Calling it Quits

[PiP]

First off, how does an animal consent? Does it? If so, how can we humans detect it?

obviously, you haven't tried to 'detect' it. If you did, you'd know how animals 'consent' and not

[Thor Kaufman]

First off, how does an animal consent? Does it? If so, how can we humans detect it?

obviously, you haven't tried to 'detect' it. If you did, you'd know how animals 'consent' and not

Even if I did, it's not like I'd care. :mrhands:

reminds me of that site that describes how to mate with an orca or delphin.

[frissy]

All of them have one thing in common. They all play hard to get (but still want it...of course...swiit luving...)

[johnnygothisgun]

Do I have to tell a story of a thousand rainy days since we first met?
It's a big enough umbrella, but it's always me that ends up getting wet.

[Megatron]

If a fat guy grabs u and puts u in a bag, dont worry I told Santa I wanted u 4 Christmas Send this to 10 people u care about including me

[TelemachusSneezed]

I don't like all of what you just said. Change your opinions and rephrase.

F+

Yes, sir. I'll get right on that!

First off, how does an animal consent? Does it?

Well, that's kind of the point now, isn't it my good Thor. They... wait for it... can't. "Non-consent" = "wrong".

Do you think, animals consent to be slaughtered and eaten? It probably begs for it, huh?

Human beings have been eating animals for millenia, because food is necessary to survival. One could argue that human beings do not need meat, but anthropologists have also speculated that human beings were able to accelerate their development with the large influx of protein given from eating meat. Thus, the evolutionary step towards eating meat most likely helped us to become the successful species we are today.

So far, I have not met a human being that needs to have sex with animals to survive. Since it is not necessary, it is a moral choice. Since it is a moral choice... well, that's why life is not so cut-and-dry.

Also what's your second paragraph even supposed to mean, anti-judgement, accepted by mainstream society. wtf

It meant just what it said: cursing someone for "judging" the actions of another is a cop-out, especially on this particular forum. What I meant about mainstream thought is simply this: "judgement" is widely considered in Western societies to be "not nice." This is why we said to one another as 12-year olds, "Don't judge, that's not nice." Since we are not 12 years old anymore -- I think -- then simply telling someone to "not judge" is a bit inane.

QED

[Thor Kaufman]

I don't like all of what you just said. Change your opinions and rephrase.

F+

Yes, sir. I'll get right on that!

First off, how does an animal consent? Does it?

Well, that's kind of the point now, isn't it my good Thor. They... wait for it... can't. "Non-consent" = "wrong".

Do you think, animals consent to be slaughtered and eaten? It probably begs for it, huh?

Human beings have been eating animals for millenia, because food is necessary to survival. One could argue that human beings do not need meat, but anthropologists have also speculated that human beings were able to accelerate their development with the large influx of protein given from eating meat. Thus, the evolutionary step towards eating meat most likely helped us to become the successful species we are today.

So far, I have not met a human being that needs to have sex with animals to survive. Since it is not necessary, it is a moral choice. Since it is a moral choice... well, that's why life is not so cut-and-dry.

Also what's your second paragraph even supposed to mean, anti-judgement, accepted by mainstream society. wtf

It meant just what it said: cursing someone for "judging" the actions of another is a cop-out, especially on this particular forum. What I meant about mainstream thought is simply this: "judgement" is widely considered in Western societies to be "not nice." This is why we said to one another as 12-year olds, "Don't judge, that's not nice." Since we are not 12 years old anymore -- I think -- then simply telling someone to "not judge" is a bit inane.

QED

What the heck, western societies? Judging is "wrong", because moralinsour fuckheads like you tend to annoy other people with your opinionated BS, that no one wants to hear or cares about.
Also, this "debate" is pointless, since morals aren't about right or wrong, hence can't be won or whatever.

People are free to choose if they want to eat or fuck an animal, if you don't want to, so be it, but don't be a hardass about it.
Also what are the consequences if a person fucks an animal? It's not too bad in comparison to killing it. Also, there are probably good animal psychologists around. Even better solution, just kill the animal afterwards.
If you really care about the animals, just let them be and go hug a tree.

Also, your "point" about evolution is dumb as well. What do you know about interbreeding? In fact your mother bred with a donkey and you came out as the result, how's that about evolution, huh? Let alone the fact that you probably watch TV occasionally, do you fuck your TV or eat it? Yay

[TelemachusSneezed]

What the heck, western societies? Judging is "wrong", because moralinsour fuckheads like you tend to annoy other people with your opinionated BS, that no one wants to hear or cares about.
Also, this "debate" is pointless, since morals aren't about right or wrong, hence can't be won or whatever.

People are free to choose if they want to eat or fuck an animal, if you don't want to, so be it, but don't be a hardass about it.
Also what are the consequences if a person fucks an animal? It's not too bad in comparison to killing it. Also, there are probably good animal psychologists around. Even better solution, just kill the animal afterwards.
If you really care about the animals, just let them be and go hug a tree.

Also, your "point" about evolution is dumb as well. What do you know about interbreeding? In fact your mother bred with a donkey and you came out as the result, how's that about evolution, huh? Let alone the fact that you probably watch TV occasionally, do you fuck your TV or eat it? Yay

I'd love to continue debating this stuff, but we're really not on the same page. You're pulling the old "I'm going to get belligerent and non-intelligible so I can pull out of this discussion" thing on me. Well, alright then.

[SuperH]

He's non-intelligible? You're arguing with circular logic and double standards.

You can't get over the fact that it's "morally wrong" to have sex with an animal, and you claim that it's "morally right" to kill and eat an animal. Why? Because it happened before! Because tradition is that way.

Well here's a question for you - why is it wrong? Why? What single part of this situation is wrong? Nobody fucking holds the animal down to the ground and pounds it, they put peanut butter on their crotch and have the animal lick it off.

WHERE IS THE ANIMAL BEING HARMED. You scream "no consent," and, it has been said before to you but for some reason you cannot figure out what this next section means - WHERE IS THE CONSENT WHEN THEY'RE BEING SLAUGHTERED TO BE KILLED AND EATEN.

Oh I forgot! We don't need consent! People have been doing it for a while it's morally right

[Subhuman]

The point of this whole thing is that you're all insane.

[atoga]

superh is pretty much on the money. it's also worth noting that this is a pretty fruitless thing to argue about (even when compared to the things regularly argued about on dac) since there's no pragmatic way of stopping people from having sex with animals. people don't advertise it when they have sex with animals, or torture and kill them for that matter, which is why it's something you so rarely hear about. unlike, say, pedophilia, no one really gives enough of a shit to take strong measures to prevent things like that from happening, except in rare abuse cases. what would you possibly do? that's why bestiality seems like such a non-issue to me.

also, your point about evolution is mostly irrelevant. it doesn't justify eating animals at our current stage in evolution, and anyway, since when is "necessary for survival" synonymous with "moral"?

[Dan_Wood]

I walk away to get a job for a day and someone gets their dick wrapped around the fanblades.

[frissy]

What about animals who want to have humality? Is that morally right? Here's the oldie-favourite among us animals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB9DldNlRyY


As for moral issues about eating meat. Just because something happened in the past doesn't mean it would be morally right (if it would be, then it would be ok no Gas all the jews because Adolf did it in the past...morally right? I doupt it).

...but...eating meat and other species is a natural thing to do. You see it in the wilderness everyday. It's key to survival, and perhaps also to evolving. You humans don't need meat, but you are designed to use it as you are also designed to use weggies. So eating what evolution/god intended should be counted as life, not "very bad thing, don't eat the bunny!" As said before, it's a personal choice. You can't go pointing fingers based on your own morals (of course you can, it's a bit immoral, but you love it). Own morals -> Opinion -> brown hole (everyone has one. Adolf too. He thought he was morally right, but was he...)

it doesn't justify eating animals at our current stage in evolution

So we don't evolve anymore? Should we stop eating animals and let them multiply (shag like mice) and RULE THE WORLD! (mm...i like it)

I on the otherhand can be called a immoral. I like eating a humansteak, but i'm not designed to eat meat, but I love it because it gives me the BUNS OF STEEL!

[atoga]

do you understand how evolution works? it's not a teleological process.

[frissy]

Yup

First you got eaten. Then God (or vault elite) told you to become smart. You built a gun. Now you eat.





Of course if there was evolution...if there is god, then there is no evolution. If so, then all you weggiepeople should start hating god (basically the dude who wrote the book about morals and ethnics).

[Fa11lloutfan_15]

Every conception of a human right to life stems from such a requirement to sustain civilisation. Therefore the exceptions will vary as much as the form of society, in our society we consider it right to kill enemies and often criminals. The Nazis said the Jews were lower than rats and (almost) exterminated them, and one must understand that both reasons to depriving one group of "human dignity" are as human - none of them are more justified in any higher moral - and that to consider it self-evident that it's right to kill criminals but not Jews is mere stupidity induced by living too isolated in our morality and probably never having contemplated it. (However, one is of course just as concerned with morals when saying that it is "right" to kill Jews as that it is wrong.)

To return to my favourite example: The only modern, Western state which to my knowledge differs significantly from the pattern of traditional, mercantile states is Sparta. Every man's "right to property" was there repealed for a higher interest, in this case that of producing "stealthy" soldiers, I guess - this is demonstrated in that those undergoing training were punished not for stealing but for being caught with stealing. However the encouragement of stealing in Sparta filled exactly the same purpose as the discouragement of it here; while it is in our society the superior collective interest to preserve property to provide an incentive for production, it was in militarist Sparta to raise soldiers with a variety of - there - positive attributes. And to superordinate moral principles (as is done with consent here) and remove them out of their context and completely hypothetical nature is therefore a worse misconception than Christianity.

As morals are expressions of interest which are enforced through law, culture or for that part every man's "superego" or conscience or whatever, it is impossible, as Thor Kaufman points out, to speak of any moral authority, moral duty or for that part even right morality (see Sparta). Morals are always linked to the dominant collective's material interests and never in any higher ethics. That the individual is obliged to follow his conscience rather than his urges, which in most cases means to do what is "moral", is in itself a dogma.

I don't know exactly why we are so concerned with consent regarding sex between humans, but that we stress it so heavily obviously points to that it is necessary for our culture's prosperity (otherwise we would of course enjoy complete freedom), and regardless of reason to demand it for animals is just a stupid attempt to transfer the way we reason about humans into a system where we are not even interested in the animals' well-being, and where we don't even know if the animals are harmed like humans are by being raped, which is in any case in turn just as stupid as saying that a thief should abstain from committing his crimes because his victims are disadvantaged. He might do so anyway because his conscience commands him, but that has nothing to do with right or wrong but rather strength of will and character. I sincerely hope that some day this Jewish and Christian dualist way of discussing ethics as universal duties passed down by God - only today there is no God to enforce them, we instead take them for "granted", will be abandoned. Hence my signature..

Everyone who doesn't stand killing an animal - I'm one of them - should either pay others to do it or go hug a fucking tree. To even discuss whether it's right or not is due to the nature of morals an almost ridiculous waste of time.

First you got eaten. Then God (or vault elite) told you to become smart. You built a gun. Now you eat.

Of course if there was evolution...if there is god, then there is no evolution. If so, then all you weggiepeople should start hating god (basically the dude who wrote the book about morals and ethnics).

No

[frissy]

Just as a sidenote. I still think humans are animals too. The only difference is that there are no superior animals to buttfuck and barbeque us (actually the donkey did try to do that...hmm...should we debate the moral just of the donkey?).

[Kahgan]

what a crapload of spammy skite

[frissy]

Yes, but it would be immoral to lock this. We're on the verge of discovering bestiality into our everyday lives.

[vx trauma]

off topic : why do you have a picture of a elephant tampon as your avatar?

happy fuggin friday pal.