submitted 2013-05-13 07:29:28 by demsweetdoggykisses
Arxl 3 points on 2013-05-13 20:35:18
Things are getting better but the general public is a long ways away from acceptance and understanding.
demsweetdoggykisses 2 points on 2013-05-13 20:43:53
There is, and will be for a very long time, a firm disconnect in people's minds about what an animal really is. People look at them like small, innocent, stinky children.
The idea of "coercing" a small, innocent, stinky child turns people's stomachs, and I see no way to change any public opinion on the idea, nor do I think people should try. It just causes too much negative attention to be shed on something that only a tiny fraction of a fraction of the population would even understand.
Although it makes me sad to think that I probably have a better understanding of the feelings "thoughts" and motivations of the animal kingdom than most pet owners who claim to love their animals, and yet cause them real abuse every day in the form of tying them up in confined spaces, not providing shelter or clean water, not exercising them or most importantly, not training them and interacting with them in ways that satisfy their need for structured social contact.
Arxl 2 points on 2013-05-14 09:41:04
There is a way to get consent from an animal through body language. If a dog doesn't want to do something they WILL let you know about it.
demsweetdoggykisses 1 point on 2013-05-14 10:21:13
This seems to be the crux of the debate, with most of the general public unwilling to imagine that animals can experience sexual pleasure in a non-harmful way, and if a human were to have sexual contact with an animal, it's automatically abuse or rape. Never mind that people routinely will restrain female animals for breeding purposes, never mind that animals don't even have negative associations with sex, never mind that human cultures subject both children and animals to horrendous abuse on a regular basis. It's a deep well of issues that freaks out an average person so severely that they rather not discuss it.
Cromcorrag 1 point on 2013-05-22 17:34:44
Well put.
YukonWolf 2 points on 2013-05-14 16:02:51
I see no way to change any public opinion on the idea
I think a start would be to try and get people to treat animals as adults and not furry children. If we start viewing adult animals as adults, capable of making their own decisions, the idea of zoophilia becomes a lot less messy.
Cromcorrag 1 point on 2013-05-22 17:32:40
It's a human problem with anyone we raise. It happens not just with pets, but with human children. Such as the problem with every generation of parents thinking that they can't discuss drug use, or sexual knowledge with their children "because they won't be as smart about it as I was". Each parent thinks that if their children are educated about drugs and sex, the child will go "hog wild" and abuse both. So most parents avoid the subject and hope their kids turn out ok. This is why every generation has to learn about these subjects from scratch. When you look at the sex forums, you see people asking questions today, that were answered in the 1940's and earlier by respected researchers. The knowledge is not common knowledge because parents are afraid to educate their children, because they will always think of them as children no matter how old they get.
YukonWolf 1 point on 2013-05-14 15:52:47
You can attack the issue of consent in one of two ways, either you need to show that animals do consent, or that consent is irrelevant. I don't think the latter is really appropriate, and animals certainly do grant and refuse consent. This should be fairly obvious to anyone who owns pets or has worked around animals. For instance my dog clearly refuses consent to have his nails trimmed, but in that case he can suck it. :P
The fact that animals don't consent to being eaten is irrelevant, because one bad act does not justify another (and this argument also presupposes that animals don't consent to sex, otherwise why are we comparing it to eating them?). We need to stop using this argument to attempt to justify zoophilia, as it doesn't justify anything.
[deleted] 1 point on 2013-05-15 00:28:44
[deleted]
LykeWakeLizards 2 points on 2013-05-15 00:39:31
We need to stop using this argument to attempt to justify zoophilia, as it doesn't justify anything.
The argument goes like this:
If eating meat is permissible, then having sex with animals is permissible. (P→Q)
Eating meat is permissible. (P)
Therefore, having sex with animals is permissible. (∴Q)
It fails because P is false. But more interestingly, if P→Q is true, then ¬Q and P is impossible. And since most people hold ¬Q and P, they then have to reject the permissibility or eating meat (a good outcome), accept the permissibility of bestiality (a good outcome), or both (an even better outcome). It's a wonderful argument because of that conditional.
one bad act does not justify another
The argument doesn't say otherwise; it denies that eating meat is impermissible, which is the view most people hold.
and this argument also presupposes that animals don't consent to sex, otherwise why are we comparing it to eating them?
It doesn't presuppose that.
why are we comparing it to eating them?
Because that's necessary to formulate the conditional.
YukonWolf 1 point on 2013-05-15 02:21:57
If eating meat is permissible, then having sex with animals is permissible.
This is the statement I take issue with, as I don't see how one implies the other. And what if you run into a vegan or vegetarian?
SunTzuSaidThatEquines 3 points on 2013-05-17 16:55:53
Fundamentally, this argument is about inconsistency. If there is one way to describe "animal ethics" as a general area of thought, it is "horrifically scatterbrained".
You might say that one bad act does not justify another, and you'd be right. On the other hand, you'd expect if someone thought that violating someone else's rights in one way was atrocious, then they should think that violating the same rights in any number of other ways should be roughly as atrocious. If they don't, then the burden is on them to provide a clear, excellent reason why we should make a special exception to the rule. Otherwise, they're holding a double standard, and that's a fallacy of logic.
In the case of zoosexual behavior, people claim that animal consent matters and further, animals cannot consent, and that is what makes the behavior morally unacceptable. While this is a very consistent principle in human ethics (if you do things to people to which they may object without their consent, you are almost universally in the wrong), it is very clearly not the case when we turn to discussing animals. As above, if we are to think that the consent principle is as important for animals as it is for humans, then we have a huge amount of (usually spurious and difficult) special pleading to do for various activities performed by modern society. Everything from the practice of animal breeding to horseback riding, to slaughter, to use of animals in research, to even perhaps domestication itself needs an exception. Some are much harder to plead for than others.
Some people will turn this around and try to argue that zoosexual behavior is the exception to the rule, but in doing so they go against their first premise: the notion that animal consent matters.
If they can't plead successfully for them all, it doesn't mean that they're wrong about zoosexual behavior, it just means that they won't practice what they preach. At the end, if they're unwilling to either A) accept that consent isn't the problem, B) radically change their point of view on animal ethics, or C) change their opinion on zoophilia - and one of the aformentioned will happen with a good amount of people - then they'll have to live with enforcing an unjust double standard.
Vegetarians break the consent principle with animals all the time, and are just as vulnerable to this argument. Not eating meat =/= consistently respecting an animal's need to consent. If you polled most vegans, I'd imagine that they'd be more concerned with making sure that animals aren't physically harmed in the process of their use by humans rather than making sure that they consent just like people at every point in the process. Hardcore animal-liberation types (think domestication = slavery) are the only people who can really defuse this, because I'd imagine that they'd object to any human interference at all in the activities of non-humans, and that's perfectly consistent with the consent principle.
If you reach a point where you only have to convince the last 0.5% that you're right, though, I'd argue you've already won.
Cromcorrag 1 point on 2013-05-22 17:18:40
Put another way:
If killing animals without their consent is permissible, then having sex with animals without their consent is permissible.
Ofc we Zoos believe we have our pets consent since we understand their non-verbal languages.
[deleted] 1 point on 2013-05-22 23:57:46
[deleted]
Cromcorrag 1 point on 2013-05-22 17:07:39
From the many many threads I've seen on the subject, non-zoos will always end up saying that anything we do with and to animals is ok "because it's necessary to survival and has always been done that way", but that human-animal sex is not necessary to survival and therefore wrong.
You simply cannot use logic to convince them otherwise, it's hopeless.
I really think there's an innate feeling that Norms have that is part of the reason they often hate Homosexuals as well as Zoos. Human "seed" is wasted. Because sex is for procreation, and when seed is wasted, it deprives the state of workers and soldiers. When seed is wasted it goes against gods command to "multiply and fill the earth".
Cromcorrag 1 point on 2013-05-22 17:13:45
I disagree that we need to stop using that argument, because even though it's not a perfect argument, it does show the Norms how their logic fails. Most Norms I've seen comment on threads about bestiality, simply throw out the consent argument out of hand and expect that it's the simple answer. When you point out to them that animals consent is not asked for anything else humans do to them, you reveal their foolishness and force them to come up with another answer, which causes them to THINK. Not that their minds will change, but at least many of them will consider the subject more carefully instead of dismissing it out of hand.
/r/zoophilia archive
Things are getting better but the general public is a long ways away from acceptance and understanding.
There is, and will be for a very long time, a firm disconnect in people's minds about what an animal really is. People look at them like small, innocent, stinky children.
The idea of "coercing" a small, innocent, stinky child turns people's stomachs, and I see no way to change any public opinion on the idea, nor do I think people should try. It just causes too much negative attention to be shed on something that only a tiny fraction of a fraction of the population would even understand.
Although it makes me sad to think that I probably have a better understanding of the feelings "thoughts" and motivations of the animal kingdom than most pet owners who claim to love their animals, and yet cause them real abuse every day in the form of tying them up in confined spaces, not providing shelter or clean water, not exercising them or most importantly, not training them and interacting with them in ways that satisfy their need for structured social contact.
There is a way to get consent from an animal through body language. If a dog doesn't want to do something they WILL let you know about it.
This seems to be the crux of the debate, with most of the general public unwilling to imagine that animals can experience sexual pleasure in a non-harmful way, and if a human were to have sexual contact with an animal, it's automatically abuse or rape. Never mind that people routinely will restrain female animals for breeding purposes, never mind that animals don't even have negative associations with sex, never mind that human cultures subject both children and animals to horrendous abuse on a regular basis. It's a deep well of issues that freaks out an average person so severely that they rather not discuss it.
Well put.
I think a start would be to try and get people to treat animals as adults and not furry children. If we start viewing adult animals as adults, capable of making their own decisions, the idea of zoophilia becomes a lot less messy.
It's a human problem with anyone we raise. It happens not just with pets, but with human children. Such as the problem with every generation of parents thinking that they can't discuss drug use, or sexual knowledge with their children "because they won't be as smart about it as I was". Each parent thinks that if their children are educated about drugs and sex, the child will go "hog wild" and abuse both. So most parents avoid the subject and hope their kids turn out ok. This is why every generation has to learn about these subjects from scratch. When you look at the sex forums, you see people asking questions today, that were answered in the 1940's and earlier by respected researchers. The knowledge is not common knowledge because parents are afraid to educate their children, because they will always think of them as children no matter how old they get.
You can attack the issue of consent in one of two ways, either you need to show that animals do consent, or that consent is irrelevant. I don't think the latter is really appropriate, and animals certainly do grant and refuse consent. This should be fairly obvious to anyone who owns pets or has worked around animals. For instance my dog clearly refuses consent to have his nails trimmed, but in that case he can suck it. :P
The fact that animals don't consent to being eaten is irrelevant, because one bad act does not justify another (and this argument also presupposes that animals don't consent to sex, otherwise why are we comparing it to eating them?). We need to stop using this argument to attempt to justify zoophilia, as it doesn't justify anything.
[deleted]
The argument goes like this:
If eating meat is permissible, then having sex with animals is permissible. (P→Q)
Eating meat is permissible. (P)
Therefore, having sex with animals is permissible. (∴Q)
It fails because P is false. But more interestingly, if P→Q is true, then ¬Q and P is impossible. And since most people hold ¬Q and P, they then have to reject the permissibility or eating meat (a good outcome), accept the permissibility of bestiality (a good outcome), or both (an even better outcome). It's a wonderful argument because of that conditional.
The argument doesn't say otherwise; it denies that eating meat is impermissible, which is the view most people hold.
It doesn't presuppose that.
Because that's necessary to formulate the conditional.
This is the statement I take issue with, as I don't see how one implies the other. And what if you run into a vegan or vegetarian?
Fundamentally, this argument is about inconsistency. If there is one way to describe "animal ethics" as a general area of thought, it is "horrifically scatterbrained".
You might say that one bad act does not justify another, and you'd be right. On the other hand, you'd expect if someone thought that violating someone else's rights in one way was atrocious, then they should think that violating the same rights in any number of other ways should be roughly as atrocious. If they don't, then the burden is on them to provide a clear, excellent reason why we should make a special exception to the rule. Otherwise, they're holding a double standard, and that's a fallacy of logic.
In the case of zoosexual behavior, people claim that animal consent matters and further, animals cannot consent, and that is what makes the behavior morally unacceptable. While this is a very consistent principle in human ethics (if you do things to people to which they may object without their consent, you are almost universally in the wrong), it is very clearly not the case when we turn to discussing animals. As above, if we are to think that the consent principle is as important for animals as it is for humans, then we have a huge amount of (usually spurious and difficult) special pleading to do for various activities performed by modern society. Everything from the practice of animal breeding to horseback riding, to slaughter, to use of animals in research, to even perhaps domestication itself needs an exception. Some are much harder to plead for than others.
Some people will turn this around and try to argue that zoosexual behavior is the exception to the rule, but in doing so they go against their first premise: the notion that animal consent matters.
If they can't plead successfully for them all, it doesn't mean that they're wrong about zoosexual behavior, it just means that they won't practice what they preach. At the end, if they're unwilling to either A) accept that consent isn't the problem, B) radically change their point of view on animal ethics, or C) change their opinion on zoophilia - and one of the aformentioned will happen with a good amount of people - then they'll have to live with enforcing an unjust double standard.
Vegetarians break the consent principle with animals all the time, and are just as vulnerable to this argument. Not eating meat =/= consistently respecting an animal's need to consent. If you polled most vegans, I'd imagine that they'd be more concerned with making sure that animals aren't physically harmed in the process of their use by humans rather than making sure that they consent just like people at every point in the process. Hardcore animal-liberation types (think domestication = slavery) are the only people who can really defuse this, because I'd imagine that they'd object to any human interference at all in the activities of non-humans, and that's perfectly consistent with the consent principle.
If you reach a point where you only have to convince the last 0.5% that you're right, though, I'd argue you've already won.
Put another way:
If killing animals without their consent is permissible, then having sex with animals without their consent is permissible.
Ofc we Zoos believe we have our pets consent since we understand their non-verbal languages.
[deleted]
From the many many threads I've seen on the subject, non-zoos will always end up saying that anything we do with and to animals is ok "because it's necessary to survival and has always been done that way", but that human-animal sex is not necessary to survival and therefore wrong.
You simply cannot use logic to convince them otherwise, it's hopeless.
I really think there's an innate feeling that Norms have that is part of the reason they often hate Homosexuals as well as Zoos. Human "seed" is wasted. Because sex is for procreation, and when seed is wasted, it deprives the state of workers and soldiers. When seed is wasted it goes against gods command to "multiply and fill the earth".
I disagree that we need to stop using that argument, because even though it's not a perfect argument, it does show the Norms how their logic fails. Most Norms I've seen comment on threads about bestiality, simply throw out the consent argument out of hand and expect that it's the simple answer. When you point out to them that animals consent is not asked for anything else humans do to them, you reveal their foolishness and force them to come up with another answer, which causes them to THINK. Not that their minds will change, but at least many of them will consider the subject more carefully instead of dismissing it out of hand.