The mind has to do with sex because people have a right to choose who they have sex with. That's what society decided, and I'm glad for that. Otherwise I'd be forced to have sex with people I don't like and there'd be nothing to stop that. That's why you have to have a mind to consent. And that goes for children too.
Also, keep in mind that when sex is forced on the unwilling, the unwilling develop PTSD and psychological problems. It's well documented.
And yes, when you have sex with someone under the influence, you've technically not acquired consent, as one can not consent to something in a state of diminished capacity. So you are opening yourself up to criminal liability to put yourself in such a situation.
It's not to say that you will be automatically convicted. A jury of your peers is usually a bunch of judgmental morons. They even let this serial-rapist psychopath go who deliberately drugged and raped women, although I think the judge ruled otherwise, I think:
I guess it could be argued that animals lack the mind and never will have the mind to either consent or be harmed from the experience. I'm not so sure about that. They really don't have a say in the matter, so it's unfair, and selfish to jump to such conclusions as to what they enjoy.
Yes, it's considered taboo, but, there's also a logical reason why it's mostly wrong, which derives itself from consent, which we value so dearly. Therefore, I think it's going to stay that way, because it simply makes sense.
Humans are animals too but that's not what was meant by 'animal', making that equivocational fallacy.
And by the way, didn't the "two guys one horse" thing result in no convictions because they couldn't prove the horse was harmed? Although the guy who got fucked died. Perhaps he'd have faced charges. I'm not a legal expert on bestiality, so I'm not sure what the ramifications are exactly.
I don't think trees care, but no one cares about tree sex.
You can't get b12 from vegetables. If you haven't noticed, Indians are short, and often have squint eye, a lot of them have HIV and TB. They may survive without proper nourishment, but zinc and B12 are hard to get from vegetables alone, and they're essential. That is to say, without them you can die, and with deficiency, you have a deficit in your immune system and healing.
So you can choose to avoid meat, but it's something you're designed to eat, and you need some animal protein.
I don't think they're as sophisticated as humans, but having similar albeit basic human emotions isn't really a stretch. Those very driving forces keep them alive. It's not about that though. The problem with deciding that things don't have the same level of understanding or emotions, and therefore it's okay to do whatever we want to them, is that that would also apply to anything that lacks capacity, including children, and that doesn't make sense.
Forcing animals to mate is for a reason that isn't as selfish as having sex with them though.
I do however think it's insane when people attribute human emotions to boiled or microwaved lobsters though. The crusade against eating lobsters makes peta look like a bunch of radical pansies.
"marine biologists... do agree that there really is no humane way to kill these sensitive and unusual animals." "The best way to help put an end to this cruelty is to switch to a vegetarian diet." --peta
We are designed to hunt just like other animals are, as we're designed to eat meat, as a part of a healthy balanced diet. It's not like other animals hunt in a humane way. They just do it. They do it in front of their children and family too, and they all remember it and learn how to be hunters too. We just have more sophisticated ways of remembering it.
We also have more sophisticated ways to hunt too, which does make the fight unfair. I'd agree we have some responsibility to respect animals, and to avoid torturing them beyond what is reasonable, if that's what you're actually getting at and not just animal sex. Obviously hunting could be done nicer, but I don't think it's all that unreasonable to use dogs to hunt animals. And hunting more humanely is typically more difficult and costs more.
As for the sex with animals thing, I don't think it's reasonable. It's not inherently required like eating is, and it spreads disease. And it doesn't follow that because hunting animals is extremely unpleasant for them, that having sex with them, something obviously less traumatic, is therefore okay.
The whole philosophy about sex is not just that we're uneasy about sex, it's more to do that we expect a greater deal of respect for our own bodies, sexually. When people are sexually violated the majority of them become severely disturbed and traumatized. We also recognize vulnerabilities in children who lack the capacity to consent, as we recognize it in animals. Therefore we've deemed it going too far to have sex with animals, and yet deem it acceptable to eat them because we're essentially part carnivore and hunter.
The reason we eat animals is not that it's "okay" but because we were designed to. It's essential to eat some meat. You can get by with eating mostly vegetables, and eating more vegetables is good for you too, but we need some meat too. It's just a fact you vegans don't want to live with. So be it, but the rest of society has decided if we're going to eat something it might as well be a lower species and not ourselves.
But one thing is for sure, having sex with animals is not essential for survival, and it's a vector for disease.
But what I'd like to know, call it hypocrisy or whatever, but why do vegans think it should be forbidden for humans to eat animals, but it's totally okay for animals to eat the hell out of each other? Are vegans against animal carnivores? Should they be stopped too?
Yeah but while they can kick and bite, they generally don't, as adults have a coercive influence over them, and they lack capacity, as they don't know any better, and as mentioned, aren't in control.
And while domestic animals can kick and bite to protest what they don't want, too, they often don't either, unless they're wild animals. Generally they do whatever we tell them, because we are the master. Simply that they comply doesn't mean that they've chosen with free will.
This puts children and domestic animals in a vulnerable class.
We're the master of wild animals too, although typically by force.
The reason we don't allow humans to have sex with animals is that they lack capacity. It's the same reason we don't allow adults to have sex with children. There would be no meeting of the minds. It still wouldn't matter if they allegedly were unharmed, they don't have the capacity and the other party can't make that decision for them.
This also explains why you can't have sex with people when they're unconscious, no matter how careful or safely you do that, or how unharmed they are from the event. They did not consent, as they are in a state of diminished capacity.
As to the argument of weather or not it's wrong to eat animals, it's a different argument altogether.
I don't however think that anyone is arguing that animals are consenting or unharmed by eating. Nevertheless, I'm still going to eat animals, and I don't mean that way.
Slashdot Mirror
The mind has to do with sex because people have a right to choose who they have sex with. That's what society decided, and I'm glad for that. Otherwise I'd be forced to have sex with people I don't like and there'd be nothing to stop that. That's why you have to have a mind to consent. And that goes for children too.
Also, keep in mind that when sex is forced on the unwilling, the unwilling develop PTSD and psychological problems. It's well documented.
And yes, when you have sex with someone under the influence, you've technically not acquired consent, as one can not consent to something in a state of diminished capacity. So you are opening yourself up to criminal liability to put yourself in such a situation.
It's not to say that you will be automatically convicted. A jury of your peers is usually a bunch of judgmental morons. They even let this serial-rapist psychopath go who deliberately drugged and raped women, although I think the judge ruled otherwise, I think:
"Plenty of women were attracted to [Jeffrey Marsalis], but this guy was aroused by the very idea of nonconsent."
I guess it could be argued that animals lack the mind and never will have the mind to either consent or be harmed from the experience. I'm not so sure about that. They really don't have a say in the matter, so it's unfair, and selfish to jump to such conclusions as to what they enjoy.
Yes, it's considered taboo, but, there's also a logical reason why it's mostly wrong, which derives itself from consent, which we value so dearly. Therefore, I think it's going to stay that way, because it simply makes sense.
Humans are animals too but that's not what was meant by 'animal', making that equivocational fallacy.
And by the way, didn't the "two guys one horse" thing result in no convictions because they couldn't prove the horse was harmed? Although the guy who got fucked died. Perhaps he'd have faced charges. I'm not a legal expert on bestiality, so I'm not sure what the ramifications are exactly.
I don't think trees care, but no one cares about tree sex.
You can't get b12 from vegetables. If you haven't noticed, Indians are short, and often have squint eye, a lot of them have HIV and TB. They may survive without proper nourishment, but zinc and B12 are hard to get from vegetables alone, and they're essential. That is to say, without them you can die, and with deficiency, you have a deficit in your immune system and healing.
So you can choose to avoid meat, but it's something you're designed to eat, and you need some animal protein.
I don't think they're as sophisticated as humans, but having similar albeit basic human emotions isn't really a stretch. Those very driving forces keep them alive. It's not about that though. The problem with deciding that things don't have the same level of understanding or emotions, and therefore it's okay to do whatever we want to them, is that that would also apply to anything that lacks capacity, including children, and that doesn't make sense.
Forcing animals to mate is for a reason that isn't as selfish as having sex with them though.
I do however think it's insane when people attribute human emotions to boiled or microwaved lobsters though. The crusade against eating lobsters makes peta look like a bunch of radical pansies.
"marine biologists ... do agree that there really is no humane way to kill these sensitive and unusual animals." "The best way to help put an end to this cruelty is to switch to a vegetarian diet." --peta
We are designed to hunt just like other animals are, as we're designed to eat meat, as a part of a healthy balanced diet. It's not like other animals hunt in a humane way. They just do it. They do it in front of their children and family too, and they all remember it and learn how to be hunters too. We just have more sophisticated ways of remembering it.
We also have more sophisticated ways to hunt too, which does make the fight unfair. I'd agree we have some responsibility to respect animals, and to avoid torturing them beyond what is reasonable, if that's what you're actually getting at and not just animal sex. Obviously hunting could be done nicer, but I don't think it's all that unreasonable to use dogs to hunt animals. And hunting more humanely is typically more difficult and costs more.
As for the sex with animals thing, I don't think it's reasonable. It's not inherently required like eating is, and it spreads disease. And it doesn't follow that because hunting animals is extremely unpleasant for them, that having sex with them, something obviously less traumatic, is therefore okay.
The whole philosophy about sex is not just that we're uneasy about sex, it's more to do that we expect a greater deal of respect for our own bodies, sexually. When people are sexually violated the majority of them become severely disturbed and traumatized. We also recognize vulnerabilities in children who lack the capacity to consent, as we recognize it in animals. Therefore we've deemed it going too far to have sex with animals, and yet deem it acceptable to eat them because we're essentially part carnivore and hunter.
The reason we eat animals is not that it's "okay" but because we were designed to. It's essential to eat some meat. You can get by with eating mostly vegetables, and eating more vegetables is good for you too, but we need some meat too. It's just a fact you vegans don't want to live with. So be it, but the rest of society has decided if we're going to eat something it might as well be a lower species and not ourselves.
But one thing is for sure, having sex with animals is not essential for survival, and it's a vector for disease.
But what I'd like to know, call it hypocrisy or whatever, but why do vegans think it should be forbidden for humans to eat animals, but it's totally okay for animals to eat the hell out of each other? Are vegans against animal carnivores? Should they be stopped too?
Yeah but while they can kick and bite, they generally don't, as adults have a coercive influence over them, and they lack capacity, as they don't know any better, and as mentioned, aren't in control.
And while domestic animals can kick and bite to protest what they don't want, too, they often don't either, unless they're wild animals. Generally they do whatever we tell them, because we are the master. Simply that they comply doesn't mean that they've chosen with free will.
This puts children and domestic animals in a vulnerable class.
We're the master of wild animals too, although typically by force.
The reason we don't allow humans to have sex with animals is that they lack capacity. It's the same reason we don't allow adults to have sex with children. There would be no meeting of the minds. It still wouldn't matter if they allegedly were unharmed, they don't have the capacity and the other party can't make that decision for them.
This also explains why you can't have sex with people when they're unconscious, no matter how careful or safely you do that, or how unharmed they are from the event. They did not consent, as they are in a state of diminished capacity.
As to the argument of weather or not it's wrong to eat animals, it's a different argument altogether.
I don't however think that anyone is arguing that animals are consenting or unharmed by eating. Nevertheless, I'm still going to eat animals, and I don't mean that way.