ku Posted July 28, 2007 Posted July 28, 2007 I am myself a libertarian. I don't claim to have the entire logic of libertarianism fully worked out, but what attracts me to libertarianism is simply the fact that I find freedom, choice, and non-coercion aesthetically pleasing. I am sick of hypocrisy and inconsistency and want a world of peace and happiness. When I see someone being beaten against his will then I don't feel right. However, if that person consented to it, e.g. suppose he competed in a boxing match and consents to being punched by his opponent, then I feel much better. Libertarianism can be summed up in the following statement: "You are free to do whatever you want so long as you don't reduce other people's freedom to do whatever they want." Libertarianism holds that pursuit of happiness is moral. Sex in pursuit of happiness is selfish and also moral. Sex between humans and non-human animals or any trans-species intercourse has the additional benefit of zero risk of pregnancy, meaning there is no worries about having to rush to the abortion clinic the day after. Some people criticize bestiality, saying that non-human animals cannot consent to sex and therefore sex with animals goes against their freedom. This may be true, but if we uphold this idea then killing animals for food would be immoral as well and we should all be vegetarians. When humans kill animals for food the animals certainly don't consent to being killed. Killing an animals is done at the expense of the animal's will and for the pleasure of meat-eating humans. When you kill an animal for food, the animal almost certain doesn't consent to being killed because by the laws of evolution all animals try to live and not die. Animals gain pleasure from sex because sex as a behavior is favored for in human evolution. Most animals gain pleasure from sex although many may not enjoy it if they do not consent. The bottom line is that when an animal is killed there is almost a zero percent probability that the animal consented to being killed. However, when an animal is the victim of sexual intercourse, there is a positive probability that it consents and enjoys the sex. Therefore, based on expected probabilities alone, raping an animal is likely to do more to increase the animal's welfare than killing it for food. If pleasure if the basis of morality (e.g. if we adopted a utilitarian system of morality) then if killing animals is moral then it follows that raping animals is also equally moral if not more moral because the animal victim of rape is more likely to enjoy being raped than being killed. Therefore, sex with animals is good.
ajb Posted July 28, 2007 Posted July 28, 2007 Therefore, sex with animals is good. You trying to tell us something? "Don't knock it till you tried it" springs to mind!
MangoChutney Posted July 28, 2007 Posted July 28, 2007 WOW! I thought I had registered solely with upstanding citizens not dangerous deviant sexual perverts - glad I came here now ;-) Seriously, I have to take issue with this and wonder if it is posted tongue-in-cheek The animal kingdom is generally dominated by predators, who kill, not for fun, but for food. The victims of preditors could hardly be described as consenting to be eaten, so killing animals, even when reared on farms, is hardly immoral, because it happens throughout the animal kingdom. You only have to look at our teeth to show we are natural meat eaters, although we are obviously omnivores rather than strict carnivores. I am not aware of any animals that choose to have sex with completely different species. I accept that some animals of closely related species do mate, but, another flaw in your argument, their offspring do survive, although they are unable to reproduce themselves. I wouldn't like to be caught under the offfspring of an eagle and a cow! lol Animals enjoy sex? Not that I am aware of. Animals get excited by the mating season not by enjoyment of sex, in the way that a human enjoys sex. The only species that I am aware of that engages in sex outside of the mating season is the chimp, but the chimp uses sex as a means of establishing a pecking order, not as enjoyment of sex as an end in itself. With your reasoning it would be possible to assume that sex with children was also acceptable, as even children are more intelligent than animals, but there can never be consent from a child, because children are far too easily influenced by adults, which is why paedophilia is thankfully illegal and always will be. I do actually believe that what happens between 2 consenting adults is strictly between them, but there can never be consent between a human and an animal, it is simply not possible.
Phi for All Posted July 28, 2007 Posted July 28, 2007 I'm going to leave it up to Pangloss to decide if this is a political issue or not. ku, I've always found it a bit distressing that many of your threads involve some form of support for what the majority consider deviant sexual behavior such as pedophilia, rape, brutality and now bestiality. I've tried not to introduce any ad hominem arguments because you are well-spoken and somewhat considerate with your threads (although you tend to ignore clarifying questions put forth by other members). You seem to have a bit of an obsession and I wonder if you'd address that in this thread?
lucaspa Posted July 28, 2007 Posted July 28, 2007 Libertarianism can be summed up in the following statement: "You are free to do whatever you want so long as you don't reduce other people's freedom to do whatever they want." Libertarianism holds that pursuit of happiness is moral. Sex in pursuit of happiness is selfish and also moral. If pleasure if the basis of morality (e.g. if we adopted a utilitarian system of morality) then if killing animals is moral then it follows that raping animals is also equally moral if not more moral because the animal victim of rape is more likely to enjoy being raped than being killed. Therefore, sex with animals is good. WOW. What twisted logic. You can do whatever you want as long as you don't reduce their freedom to do what they want? But pursuit of happiness is moral and sex in pursuit of happiness is moral. I take it you rule out human rape only because forced sex limits the victims freedom in avoiding forced sex. You would have no moral objections to rape. But you justify rape of animals because rape is less unpleasant than being killed? You are trying to justify bestiality based on a comparison of what is less hurtful? By your logic, then a sadist can torture you because you are more likely to enjoy torture than being killed! Some people criticize bestiality, saying that non-human animals cannot consent to sex and therefore sex with animals goes against their freedom. So you decide what SOME people say and then use that single argument to arrive at the conclusion "sex with animals is good".? Have you ever heard of "synedoche"? That is improperly letting a part stand for the whole. In this case, you are letting your own strawman version of one argument be ALL arguments against bestiality. Killing an animals is done at the expense of the animal's will and for the pleasure of meat-eating humans. Is it done ONLY for pleasure? Or is nutrition also involved? Sex with animals is done ONLY for the pleasure of the human. So you have compared apples and oranges. If pleasure if the basis of morality (e.g. if we adopted a utilitarian system of morality) But you have already said that pleasure is NOT the basis for morality! Look above at your own post. By the Libertarian statement, not restricting the freedom of another is the basis for morality. Pleasure can only be countenanced as long as it does not violate that morality. So, since you have shown that your idea of morality is wrong, your conclusion cannot follow from a false premise. You are going to have to find some other way to justify bestiality.
ecoli Posted July 28, 2007 Posted July 28, 2007 Is it done ONLY for pleasure? Or is nutrition also involved? Personally, I think it's mostly for nutrition. Of course, people enjoy eating meat... but I don't think there are very many people who enjoy the actual killing of animals. That's why our meat companies are quite rich, and the number of Americans that hunt is not very large. We enjoy the eating, and the nutrients we get, but not the actual killing. I think that also would stop your logic.
ydoaPs Posted July 29, 2007 Posted July 29, 2007 Sex between humans and non-human animals or any trans-species intercourse has the additional benefit of zero risk of pregnancy, meaning there is no worries about having to rush to the abortion clinic the day after.Um, no. Ever hear of a mule? Some people criticize bestiality, saying that non-human animals cannot consent to sex and therefore sex with animals goes against their freedom. This may be true, but if we uphold this idea then killing animals for food would be immoral as well and we should all be vegetarians. When humans kill animals for food the animals certainly don't consent to being killed. Killing an animals is done at the expense of the animal's will and for the pleasure of meat-eating humans....assuming eating intelligent animals isn't wrong in a world where we could very well be supported in a vegetarian lifestyle. In fact, if we were vegetarians, there would be more food to go around, so it would be easier to fight world hunger. Even so, "they are hypocrites, so having sex with animals isn't bad" isn't a very good argument. Therefore, sex with animals is good. I pray to the FSM that you are joking.
Sisyphus Posted July 29, 2007 Posted July 29, 2007 It's probably a mistake to go near this, but what if the animal enjoys it?
Reaper Posted July 29, 2007 Posted July 29, 2007 I am myself a libertarian. I don't claim to have the entire logic of libertarianism fully worked out, but what attracts me to libertarianism is simply the fact that I find freedom, choice, and non-coercion aesthetically pleasing. I am sick of hypocrisy and inconsistency and want a world of peace and happiness. When I see someone being beaten against his will then I don't feel right. However, if that person consented to it, e.g. suppose he competed in a boxing match and consents to being punched by his opponent, then I feel much better. Libertarianism can be summed up in the following statement: "You are free to do whatever you want so long as you don't reduce other people's freedom to do whatever they want." Libertarianism holds that pursuit of happiness is moral. Sex in pursuit of happiness is selfish and also moral. Sex between humans and non-human animals or any trans-species intercourse has the additional benefit of zero risk of pregnancy, meaning there is no worries about having to rush to the abortion clinic the day after. Some people criticize bestiality, saying that non-human animals cannot consent to sex and therefore sex with animals goes against their freedom. This may be true, but if we uphold this idea then killing animals for food would be immoral as well and we should all be vegetarians. When humans kill animals for food the animals certainly don't consent to being killed. Killing an animals is done at the expense of the animal's will and for the pleasure of meat-eating humans. When you kill an animal for food, the animal almost certain doesn't consent to being killed because by the laws of evolution all animals try to live and not die. Animals gain pleasure from sex because sex as a behavior is favored for in human evolution. Most animals gain pleasure from sex although many may not enjoy it if they do not consent. The bottom line is that when an animal is killed there is almost a zero percent probability that the animal consented to being killed. However, when an animal is the victim of sexual intercourse, there is a positive probability that it consents and enjoys the sex. Therefore, based on expected probabilities alone, raping an animal is likely to do more to increase the animal's welfare than killing it for food. If pleasure if the basis of morality (e.g. if we adopted a utilitarian system of morality) then if killing animals is moral then it follows that raping animals is also equally moral if not more moral because the animal victim of rape is more likely to enjoy being raped than being killed. Therefore, sex with animals is good. Not buying it for various reasons: 1. People who engage in this do so only for their own pleasure. It is akin to rape. 2. Increases the risk of getting an illness or disease, especially if you eat it. Never mind the thought of exchanging fluids. 3. How would you know that the animal likes it? You are forcing it to have sex with you. You are basically assaulting it. 4. The animal is not consenting. I don't find anything morally correct, or psychologically correct, about it.
MangoChutney Posted July 29, 2007 Posted July 29, 2007 ...assuming eating intelligent animals isn't wrong in a world where we could very well be supported in a vegetarian lifestyle. In fact, if we were vegetarians, there would be more food to go around, so it would be easier to fight world hunger. I am not sure there is sufficient arable land in the world to support 6 billion vegetarians AND grow bio-everything - there certainly isn't in the UK and I do believe humans are not intended to be vegetarians, although I concede we probably eat too much meat. I always wonder, in the mad rush to grow bio-everything, does it really make sense to cut down forests to grow sugar cane? For myself, I prefer fish with lots of fruit, veg and nuts and only eat red meat once, maybe twice a week
Sisyphus Posted July 29, 2007 Posted July 29, 2007 I am not sure there is sufficient arable land in the world to support 6 billion vegetarians... Raising livestock uses far more land, because the animals have to eat, and most of the energy is lost each step up the food train. In other words, it takes much less cropland to feed people as it does to feed the animals raised to feed people. You are right about seafood, though, unless ocean plants become a significant foodsource. As for bio-fuel and whatnot, it can actually be produced much more land-efficiently than it generally is now, by a couple orders of magnitude. Corn and soy, for example, are ridiculously inefficient compared to algae, but corn and soy are grown currently, and farmers are politically powerful...
Pangloss Posted July 29, 2007 Posted July 29, 2007 Actually it's kinda funny that mules came up (see post #7 above), because there was a story in the news the other day about a mule becoming pregnant. I guess you really can foal mother nature!
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 29, 2007 Posted July 29, 2007 It's probably a mistake to go near this, but what if the animal enjoys it? How could you tell?
Sisyphus Posted July 29, 2007 Posted July 29, 2007 How could you tell? If you're on the receiving end? BTW, Pangloss:
pioneer Posted July 29, 2007 Posted July 29, 2007 The natural goal of sex is procreation. The pleasure is the carrot on the string that leads the horse to water (procreation) Inspite of inhibitions and fears, the carrot is designed to be so tasty that it can lead the horse to the needed goal. The modern relativity of instinct views the carrot as the goal, therefore allowing procreation aberrations to be called normal human behavior. This orientation allows the carrot to lead one to clean water, a mucky swamp or even a sand pit, as long as you get the carrot in the end. If one uses the carrot as the goal and not the incentive toward only clean water, then beastialty can use all the same arguments that are used by homosexuality. The pleasure behavior can be associated with genetics, it can show tell tale signs from a young age, it has precedent in history, and even has precident in nature (dogs humping human legs). If babies, instead of the carrot of pleasure is the natural goal, then beastiality, homosexuality and pediphilia are all lumped unnatural since they lead to polute water. I don't care either way as long as things are consistent across the board. An analogy is eating. The pleasure of eating is the carrot while the clean water are the natural needs of the body for nutrients and energy. If the carrot is the goal and not the incentive then the body can be damaged. 1
ydoaPs Posted July 29, 2007 Posted July 29, 2007 Raising livestock uses far more land, because the animals have to eat, and most of the energy is lost each step up the food train. In other words, it takes much less cropland to feed people as it does to feed the animals raised to feed people. You are right about seafood, though, unless ocean plants become a significant foodsource. As for bio-fuel and whatnot, it can actually be produced much more land-efficiently than it generally is now, by a couple orders of magnitude. Corn and soy, for example, are ridiculously inefficient compared to algae, but corn and soy are grown currently, and farmers are politically powerful... Indeed. I guess I should have explained that, but it was a comment made more in passing.
MangoChutney Posted July 30, 2007 Posted July 30, 2007 Raising livestock uses far more land, because the animals have to eat, and most of the energy is lost each step up the food train. In other words, it takes much less cropland to feed people as it does to feed the animals raised to feed people. You are right about seafood, though, unless ocean plants become a significant foodsource. As for bio-fuel and whatnot, it can actually be produced much more land-efficiently than it generally is now, by a couple orders of magnitude. Corn and soy, for example, are ridiculously inefficient compared to algae, but corn and soy are grown currently, and farmers are politically powerful... Accepted, although quoted out of context, and nature clearly didn't intend us to be vegetarians. What I actually said was: "I am not sure there is sufficient arable land in the world to support 6 billion vegetarians AND grow bio-everything" And I seriously doubt if there is enough arable land to support a vegetarian lifestyle, grow crops for fuel, energy etc etc
w=f[z] Posted July 30, 2007 Posted July 30, 2007 I'm not sure I want to touch this, but I've seen pictures... I've seen pictures of women with dogs. Clearly the dog was "consenting".... Cheers
Sisyphus Posted July 30, 2007 Posted July 30, 2007 Accepted, although quoted out of context, and nature clearly didn't intend us to be vegetarians. I agree, mostly. We're evolved to be versatile omnivores, able to survive on plants or meat if need be. However, obviously we CAN be vegetarians quite easily, and nature doesn't penalize us for it. We could also survive on JUST meat, though probably not nearly as healthily. The "natural diet" is probably less than 5% meat, with great flexibility. (Just for context, I do eat meat, so this isn't a "political" statement or anything, it's just fact.) What I actually said was: "I am not sure there is sufficient arable land in the world to support 6 billion vegetarians AND grow bio-everything" And I seriously doubt if there is enough arable land to support a vegetarian lifestyle, grow crops for fuel, energy etc etc I'm not so sure about that. "Supporting a vegetarian lifestyle" takes LESS land, not more, so that part of the statement is just a red herring. The way you phrased it made it sound like an argument against vegetarianism, when in fact it's the opposite. That was my main point. The valid question remaining is, "is there enough land to meat our energy needs through bio-fuels?" I really don't know the answer, though the current situation is misleading. I wasn't being hyperbolic when I was talking about the extreme inefficiency of corn and soy, the current primary sources of biofuel. Algae is 30 times more efficient even than palm oil, which is the next most efficient source of biofuel per acre. So biofuel can be produced far, far, more efficiently and in much greater quantities than it is currently while still using LESS land. But I'm still curious about the source of that statement. Is anyone actually in favor of 100% biofuel energy? The advantages of biofuel - renewability, lack of foreign dependence, relatively low environmental impact, etc., apply just as much if not more to the other "alternative" fuels. So maybe a better question would be, "If we make room by cutting down on meat production, is there enough land to produce enough biofuel to take up the slack from solar plants, wind farms, etc.?"
lucaspa Posted July 30, 2007 Posted July 30, 2007 It's probably a mistake to go near this, but what if the animal enjoys it? Is that relevant? After all, we don't consider rape any less rape if the victim has an orgasm (and many do, which contributes to the later psychological trauma). However, obviously we CAN be vegetarians quite easily, and nature doesn't penalize us for it. It's not "quite easily". Meat has a higher density of energy per gm. Our brains use quite a bit of energy. And we need quite a few dietary amino acids -- ones we don't make. Meat is a much denser source of amino acids than plants. So, to be completely vegetarian requires some pretty good meal planning to compensate and ensure the diet is nutritionally complete.
MangoChutney Posted July 30, 2007 Posted July 30, 2007 But I'm still curious about the source of that statement. Is anyone actually in favor of 100% biofuel energy? No source, just an opinion. I haven't checked the credentials of the following llink but it does raise this question: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/HTBFAFRUCC.php
Sisyphus Posted July 30, 2007 Posted July 30, 2007 Yeah, for absolute optimal nutrition, you need to either eat some meat or consciously keep track of that sort of thing. Like I said, we're omnivores. But you won't die without it or anything.
MangoChutney Posted August 1, 2007 Posted August 1, 2007 I mentioned the other day that I seriously doubted if their was suffiecient land to grow food and bio-everything. I found this on Climate Ark http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=81190
Sisyphus Posted August 1, 2007 Posted August 1, 2007 I mentioned the other day that I seriously doubted if their was suffiecient land to grow food and bio-everything. I found this on Climate Ark http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=81190 I'll say it as many times as I have to. CORN is not a viable source of biofuel. It is in use for extremely cynical political reasons. I agree with most of the arguments in that article, but it only addresses the current situation (which is stupid) and not the viable alternatives (which still make use of biofuel). Other alternatives which ARE viable, like algae-based farms, do exist, and the whole equation is redrawn.
Reaper Posted August 1, 2007 Posted August 1, 2007 I'll say it as many times as I have to. CORN is not a viable source of biofuel. It is in use for extremely cynical political reasons. I agree with most of the arguments in that article, but it only addresses the current situation (which is stupid) and not the viable alternatives (which still make use of biofuel). Other alternatives which ARE viable, like algae-based farms, do exist, and the whole equation is redrawn. Sugarcane is used in Brazil as a source of Biofuel. But this is getting way off topic. ]I'm not sure I want to touch this' date=' but I've seen pictures... I've seen pictures of women with dogs. [i']Clearly[/i] the dog was "consenting".... Cheers Please spare the details. Besides, you cannot prove that with the picture alone.
Recommended Posts