Be civil and follow principle of charity in the comments.
If you need for survival to hunt and eat an animal you are just part of the ecosystem, a predator.
Do you need to have sex with another species? In the wild it happens and even rape is natural, but the question could be “would you like to live in a human society like that?”.That said, animal farming is unethical and completely unnecessary nowadays. Most people would agree that killing an animal just for pleasure would be ethically wrong, but then we as a society rape to breed, grow in terrible conditions and kill in nightmarish ways farm animals just because “meat is good”.
This puts it best. Zoophillia and eating meat (what I assume they mean) are not morally comparable. Eating animals was a necessity for a long time, that has continued into modern life (because our brains are wired to LOVE meat). Nobody actually enjoys the process of killing animals, I’m sure if you had a butcher shop where you slaughtered live animals at the counter people would be horrified. We just like meat, we are literally wired to, and the process to obtain it is cruel and ugly.
Zoophillia is completely different, there is zero material gain from it, and it’s done purely for the joy of the human initiating it.
Both acts have never been about consensus. They are defined morally and legally by culture and tradition. There are societies where eating meet is illegal and zoophilia is legal.
From what I’ve been told by rape victims, I’d much rather be murdered.
Who do you personally consider a bigger criminal?
- Human murdering other animal without their consent?
- Human raping other animal without their consent?
(We are making judgments solely based on the animal’s perspective. So we can’t include disingenuous human arguments like “They died a noble death for our survival”.)
raping an animal is still worse. Morally, killing animals is bad but it does provide a method of survival wether it’s moral or amoral, raping an animal is just a sick and twisted desire that is not only gross and unnatural but also does not provide any method for survival, so while no it’s not noble like your premise claims the argument to be it’s just seem as societally gross for a good reason.
From the animal’s perspective, you could argue rape continues their species and therefor is natural like killing, cannibalism etc. but that doesn’t change the dynamic between humans and animals. To the animal, dying is death and it’s something every living thing has to do, getting raped/rape is not
Through Animal’s perspective - Raping an animal is bad but Killing is worst outcome as it removes them from the gene pool, which means they can’t be able to produce their offspring and continue their progeny/generation. ~ Humans justify killing animals because they think through their own benefits, because they neglect animal’s perspective.
Right, I think a lot of my understanding does revolve around being a human and I cannot separate myself from that morality & most animals are driven by survival if that makes sense. This question is so fucking wild
Different taboos in different places, I guess.
Perhaps zoophilia affects the human doing it negatively; eg the human may start to hurt other people some time?
You’re not worried about killing and eating animals having the same effect?
No, most people who eat meat wouldn’t wanna kill an animal themselves
Edit: i guess the question is more directly about killing animals than eating meat though
There was an article many years ago about people working in the meat industry, and how they are under extreme stress. So yes, the meat processing industry has detrimental effects on people. Is there evidence that these people commit more violent crimes? It is well documented that psychopaths / serial killers usually have a history of torturing / raping animals in their youth. Taken together, this may be an additional reason beyond laws against sex with animals. (Before you pop a vessel: I am vegetarian and most of my meals are vegan).
I’ve spent a lot of time around German butchers, who specialize in two of three areas during their training: 1-slaughtering, 2-meat production, and 3-sales. In my experience (so take this with a big grain of salt), people who specialized in 1 are significantly more callous towards human life than those who didn’t.
My husband’s hopefully passing his licensing exam today and though he specialized in 2&3 (hence the big grain of salt), he still had to work at a slaughterhouse for a few weeks during his training. He’s not a squeamish person at all (he once knowingly selected The Lullaby’s Smile [trigger warning: this is very effective body horror that so paralyzed me with anxiety to listen to that I couldn’t make myself get up to turn it off] to fall asleep to and is a big fan of schlocky horror movies), but he could not stand it. He hasn’t paid for meat since (though he does save things from the trash, both for himself and for a network of people we know who are happy to accept free meat past its sell-by date and capable of determining whether it’s safe to eat) and will work at a vegan butcher shop after his licensing as a direct result of his experiences at the slaughterhouse.
vegan butcher shop
Uh, what?
They sell vegan meat imitation products made by actual trained butchers. Some of their stuff is wild. I used to eat meat, but I’ve never been able to digest pork and it’s never appealed to me, and I find their pork-style products way too realistic to eat (confirmed to be accurate and not just unappealing by my husband, lol).
Wow, that’s… Interesting. TIL
Society condemns one and accepts the other
I was looking for the logical consistency. They are accepting killing of animals (murder without consent) while condemning the rape (sex without consent) of animals.
People aren’t looking at the animal’s rights.
They are condemning the humans who act in a disgusting way.
Most people would have the same reaction if you were cohabiting with a lawn mower.
Bonus…
Gene Wilder makes love to a sheep. SFW
This is the reason.
One is torture.
The other is a means of survival.
It’s acceptable to kill for survival.
It’s not acceptable to torture and hurt for sexual gratification that can be gained solo with no one else involved.
Valid argument - assuming you live in the woods and hunting and gathering is the only way you can get food.
You do not need meat to survive lmao. You eat it because you like it, at least be honest with yourself
I get what you mean, but as somebody that hasn’t eaten meet in 35 years I would argue its not needed for survival.
Modern meat consumption is very disconnected from survival for most people though.
More humans could survive with more food if we reused the land growing food for animals for growing food for humans to eat. We would need so much less land that we could rewild a lot of it, and massively reduce the amount of carbon being released into the atmosphere as well.
But people like meat and will react badly to anyone suggesting that eating less is a good idea for everyone.
More humans could survive with more food if we reused the land growing food for animals for growing food for humans to eat.
Animals are raised on grass land, which is different from cropland. Even if all the animals disappeared tomorrow we wouldn’t have any extra cropland.
That doesn’t address grass land vs cropland.
It just complains people are turning forests into cropland.
I do feel like most people I talk to irl seem to agree that eating less meat is good for everyone, but that’s very local of course, and agreeing and doing it is also not necessarily connected 😅
agree that eating less meat is good for everyone
I think this is just human nature, you say the socially acceptable thing to move the conversation along even if it wont impact their behavior. In a situation where the topic comes up (even staunch pro-meat doctors) the path of least resistance is to smile nod and “agree”.
So shouldn’t the same logic dictate that it is not acceptable to kill for culinary satisfaction, if nutrition can be gained without killing a creature? (Which is very possible in most parts of the world)
- Zoophilia is Rape (sex without consent)
- Killing animal is Murder .
In both cases we should be considering animal’s perspective (what animals feel in both cases). We can’t just involve human’s perspective for our own convenience. Do animals consent to be murdered? I don’t think so.
Maybe it’s whatever grosses them out. A lot of unsanitary stuff is just prohibited out of safety. There’s like hunter ethics guides for handling game.
It’s interesting but to me it seems more of a health concern. Ironically we laugh when dogs dry hump people. Or when horses get turned on and all.
uh
Maybe you can get OP into trackballs as a diversion toward a different path?
While klling an animal for food is sure destructive for the animal, it is constructive for the humanity. It allows us to get all those proteins “for free” instead of producing them ourselves from plants like herbivores do and invest the saved energy in our intelligence to create beautiful and complex things. Whereas copulating with an animal is pure destruction. It harms the living being and leads to no babies and no emotional bond strengthening (contrary to human sex).
Eating animal is still a contradiction, because destruction is there. So I think this problem does need to be somehow overcome. But at least it’s outweighed by its positive effects, unlike zoophilia.
Eh…
The Psychological Impact of Slaughterhouse Employment: A Systematic Literature Review
producing them ourselves from plants like herbivores do
This bit is nonsense. I’ll give you a point for meat consumption being an easy source of protein that allowed for some developments during the evolution of humans, that are unlikely to have happened without it. But that is more a question of availability than nutritious properties. In todays surplus society, where we have industrialized agriculture and optimized crops, there is abundant access to plant protein.
And meat is not a unique source of protein either. First of all, you don’t even have to eat meat to obtain animal protein. Eggs and dairy have it too. And when it comes to the constitution of protein, eggs were even considered the gold standard for a long time.Read the following wikipedia article to learn more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_digestibility_corrected_amino_acid_score
The listed examples should be interesting to you.
While meats are indeed easily digestable and contain useful protein for the human body, so do many plant sources. Soy protein is even on par with eggs, while meats don’t reach the same score.
And of course we usually don’t eat a single source of protein, and combining different sources, their amino acid profiles can complement each other to form a complete source of protein.This might’ve been a bit of a ramble on a side-note when it comes to discussing the ethics of fucking animals, but I’m sure the discussion benefits from getting the facts straight.
I’m sure the discussion benefits from getting the facts straight.
You talked about a DIAAS (digestable indispensable amino acid score!) - you are my favorite person today.
But let’s contextualize plant proteins by how much food you need to eat, an 68kg adult needs about 110g of protein per day - Eating steak that is 350g of food, eating tofu is 650g of food, lentils is 1600g of food.
As the amount of plant based protein increases so does carbohydrate burden - a significant factor people need to be aware of, as most (94%) western adults have impaired metabolism and thus impaired insulin sensitivity - increased carbohydrate loads need to be carefully considered in their diet.
As a contrived example 1.6kg of lentils is 1900 calories.
graph i whipped up last week
You talked about a DIAAS (digestable indispensable amino acid score!) - you are my favorite person today.
Actually, I didn’t. I just realized, that I linked to PDCAAS, which is a slightly different method. But it didn’t really matter, as I just wanted to illustrate the concept. And I’m not too involved in the topic. I don’t know what you’re doing, that you’re whipping up tables about this stuff, but I’m just a layperson with a little knowledge about nutrition.
Allow me a few remarks though:
-
you’re referencing prepared meat, but raw tofu? In my experience, tofu is usually also prepared in some way, and with most preparations, it looses quite a bit of water content.
-
We don’t have to rely on mostly unprocessed plant food. There’s stuff like texturized vegetable protein, that delievers a more concentrated source.
-
While a table like this gives a good overview and reference, it’s easy to miss the fact, that we usually don’t get our protein from a single source. As I mentioned in my last comment, combining different sources can be a good way to enhance the overall protein quality.
To reflect that, we’d need DIAAS data for prepared dishes, meal plans or a whole diet. -
Can you even use DIAAS to calculate an amount of single protein source food, that you’d have to eat like that? I don’t know if it scales that way, and even if it did, for an incomplete protein source, you’d end up with a lot of excess for the abundant amino acids in that protein source, which I suspect would have to be excreted and I don’t know how your kidneys like that.
-
That table would really benefit from adding references to clarify what you base your assumptions on and where you get your data from.
But I think none of this is all that relevant for the underlying topic in this thread.
Well written! Yes combinations are a great way to complete the liebig amino acid barrel - here is a fun tool that helps do this https://www.diaas-calculator.com/ - but DIAAS cannot be “calculated”, we can guess by adding up amino acids in isolation, but you don’t get a real DIAAS reading unless you feed the combination to a pig then actually measure the amino acid absorption.
-
Why are you pretending that every human is a bodybuilder? Your stated protein needs are way above what science says is actually needed
science says
That is a fun turn of phrase
There isn’t one person who’s opinions encompass “science says” - multiple public health bodies recommend a 1.1-1.6g/kg/day protein intake.
We literally grow food to feed to animals. And then we have to spend time hearding the animals moving. Slaughtering is a decently evolved process (I think). They don’t give us the meet for free, we have to put effort to take it.
A number of US states agree with op here, some it’s legal to have sex with animals within limits, anything over 20 pounds rings a bell for one, alabama maybe. They might have changed those laws because they were getting made fun of idk.
Most of the states that were ok with it changed after Washington State, which use to have the most permissive laws about this for whatever reason, really buckled down after that guy “Mr Hands” died from a horse
There is no logical consistency except what allows the continued survival and flourishing of life and the human race.
Having sex with animals could get you sick and cause all sorts of problems. Eating animals on the other hand can extend your life beyond a few days and perhaps even into years after you can no longer drink your mother’s milk and has very few downsides, especially with the invention of cooking. Sure, we don’t need the source of sustenance that is meat today when we have several times more food than is necessary to feed the whole globe and then throw a lot of it away, but this wasn’t true for the vast majority of our history. People only a few hundred years ago had to scrape for every protein they could find.
There’s no special moral reason because we didn’t decide. It’s just an instinct, though one that we can examine and ignore if we want.
It’s simple, actually.
The number of people who like to eat animals is larger than the number people who like to, that.
On a significant level this is basically it.
I don’t believe moral facts exist and so every permissible behaviour ultimately is affected by societal expectations as well as individual inclination.
People clutch pearls over anything and everything but it’s interesting to observe how what was a pearl clutching behaviour previously (I.e. showing some ankle in Victorian era England) is now not even a concern.
I guess because animals (eg tigers) eat other animals (e.g deer) and have evolved exactly towards that purpose. That’s how their species survives.
It’s not often that I see a tiger performing sexual assault on a deer. That’s not required for the tiger’s survival.
Now whether humans are “naturally” meat eaters and therefore we should feel “better” about eating animals I don’t know. Nutritionally I think the evidence probably leans towards being omnivore, similar to many other apes and monkeys.
