[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.
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".
Well OBVIOUSLY that doesn't count because flails arms wildly
i don't get sexual gratification from my food
Carnists stop misrepresenting our arguments challenge (rating: impossible)
Carnists are werechuds and vegans are their full moon
Permanently Deleted
Getting sexual gratification from an act is not the crime here lol. Is this protestant brainworms or something? If now on starting tomorrow via some magical means, all humans started orgasming after biting into a steak, would it then now suddenly be morally wrong to consume steak?
no it's the common usage of "bestiality." outside of vegan standard english i guess.
this argument makes no sense at all, it rests upon strange things you proposed happening, and an assumption of the result
find a better argument
Find a better argument other than "Torturing and exploiting animals is okay as long as you're not horny while doing it"
When did I say any of that, I was just asking for an improvement in arguing methods. Relying on nothing but vulgar ideology does nothing for you. This isn't a marxist debate, this is some strange superiority complex induced vibes session.
Yes you are correct in the main opinion of veganism, but you have obviously not found the finer details.
The thread was somebody defending insemination of livestock, or at least trying to draw a distinction between bestiality and insemination because it is done to farm them rather than for sexual pleasure. My argument is that your intentions do not matter. Is the harm mitigated because you weren't horny while doing it? Why is it more important to view the crime through the lens of the perpetrator rather than through the lens of the victim in this scenario? It's a distinction without a difference.
I don't see a single person defending that at all, even the banned dude.
So intention means nothing? You have jumped from vulgar ideology to vulgar materialism.
These are extremely online arguments. And using parallels that just don't match. Again, find an argument worth having.
And using parallels that just don't match.
Do you often hide like this, behind a phrase critique or emojis, or is this a special sort of backtracking
I'm asking you what the fuck you're talking about. You keep saying "these arguments are online, this parallel doesn't match, this is vulgar materialism and vulgar idealism" but you never offer an argument or explanation why. Just vaguely gesturing that you disagree with what's being said. From the very first response where I asked if it would be suddenly wrong to consume a steak only if it sexually gratified you, to which you simply said "This makes no sense". But it does make sense. It makes perfect sense. You know what question is being asked. Your feigning confusion because you don't want to answer but you were compelled to reply anyway because you took exception to the gist of my argument.
For the love of god make a statement or take a position. Make a substantive claim or something. Or at least explain
Registered a few hours after CatradoraStalinism was banned
"Stalin" in username
Arguing in the same thread Catradora was arguing in, on the same side
