[CW: bestiality] Professional "moral philosopher" ponders whether it's OK to sexually assault animals, featuring AI art

Sweet not missing much then. I can get my disgust and vegan struggle sessions elsewhere haha

i'm not saying nobody has ever done bestiality but the rare un-faked examples have to be extraordinarily rare. like all the animals people talk about it with, besides like sheep are dangerous and these people would be assaulting them, probably while naked. no fucking way people manage to do that at any appreciable rate.

but there's a lot of fictional depictions of bestiality, a million lurid rumors and taboo tales. makes you think it's more common & possible than it is, but there simply never were 'donkey shows' or bestiality executions in ancient rome.

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.

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

Most people in animal husbandry would argue that artificial insemination is better for the health of the animals involved, for both the cow and the bull. Animals don't really follow the concept of consent, and the cow or bull could get seriously injured, or worse, otherwise.

Though the argument could easily be made that it would be better not to breed cows at all, and that would be the best health outcome.

Hey we're not better people, we just have better habits. Nothing intrinsic. I encourage you to try and reduce your animal consumption. I'd learned about farmed animal suffering years before, and when I went vegetarian it was a weight off my shoulders that I hadn't even realized was there.

so carnists also condone bestiality?

Functionally, yes. Do you know how the beef industry keeps getting more cows?

carnists also condone bestiality

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.

Honestly could apply to the majority of comments in this thread. People here have seriously lost touch with reality with some of the arguments in here. Reading this makes me want to never comment on general hexbear again. No one should seriously debate what Peter Singer says. He's been a crank for longer than I've been alive.

The plants thing is entirely silly and based off a headline that says "grass screams when you cut it" and people took that literally. There's a big difference between "releases chemicals when disturbed" and "exists as a being with ganglia, nerves, a functioning brain, and everything else we understand to facilitate the experience of suffering". The ions in my phone battery vibrate when its charging, but I don't say that its excited.

I've seen vegans disagree on the matter of indigenous diets. I'm not sure what most agree on, but I can say vegans are way more focused on ending animal-eating in the context of industrialized society.

Not a vegan but we crossed that bridge the moment agriculture was invented. As for animals incapable of moral actions... I have yet to see a vegan seriously propose the end of natural predation. You're fighting ghosts or I'm misunderstanding.

You can check the r/vegan threads from when that was making the rounds. Plants don't feel pain. Even if they did, you'd cause more beings pain eating meat cause animals eat plants.

Indigenous people get trotted put in defense against veganism all the time. The defense treats indigeneity like some kind of monolith, it's very off-putting.

Indigenous people in the US are vegan more often than white people, same with most BIPOC people. I would recommend asking a vegan indigenous person these questions, or even just imagine yourself doing so, and consider whether it comes across as stereotyping.

Anyways, vegans are generally not focused on going after indigenous diets. They're focused on the vast majority of people who consume animal products because they were simply socialized to do so and never had to question it growing up, but have no sacred attachment to their sloppy joes or slightly more durable shoes or whatever. It's just food or products consumed out of habit and folks pitch an absolute fit when you point out that, say, it's a contradiction to say you're an animal lover because you love your pets but you go absolutely apeshit on someone that asks you to not eat or otherwise consume (entirely as a luxury, a form of entertainment) pigs that are just as smart and cuddly.

Industrialized agriculture produces sufficient vegan food such that animal products are no longer necessary dietarily. Same for materials and other animal products. The question is whether it continues to be acceptable to harm animals because the products have entertainment value.

I think for most people the answer is pretty obviously no, but they reeeeaally don't want to self-crit, so they fight for a while first.

plants can suffer but it's not an argument against veganism since every animal also eats plants, you are killing more plants (by like 10-100x) by eating meat

Factory farming has not been around as long as homo sapiens. Hell, animal husbandry and domestication of animals has only been around for at most 15000 years. Sure we've been eating meat for millions of years, but aside from some edge cases (arctic peoples are the first example that comes to mind) meat made up very little of the average diet.

If you're still driving predators off their kills so you can scavenge some meat or persistence hunting antelope then you can say you're doing the same thing that we've been doing since before we were homo sapiens sure, but I would argue even the modern practice of raising animals as opposed to hunting drastically alters the amount of animal products we consume.

Apologies for the rambling post but early hominid diets is something that interests me deeply

I'm also someone who isn't vegan (yet) but fully admit they're basically always right

it's been over a decade, and maybe the laws were changed in response, but i remember some news story about specifically necrobestiality not being illegal in several US states.

He's the guy that came up with the original concept of specieism, and yes, he did it in a similarly deranged manner to this article. Most modern vegans and vegetarians distance themselves from any of his ramblings and have come up with their own definition of specieism that actually makes some sense.

putting that aside i'm not even sure it's true. homer simpson would keep eating

Yeah we're being charitable here and imagining that my supernaturally-smart cat is his best self, a "rational" actor acting in his own best interest. We want basically the same yardstick parents use when they make their kids eat their vegetables and go to the doctor and such. If we override agency, we must make the decisions they would make if they were wiser. Otherwise you can just say "oh whatever this pig has poor impulse control, if he could understand he'd still probably just do [whatever I want / whatever he was already doing]" and then why bother with the thought experiment, you can just treat animals as property and ignore their agency altogether.

That is how the law works for both children and animals - parents are allowed to make arbitrary decisions for their kids, down to what clothes their 17-year-old wears to school, and owners can do almost anything to their animals. I think this is wrong; I think (a) we should not override the agency of others unless (b) we are making a choice that their best self would want us to make (c) we often have an affirmative responsibility to make these choices. It's neglect if you don't get your kid their shots, but it's shitty if you control every tiny aspect of their lives. Another example of the "best self" thing: you should put your drunk friend to bed instead of letting him drive back to the club even if he's a shithead and will still be mad you didn't give him his keys once he sobers up.

They do be letting dogs slober all over their mouths

It's the exact sort of self-delusion you see in pedophiles.

peter singer's "pro-abortion" stance ultimately boils down to examining the presumptions under which killing a human is permissible. he argues that a human does not rightly become a person without certain mental characteristics and faculties, and therefore infants in particular are humans that aren't people. therefore, infanticide and abortion are equal and ethical.