[CW: bestiality] Professional "moral philosopher" ponders whether it's OK to sexually assault animals, featuring AI art
[CW: bestiality] Professional "moral philosopher" ponders whether it's OK to sexually assault animals, featuring AI art
https://nitter.net/PeterSinger/status/1722440246972018857
No, the art does not depict bestiality, don't worry.
You're viewing part of a thread.
i have only ever heard vegans extend the definition of bestiality to include actions that are not for the sexual gratification of the person.
Why does the crime depend on what the person is getting out of it? If it's done to a human, does it not count as sexual assault if it isn't for sexual gratification? Please explain. Violent crimes are wrong because of the effect on the victim, not the perpetrator.
because your use of terminology is subcultural and the rest of us don't think it applies to the situation
Let's back up to square one. Is it wrong to perform sex acts on a non-human animal? If so, why? You're talking too abstractly so I'd really like to just get something concrete to discuss with.
i don't think that's square one, i think square one is further back.
Is a doctor (or medical technician or whatever job title idc) doing the last step of IVF performing a sex act on or with the patient? the adult patient consents of course, but i don't think anyone thinks a doctor with a "turkey baster" is doing a sex act. I would say "preforming sex acts on..." isn't applicable to animal husbandry in the way i understand all those words.
i'm not trying to debate bro here, it's just not possible to have a conversation if we think words mean different things... which gets back to my previous point about vegans using a wider "bestiality" than the rest of us, apparently including Kinsey.
i'm not trying to debate bro here
And yet instead of answering the question you went off on a tangent about IVF.
I didn't ask you your definition of sex act or say anything about doctors or animal husbandry. The question is VERY simple. Is it, or is it not, wrong to perform sex acts on a non-human animal?
I didn't ask you your definition of sex act or say anything about doctors or animal husbandry. The question is VERY simple. Is it, or is it not, wrong to perform sex acts on a non-human animal?
there's no point in my answering your question if we don't agree what counts as a sex act. we've already established that vegans have a broader meaning of bestiality than the rest of us so now we need to be careful about shit like whether a grill is a barbecue or a broiler.
I say "no" then you say
artificial insemination is a sex act.I say "no" then you say artificial insemination is a sex act.
See, this is the debate bro thing I'm talking about. You're trying to "win" the argument by not "falling for my trap." But there's no trap. You're completely off the mark about where I was going with this, and you'll never find out because you're scared of falling for it. Because to you, "winning" the debate is way more important than actually having a discussion. That's why you were speaking in abstracts like I pointed out when I first replied to you, because if you say anything concrete then there's a possibility for people to question your logic and pose hard questions that you aren't sure how to answer.
if we are going to equate animals and humans in your logic...
Having sex with an animal is as bad as incest, arguing there is no material reason for being against bestiality would also mean there is no reason against incest as a person who has sexual inclinations.
if we are going to equate animals and humans in your logic...
What? When did I do that? When did I even state any logic at all? I asked someone to explain their logic.
arguing there is no material reason for being against bestiality
I didn't argue anything. I asked someone else to explain the reason that they are against that thing, so that I can better understand their position.
What? When did I do that? When did I even state any logic at all? I asked someone to explain their logic.
Do you not believe that? we are vegans.
you are now dodging your own logic, interesting
Literally what the hell are you talking about
okay, perhaps we are both scattered
so I will answer their question
it is wrong to perform sexual acts on an animal. Because it is wrong to have sex outside of your zone of sexual interest. Should a fox fuck a porcupine? They eat it so what else is different? Silly logic for vulgar ideology, in my opinion.
it is wrong to perform sexual acts on an animal. Because it is wrong to have sex outside of your zone of sexual interest.
is that why it's wrong? is it really?
Yes! Would you have sexual intercourse with a family member? Why not? They're a totally able bodied human! You participate in sex, and thats a small step from it.
No its wrong because it is morally and completely wrong, with various mental and physically ill issues stemming from it.
Its wrong because you are having sexual intercourse with an animal, which is something against nature and just wrong in literally every way. Its one of the true taboos of humanity, you don't do it.
To suggest that going from turkey dinner to fucking turkey is a small step for carnists is the stupidest thing you could say in this. There are a myriad of arguments you can use to pick clean carnism, this session has stuck to one of the stupidest in existence. I swear I thought there were people with more than just vibes based politics here, but this shows that I will have to block a few fools in order to experience the site without crawling through ideological dung.
Because it is wrong to have sex outside of your zone of sexual interest. Should a fox fuck a porcupine?
