a non-human animal? If so, why? You're talking too abstractly so I'd really like to just get something concrete to discuss with.
i don't think that's square one, i think square one is further back.
Is a doctor (or medical technician or whatever job title idc) doing the last step of IVF performing a sex act on or with the patient? the adult patient consents of course, but i don't think anyone thinks a doctor with a "turkey baster" is doing a sex act. I would say "preforming sex acts on..." isn't applicable to animal husbandry in the way i understand all those words.
i'm not trying to debate bro here, it's just not possible to have a conversation if we think words mean different things... which gets back to my previous point about vegans using a wider "bestiality" than the rest of us, apparently including Kinsey.
And yet instead of answering the question you went off on a tangent about IVF.
I didn't ask you your definition of sex act or say anything about doctors or animal husbandry. The question is VERY simple. Is it, or is it not, wrong to perform sex acts on a non-human animal?
I didn't ask you your definition of sex act or say anything about doctors or animal husbandry. The question is VERY simple. Is it, or is it not, wrong to perform sex acts on a non-human animal?
there's no point in my answering your question if we don't agree what counts as a sex act. we've already established that vegans have a broader meaning of bestiality than the rest of us so now we need to be careful about shit like whether a grill is a barbecue or a broiler.
I say "no" then you say artificial insemination is a sex act.
I say "no" then you say artificial insemination is a sex act.
See, this is the debate bro thing I'm talking about. You're trying to "win" the argument by not "falling for my trap." But there's no trap. You're completely off the mark about where I was going with this, and you'll never find out because you're scared of falling for it. Because to you, "winning" the debate is way more important than actually having a discussion. That's why you were speaking in abstracts like I pointed out when I first replied to you, because if you say anything concrete then there's a possibility for people to question your logic and pose hard questions that you aren't sure how to answer.
Not sure why I'm jumping in here, but you are being completely incoherent. You're saying people are saying things when they have said nothing of the kind. You are making weird moralistic arguments that not only have no material basis but make no sense.
I'm not the person you were responding to, but ok, let's do as you say, do the same with incest. Incest is not wrong because it is "against nature" (what does that even mean? Incest happens as part of the natural world and it is well-documented in humans as well as other species, even humans' closest genetic relatives). Incest is only wrong because of the harm it does to people being sexually exploited due to an almost inevitable power dynamic or because of the harm it does via potential genetic defects if there are offspring. It is not wrong because it seems "ew gross, sex with family yuck!"
Its wrong because you are having sexual intercourse with an animal, which is something against nature and just wrong in literally every way.
So you're really doing the tautology that "it's wrong because it's just wrong" argument? What is "nature" and how is this "against it"? "Ew, gross, that's just wrong!" may be a valid reaction but it's not engaging the question of why, and it's not addressing any of the arguments that have been made, but it's like you keep pretending that you are engaging the question and addressing what's been said. It's not wrong to have a gut reaction and your gut reaction may not even be wrong, but don't pretend that the problem is other user's "ideological dung" or some batshit reasoning on their part.
Its one of the true taboos of humanity, you don't do it.
People do do it, once again, it's been documented in countless human societies. If it IS wrong (and I agree that it is wrong) it is wrong for the same reasons that artificial insemination of animals to produce more of them as food for humans is also wrong. The only way this would not be the case is by vague, meaningless phrases like "against nature" and "just wrong." Artificial insemination, (which is forced pregnancy and (cw) the r-word) is much more "against nature" than members of different species having sex with each other, which once again, happens quite a bit in nonhuman animals and there is something like 3% and 8% of women and men, respectively, who have had sexual interaction with animals, including penetrative sex.
I swear I thought there were people with more than just vibes based politics here, but this shows that I will have to block a few fools in order to experience the site without crawling through ideological dung.
You are the one going off vibes-based reasoning here, which has been made very clear repeatedly by almost everyone who has responded to you. Block away, I have to do the same at times. But you're not doing so because the people you're blocking have bad arguments or are "vibes-based" or are even ideological (at least beyond the way that everything is ideological). You're doing so because their valid arguments are putting into question the things you have always casually accepted as normal and ok.
As for crawling through ideological dung, everyone needs to be extra careful when they think they smell other's. Some people don't recognize when they're just actually just smelling their own.
incest is bad and wrong because of power dynamics and grooming done to people. reproductive incest is also bad because of the genetics stuff but incest taboo predates that and historical people had a bunch of weird ideas about bloodlines which gave us the hapsburg chin.
the vibe against incest comes from the westermarck effect and social norms, but e.g. first cousin pairings are iirc genetically safe if you don't do several generations of them and such marriages are legal in a lot of places.
additionally, once in a while siblings separated at birth accidentally end up in incestuous relationships without knowing. there was a case in germany maybe 10-15 years ago and i've forgotten most of the details but i think they got sterilized after finding out and were allowed to stay together since there was no power imbalance and no risk of genetic whatever.
No its wrong because it is morally and completely wrong, with various mental and physically ill issues stemming from it.
Its wrong because you are having sexual intercourse with an animal, which is something against nature and just wrong in literally every way.
A vegan can easily give a good explanation as to why it's wrong: because an animal cannot give informed consent, gains no benefit from it, and may very well be harmed by it. Carnists, of course, fundamentally do not care about the wellbeing of animals or what they consent to (animals don't consent to being hacked apart and they definitely don't benefit from it), so all they can do is flail their arms and say "it's wrong because it's wrong."
You are flailing and making a fool of yourself because you cannot reconcile your opposition to bestiality with your support for funneling animals into industrial killing chambers.
You answered a question I didn't ask you, and your answer was utterly incoherent. Not only was I not interested in having this discussion with you (I don't know you, your stance, or the meaning of anything you've ever said) but I don't understand your answer even if I was. There are so many things incoherent about your response that it would be difficult for me to even break them all down. That's why I've issued a blanket "what the fuck" and waited for you to say something that makes sense.
I really don't think I'm interested. You're clearly operating on some number of dimensions that I don't have access to. I have some kind of "compatriot" somewhere that you're convinced I'm "feigning ignorance" of. I don't think you and I are operating on the same plane of existence.
You have to take up a finger-wagging "how dare you" stance and strawman my argument because you can't offer any coherent defense of your actions
I'd tell you to watch Dominion, but you clearly have no interest in examining the reality behind your decisions
Honestly if you'd just said "Yes, I know my decision to eat meat is predicated on horrific suffering on an industrial scale, but I don't care" I'd have at least a modicum of respect for you for acknowledging the choice you're making rather than acting like other people are beyond the pale for bringing it up
Honestly if you'd just said "Yes, I know my decision to eat meat is predicated on horrific suffering on an industrial scale, but I don't care" I'd have at least a modicum of respect for you for acknowledging the choice you're making rather than acting like other people are beyond the pale for bringing it up
oh my god you fucking pieces of shit can't get it through your head that not everyone who doesn't like you isnt the same copy paste reactionary. Get a grip and get a life.
yes, you do. Your diet requires humans to breed animals on factory farms: collecting semen from male animals and inseminating female animals. Those actions are mechanically the exact same thing as people committing the crime of bestiality. 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".
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
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?
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.
I'm asking you what the fuck you're talking about. You keep saying "these arguments are online, this parallel doesn't match, this is vulgar materialism and vulgar idealism" but you never offer an argument or explanation why. Just vaguely gesturing that you disagree with what's being said. From the very first response where I asked if it would be suddenly wrong to consume a steak only if it sexually gratified you, to which you simply said "This makes no sense". But it does make sense. It makes perfect sense. You know what question is being asked. Your feigning confusion because you don't want to answer but you were compelled to reply anyway because you took exception to the gist of my argument.
For the love of god make a statement or take a position. Make a substantive claim or something. Or at least explain
I would argue there is a distinction between the two because bestiality is performing these actions for sexual gratification. Your overall point I do agree with, that the way we interact with animals in factory farms is sexual violence, but it is a different sort
Sure and that's how the law categorizes it: your "purpose" when committing the act is what matters. I personally think the particular categorization of different purposes (so that economic reward is valid, gustatory sensual pleasure is valid, and sexual/sensual or sadistic pleasure is not) is arbitrary in a nakedly self-serving way. I have never seen any moral reasoning that one specific kind of sensory pleasure should justify sexual contact with animals but another should not; carnists usually fall back to arguments that eating animals is one way to satisfy a physical need. (Such arguments are of course inadequate to explain harm done simply to make food taste better, like restricting animal movement or gavage). In general we do give weight to purposes when people commit acts that they thought were good, or did not expect to result in negative consequences, so in theory intention is a valid thing to consider.
I personally reject the "we didn't explicitly want this subset of results, but we took this action knowing full well it was going to cause these results" liberal apologia that we see for military collateral damage and such.
I don't think all of this is wrong, but there's a blending between discussing concepts and actual practice. "Is it wrong to harm animals for pleasure?" is a useful question, but separate from "is it wrong to fuck animals for sexual pleasure?" and both of these are distinct from "can certain kinds of pleasure justify harm generally?" I don't think you're necessarily wrong to put them together because you are making a good point about complicity in atrocity, but it is not the kind of conversation I want to have.
mhm. all reasonably different questions. I hew consequentialist, so I don't really see why one's state of mind (anticipating gustatory pleasure or experiencing sexual pleasure) while fucking the animal makes a moral difference. I think that the distinction you see between the first two questions is largely informed by custom: in pre-modern times a function of what was "normal", and today a byproduct of how industrial agriculture sanitizes the process of raising animals for food to give us neat blocks of commodity on the grocery store shelf.
Tangential but you might find Why I'm Not a Negative Utilitarian interesting. I was gonna write something about utilitarian view of pleasure types but it's not really important.
Good luck in the posting war against anti-intellectualism. Honestly I'm kind of surprised by the comments here. Since the issue affects almost nobody directly I feel like everybody should be able to dispassionately debate-bro about it even though it's taboo.
![[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}
huh what the hell does this bullshit have to do with anything
so carnists also condone bestiality?
what the fuck
What fucking solar system are you living in
Functionally, yes. Do you know how the beef industry keeps getting more cows?
what the actual fuck is wrong with you
god yall are fucking gahhhh
WHAT THE FUCK
hexbear is great but this is a very bad moment from them
Removed by mod
so that means I fucking support this weirdo who wants to fuck animals? What the fuck does this have to do with this?
fucking weirdos
I don't think you do, but I think it's a contradiction to be sure. I'll say that I think it's fine to eat animals, but also I think it's not okay to have sex with them, and somewhere in between those two beliefs is artificial insemination of pigs and in practical terms that's a practice that just makes me shrug, so I suppose that my belief that it's not okay to have sex with animals is weaker than my belief that it's fine to eat them.
i have only ever heard vegans extend the definition of bestiality to include actions that are not for the sexual gratification of the person.
Removed by mod
because your use of terminology is subcultural and the rest of us don't think it applies to the situation
Let's back up to square one. Is it wrong to perform sex acts on a non-human animal? If so, why? You're talking too abstractly so I'd really like to just get something concrete to discuss with.
i don't think that's square one, i think square one is further back.
Is a doctor (or medical technician or whatever job title idc) doing the last step of IVF performing a sex act on or with the patient? the adult patient consents of course, but i don't think anyone thinks a doctor with a "turkey baster" is doing a sex act. I would say "preforming sex acts on..." isn't applicable to animal husbandry in the way i understand all those words.
i'm not trying to debate bro here, it's just not possible to have a conversation if we think words mean different things... which gets back to my previous point about vegans using a wider "bestiality" than the rest of us, apparently including Kinsey.
And yet instead of answering the question you went off on a tangent about IVF.
I didn't ask you your definition of sex act or say anything about doctors or animal husbandry. The question is VERY simple. Is it, or is it not, wrong to perform sex acts on a non-human animal?
there's no point in my answering your question if we don't agree what counts as a sex act. we've already established that vegans have a broader meaning of bestiality than the rest of us so now we need to be careful about shit like whether a grill is a barbecue or a broiler.
I say "no" then you say
artificial insemination is a sex act.
See, this is the debate bro thing I'm talking about. You're trying to "win" the argument by not "falling for my trap." But there's no trap. You're completely off the mark about where I was going with this, and you'll never find out because you're scared of falling for it. Because to you, "winning" the debate is way more important than actually having a discussion. That's why you were speaking in abstracts like I pointed out when I first replied to you, because if you say anything concrete then there's a possibility for people to question your logic and pose hard questions that you aren't sure how to answer.
Removed by mod
What? When did I do that? When did I even state any logic at all? I asked someone to explain their logic.
I didn't argue anything. I asked someone else to explain the reason that they are against that thing, so that I can better understand their position.
Removed by mod
Literally what the hell are you talking about
Removed by mod
is that why it's wrong? is it really?
Removed by mod
"against nature" and "just wrong" is not vibes based, got it
Removed by mod
Not sure why I'm jumping in here, but you are being completely incoherent. You're saying people are saying things when they have said nothing of the kind. You are making weird moralistic arguments that not only have no material basis but make no sense.
I'm not the person you were responding to, but ok, let's do as you say, do the same with incest. Incest is not wrong because it is "against nature" (what does that even mean? Incest happens as part of the natural world and it is well-documented in humans as well as other species, even humans' closest genetic relatives). Incest is only wrong because of the harm it does to people being sexually exploited due to an almost inevitable power dynamic or because of the harm it does via potential genetic defects if there are offspring. It is not wrong because it seems "ew gross, sex with family yuck!"
So you're really doing the tautology that "it's wrong because it's just wrong" argument? What is "nature" and how is this "against it"? "Ew, gross, that's just wrong!" may be a valid reaction but it's not engaging the question of why, and it's not addressing any of the arguments that have been made, but it's like you keep pretending that you are engaging the question and addressing what's been said. It's not wrong to have a gut reaction and your gut reaction may not even be wrong, but don't pretend that the problem is other user's "ideological dung" or some batshit reasoning on their part.
People do do it, once again, it's been documented in countless human societies. If it IS wrong (and I agree that it is wrong) it is wrong for the same reasons that artificial insemination of animals to produce more of them as food for humans is also wrong. The only way this would not be the case is by vague, meaningless phrases like "against nature" and "just wrong." Artificial insemination, (which is forced pregnancy and (cw) the r-word) is much more "against nature" than members of different species having sex with each other, which once again, happens quite a bit in nonhuman animals and there is something like 3% and 8% of women and men, respectively, who have had sexual interaction with animals, including penetrative sex.
You are the one going off vibes-based reasoning here, which has been made very clear repeatedly by almost everyone who has responded to you. Block away, I have to do the same at times. But you're not doing so because the people you're blocking have bad arguments or are "vibes-based" or are even ideological (at least beyond the way that everything is ideological). You're doing so because their valid arguments are putting into question the things you have always casually accepted as normal and ok.
As for crawling through ideological dung, everyone needs to be extra careful when they think they smell other's. Some people don't recognize when they're just actually just smelling their own.
incest is bad and wrong because of power dynamics and grooming done to people. reproductive incest is also bad because of the genetics stuff but incest taboo predates that and historical people had a bunch of weird ideas about bloodlines which gave us the hapsburg chin.
the vibe against incest comes from the westermarck effect and social norms, but e.g. first cousin pairings are iirc genetically safe if you don't do several generations of them and such marriages are legal in a lot of places.
additionally, once in a while siblings separated at birth accidentally end up in incestuous relationships without knowing. there was a case in germany maybe 10-15 years ago and i've forgotten most of the details but i think they got sterilized after finding out and were allowed to stay together since there was no power imbalance and no risk of genetic whatever.
A vegan can easily give a good explanation as to why it's wrong: because an animal cannot give informed consent, gains no benefit from it, and may very well be harmed by it. Carnists, of course, fundamentally do not care about the wellbeing of animals or what they consent to (animals don't consent to being hacked apart and they definitely don't benefit from it), so all they can do is flail their arms and say "it's wrong because it's wrong."
You are flailing and making a fool of yourself because you cannot reconcile your opposition to bestiality with your support for funneling animals into industrial killing chambers.
Removed by mod
Who is my compatriot????
Removed by mod
I'm not mocking anything, I'm asking you to explain what this word salad you're spewing means
Removed by mod
You answered a question I didn't ask you, and your answer was utterly incoherent. Not only was I not interested in having this discussion with you (I don't know you, your stance, or the meaning of anything you've ever said) but I don't understand your answer even if I was. There are so many things incoherent about your response that it would be difficult for me to even break them all down. That's why I've issued a blanket "what the fuck" and waited for you to say something that makes sense.
Removed by mod
I really don't think I'm interested. You're clearly operating on some number of dimensions that I don't have access to. I have some kind of "compatriot" somewhere that you're convinced I'm "feigning ignorance" of. I don't think you and I are operating on the same plane of existence.
Removed by mod
Then why are you the one with mod removed comments and the one getting upvote ratioed? @booty is actually making sense.
Removed by mod
Yes, how dare I point out the material realities that make your consumption choices possible
Removed by mod
You have to take up a finger-wagging "how dare you" stance and strawman my argument because you can't offer any coherent defense of your actions
I'd tell you to watch Dominion, but you clearly have no interest in examining the reality behind your decisions
Honestly if you'd just said "Yes, I know my decision to eat meat is predicated on horrific suffering on an industrial scale, but I don't care" I'd have at least a modicum of respect for you for acknowledging the choice you're making rather than acting like other people are beyond the pale for bringing it up
oh shut the fuck up you nerd
nah, this ones on you sister
Removed by mod
/
There are two constants on hexbear.net, vegans will advocate for animals, and Catradora_Stalinism will [removed by mod]
deleted by creator
Hi I eat meat but yo calm down
I think ill just block em and go back, yeah
Fucking finally
deleted by creator
They can also take the hint that they aren't welcome here and fuck off. Enjoy your next ban
deleted by creator
you're no comrade of mine, enjoy your next ban
deleted by creator
yes, you do. Your diet requires humans to breed animals on factory farms: collecting semen from male animals and inseminating female animals. Those actions are mechanically the exact same thing as people committing the crime of bestiality. 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".
Don't eat em, don't fuck em.
Well OBVIOUSLY that doesn't count because flails arms wildly
i don't get sexual gratification from my food
Carnists stop misrepresenting our arguments challenge (rating: impossible)
Removed by mod
Carnists are werechuds and vegans are their full moon
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
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?
no it's the common usage of "bestiality." outside of vegan standard english i guess.
Removed by mod
Find a better argument other than "Torturing and exploiting animals is okay as long as you're not horny while doing it"
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
I'm asking you what the fuck you're talking about. You keep saying "these arguments are online, this parallel doesn't match, this is vulgar materialism and vulgar idealism" but you never offer an argument or explanation why. Just vaguely gesturing that you disagree with what's being said. From the very first response where I asked if it would be suddenly wrong to consume a steak only if it sexually gratified you, to which you simply said "This makes no sense". But it does make sense. It makes perfect sense. You know what question is being asked. Your feigning confusion because you don't want to answer but you were compelled to reply anyway because you took exception to the gist of my argument.
For the love of god make a statement or take a position. Make a substantive claim or something. Or at least explain
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
I would argue there is a distinction between the two because bestiality is performing these actions for sexual gratification. Your overall point I do agree with, that the way we interact with animals in factory farms is sexual violence, but it is a different sort
Sure and that's how the law categorizes it: your "purpose" when committing the act is what matters. I personally think the particular categorization of different purposes (so that economic reward is valid, gustatory sensual pleasure is valid, and sexual/sensual or sadistic pleasure is not) is arbitrary in a nakedly self-serving way. I have never seen any moral reasoning that one specific kind of sensory pleasure should justify sexual contact with animals but another should not; carnists usually fall back to arguments that eating animals is one way to satisfy a physical need. (Such arguments are of course inadequate to explain harm done simply to make food taste better, like restricting animal movement or gavage). In general we do give weight to purposes when people commit acts that they thought were good, or did not expect to result in negative consequences, so in theory intention is a valid thing to consider.
I personally reject the "we didn't explicitly want this subset of results, but we took this action knowing full well it was going to cause these results" liberal apologia that we see for military collateral damage and such.
I don't think all of this is wrong, but there's a blending between discussing concepts and actual practice. "Is it wrong to harm animals for pleasure?" is a useful question, but separate from "is it wrong to fuck animals for sexual pleasure?" and both of these are distinct from "can certain kinds of pleasure justify harm generally?" I don't think you're necessarily wrong to put them together because you are making a good point about complicity in atrocity, but it is not the kind of conversation I want to have.
mhm. all reasonably different questions. I hew consequentialist, so I don't really see why one's state of mind (anticipating gustatory pleasure or experiencing sexual pleasure) while fucking the animal makes a moral difference. I think that the distinction you see between the first two questions is largely informed by custom: in pre-modern times a function of what was "normal", and today a byproduct of how industrial agriculture sanitizes the process of raising animals for food to give us neat blocks of commodity on the grocery store shelf.
Tangential but you might find Why I'm Not a Negative Utilitarian interesting. I was gonna write something about utilitarian view of pleasure types but it's not really important.
Good luck in the posting war against anti-intellectualism. Honestly I'm kind of surprised by the comments here. Since the issue affects almost nobody directly I feel like everybody should be able to dispassionately debate-bro about it even though it's taboo.