Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[10ebbor10]

Yup, the main argument is that considering the animal can give no consent, it's technically animal abuse.

[Rose]

Apparently somebody in Colorado tried to marry a horse, but the judge ruled the animal was underage.

[Frumple]

You can violently murder them, skin them, and consume their flesh, without people batting an eyelash or asking if they want to be murdered, skinned, and ate (not that that would matter, as the laws generally disallow that even with consent, iirc), but frisky times come up and suddenly everyone's in jail. Consistency!

I'unno, it does sort of fit in with the general western trend of sex somehow being exponentially worse than violence...

[scriver]

Not to mention that said "intercourse" often causes physical damage to animals, so yeah, it's definitely animal abuse.

You can violently murder them, skin them, and consume their flesh, without people batting an eyelash or asking if they want to be murdered, skinned, and ate (not that that would matter, as the laws generally disallow that even with consent, iirc), but frisky times come up and suddenly everyone's in jail. Consistency!

I'unno, it does sort of fit in with the general western trend of sex somehow being exponentially worse than violence...

You're not allowed to violently murder animals in progressive countries.

[Frumple]

... huh. I wasn't aware of any countries that have made blanket hunting bans. Got a list?

[LordSlowpoke]

Not to mention that said "intercourse" often causes physical damage to animals, so yeah, it's definitely animal abuse.

You can violently murder them, skin them, and consume their flesh, without people batting an eyelash or asking if they want to be murdered, skinned, and ate (not that that would matter, as the laws generally disallow that even with consent, iirc), but frisky times come up and suddenly everyone's in jail. Consistency!

I'unno, it does sort of fit in with the general western trend of sex somehow being exponentially worse than violence...

You're not allowed to violently murder animals in progressive countries.

interesting.

or is that not violent enough for your personal taste?

[Flying Dice]

... huh. I wasn't aware of any countries that have made blanket hunting bans. Got a list?

Funny thing, sometimes we can't always get the legislation we want (though quite a few focused laws--the international ban on whaling, the British ban on fox hunting, etc. have passed). Especially when you're in the U.S. and have to contend with the NRA.

S'like saying that Ponzi schemes should be legal because reckless speculation on the stock market hasn't been banned. Just because one form of harm still has public support doesn't mean that other forms of harm should be allowed. That aside, you're ignoring a hell of a lot of work that's gone into humanizing the meat industry, which may be just a tad more important than hunting bans when it comes to limiting harm.

(On a personal note, I don't particularly like it, because, put bluntly, animals aren't capable of consent. It's objectionable for the same reason that sex with children and the mentally handicapped is objectionable, albeit on a lesser level, given that they are, y'know, animals. Though there's also a difference between "dumb" animals [to use the stereotype, sheep] versus animals of human or near-human intelligence; in the latter case, I think that it's best to hedge bets and treat them as people who lack the ability or capacity to give consent.)

[Shakerag]

You can violently murder them, skin them, and consume their flesh, without people batting an eyelash or asking if they want to be murdered, skinned, and ate (not that that would matter, as the laws generally disallow that even with consent, iirc), but frisky times come up and suddenly everyone's in jail. Consistency!

I'unno, it does sort of fit in with the general western trend of sex somehow being exponentially worse than violence...

THIS.  ALL OF MY THIS. 

You're not allowed to violently murder animals in progressive countries.

You've never seen the inside of a slaughterhouse I take it?  Or what they do to all the male chicks in egg farms? 

[10ebbor10]

interesting.

or is that not violent enough for your personal taste?

Most ritual slaughter is surprisingly non violent. In many instances the animals are stunned before the slaughter, but even unstunned the suffering is limited.

After all, it's a professional slaughterer who uses a single incision across the throat, cutting through all veins and arteries. IIRC, With such a blood loss, the animal looses consciousness within 30 seconds and often much sooner.

You're not allowed to violently murder animals in progressive countries.

You've never seen the inside of a slaughterhouse I take it?  Or what they do to all the male chicks in egg farms? 

I have. Animals are either stunned using either electrics or gas, and then slaughtered. And while the treatment of male chicks might seem horrible, it's both efficient and causes little suffering. (A rapid spinning blender kills instantly. They don't see it coming.)

[Bauglir]

Yeah, I gotta be honest, slaughterhouses are probably a lesser evil than any act of zoophilia that causes physical harm to the animal. They're fast, have standards to minimize inflicted pain, and produce food (which I rate as a more significant good than orgasms, in general). I can't really make a judgment call when the animal is physically fine, because I don't understand animal psychology at all. But... if we see meat as acceptable, a slaughterhouse that's compliant with the current standards is close to the morally optimal way of getting it. It's just very, very ugly, and I think that creates a lot of kneejerk reactions.

EDIT: About the worst it gets is kosher slaughter, since the animal is required to be aware at the time. In the absence of religious requirements, I believe the standard is to render the animal unconscious.

[10ebbor10]

Besides, slaughterhouses also have an economic reason to be animal friendly. Stress drastically reduces meat quality of a variety of animals. Porc in particular, but also others.

[IronTomato]

Porc

What's porc?

[Frumple]

@ FD: Nah, that was a legit question. I'm aware that there's focused ones, but for violent murder to actually be banned it'd take a blanket hunting ban... meat industry, etc., so forth, so on.

The argument made usually doesn't hinge on harm*, though, but rather consent. It doesn't really matter how humane you make the meat industry (or anything involving quite a bit... pets, reserves, there's just this whole swath of massively consent violating activities we don't even blink at.) it's still necessarily violating the concept of consent -- further, it flies in the face of how we treat entities that can consent, because we don't legally allow people to let themselves be eaten... hunted, killed at all (though that is loosening a bit, in some situations), corralled into limited spaces (generally concentration camp/native reserve type things are fairly condemned, at least from what I've seen.), etc., so forth, so on. Hell, society in general (and most people) even frown on or intervene with pet-like interaction between humans. More involved there than just appeal to the numbers, but... yeah.

Which is why, if I were going to argue against zoophilia on a moral basis, I wouldn't be using consent as a basis for my argument. It's incredibly obvious we, as a species**, do not actually give a shit about whether animals do or do not give consent (or at least only care when it's not inconvenient ). S'why I have a minor compulsion to poke at the argument when it comes up, because it's almost painfully obvious those arguing from the position of consent are incredibly rarely doing so in good faith. They don't apply the heuristic even remotely consistently, and it's... annoying? I guess.

After all, it's a professional slaughterer who uses a single incision across the throat, cutting through all veins and arteries. IIRC, With such a blood loss, the animal looses consciousness within 30 seconds and often much sooner.

If that were done to a human, we'd still consider it fairly violent murder, in most situations

What's porc?

Pig. Swine. Pork. Porc.

*That's actually an easier one to make, but considerably more limited in potential scope. As scriv rightfully mentioned, cross species interaction of that sort can often lead to damage. Problem being for those wishing to universally condemn the practice is that not all interaction does, and if you were trying to stick to a consistent justification pattern you'd have to allow the edge cases.
** And from what I've seen it's an incredibly rare individual that actually consistently cares about consent.

[IronTomato]

What's porc?

Pig. Swine. Pork. Porc.

I know what pork is, but but I didn't know what porc was. Or if there was a difference, or that porc was a real word.

[10ebbor10]

What's porc?

Pig. Swine. Pork. Porc.

I know what pork is, but but I didn't know what porc was. Or if there was a difference, or that porc was a real word.

It is. It's French though. If only English could be consistent while stealing other nations vocabulary.