Is there any objective way that zoophilia can be rendered worse than eating meat?
Fucking an animal can't be worse for it than you cutting it to pieces to eat it, can it? Especially if the animal is breeded and have untergone the generally quite stressfull and painful parts gone through while reaching the end of the slaughterhouse.
No, anon
Don't fuck animals
>>1411375
>objective
Well lets start by defining some objective properties. Suppose mental anguish, and that we might seek to limit it, for example, I'm not sure of your take on the issue. Or you may arbitrarily define life as objectively valuable and seek to preserve life whenever possible. I'm curious what you consider objective morality good for animals.
>>1411392
You may use whatever reasoning you want of course.
I don't think there are any objective morality amonge animals, just that humans should try to limit any pain they inflict on them.
Probably because it is natural for us to eat animals, but unnatural to fornicate with them. Other than that, I think you are right. From a utilitarian perspective, eating an animal causes more suffering that tucking it.
>>1411406
Ok then, suppose the choice between traumatic prolonged rape of an animal compared to a quick and painless death for slaughtering. Which is objectivly better?
>>1411443
That implies that ainmals actually don't enjoy the procedure. And don't most food industries involving meat-animals ((As opposed to those you get wool or milk from)) involve a life quite full of misery and stress?
>>1411375
When you kill an animal that's it, it's all over. No more pain, no more suffering. But when you rape an animal you put them through prolonged torture. That's why it's worse anon.
>>1411472
Then the fact is that it's the upbringing of such animals in industrial conditions that's the problem, not the murder itself. An animal that has lived free and been hunted removes this moral aspect.
>>1411476
Yeah, though most meat that most people ever eat, if it isn't all, hasn't come from free and hunted animals, right?
>>1411494
>Is there any objective way
OP is asking for even a single hypothetical, not necessarily a real practical example.
>>1411375
WTF does this have to do with history, anon?
>>1411633
It got a lot to do with Humanites Anon.
>>1411766
>humanities
more like animalities
>>1411375
t. furry vegan dogfucker
>>1411375
> any objective way
Well, if you compare painless death with suffering induced by non-proper sexual act... Then, maybe?
>>1411375
>objective
What do you mean by this? Scientific, quantitative, or logically objective?
We don't condemn bestiality because of animal rights, but because we find it depraved and disgusting. Most people don't give a fuck about animal suffering.
>>1411375
>Is there any objective way that zoophilia can be rendered worse than eating meat?
Simple: animals are not moral actors so they have no inherrent "right" to anything. There should be no animal rights, instead there should be human duties. Humans have the right to take from nature what they need, but a duty to not inflict unneccessary suffering. Taking an animals meat is neccessary for our survival, but raping them or making egg batteries out of chickens is unneccessary suffering that can be avoided while still achieving our main goal: nutrition.
Either that, or you simply classify it as a form of sodomy. Anyway, you need to look at it from the perspective of the human and not the animal. Only the human is morally accountable, animals are just animals.
Also, Centorea has the best personality and Miia is the best girl all-round, though as an IRL girlfriend Rachnee is probably the best option.
>>1411981
>Taking an animals meat is neccessary for our survival
Except it isn't. Duh.
>>1411997
For most of human history, the fancy meat replacaments we have today weren't available. This is why, outside of some specific religious orders, veganism wasn't a thing until the late 20th century. And even today we've reached the point where meat consumption and the institutions centered around it have become so fundamental, all of humanity suddenly stepping away from it would have disastrous economic consequences.
>>1411981
>raping
Why do we antropomorphize animals in this particular instance, but not when we for example enslave them (i.e. keep them as pets/working animals)?
There is no reason to assume that sexual contact between humans and animals is inherently more harmful than non-sexual contact.
>>1412045
Yeah, you're right. "Forced copulation" would've been more factual and neutral in this case. If sharks can't rape eachother and sharks aren't neutral actors, a human can't rape a shark (though putting your privates near one still isn't a smart idea).
Guess then what mostly remains is taboo. That's mostly a social thing, so it'd mean there's no argument to make it illegal and have the police force enforce it?
>>1412059
You could argue that, generally speaking, in a democracy the will of the people is all the argument you need to make something illegal and have the police enforce it.
I would however agree that there is no rational reason for the people to feel that way.
>>1411981
>morality
>>1411375
> Is there any objective way that zoophilia can be rendered worse than eating meat?
No. Typical arguments are:
1) "muh religion bans zoophilia, but meat is fine";
2) false belief that meat is "necessary for survival" (not only it isn't, but modern Western meat consumption is very high);
3) "muh feels, eww gross, you're sick animal fucker" (appeal to emotion and personal insults);
4) repeating arguments that apply to zoophilia and meat (like "consent"), but blindly ignoring you can use them against meat too.
>>1412097
>You could argue that, generally speaking, in a democracy the will of the people is all the argument you need to make something illegal and have the police enforce it.
Volonté de tous, yeah. Volonté général, not so much. Sadly democracies devolve to appeal to the former rather than the latter.
>>1412099
>Being a moral relativist
>>1411375
It's not socially accepted to fuck animals so you're a social pariah and probably mentally ill if you do. That's the only reason but it's a powerful one. You're a social animal, shut up and follow the fucking herd.
>>1411434
No, it's physically possible and some people have a natural impulse to do it. Therefore it is natural. It might be a mental illness, but that's not the issue.
>>1412149
>It's not socially accepted for a man to fuck other men so you're a social pariah and probably mentally ill if you do
Though I do agree with your conclusion, so if you do it, do it behind closed doors. Don't ask, don't tell basically.
>>1411375
>Monster Musume
Holy Ilias How Horafying!
DELET THIS!!! NO WISH THAT!!! REE!!!
That no pickle pee.
That no pump-a-rum.
