The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Tommyjw
Exactly, you. Subjective. Says it all.


Well so is every opinion ever. But if you disagree, you actually need to actually explain why. Pointing out that my arguments subjective doesn't refute it. So is my belief that slavery is wrong, but that doesn't mean you automatically disagree with that opinion.
CandyFlipper is right.

I take the opposite view as I just love bacon. I just think it is totally fcked up and should be highly disapproved of.
Reply 382
Original post by CandyFlipper
Well so is every opinion ever. But if you disagree, you actually need to actually explain why. Pointing out that my arguments subjective doesn't refute it. So is my belief that slavery is wrong, but that doesn't mean you automatically disagree with that opinion.


You continue to post comments in objective ways. So you can't use the 'this is my opinion' argument when you are putting it forward in an objective way.
Reply 383
It is animal abuse because all animals hate sexual activity and it makes them feel ashamed and guilty so don't be a rapist please.
Well, I can't think why it's wrong (although I certainly don't agree with it) but I'm not sure why you'd want to.
Original post by Tommyjw
You continue to post comments in objective ways. So you can't use the 'this is my opinion' argument when you are putting it forward in an objective way.


This is in the philosophy forum, everyone knows I'm putting forward a philosophical and subjective argument. I just happen to be quite sure in my convictions and frankly given all the responses so far, I don't think anyone has convinced me that I'm wrong yet.
Ahh. Only on TSR. :')
Reply 387
Some things cannot be fully answered in black and white, straightforward answer. Is it wrong to rape an animal, of course it is. Are there contradictions in our logic, of course there is, where there are humans there are contradictions.

Now to address your main argument. These animals that you refer to as unable to give consent to be eaten. Would they be alive today if we didn't eat meat? So, if they didn't consent to being eaten and we then stopped eating meat, there would be no need to breed and rear so many animals, thus meaning that animals that are killed for food, ironically, are given some form of life, that they may never have had if we were all vegetarians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat

Where do we stand on shagging in vitro grown animal vaginas?
Reply 389
Original post by the bear
my plaice or yours ?


Or you could shag my squid for a couple of quid?
Original post by jismith1989
What evidence do you have for this sweeping statement?


Introspection :2euk48l:
Reply 391
Original post by Nightstar-27
1) Animals harbour STDs as well, which show up in them.
2) Animals do carry diseases that they are able to cope with but humans can't, one quite major example would be AIDs.
3) We have drugs for the diseases humans carry but not for all the diseases animals carry.
4) Not all diseases animals carry are sexual. I can tell you having worked with animals that wild animals carry diseases quite harmful to humans and the contact would risk infection, condom or no condom.


Zoophiles rarely have sex with wild animals, they are almost always domesticated.

Original post by Nightstar-27

5) My cognitions are perfectly fine with people having sex with animals if they're stupid enough (lets not forget most animals are infact stronger than us humans) just don't come crying to me if you get injured or become sick over it.


Exactly, the animals are more likely to be hurting the human. Not the other way round.
Reply 392
what a disgusting thread. i take it the OP is a man.
Reply 393
Original post by raaachek
Dolphins, chimps and humans are the only animals that get pleasure from sex. At very best, a dog/pig/horse is gonna be indifferent to it.


That's simply not the case, what makes you think that?

Most animals which zoophiles tend to have sex with get pleasure from sex and have orgasms etc.
Original post by Stefan1991
That's simply not the case, what makes you think that?

Most animals which zoophiles tend to have sex with get pleasure from sex and have orgasms etc.


Really? Maybe you're right then..
Original post by Tommyjw
Using harsh words such as 'imprison and slaughter' create a biased view towards essentially something that is needed in order to provide food for our population



Eating a animal for essential nutrients and for our diet is not the same as eating a person.

Just like eating a pet dog is illegal.



Just to point out, if it hasn't been already, that meat is not needed in order to provide food. Growing vegetables is much more efficient in terms of land and resource use. As for "essential nutrients"... last time I checked, vegetarianism is viable. I manage to do it. Apologies if I come across as militant here. In fact I don't really mind if people choose to eat meat. But it's not true to say that it's absolutely necessary.

/

Anyway, the issue of eating meat is a red herring when having the sex-with-animals debate. If something is wrong because the animals can't consent, it doesn't suddenly become right just because we do something else which violates their consent. The stance may or may not be hypocritical, but that's irrelevant - people are hypocritical about everything. The fact is that almost any time you have sex with an animal, it is rape, and hence wrong.

On a more disgusting note, I suppose it would be possible for an animal to give its consent by actually pro-actively trying to have sex with you... and while I would personally find it repulsive if you decided to allow it to, I suppose I couldn't morally condemn you for doing it.
Reply 396
Original post by milkytea
Just to point out, if it hasn't been already, that meat is not needed in order to provide food. Growing vegetables is much more efficient in terms of land and resource use. As for "essential nutrients"... last time I checked, vegetarianism is viable. I manage to do it. Apologies if I come across as militant here. In fact I don't really mind if people choose to eat meat. But it's not true to say that it's absolutely necessary.

Neither are vegetables and all nutrients can be provided in much more efficient ways than farming the land, does that mean we should stop that?

Resources being available elsewhere is not an argument against something.
Original post by Tommyjw
Neither are vegetables and all nutrients can be provided in much more efficient ways than farming the land, does that mean we should stop that?

Resources being available elsewhere is not an argument against something.


The argument isn't just that the resources are available elsewhere, it's that it would be economically and environmentally better to gather them elsewhere. What exactly are the other ways you have in mind? If we could produce the same amount of food without using land, I'd be all for it... I assumed that high land use is necessary to produce large amounts, though.
Original post by milkytea
Anyway, the issue of eating meat is a red herring when having the sex-with-animals debate. If something is wrong because the animals can't consent, it doesn't suddenly become right just because we do something else which violates their consent.


I'm arguing we should do neither, not both.
Original post by Stefan1991
Zoophiles rarely have sex with wild animals, they are almost always domesticated.



Exactly, the animals are more likely to be hurting the human. Not the other way round.


Even domesticated animals can be carrying diseases if not vaccinated regularly.

I never mentioned anything about humans hurting the animal, so I don't know what your whole 'exactly' thing is about. I was one about humans getting harmed by animals as a reason why we don't try and sleep with them

Latest

Trending

Trending