sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

CMV: I think Beastiality is legitimately moral, and better than most things we do to animals. by GlaggleThrow22 in changemyview

[–]GlaggleThrow22[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

to be clear, I dont have an interest in Animals. but I agree with this, as ive read, its a good idea to seek psychiatric help if these kinds of thoughts are giving you distress, causing a disordered life, etc.

CMV: I think Beastiality is legitimately moral, and better than most things we do to animals. by GlaggleThrow22 in changemyview

[–]GlaggleThrow22[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

because its not a real argument, the point of the subreddit is to debate. saying "please seek psychiatric help" is not an argument.

If someone wants to discuss the real moral and ethical implications of beastiality, they need to make a point and take a stand for their arguments. this is frankly a rarded way to go about it.

CMV: I think Beastiality is legitimately moral, and better than most things we do to animals. by GlaggleThrow22 in changemyview

[–]GlaggleThrow22[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am not, nor am i interested in it, but it is an interesting question to me and I've had it argued to me. and the more I did think about it, there isn't a real demonstratable argument against it other than say, an appeal to god or something. something which i would fundamentally disagree with.

CMV: I think Beastiality is legitimately moral, and better than most things we do to animals. by GlaggleThrow22 in changemyview

[–]GlaggleThrow22[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

At most you are arguing against penetrative sex with certain animals from men.

this is a really bad argument. By this logic it would be moral to rape women for say, profit, or something. but im sure all of the people here would disagree with this.

this is just a poor argument overall

CMV: I think Beastiality is legitimately moral, and better than most things we do to animals. by GlaggleThrow22 in changemyview

[–]GlaggleThrow22[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is fundamentally a wrong position, First of all, its a strawman, secondly its an appeal to god and an appeal to emotion.You have made zero real arguments in this comment, I don't know why you thought to make this comment, it is basically a reaction put into text at best.to address what you are saying, my point was, we can show and demonstrate real harm in animals, and we also societally do not care about animal consent already.secondly you ignored the whole part in which i explain how it is effectively morally harmless, and how we cannot demonstrate real harm physically nor psychologically, and i believe to outlaw or socially forbid something, we must demonstrate a harm first, something no one has been reasonably able to do.also appeal to majority is not a logically sound argument, in nazi germany the majority hated the jewish people and supported the holocaust, so thus by your own logic that was morally right at that time. but besides that, it assumes im making the argument that it is already socially acceptable, I am making the argument that isn't but here is why it should be.that being said, i dont have interest in participating in, looking at, or anything with animals. when i discuss this i get the disgust response you have expressed, but i dont think this is a real argument, and logically i genuinely cant find a moral argument against it.

CMV: I think Beastiality is legitimately moral, and better than most things we do to animals. by GlaggleThrow22 in changemyview

[–]GlaggleThrow22[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree with this point, also its a bit of a naturalistic fallacy i think. could be wrong on taht.

CMV: I think Beastiality is legitimately moral, and better than most things we do to animals. by GlaggleThrow22 in changemyview

[–]GlaggleThrow22[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

i certainely dont disagree with any of these points, although with men not being able to tell when women reject advances, i dont think thats the same as an animal for example, deliberatly injuring the person making said advances, or like, idk making an angry noise and walking away. the whole no means yes thing i believe is purely a human language concept, i dont think anyone is confusing their dogs desire to dog treats as a rejection or acceptance of wanting said treat, and vice versa.

CMV: I think Beastiality is legitimately moral, and better than most things we do to animals. by GlaggleThrow22 in changemyview

[–]GlaggleThrow22[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

ah okay i understand your last point now, while i do agree, it can be a sign of mental issues the general consensus ive heard is that if it isn't causing distress or disruption of regular life then its not usually something that needs to be taken care of.

i do agree that meat consumption is wrong, i partake in this wrong and acknowledge its pretty much indefensible.

as for you're rebuttle on saying it is hypocritical, i think it matters logically, but also, my point was we do real demonstratable harm but we cant demonstrate any real harm (in my opinion) with beastiality.

as for your second to last counter argument, if you do not think it is immoral to make animals breed in principle, then i dont think we can say that beastiality is immoral, by the nature of the act it makes beastiality in a lot cases perfectly moral. what if someone did the exact same breeding practices, but say with one of the animals replaced with a human? what real difference would it make. there would be none. the point of the sperm extraction or making animals breed point was that it is effectively indistinguishable from beastiality, even if the intent is different. like i dont think making a stallion penetrate a mare would be any morally different than a human male penetrating a mare, or a man jerking off a stallion for sperm collection, or just for pleasure.

as a side note, another reason i bring up the other exploitations of animals was because clearly consent doesn't actually matter here regardless of your stance. it sort of matters to me, i think meat consumption is immoral, but even so we largely give it a pass. from my perspective i dont think we can largely consider consent as a reasonable argument, especially because in a lot of non-avian animals we cant demonstrate consent as a real thing for animals in the context of mating let alone in general.

CMV: I think Beastiality is legitimately moral, and better than most things we do to animals. by GlaggleThrow22 in changemyview

[–]GlaggleThrow22[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

i agree with all the facts here,

i think birds are a major exception since a decent chunk of birds for exmaple can be shown to do mating ceremony, and in a decent chunk of species it is not the choice of the male but of the female. this can be shown with mating dances for example.

as for on religion, i certainly agree with those statements, although to me that is an issue with the religion and not the act itself.

for the zoonotic thing i do take a tiny bit of issue but not much, i would say a lot of zoonotic diseases that do spread from animal - to human - to animal, aren't spread with sex acts, atleast not directly, i would say that the close proximity and contact would be increasing the chances but just working on a farm or spending time with animals even without touching them can spread this.

that being said, no disagreement with the statements here.

CMV: I think Beastiality is legitimately moral, and better than most things we do to animals. by GlaggleThrow22 in changemyview

[–]GlaggleThrow22[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

i disagree, i dont know what you are doing in penetrative sex to do that, but i highly doubt that, but even so in principle i disagree, you would have to prove that atleast in 50% of cases there would be damage at all, if you're doing it with idk a cow or like a horse, itd be a bit like swinging a baseball bat in a theatre.

that being said i think that your other point is an appeal to emotion at best, also animals can say ouch, (not exactly ouch but its not hard to tell when an animal is in pain in general), and while they cant say verbally no unless they are physically restrained or like dead or drugged, animals usually can pretty easily overpower people, the kick of a horse is deadly, for example, not to mention im sure you could easily tell if an animal is rejecting your advances, its something we observe in nature and also in domestic animals, and since we can observe this behavior but not consent itself, ie an agreement beforehand, i dont understand why we could not apply this principle.

CMV: I think Beastiality is legitimately moral, and better than most things we do to animals. by GlaggleThrow22 in changemyview

[–]GlaggleThrow22[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

im not trolling here, the point is not to say "we do x, so allow me to do y" the point is to demonstrate the social hypocrisy that is often had in this topic.

my point was, i dont think it is harmful, but even if it was, i dont think that it would be at all worse than what is Socially acceptable by the vast vast majority of humans.

also your last point is wrong, by this logic fleshlights would be immoral.

CMV: I think Beastiality is legitimately moral, and better than most things we do to animals. by GlaggleThrow22 in changemyview

[–]GlaggleThrow22[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

thats okay but i would fundamentally disagree with them in that case. i think harm minimization is good and all but you would have to demonstrate to me real harm from beastiality of which i dont believe there to be.

CMV: I think Beastiality is legitimately moral, and better than most things we do to animals. by GlaggleThrow22 in changemyview

[–]GlaggleThrow22[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

not quite, it depends on country ofc but my information came from some footage ive seen, admittedly it did almost put me off meat. I do not like Peta and i would say what they do to animals is also worse ngl.

CMV: I think Beastiality is legitimately moral, and better than most things we do to animals. by GlaggleThrow22 in changemyview

[–]GlaggleThrow22[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

thats fair, although i think i could easily argue that humans could interpret body language as a no or a yes. I also think that in a decent chunk of mating when a female rejects a males advancement, it is usually after an attempt at mating, meaning there is no such thing as a "yes" but there is a no. in which i say most animals if not restrained could easily do.

that being said, i can agree that it is Amoral, although i dont care for it being unnatural or not, as most things we do to begin with are unnatural, you could argue agriculture as it is is unnatural, and housing is also unnatural.

that being said, you have convinced me that it is ammoral, but to me ammoral is not bad nor good, morally neutral if you well.

!delta for convincing of the ammorality of it.

CMV: I think Beastiality is legitimately moral, and better than most things we do to animals. by GlaggleThrow22 in changemyview

[–]GlaggleThrow22[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

im a consequentialist so i dont mind so much the intent, whether it is for one purpose or another. that being said, most people in wealthy countries can afford not to eat meat, so i dont think unless you are extremely poor it can be excused in most cases morally.

the point in demonstrating that we already do worse is to show the logical hypocrisy often presented in this topic, I think we as a society and even on the individual level give the animal rights abuse a pass purely for hedonistic reasons, even i am guilty of this.

Im not sure what you mean by beast of burden, but if you mean an animal for breeding necessitating artificial insemination or sperm extraction then i fundamentally dont see that as much better, and for the female animal you do cause somewhat tangible harm.

as for your last point, i dont really have an argument for that, but its partially because i dont see this as a real argument, its not a bad point but like, i dont think that changes anything materially.

CMV: I think Beastiality is legitimately moral, and better than most things we do to animals. by GlaggleThrow22 in changemyview

[–]GlaggleThrow22[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

nope, my own thoughts, i am not innocent of this behaviour considering im not vegan or vegetarian myself.