How hypocritical 99% of society is

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 150
#31
drlebronski
drlebronski's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 993
3
5
9
drlebronski's avatar
drlebronski
3
5
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
Your so god damn stupid its not even funny.
your clearly 13 and uneducated on most everything you say.
If you think animals don't deserve rights, your free to advocate for legalizing beastiality.
humans having sex with an animal is not giving an animal rights its rap e. as nyxified pointed out animals dont have the mental capacity to consent to sex with a human.
it has no where near the mental capacity of that of a human.
there's a difference between eating an animal and raping it this comparison is retarded.
F U
#32
drlebronski
drlebronski's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 993
3
5
9
drlebronski's avatar
drlebronski
3
5
9
However, there have been some pretty horny animals that I have came across in videos and movies that would be fine with having consensual
lol wtf "in movies and videos" thats again an idiotic statement.
how do you know if its consensual btw?
and are you trolling?
Topic's author
#33
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@drlebronski

your clearly 13 and uneducated on most everything you say.
I'm over 13.  I'm just very libetarian on sex for others, and this includes sex with animals.

humans having sex with an animal is not giving an animal rights its rap e.
Only if the animal resists.

nyxified pointed out animals dont have the mental capacity to consent to sex with a human.
You'd be surprised.  The video below shows a dog having sex with a member of an other species:


there's a difference between eating an animal and raping it this comparison is retarded
Eating the animal requires it's death.  Consensual sex between animals can be enjoyed by both parties.  Either you believe in animal rights or you don't.  Pick one.

F U
Unjustified ad hommein attack.
Topic's author
#34
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@drlebronski
how do you know if its consensual btw?
If the animal resists, it's not consensual.  If the animal stays put, it's consensual.

and are you trolling?
Nope; I'm just very libetarian on sex for others and I demand consistency.  Either an animal has rights or it doesn't.  Pick one.
#35
drlebronski
drlebronski's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 993
3
5
9
drlebronski's avatar
drlebronski
3
5
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
You are god damn retarded im blocking you again after this.
Only if the animal resists.
another idiotic claim 
If a man rap es a woman and the woman doesn't resist its not consensual.

You'd be surprised.  The video below shows a dog having sex with a member of an other species:


wth do you watch on youtube i dont give a damn about a single video where a dog and chicken have unwanted sex.

Eating the animal requires it's death.  Consensual sex between animals can be enjoyed by both parties.  Either you believe in animal rights or you don't.  Pick one.
Yea.... eating meat is.....natural.......for.....all.........animals...........including........humans................but thats not to say i support what factories do to animals everyday.

If the animal resists, it's not consensual.  If the animal stays put, it's consensual.
where do you get your retarded logic from??????? 
if the woman lets the man rap e her its consensual if not its rap e.

I'm over 13.
im sorry i meant 14

F U BLOCKED
#36
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@TheUnderdog
However, there have been some pretty horny animals that I have came across in videos and movies that would be fine with having consensual, non PTSD causing sex with humans.
I would strongly advise you stop watching such videos and movies for your own personal wellbeing. You might also benefit from examining the foundation of your moral philosophy that allows for humans to degrade themselves with beasts in such a way.
#37
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@RationalMadman
Arbitrary. A human is indeed 100% animal, the line we draw between us and them is our own animalistic instinct at play.
It's not arbitrary. Yes, we can establish that humans are 100% animals (note: I made reference to "non-human" animals.) But the animals of which you speak cannot function within a moral framework because the bear an incapacity to be moral agents. Thus, they have no rights. That''s not arbitrary at all given that there's an established and logically consistent basis.

#38
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Athias
What the fuck are you even trying to say? What makes humans moral agents?

What makes you, a bunch of flesh and bones with a brain any more entitled to be treated with 'moral rights' than a gorilla or even a frog?
#39
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
@RationalMadman:

What the fuck are you even trying to say? What makes humans moral agents?

What makes you, a bunch of flesh and bones with a brain any more entitled to be treated with 'moral rights' than a gorilla or even a frog?
Odd that you'd respond to this statement after blocking me, but if you want to indulge this emotional pretense then we shall proceed.

What makes a human a moral agent? First, not all humans are moral agents. Moral agency is associated with one's capacity to reason--i.e. to acknowledge and gauge one's own condition and conceive a set of concepts which inform social interaction. When you can convince a lion not to initiate any form aggression toward any other animal because it appreciates the ethics of its actions, then come back and talk to me.

Why do I have moral rights as opposed to gorillas and frogs? Once again, I'm a moral agent. Gorillas and frogs aren't. Any sentimental attachment is a manifestation of your "arbitration."
#40
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,083
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@thett3
@TheUnderdog
Everyone needs sexual gratification, it's a primary drive.

Not that I'm advocating bestiality though.....Other options are available.


Organic material is rendered to food, it's just that some organic material is cuter and fluffier that other's.

Worrying about what we eat is human overthink....Typical but nonetheless overthink.....It's the evolved nature of the beast.


So let's go have a lentil burger  and then go  blow those Isis-K to fuck.


#41
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
I am Ok with eating animals. In fact, the only reason I don’t eat humans is that it has serious health problems.

That said, some plants require more water than even animals and are purely making money because it is classified as “plants”.
#42
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
Also there are vegan meat. There are vegan burger and it is projected in which lab-grown meat will be as cheap as slaughtered meat in a few years.
#43
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Animals don't have rights as much as we have decided they should not be abused be cause they are living mammals. You can't beat or starve an animal but you can humanely kill and eat one. You own your animals but you can not treat them poorly. Sex with an animal is abuse because most animals don't breed out of species. Only certain animal have sex for pleasure. 
#44
Nyxified
Nyxified's avatar
Debates: 21
Posts: 224
2
3
9
Nyxified's avatar
Nyxified
2
3
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
Please read the other three points I mentioned prior instead of just the conclusion. I can give you consistency only when you agree that they're different situations, which they are.
#45
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@dfss9788
Also milking a cow isn't rape.
I wonder what would happen if you gave a cow a button to push that would release the milking machine and open a door for them to wander freely in a field of grass ?
#46
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
When you can convince a tribal warlord not to initiate any form aggression toward any other rival because it appreciates the ethics of its actions, then come back and talk to me.
#47
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RationalMadman
What makes you, a bunch of flesh and bones with a brain any more entitled to be treated with 'moral rights' than a gorilla or even a frog?
Great question, do you have an answer ?
#48
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
All I'm asking for is some consistency.
(IFF) animals are property (THEN) they have no rights and no protections not also afforded to your household items

(IFF) i can buy a book and tear out each page one at a time (THEN) i can buy a chicken and pluck out each feather one at a time

Killing a thing is always worse than mistreating a thing.

This is why murder carries a higher penalty than assault.
#49
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
So you don't believe bestiality is wrong?
Do you believe killing is worse than assault ?
#50
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
I'd rather be murdered than raped or tortured. But that's my perspective as a woman and someone who lived through child abuse.
#51
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you believe killing is worse than assault ?
Yes. But I'm interested to see where you're going to go on this one...
#52
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
When you can convince a tribal warlord not to initiate any form aggression toward any other rival because it appreciates the ethics of its actions, then come back and talk to me.
Not sufficient. A tribal warlord is a moral agent, and therefore can function within a moral framework. My example with the lion was to create this contrast in moral agency between humans and non-human animals. Cultural politics does not render individuals devoid of their moral agency.
#53
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
(IFF) animals are property (THEN) they have no rights and no protections not also afforded to your household items

(IFF) i can buy a book and tear out each page one at a time (THEN) i can buy a chicken and pluck out each feather one at a time

Killing a thing is always worse than mistreating a thing.

This is why murder carries a higher penalty than assault.
#54
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
When you can convince a tribal warlord not to initiate any form aggression toward any other rival because it appreciates the ethics of its actions, then come back and talk to me.
Not sufficient. A tribal warlord is a moral agent, and therefore can function within a moral framework. My example with the lion was to create this contrast in moral agency between humans and non-human animals. Cultural politics does not render individuals devoid of their moral agency.
What makes you think it's reasonable to use "convince a lion not to initiate any form aggression" as a standard for "moral-agency" ?

It seems to fail as even a purely hypothetical standard.

You already declared that some humans are moral-agents and some are not moral-agents.

Would you suggest that humans who are not moral-agents are equal to animals ?

ANd, furthermore, can we tell if someone is a moral-agent simply by looking at them ?
#55
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
What makes you think it's reasonable to use "convince a lion not to initiate any form aggression" as a standard for "moral-agency" ?

It seems to fail as even a purely hypothetical standard.
That was the entire point. My use of "convince" was intended to demonstrate its irrationality. If a lion could be "convinced" in the first place, it wouldn't matter what else followed. All this serves my point: non-human animals aren't moral agents.

You already declared that some humans are moral-agents and some are not moral-agents.
Yes.

Would you suggest that humans who are not moral-agents are equal to animals ?
In the context of their capacity to function within a moral framework, yes. I provide one caveat: for a human non-moral-agent, this is typically temporal.

ANd, furthermore, can we tell if someone is a moral-agent simply by looking at them ?
No, one's capacity to reason and function within a moral framework is not visible.


#56
dfss9788
dfss9788's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 152
1
2
2
dfss9788's avatar
dfss9788
1
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
I wonder what would happen if you gave a cow a button to push that would release the milking machine and open a door for them to wander freely in a field of grass ?
I don't really know, but because of selective breeding (I surmise) the dairy cows make so much milk that they need to be milked all the time or their udders get too full. Then there's injury and pain.
#57
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
It sounds like you're arguing that a person has a right to have sex with their books and their chickens. Is that correct?
#58
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
It sounds like you're arguing that a person has a right to have sex with their books and their chickens. Is that correct?
Not exactly.

I'm asking (IFF) you consider chickens (and or books) property or not.
#59
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@dfss9788
I wonder what would happen if you gave a cow a button to push that would release the milking machine and open a door for them to wander freely in a field of grass ?
I don't really know, but because of selective breeding (I surmise) the dairy cows make so much milk that they need to be milked all the time or their udders get too full. Then there's injury and pain.
Well, they only keep producing milk if the farmers keep getting them pregnant (and slaughtering the calves).

In other words, every time you buy a gallon of cow milk, you're (implicitly) slaughtering calves.
#60
dfss9788
dfss9788's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 152
1
2
2
dfss9788's avatar
dfss9788
1
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
Well, they only keep producing milk if the farmers keep getting them pregnant (and slaughtering the calves).

In other words, every time you buy a gallon of cow milk, you're (implicitly) slaughtering calves.
Have you considered that the they probably wouldn't have lives at all if it were not for the consumption of their products? Are their lives so terrible that they're better off not having existed in the first place?