Phantasy said:
I don't think Shimano092 is advocating bestiality at all. This thread was intended to be an ethical discussion.
I think discussing whether something can be intrinsically wrong is quite an interesting thing to do. Unfortunately, this topic is such a volatile one that emotions tend to get in the way of rational thinking.
I'm pretty sure that everything that can possibly be said on this subject has been said in this thread by now though.
Me too, I don't understand what's wrong with trying to have an objective discussion on a topic that apparently no one seems to fully comprehend...
On topic however, I guess I'll have to agree with the fact that the "ewww" factor comes from a moral convention.
I'm not endorsing beastiality, I'm one of those meat eating hypocrites who believe that bestiality is actually animal abuse since we can't verify consent. No, not all dogs bite when being threatened some just stand there. Doens't mean they're enjoying it.
Why is the "eww" in itself insufficient? If I'm an exclusively heterosexual male, and FreakPirate asks me to have sex with him (not that he would, just speaking hypothetically), my subsequent rejecting of this offer is at it's core about "My junk around another man's = eww" being a true proposition for me. That's true however much I respect the concept of two men's junks being around each other in a pleasurable context. Yet somehow, I strongly doubt my refusal to have sex with Freakpirate entails an inadequately-developed moral code, or that I have to have a reason beyond the eww for my refusal.
This isn't to say that homosexuality has any relationship with bestiality (it doesn't), or anything bad about Freakpirate, but simply that the argument seems to assume there is no such thing as a moral sentiment. The proper relationship between law and morality is even trickier, so I'd rather not touch on it here; just wanted to question whether we can't say "Yeah, I and everyone with the exception of one or two very deviant people get an overpowering sense of 'eww' when we think about bestiality" is in itself sufficient for a law to be put in place.
I guess there is a difference between morals, laws and a simple opinion on a subject.You can find gay sex disgusting, but not find it immoral. I guess the question is can someone justify what is immoral simply by being disgusted by it or does there have to be more. As far as your last statment, I think thats kinda the point. The majority's opinion rarely has to be protected. If 9 out of 10 think something should be a certain way then it probably will be that way, but that other 1 person doesn't have to be "deviant" or immoral. And it iteresting that you bring up homosexuality as a comparison. This is a pretty important discussion in the sense that one of the primary reasons a homosexual can't get married in most states is because many people say its immoral with very little other than that statement to make any real point..in my opinion.
seriously... 2 years and you people haven't figured out that fucking animals is, if not at least gross, some sort of real indication of mental problems?
atomicant said:
seriously... 2 years and you people haven't figured out that fucking animals is, if not at least gross, some sort of real indication of mental problems?
wow.
That's the thing that amazes me most about this thread. I really can't wrap my poor brain around someone defending animal fucking.
Bunch of fucking furries up in here, I swear. Friggin' furries.
tbom11 said:But if your personality deems you attracted to animals, then have a go at it, just make sure the other party is equally willing. Usually a wink or lip lick is a sign that they wanna fuck.
That has to be one of the creepiest things I have ever read on this site. Please tell me you don't have pets.
tbom11 said:But if your personality deems you attracted to animals, then have a go at it, just make sure the other party is equally willing. Usually a wink or lip lick is a sign that they wanna fuck.
That has to be one of the creepiest things I have ever read on this site. Please tell me you don't have pets.
Towelly said:
Why is the "eww" in itself insufficient? If I'm an exclusively heterosexual male, and FreakPirate asks me to have sex with him (not that he would, just speaking hypothetically), my subsequent rejecting of this offer is at it's core about "My junk around another man's = eww" being a true proposition for me. That's true however much I respect the concept of two men's junks being around each other in a pleasurable context. Yet somehow, I strongly doubt my refusal to have sex with Freakpirate entails an inadequately-developed moral code, or that I have to have a reason beyond the eww for my refusal.
This isn't to say that homosexuality has any relationship with bestiality (it doesn't), or anything bad about Freakpirate, but simply that the argument seems to assume there is no such thing as a moral sentiment. The proper relationship between law and morality is even trickier, so I'd rather not touch on it here; just wanted to question whether we can't say "Yeah, I and everyone with the exception of one or two very deviant people get an overpowering sense of 'eww' when we think about bestiality" is in itself sufficient for a law to be put in place.
I guess there is a difference between morals, laws and a simple opinion on a subject.You can find gay sex disgusting, but not find it immoral. I guess the question is can someone justify what is immoral simply by being disgusted by it or does there have to be more. As far as your last statment, I think thats kinda the point. The majority's opinion rarely has to be protected. If 9 out of 10 think something should be a certain way then it probably will be that way, but that other 1 person doesn't have to be "deviant" or immoral. And it iteresting that you bring up homosexuality as a comparison. This is a pretty important discussion in the sense that one of the primary reasons a homosexual can't get married in most states is because many people say its immoral with very little other than that statement to make any real point..in my opinion.
I was worried people would go overboard with my response; good that what I was trying to get across largely did, although I'd distinguish between gay sex being disagreeable and me personally having gay sex disagreeable.
But you do raise the relevant counterexample, which is that while there may be an "eww" associated with gay sex, very few people inlcuding me would see attempting to abolish it to be a legitemate function of law. But might it be that this doesn't discount a moral sentiment so much as it suggests that said moral sentiment isn't the final word on the subject. I can have a moral sentiment that finds gay sex disagreeable (note: just to be clear, I don't share this sentiment beyond what my sexual orientation dictates), but I can also note that 1) a few others vociferously disagree with it, 2) they seem genuinely happier when having a relationship that includes it, 3) they are genuinely grieved by the loss of it, and 4) it doesn't seem to cause any larger societal problems or harm anyone else by engaging it. As such, my sentiment might have to (and probably should) give way to the larger concern for the general welfare.
Bestiality, by contrast, doesn't seem to help half the party engaged in it, nor is half the party particularly grieved by its loss, and there are arguably significant problems associated with it. That's on top of the basic sentiment that it's just really wierd to screw a goat, dog, or what have you. The basic idea, then, is that the sentiment isn't vetoproof, but I don't see why the sentiment itself shouldn't count for something in the analysis.
Towelly you raise some very interesting points. I would venture that its fair to say that one would hope that most morally objectionable acts (murdering innocents, rape, causing undue harm, etc) carry with it a litmus test that the overwhelming majority of people find it abhorrent and disgusting. So in that way I would agree that the sentiment counts for something but then again, as I said, it seems that the disgust factor would follow, or be a reaction to an immoral act but not necessarily the final test on whether something is immoral. I think there are often times people confuse the two (or a myriad of other reasons) and jump to the conclusion that something is immoral when really they just don't like it on a personal level. Then we end up with people trying to ban gay marriage because the gay life style is immoral, unatural, a sin, chosen freely as a lifestyle, etc etc etc. I always argued with people that give the old "they choose to be gay" point and say, ok, lets pretend that premise is true, now what? Why is that enough to make something immoral? Same with the unnatural argument which is a pretty vague argument to begin with and usually a cover for the "God didn't intend for it to be this way argument"
....and yes it is weird to screw a goat....in my opinion....unless its a really hot goat.
atomicant said:
seriously... 2 years and you people haven't figured out that fucking animals is, if not at least gross, some sort of real indication of mental problems?
wow.
That's the thing that amazes me most about this thread. I really can't wrap my poor brain around someone defending animal fucking.
Bunch of fucking furries up in here, I swear. Friggin' furries.
atomicant said:
seriously... 2 years and you people haven't figured out that fucking animals is, if not at least gross, some sort of real indication of mental problems?
wow.
That's the thing that amazes me most about this thread. I really can't wrap my poor brain around someone defending animal fucking.
Bunch of fucking furries up in here, I swear. Friggin' furries.
Towelly you raise some very interesting points. I would venture that its fair to say that one would hope that most morally objectionable acts (murdering innocents, rape, causing undue harm, etc) carry with it a litmus test that the overwhelming majority of people find it abhorrent and disgusting. So in that way I would agree that the sentiment counts for something but then again, as I said, it seems that the disgust factor would follow, or be a reaction to an immoral act but not necessarily the final test on whether something is immoral. I think there are often times people confuse the two (or a myriad of other reasons) and jump to the conclusion that something is immoral when really they just don't like it on a personal level. Then we end up with people trying to ban gay marriage because the gay life style is immoral, unatural, a sin, chosen freely as a lifestyle, etc etc etc. I always argued with people that give the old "they choose to be gay" point and say, ok, lets pretend that premise is true, now what? Why is that enough to make something immoral? Same with the unnatural argument which is a pretty vague argument to begin with and usually a cover for the "God didn't intend for it to be this way argument"
....and yes it is weird to screw a goat....in my opinion....unless its a really hot goat.
Q_
Columbus, OH
June 2006
MAY 31, 2008 04:49 AM