I shall make an analogy between meat eating and zoophilia for you to discuss.
Many will argue that since eating meat is unnecessary for humans, and since humans have a choice not to do it, therefore it is immoral to eat meat, this leads into a tu quoque, where now if you eat meat, you cannot be in favor of animal welfare, since that is contradictory and meat eaters are just supposed to be self centered monsters.
To them I reply in two ways:
The human population is rising, and everyone has the right to be feed, agriculture may not cut it, since we are running out of fertile soil, droughts and floods are increasing due to global warming, and since you are likely to be opposed to gmo's too, being against all meat consumption is likely to result in a humanitarian crisis.
Being in favor of practices such as animal torturing, is not a requirement to eat meat, and in fact if I'm in favor of euthanasia, then I would want the animal under human care to live humanely as long as it can, and then die without pain. Many farms follow such guidelines, so if I only support their meat where is the contradiction?
Now many will argue that zoophilia is bad, because we do not need to have sex with animals, and there is a lot of uncertainty with the welfare of the animal, so being for zoophilia is being against welfare. A zoophiliac should respond:
Under that logic then we shouldn't have sex at all, since it is an unnecessary risk, given the advent of artificial insemination.
We do not choose what we like, or how our bodies react sexually, so asking people to just stop doing because it's illegal, won't make the practice less common, it will just make it more underground, and therefore worst for everyone involved. This was the case for the homosexuals for years and the days of prohibition on the US.
I made this post so you don't have to make the same mistakes in logic as your opponents. It is not a contradiction to be a zoophile and being for animal welfare and a meat eater at the same time. And even if it was, such arguments are called tu quoque, they are generally not considered solid, because it may be an attempt for the opponent to plant a red herring or ad homein.
As a non-zoophile, I am willing to listen to your arguments, and even support you, if it is well put forward.
I made another post that is composed of guidelines for the zoophiles to practice legally: http://www.reddit.com/r/zoophilia/comments/2vhwz3/proposed_guidelines_for_intercourse_between_a/ It's nsfw.
Fantastic post. I haven't heard many people referencing tu quoque argumentatively in the wild, outside of theism debates
May it not? I'm not really an expert but you find many people disagreeing with a simple google search: https://www.google.de/#q=vegan+feed+billion+people
Again without being an expert, I really like how farming looks e.g. here bigger image.
I don't really see why.
How long is "at long as it can"? Where are cows allowed to live for 20 years?
As you said the whole thing doesn't really hold up anyway.
I think we should first ask what uncertainty exactly that is.
Because the important part is that in general zoophiles do genuinely love their animal partners and do treat them accordingly. If you're not reasonably sure you're not harming your partner with it, you're not going to have sex with him/her...
After typing this I didn't know if I should actually post it, but anyway... I don't mean to be as aggressive as I may sound. Really. :)
Well, I for one would not mind if people were allowed to eat each other, as long as they have lived happily, it is their choice and they were not killed violently, but addressing your point.
"As long as it can" is defined as the maximum amount of time it can live, before his meat becomes of bad quality, I'm not sure how long is that.
The reason I am still not in favor in all around ban, is because we cannot guarantee that artificial farms, gmo's and other science miracles combined, can supply the demand to many parts of the world. The artificial farms are expensive to build and maintain, and they don't have as big an output as more traditional farms, they are limited on the amount of biomass they can produce on a given volume (vertical farms may solve the space problem, but they are still costly), gmo's have the potential to attack the problem much better, but since many people are fervently opposed to them, development may slow down or halt all together.
The problem is that many non animal product are difficult to conserve, and therefore transport.
If we want to be humane, we must feed people in need (not necessarily directly), and if it's demonstrated that meat is the best alternative to get it done, then anyone who is in favor of welfare should at least make an exception for them.
It is important to note that meat eating has been around longer than must humans, we probably can't stop eating meat for the same reasons, we may be stubborn and keep smoking, it is just part of our genetic material, and we need to make a special effort to stop doing it, people who like to eat meat and decide to enter a vegetarian diet, report feeling anxious, sad and even aggressive.
A general solution maybe lab grown meat, it never was alive, it is customizable, and it fills our needs, we just got to bring the cost of production down.
The problem is that you are a human being, one who is biased and can underestimate the amount of pain or long term effects their actions are having, people with an anal fetish may not be completely sure that bottle won't get lost inside their butt, but people still go to emergency rooms for exactly that, many damage their rectum and anus, and some can even intoxicate themselves, there was even a case of a man who stuck up an eel up his ass, and got his insides bitten by the fish. In this case a ban on zoophilia is not going to solve anything, but we must put the mechanisms in place to avoid abuse, uncertainty and make the experience overall better for everyone involved.
As I said below I want to create a post discussing just that.
Take into account that someone who attacks you or is afraid of you for what you do, is not necessarily someone with bad intentions, they maybe ill informed, they may be projecting their own desires, or maybe they are just reacting as thousands of years of evolution is making them react.
Before I say anything else, I'd like to thank you for pointing out the issue with tu quoque arguments. It's a trap I've fallen into myself, when I felt particularly defensive. That said…
That's not a very nice definition of "as long as it can". By way of analogy, let's pretend that humans are tastiest at 25. I'm not sure what you mean by "not killed violently", given that being killed is generally considered an act of violence, but I suspect that it would be almost universally condemned regardless.
Also, we can trivially guarantee that (with the possible exception of fish) universal vegetarianism would feed more humans rather than less: livestock eats crops that can be replaced with crops that humans can eat.
I agree that it's almost certainly impossible to turn the human species vegetarian for the reasons you listed, and only unproven technologies like the ones you suggested would change that (I think in-vitro meat probably counts as vegetarian). (That said, changing diets often has the symptoms you describe, once you adapt they go away).
While you're correct to point out that saying "meat eaters who have a problem with bestiality are hypocrites" is a poor argument, the converse point is that people might have such a view because of the zero-risk bias: preferring, for example, to eliminate the small risk that dogs might regret having mounted a human over the larger risk that they didn't want to be euthanised. I suspect I have this bias myself, as the reason I'm vegetarian is to eliminate the risk of accidentally causing harm to a sentient by causing them to be killed. I don't think there is much risk of jellyfish being sentient, but I still won't eat one just in case. On the other hand, I'm not yet vegan: I know that there is significant harm in the dairy industry, which is why I'm trying to become vegan, but as I'm not there yet, I think I can describe myself as failing on this count.
That's a very well put forward point, I like the way you don't totally rule out the possibility you are biased.
It is always important we are not compromising the mental health of people, maybe more effective therapies to switch diets will do.
We do not need to sabotage the dairy industry for our message to be heard, like you said, we cannot guarantee our plan would be successful, the least we can do is to put the mechanisms in place, to set the precedent that farm animals deserved to be cared for.
I know my definition isn't nice, but at some point we need to reach a compromise or else people won't listen.
I'm not quite sure how to respond here, as it seems to be a sort of conflict between animal rights and animal welfare, between principles and practical effects. All I can say is how I think these cases should be handled, both within the zoophile community and in general. Protecting animals from abuse is difficult, but it is not very well solved by broadening the definition of abuse to include any behavior towards animals that an activist is repulsed by, since that makes it more difficult for ordinary people to get on board with an ideology that is so far removed from theirs. Rather, I would argue that a few well-enforced laws based on an ordinary concept of abuse are a much better idea, at least for the short term. Much more could be done to prevent the cases of animal abuse that anti-zoo activists are scared of by, for instance, increasing funding for animal control officers and other similar positions, as well as police in general, in order to prevent or prosecute cases of actual abuse (physical or psychological abuse) or harm to other persons (as may be the case in many fencehopping cases). The law may need reform, but it should not be in the direction of unnecessarily prohibiting harmless behaviors.
And by the way, I hate the argument, when used by either side, calling for some equivalence between zoophilia and other behaviors when they aren't similar in the way required for the argument, whether it's systematic animal cruelty or pedophilia for anti-zoos, or homosexuality or interracial couples for pro-zoos. All of these analogies have value if they are discussed in a nuanced and non-misleading way, but the moment you use the analogy to justify something unrelated, you are committing a fallacy. Examples from both sides (both based on real online conversations):
Anti-zoo: "A dog has the intelligence of a two-year-old child, so it can't possibly consent to sex in any way." Zoo: "Homosexuality was frowned upon fifty years ago, and now it isn't, so zoophilia should get similar treatment."
I hate bad arguments as much as the next guy, but it's evidence for these claims (harm to animals or lack thereof from sex, etc.) that we need to settle things.
You are right when you say that analogies can be abused, but if you read what I said, it isn't the case right now. Making analogies is what people do, is part of our pattern seeking behavior, and voicing them out increases the changes your point will be understood.
I'm interested in what is the "ordinary concept of abuse", because it cannot just be intent, A woman who keeps his child on the same room for all his life because she is afraid he would be murdered, has good intent, but no one would think for a second it isn't a case of child abuse.
I never proposed a definition of abuse, but I'm planning to do so.
Of course analogies are a useful conceptual tool, but there are times when they are used to reach too far, and these must be pointed out and avoided. I have myself used the pro-zoo analogies (gay and interracial couples) when describing some particular aspect of zoophilia (societal marginalization, changes in people's attitudes about what is right and wrong, etc.). I'm just advocating caution there, that's all.
Personally, I don't think intent goes at all into whether or not an action is abusive. It may give us some cause for leniency or harshness in particular cases, but I define abuse entirely by its consequences; namely causing physical or psychological harm without some greater benefit. Of course, this definition doesn't really work without some way of measuring harm and benefit, and there are a lot of opinions about what is and isn't abuse even on that basis, but it is a way of coming to a reasonable consensus on these matters, even if it isn't perfect.
By the way, your example of a child locked away due to someone else's paranoia is an excellent way to show that good intentions and good results need to be distinguished from each other.
Why are you putting yourself like this, if it is evident we are agreeing?
Hmm? No reason. This is a dialogue, not a debate. Although I have been told that what I view as friendly conversation can sometimes seem to others a little shrill and defensive. If that's how I read here, I apologize, as that wasn't my intent.
Ok thanks, I was just unsure you were angry.
Other than this point, I agree with what you've said. Trouble is, humans seem to be quite bad at figuring out when other humans have been psychologically abused, we can't reasonably expect them to recognise — without guidelines — with any accuracy when it happens to other species.
It is extremely difficult, I will admit. But I think humanity as a species is going to have to learn how to recognize signs of psychological abuse if we're ever going to manage it when certain mental problems get too bad (anxiety, depression, PTSD, etc.) I don't know if or when we'll be able to do that even for ourselves, much less other species, but I'm hoping it happens eventually, and if it does that will need to be a part of anti-abuse laws as well.
Remember, downvoting isn't for disagreeing. Let others speak their opinions.
Your first response is definitely flawed: It takes much more energy in form of corn or wheat (feed) to produce an amount of meat that will have less energy in it compared to us humans eating the corn or wheat directly. Averting said humanitarian crisis under consideration of population growth, environmental aspects and degradation of farmland etc. more or less necessitates that all humans go almost completely vegetarian. Of course, we humans don't give a flying fuck in the face of increasing field salinity and algae blooming in the runoff from our farm practices so far.
Please call us "zoophiles".
I like your comment on artificial insemination applied to humans. It's a novel argument for me. My personal hope - somewhat along the same lines - is that in a little while there will be artificial meat: Take cells from a cow, artificially grow them in a laboratory (suspended in a nutritious solution) into muscles, cut those up et voila: Steaks without the need of the cow dying. No GMO, real meat.
It may take more energy to produce the meat, but meat it's much more easy to conserve and transport and therefore the only alternative on many places on the world, we should at least make an exception with them; besides a cow eating the corn and wheat may extract the energy from those plants, much more efficiently than our own bodies, that's the whole point of the food chain.
It's not about what people care about today on the state of agriculture, it's about if people should care and what we can do to revert the indifference.
Why is it different if I call you zoophiles? Just curious
I am not attacking meat eating nor defending it. I am merely saying your first statement is flawed as it contradicts on detailed analysis. What you add now frankly also doesn't hold water in close examination. I am just telling you before you go into the big show with that argument.
For the second question: 1) Because that is the name - to my knowledge - that most prefer. Like black people said they'd actually like 'black' the most, if you must, instead of 'afroamerican'. Or like a fictional Jack would inform me his name weren't spelled 'Jacques' if I misinterpreted his surname of 'DeLorean'. 2) I can't give you perfect reasoning within grammar and etymology, but "zoophile" [zoo-o-file] works better if you say it often in sentences (compare [zoo-o-feel-e-ack]). and suits the other -phile uses derived from all kinds of -philia. I have never seen a bibliophiliac or a blogophiliac for example. Although the first source lets you use it interchangeably, scroll through both of these lists and build the -philiac for a person that has that. Tell me it rolls off your tongue naturally:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-phil- http://www.alphadictionary.com/articles/philias.html
Zoophilia is the paraphilia, a zoophile is the person that has it, and e.g. a fan-story with such content is a zoophile story demonstrating an adjective I'd (seldom) use. Granted, the second source says -philiac is for building that, but i am not a natural speaker so i am out here. Although when someone came with the proposed "zoophiliacly", I'd show them this:
http://i.imgur.com/1sBI5Qx.jpg
And say with Liz Feldman: I am a person, a human being. Not a walking embodiment of a singular aspect of me. I didn't zoophiliacly ride the bus today, or help the old lady onto the train zoophiliacly. And even if I do blow a horsedick, I honestly do just that. I don't even know how to add zoophiliacly to that.
Ok, I reverted the names, I just though it would be more practical because you can save up a word the other way:
"to be a zoophile" "being a zoophile"
"to be zoophiliac" "being zoophiliac"
But I guess for the sake of grammar, emotions and pronunciation, it's worth the trade-off.
I just posted this: http://www.reddit.com/r/zoophilia/comments/2vhwz3/proposed_guidelines_for_intercourse_between_a/
It's an attempt to have solid guidelines for intercourse and so it is better for all parties.
Well, I disagree. Anybody who cares about animals should be against eating meat. Eating meat means killing animals, and killing them young. Killing young animals is bad. There is no way to reconcile this with concerns for animal welfare.
What about other people's welfare who may not have other way to feed?
That's just avoiding the issue. In our society eating meat is inexcusable.
I get these edge-case questions a lot. Yes I would eat meat if it meant life or death, and I would expect other people to do the same, but eating meat is still wrong. I would steal food if it was life or death, but stealing is still wrong.
I never said it wasn't wrong, so I guess we agree. :)
One can't under current regulations one eat (or sell) animals that were euthanized with drugs.
Euthanasia means "good death" it does not necessarily refer to medical complications.
I learned something new.
Your points in regards to Agriculture are...misleading. If you put forward your standard "what about the starving kids in africa",
A) this is a red herring in itself as you obviously aren't a starving kid in africa
B) if the world was vegan, world hunger would be FAR better off. Look it up.
You may not be in favor of it perhaps, but by buying it you are supporting it.
Humane: with benevolence and compassion. Well easy, let them die of natural causes (a bolt gun and a knife is not a natural cause such as pneumonia etc). Additionally, I think you are confusing being in favor of euthanasia and being in favor the unnecessary killing of others. Also, refer to them as he/she or they, they aren't inanimate objects, although you may treat them like that.
Die without pain? Yeah, nope. even the best methods even in the best places of the world involve undoubted pain and suffering.
Those farms have claims they don't but they do, it has been proven time and time again.
staring you right in the face.
Sorry for being blunt.
I am stressed about...stuff, and this isn't helping.
a) I never said I was starving, I said that they should be exceptions for them.
b) What if it fails? What if we misplanned and made the situatoion worse for the animals we are trying to protect? I am only going to accept the rational possibility of a vegan world from an unbiased source, so far I have failed to find one.
I am not trying to treat the animals like unanimate objects, it's mere grammar I grew accostumed to. To the contrary, I'm trying to reach a compromise, if I shoot a cow because I want to eat it, then yes, you could argue what I'm doing isn't right. But wouldn't you prefer for me to be obligated, to have the cow killed instantly, if I ever were to do so? Having a ban on all animal farm practices is not going to get your point across, but little by little then maybe we can manage it. in the future
The only population that could arguably be exempt would be the Inuits. That's it.
So you are only going to accept the rational possibility of a vegan world from non-vegans? sorry you what?
You have a brain use it. Your grammar is incorrect when addressing an animal, human or nonhuman, as an 'it'.
A) Your compromise is heavily favorable to your side. No vegan would ever consider meeting your compromise.
B)her*
C)No, i would prefer you left her alone. They are equally selfish and abhorrent as regardless of the methods you still have judged all of her life experiences irrelevant in the quest for your fleeting sensation of sensual gratification. Pretty damn fucking selfish. It is Zoosadism, pleasure (taste), which has been sourced through the cruelty towards an animals (Just in case you didn't know murder, regardless of method, is cruelty).
We don't meet compromises because compromise is unacceptable. Only the majority can ban something. Eventually we will be in that position (if all goes well). Until then, we stand our ground and (V)educate.
P.S. Nobody knows who you are. not even a hello. You kinda did just barge in uninvited and say, "so boys and girls, this is how shit will be ran."