I don't know if you haven't heard of Kyle Justin, but he hosts a show in YouTube called Secular Talk, he is fairly moderate towards the libertarian left, and is known for advocating things like reducing ALL ages of consent to 16 on all places, and supports polygamy.
He is a very open minded fella, he is know for changing his mind on issues when they presented evidence to him, but he is also very harsh on anyone who speaks lies.
I still get mad at him because he believes the death penalty should be allowed for cases of "beyond the shadow of a doubt" for violent crimes and he can be a little naive, when it comes to how to solve and refer to cartel violence in my native Mexico, but that's besides the point.
He gets mad when conservatives lump in, an acceptance of gay marriage, as an acceptance of other generally negative things, like pedophilia.
His standard is "consenting adults" for any sexual activity, he has managed to mock the idea of zoophilia on the grounds that it is impossible for an animal to give consent, since they cannot even grasp the concept; of course people here disagree, but that's not the issue at hand.
When you get rejected and called names, that's still no excuse to say that your opposition is sinister, because as I just shown you, even a very liberal person can draw bounds that otherwise would place us in complete agreement. You may think either him or you would have to eventually budge, but alas it seems permanent.
Would he be convinced if we talked to him about the distinct arguments? Would he even accept the offer or believe it to be immoral to even attempt it (maybe just a waste of time)? Maybe not, but that wouldn't prove he is a bigot, as much as that would prove he is pro-16 year olds; on the first example he is not holding his stance to lower the drinking age because he loves 16 year olds, but because he has a principled stance for maximum liberty, but on our example, since his discourse isn't against zoophilia itself, but rather non-consenting sex, it would be like comparing a kite to Pluto, they aren't even the same kind of thing.
The point here being, that we must always be vigilant, to make sure we are not falling into a victim-hood complex; just because some people fail to reach our position, that doesn't have to be because a dogmatic belief fills them, but for other things that are not in plain sight (like different discourses in this case).
I'd recommend:
I'd be careful with that. It's a fascinating read for sure, but he is quite controversial even among zoos and I am still undecided how much I trust his version of events.
edit: It's surprisingly hard to find a download link that works. Here is one: http://wrinko.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/LeConteSpink_AE2011-Witchunt2010-rev2.pdf
The trouble is that we have basically no scientific studies on the psychological long term effects of sexual relationships with humans on nonhuman animals. Our anecdotal evidence says they're usually at least as happy as pets that are not in sexual relationships with their humans, and don't suffer adverse effects from it, but we don't have solid proof to offer.
At best we can offer articles with opinions from scientists like http://sciencenordic.com/denmark-moves-ban-bestiality-sex-animals-really-so-bad. But solely based on stuff like that I don't think disagreeing is a completely irrational position for "outsiders".
Just as it's rational to come to a different conclusion like the danish animal ethics council did: http://fifine.org/2.Ebene/Danish_Animal_Ethics_Council_-_November_2006_Report_Unofficial_English_Translation.pdf
Maybe "Respect for sexual minorities" as the council calls it, could be a point to talk about? People sometimes say they rather "err on the side of caution", but how cautious is it to criminalize people who likely never do any harm based on their sexuality?
I would definitely recommend the stuff that describes the psychology and attitudes of several zoophiles like http://www.scribd.com/doc/177288801/A-clinical-psychology-online-study-into-zoophilia-Marion-Nasswetter and http://www.lopdf.net/preview/TsQjLKHcW5vPCrq33KvS2MtJgj-4tzilZmL6yVKuvxA,/Understanding-Bestiality-and-Zoophila-By-Hani-Miletski-Ph.html?query=Ph-t-194-m. Even if they suffer from selection bias, knowing more about the people you condemn maybe humanizes them more and makes it more likely to empathize. Or maybe not, I don't really know how to reach people with that.
If you recommend this stuff to random people who condemn "active" zoophiles, how many of those will actually read it? I think most won't bother.
Knowing the people you condemn definitely makes people more empathetic, because then their selection bias is hindered. Even if it's just pity, it is still worlds better than hatred.
But the point is not forcing people to read, the point is to make the correct information available to anyone who has an open mind, this is important because in order to open the door to the studies we want (and we need), then this barrier must be addressed, because the status quo is that of throwing pedophilia, necrophilia and zoophilia on the same bag.
We can only hope the info changes some minds, but that's still worlds better than remaining in the shadows, forever sinister. The council wouldn't have even come to that conclusion without such openess.
Are they not all in the same bag?
no, they're not. for so many reasons... maybe try reading stuff from some of the above links..
What do you mean exactly? How do the links above regarding zoophiia and bestiality show how the three paraphilias are not in the same bag?
The Danish ethics council (linked to from above) basically says "zoos are fine!", the other two paraphilias I have never heard anything accepting about from anyone, ever.
(Although, in principle, if someone wants to donate their body to a necrophile and the coroner gives their OK, I don't see why it should be forbidden, even though I find it disturbing).
Given that this is a zoophilia sub, I find it very odd that the lack of "hearing anything accepting" about pedophilia and necrophilia "from anyone ever" seems to be accepted without question as to them being "bad." Like zoophilia, pedophilia and necrophilia face a lot of demonization and contempt from the general public and are prone to many misconceptions spread about by uninformed people. Research is also hard to conduct on these groups, as the vast majority of research done on pedophilia and necrophilia were done on either prison or clinical populations, i.e. people already convicted of a crime (child molesters/sex offenders for pedophiles and murderers/serial killers for necrophiles) or people with mental disorders, which severely biases the results. I'm not as well informed about how most of the research has been conducted on zoophiles, but I imagine it, as well, has been hard to conduct which is why there are relatively few sources that actually say "Zoos are fine!"
Having said that, there are many sources that do not take the societally negative views of pedophilia: to name a few, there is this piece published by Slate in 2012 and this comprehensive piece published by Matter last year featuring a teenage non-offending pedophile . Also, curiously enough, the original version of the DSM-5 had listed pedophilia as a sexual orientation, but removed it due to public pressure. This article gives further details into the DSM-5 classification of pedophilia.
As I said in a comment in another thread, there is hardly any information out there about necrophilia let alone necrophilia communities. This is a blog post which gives a brief but informative psychological overview of necrophilia (and the comments below from one necrophile is very well worth reading). In my experience, the only place I've found a significant community of necrophiles was in the paraphilias section of the psych forums, where I found this thread to be particulary helpful in understanding their experiences.
Clearly, each of the three paraphilias have their own specific issues but they also face many of the same issues of societal condemnation and misunderstanding; thus are in the same boat in many ways.
Ah, interesting. I think I see your point now, and I believe earlier we were arguing cross-purposes — I had assumed that by saying "in the same boat", you were claiming the specific issues of all three paraphilias were shared.
Link near the end of the Backfire Effect may help a lot: http://bigthink.com/in-their-own-words/the-key-to-rational-argument-reframe-it-as-a-partnership
In general, opposition to zoophilia has nothing to do with consent or harm to animals. Take your example of Kyle Justin. He eats meat.
This can be summed up as murder for his pleasure. Since it should be pretty obvious from even a casual observation that an animal being killed is under duress and cannot consent (edit: willfully does not consent is more accurate, my previous statement is very human centric).
So you see, logic has nothing to do with his position. If it did, petting your dog would be assault, meat would be murder, breeding animals would be aiding and abetting sexual assault and so on.
Not once did I disagree with him or beg to differ on facts. I used his own argument against him. While it often pisses people off because I'm implying consent doesn't matter; I am simply playing by the rules he and society have set up. I doubt he's really had a good think on the topic.
But...
Most people would agree that a dog, for example, can show its wants and needs pretty easily to a human; food, water, going out, playing ball and so forth. It is simply the human view of sex that is affecting the perception of what the animal may or may not want. Rather than allow free expression, we simply cut their nuts off.
Edit:CAPS and grammar and shit.
You have to be careful not to fall into tu quoque arguments, but since it is so common I will have to address it.
You must be careful not to speak bad of meat-eaters or castration, because then you lose any zoophile who eats meat or castrates, if you believe you have a very good argument against them both, then you must speak in progression and understanding and also keep such discourse wholly separate from zoophilia; since it is a very common practice, this will reduce backlash and invite in open minded people.
So one could argue that we already have acceptable homicide and that eating animals is just an extension of it, since I'm doing it out of necessity rather than pleasure, since I always respect animal welfare and since such activities are not related to other immoral actions. There are also other arguments such as that pure agriculture is unsustainable and plant products are not as efficient to get specific nutrients. Both things are fundamental in several parts of the world.
I want you to remember what I just said, I know it's hard to not be angry when someone dares to say something that seems against something fundamental (to either your identity or the universe), but if you show anger or even pity towards your opponent, you just made his argument for him, who's to say your opponent doesn't feel the same way with your words?
Castration is necessary to control the growing population of street-dogs, that are born in misery and may even die in misery, since dogs cannot be expected to stop having sex on their own. It is also important for families who cannot take care of the resulting puppies.
You would win more people if you just distinguish between direct and indirect consent (this distinction is not alien to anyone who has had casual sex).
But it isn't. Some form of sterilization is necessary. It could be vasectomies. In the future it could be a pill given to them by food.
Examples where people are experimenting with it:
http://www.humanesociety.org/news/magazines/2014/05-06/out-of-season-alternatives-to-deer-culls.html
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324662404578334430034347550
Those are great news!
I want to argue about this, but I'm not sure I can do so right now without being an annoying ass. If you're in the mood when you see this, can you let me know? I'll see any reply in the morning :)
I'm always open to civil discussion.
Thank you.
As an adult, I have been increasingly surprised by people making the claim "meat is necessary" — as I have been pescatarian from 5-10, ovo-lacto vegetarian from 10-29, and increasingly avoiding even milk and eggs since then, my continued existence is clearly evidence to the contrary. Yet, some people are so sure meat is necessary that they believe I must be lying and sneaking out for a BLT (a specific claim by the mother of an ex of mine, whom I never met).
What's up with that?
So I'm not entirely sure who you are replying to. It's either a) Kyle Justin or b) something you embellished in your head. I laid out the implication of what Kyle believes, that if consent of an animal is important, and indeed just, then there are other implication to that which society and Kyle himself do not believe for a second are true. My argument was never that Kyle should be ignored because he was a hypocrite, even though he is. It is that if animals cannot consent and then the consent is not a required thing. As I said in my earlier comment "Not once did I disagree with him or beg to differ on facts.... I'm implying consent doesn't matter; I am simply playing by the rules he and society have set up." You cannot set up rules that treat one thing one way, and another thing another way just because of your emotions and expect it not to be challenged no matter what made up argument you've(in this case Kyle) clung too. I am specifically challenging the assertion that consent is important to Kyle, the universe, or some utilitarian god of justice.
Now, you can go ahead and argue that consent is required, but I would argue that Kyle does not. I would argue that he makes absolutely no compelling logical link between consent and sex. In the case of the body autonomy of animals, rather, he uses a human centered argument akin to "eww, that's icky."
That would be simply your opinion only, and not an actual fact. Please try to use facts in the future. You prefer steak to beans and rice. Both are complete proteins and when eaten with a well balanced diet can sustain you. This isn't a controversial statement.
I'm sorry, but your advice is simply invalid. I was neither angry nor particularly incorrect in my assertions about what society values. It is not the supposed consent that is the issue, it is the sex. It's a simply argument to follow really. You might not like the argument but I've noticed you play lecturer rather than address my ideas.
Again that is not a fact, zeutering is a quicker, less labor intensive process.
In addition it is not what I was talking about, this is where my comment about things in your own head comes in. I explicitly said that rather than allow free expression of animal emotion and desire, we lop their nuts off. This is much more true in North America than you might be familiar with, however the number one suggested solution to an intact animal with a "behavior problem" is to desex despite the fact it is not really a successful solution.
Making a complex statement and argument combination has never settled any internet debate that I know of, nor has it ever changed any laws. I'd recommend you examine politics and other such subjects and see how votes are actually won. The only way we will win anyone is to change their emotions, logic will not do that. It doesn't even matter if you are right, if you can get everyone to follow you. It's not nice, it's not the way it should be, but frankly it is.
I am simply not an absolutist. I'm not sure ALL bestiality should be allowed, I am not sure all animals shouldn't be castrated, I am not sure no one should eat meat. What I would like to see is a greater degree of animal body autonomy, and less outright abuse. But all that is beside the point.
This reply has become far longer than it was really worth it to me to type; if you fail to actually engage with me again, you can simply expect no response.
Yes indeed, but could you sustain the population if you replaced all stake consumption with rice? What gets me more biomass per space or time unit? I am open to the idea that meat consumption is unnecessary in theory, but so far I have not seen such an analysis from an unbiased source. There would also be the cost of training your population to not suffer anxiety when their meat consumption is stopped or the thousands of jobs you would lose.
I didn't know what zeutering was (it is a recent invention), but if it lives up to it's promise then I fully support it's use instead of castration (on practical and not moral grounds).
Yes it is true that the argument is complex, but it is common sense for most of the sexually active world, just like driving is very complex but people take their ability for granted.The only distinction is that the first uses unambiguous language (is explicit) while the other one is the opposite (implicit), since other animals are incapable of the first, we can at least expect the second one to be present, before considering intercourse.
I don't know what I did wrong, I am being as gentle as I can be, trying to avoid the possibility of you being angry and me not knowing.
That's the wrong question, because it's trivially "plant" (livestock has to eat plant biomass).
Will this link help? I don't know if they are a biased source or not, and I do appreciate the difficulty and importance of figuring that out: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.full
The article you cited concludes that non of the diets are without their faults, they cite land erosion as the main concern and energy consumption, that unfortunately is primarily oil based.
My reason tells me that the real solution would be a compromise of the two, since meat also has other physical properties that allow it to be better transported, since not all crops grow on all places.
And a compromise is sort of what we have, it may need some balancing as it is stated, but the article does not include any forecast on what would happen if meat production stopped.
Technological advancements can eventually improve either system, but those are also being hindered by ethical concerns.
You'll get no argument from me on any of those points. Humanity is a mess, there are too many of us, we don't know all of what we're doing, and oil use is unsustainable.
My ethics are driven from the neopagan "do no harm" with the caveat that that only minds have the capacity to be harmed (material things like buildings would be "damaged", but not "harmed"). I think that the mind comes from the physical world, rather than being an independent substance, so I am open to the possibility of non-human minds, even non-biological minds. But the mind is the primary thing of value to me.
Of course, my ethics are my own, and I am well aware I lack the ability to cause others to value the things I value in the way I value them. Even here ;)
I am just hoping we can someday eat synthetic meat and there would not longer be an issue.
Likewise. I give it 10 years for specialist stuff, perhaps 20 for widespread replacement of animal by-products like gelatine.
I am more optimistic ;-)
If it was just technology, I'd also be more optimistic. But people are very upset about GM food, even though GM rennet is the only way I can even be a proper vegetarian.
Hm. Thinking about it, \*Googles: vegan milk from GM bacteria\*. Yay! Milk substitution may well be faster than meat substitution.
The real solution are vertical farms with tightly controlled conditions with - eventually - genetically modified plants that provide all necessary nutrients.
Why isn't synthetic milk or meat part of the solution too? Is there something I'm missing?
At the risk of opening a well-beaten topic, it seems even "zoophiles" can't agree what zoophilia is, so I'm sure some people even know what they're opposing or what they're defending.
Anyway, regardless of one's definition, I agree that the consent argument is a weak one... though like /u/kkllee I agree that it's important to avoid the argument of "think of all the worse things we do to animals without their consent" because that just steers the argument in the wrong direction - like zoophilia is bad, but just not as bad as other things.
The consent argument really has nothing to do with zoophilia - I've not yet seen a law saying "animals can't consent," just laws saying "sex with animals is illegal because we say so."
The reason consent is raised at all is a vernacular simplification to say that both parties agree that the activity is something they want, and that they are in a frame of mind to determine their want of such a thing. It's pretty easy to see that some animals, in some situations, not only want but actively seek and initiate sexual activities.
Many people don't even realize that "zoophiles" (as we commonly mean the term) are almost always opposed to animal abuse or unwanted sexual advances toward animals, and I think that is a fact more people should understand.
Thing is, many people refuse to think wanted sexual advances towards animals are even possible, regardless of all evidence to contrary.
Sure, therefore my point... it would give them reason to pause and re-evaluate that assumption. Now, they just assume the flow of logic is valid from their flawed assumptions about the topic, because there is an absence of evidence to challenge it. Zoophiles standing up against abuse for one thing would be contributing to a good cause that everyone is on board with, AND it would force people of the opinion you describe to address the apparent cognitive dissonance of why people would fight against "themselves."
That reminds me, there is a petition to keep fox hunting illegal in the UK. Probably more than one, given all the direct-action sites popping up. Worth signing if you have not already done so.