Broomstick wrote:Oh, I see, you think I actually am arguing from personal conviction here. Someone asked what a possible basis for bestiality being immoral was, and I suggested one. Go back and re-read what I wrote where do I say that it is my personal view of how the world works?
Regardless of whether or not you truly believe in what you wrote you posted a flawed argument so I pointed out a few of the flaws.
As far as the horses, though - I have seen training where a completely unlearned foal is guided to having something on its back, something in its mouth, up to having a person get on its back, without the animal being traumatized or physically restrained. As far as jumping fences - horses will do that on their own, also risking breaking a leg. Oh, noes! Making a horse run, something it is biologically inclined to do even when safe, well-fed, and happy. As opposed to having sex outside its own species, which is not something I've ever heard of a wild horse doing, or even a domestic horse doing of its own volition as its own original idea.
Do horses shove bits of metal into their moves and find people to ride them and hit them with whips when doing so of their 'own volition'? Horses a biologically inclined to both run and have sex in each case humans are forcing themselves into the situation why is the latter forbidden but not the former, what's the difference?
Broomstick wrote:Plekhanov wrote:People habitually do things to animals that it is almost universally seen as deeply wrong to do to children.
That doesn't mean people don't see it as wrong to do to animals. It is seen as bad whether you're beating an animal or a child, starving an animal or a child, etc.
It does however mean that you need to do much more to show that it is immoral to do something to an animal than point out that it would be immoral to do it to a child.
You are really reaching here, lock the animal up problem solved.
Given how few people see capable of locking their animals up for any reason, much less because their dog might actually fuck the neighbor instead of just the neighbor's leg, I don't see that as "solved".
Oh come off it, that's even more of a reach. You really think people are going to train their animals to accost people, forcibly remove their clothing and then fuck them? If we accepted tenuous claims like that as a reason for prohibiting things then pretty much everything would be illegal.
Broomstick wrote:But you do kill them for fun, you don't need to eat meat, people can survive perfectly well without doing so. You eat meat not because you need to but because you like the taste of meat, because you enjoy eating it.
Actually, given that I am allergic to most legumes, surviving in a healthful manner without meat might in fact be nearly impossible for me.
You sure about this, have much effort have you put in to checking this out? Besides even if you happen to be one of the small proportion of people who genuinely need to eat meat in significant quantities to survive the fact remains that the vast majority of meat eaten in the west is eaten for pleasure not survival. So my question still stands; If factory farmer and slaughtering animals so that people can have the pleasure of eating their flesh is moral why is having sex with animals so immoral that it should be illegal?
And meat/animal products are the only natural source of B12, lack of which ranges from very bad to fatal in results. The only reason people can survive a lifetime without eating meat or milk (and milk is just as exploitative as meat) is because modern technology enables us to find an alternate source of B12. Yes, we eat more meat than we have to, but arguably some consumption of animals is necessary for healthy human life.
Well done you rebutted your own point, it's perfectly true there are no natural non-animal sources of B12 (which irrefutably smacks down the claim some vegetarians make that eating meat is unnatural) however as you acknowledge thanks to food technology which has given us unnatural sources this isn't a problem. So why did you mention B12? What has it got to do with anything?
If it's moral to kill an animal because you enjoy the taste of it's flesh then why is it immoral to have sex with it?
The same reason it's immoral to slowly beat an animal to death even if it is moral to eat meat. It's not moral to cause avoidable suffering.
Does bestiality always cause suffering? Is all the suffering caused to animals raised and killed for meat unavoidable suffering? Once again you seem to be arguing that both eating meat and bestiality are immoral, if anything you new argument is better applied against eating meat.
