alax dillon
Member
in Australia it is actually illegal to have sex with a kangaroo whilst sober.
true fact.
true fact.
-
Finished your HSC? Check out our University Discussion, Non-School forums or help out next year's HSC students! -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
The right to have sex with an animal?? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Anderson101
- Start date
emiliieee
Batman.
what the fuck? what the fuck is wrong with you - (people in general) lol having sex with animals.
this is so weird.
I find your reasoning with respect to society similarly troubling. I understand your reasoning - that the social endorsement of the permissibility of slaughtering seems to imply the permissibility of bestiality. Now, while a grown adult would have to be thoroughly ignorant to not know that we kill animals to produce meat, it is very easy to turn a blind eye to conditions such animals are put through. Speaking from the metropolitan perspective, meat is no longer produced in the home or in the community. Much of meat production takes place in factories which are closed from human view and/or sequestered away from the community. I have encountered children, generally around age 6 or 7, who demonstrate great surprise, even sadness, when they realise that beef is actually cow, and that the other meat they consume also comes from animals. That it is even possible for kids this age to be completely unaware that meat has a living origin shows the extent to which society is screened from the reality of slaughtering. The meat industry is complicit in this and actively portrays a paradisical family farm atmosphere in advertising, film, tv, etc. That the social acceptance of the mistreatment of animals is often implicit in this way, rather than explicit and conscious, weakens your argument.
Also note that you are engaging in something of a reductive error here. Certainly, you may reason according to universal principles concerning harm and freedom, but this does not mean that the 'general will' is similarly produced. As far as I can tell, attitudes concerning bestiality are typically informed by taboo and the moral dimension of purity-sanctity which appears in more conservative (?=traditional) moral systems. Such moral reasoning can function quite seperate from considerations of harm. Given the pluralism that characterises modern society, in Australia at least, I expect that an approach which uses a single, universal moral lense to interpret all social trends is likely to be viewed with a certain degree of distaste. Your reasoning that one norm implies another requires a background assumption of a fairly specific system of morality. Even if you feel that you can produce a strong argument for the validity of this system I'm not sure what place it has at this broader social level where it fails to represent the views of most individuals. At the risk of hyperbole, this approach strikes me as somewhat totalitarian.
Finally, I am troubled by this obsession with consistency. In particular, you say that you are troubled by our treatment of animals but that you eat meat anyway because you enjoy it. To reason that consistency then requires you to permit bestiality leads to the perverse conclusion that you ought to remain consistent with your meat consuming behavior even though you recognise its morally problematic nature. I appreciate that consistency is often considered a virtue of moral systems - decidability is important and it would be absurd for a system to say, at once, X and not-X. However, consistency also strikes me as the logician's or economist's approach to moral reasoning in which we forgo the hard question "what should I do in this situation?" for the much simpler technical question "what behavior would be consistent with what I did yesterday?". Not only does this approach replace moral reasoning with the satisfaction of a logical criterion, but it makes strong assumptions about the nature of moral reasoning. Firstly, consistency of this sort is only really useful if a system is founded on exceptionless, universal moral principles. Once we allow particularity and exception seeming inconsistencies may simply be due to 'local' (speaking in terms of conceptual, not physical, geography) differences in the treatment of moral issues. Secondly, intuitive approaches to morality which depend on moral sensibility rather than explicit principles need not follow such strict implication between all moral tenets. Such implication similarly breaks down in systems featuring a diversity of principles, as mentioned above in the social case - consider the medical ethics of Beauchamp and Childress as an example (autonomy, justice, beneficence, nonmaleficence).
GodLovesIsrael
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2009
- Messages
- 63
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
why do you have to write so much for? are you muslim by any chance? write in normal english
Crestwood's_G
In Elegance
well...its not so much that they raped the animal...but yeah animals have rights...its just looked down upon because majority says its wrong...
i was discussing this with a mate the other day about that paedophile guy...he called him sick...and i said that he only calls him sick because majority says its wrong...if it was another young boy kissing another young boy than it would deemed as fine...but because of this "innocence"...in australia we view people getting married at 12 to be wrong...but in islamic countries this is normal...also we view putting jews in gas chambers to be wrong...but the nazi party assumed it was right...and jewish, homosexual and communist persecution was deemed fine by the german public, just as long as the german economy and living standards got better
jaylove
Banned
loll
jaylove
Banned
Lol yukk
that kinda made me laugh lol.
have you ever read the bible? and read about joan of Ark? lol... if it was about pleasure only and not reproduction and if it was religiously acceptable for humans to get jiggy with animals then God would've told joan to put one of each animal and let humans rape the animals because thats what i created sex for, pleasure. lol
but thats not the way it went. God created sex for reproduction, and if it was possible to have a human male sperm fertilize a female ducks egg then by all means, who ever is inlove with a duck then go ahead lol.
and the reason God made sex ''pleasurable'' is so that people dont feel like its a duty to reproduce, and also because were fulfilling his requirements by producing offspring so the least he could do was make it fun for humans
and plus..
why the hell would anyone want to do that.. its so cruel
if you want to go satisfy your self go to kingscross or something and put an animal mask on your prostitute lolll
but leave the poor animals alone
its slack.
jaylove
Banned
jaylove
Banned
no theyr not demons,
i never even said people/things that have sex for pleasure are demons :S
i said that sex wasnt created ONLY for pleasure.. but also to create offspring =\
am i wrong?
jazzzod
Member
Serius, I truly fear the future of humanity because of people like yourself.
jaylove
Banned
why ? coz i gave my opinion and you didn't like it ?
lol.. ok..
sorry to shock you but everyone has different opinions about everything.
if you don't agree then go have a sook
