Thread: If animal cruelty laws prohibit bestiality, why don't they prohibit factory farming?

Ok, here's my original statement:

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Killing an animal to devour it surves a sometimes necessary (and always delicious) purpose - f***ing an animal is never a necessity. Therefore, bestiality is only and can only ever be a perversion while meat eating keeps us alive.

What I meant was this...


It's pretty clear to see why eating meat is not illegal. We evolved as omnivores, therefore meat is an integral part of a normal human diet. There's no taboo against meat eating in any culture that I know of - some cultures have taboos against eating particular animals, but not against all meat in general.

Sex with animals on the other hand is not a normal product of our evolution.

So I guess I could state it like this to try to clarify it: While not absolutely necessary, eating meat is something we've been forged by evolution to do. Can we live without it? Of course - but it's a normal part of a human diet. On the other hand, having sex with animals has never been normal human behavior in any evolutionary sense. In fact it's taboo pretty much everywhere as far as I know (I haven't done the research though). So I guess when I used the word natural I really meant "normal according to human evolution". Incidentally, homosexuality has always been a part of human nature, even though it doesn't propagate the species.

Therefore my real point was that I don't think you chose a very good analogy.

Now maybe you can clarify your position a bit? What are you really trying to get at with this line of reasoning? Not legalizing bestiality I assume - maybe you're just using it as an analogy for why meat eating should be illegal?

Originally Posted by Abra

Impressive point. However, this thread is about why zoophilia is illegal and meat-eating isn't. Not whether or not either option for either thing is right or wrong. Though it'd be cool if laws followed a morality like that. "Eat way less meat until no one is starving."

Also impressive.

The reason one is illegal and one isn't is because most people view eating meat as socially acceptable, and raping animals as perverse. The Law is the rule of the mob, and this is what the mob wants. This is why I'm more interested in discussions of right and wrong. The Law doesn't make any sense from the perspective that the Law is Just. It only makes sense from the perspective that this legislation keeps politicians from being removed by their constituency.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Now maybe you can clarify your position a bit? What are you really trying to get at with this line of reasoning? Not legalizing bestiality I assume - maybe you're just using it as an analogy for why meat eating should be illegal?

I think the point here is that the stated reason for bestiality laws is that it is cruelty to animals, and if applied consistently, this would extend to meat eating.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

It's pretty clear to see why eating meat is not illegal. We evolved as omnivores, therefore meat is an integral part of a normal human diet. There's no taboo against meat eating in any culture that I know of - some cultures have taboos against eating particular animals, but not against all meat in general.

Sex with animals on the other hand is not a normal product of our evolution.

So I guess I could state it like this to try to clarify it: While not absolutely necessary, eating meat is something we've been forged by evolution to do. Can we live without it? Of course - but it's a normal part of a human diet. On the other hand, having sex with animals has never been normal human behavior in any evolutionary sense. In fact it's taboo pretty much everywhere as far as I know (I haven't done the research though). So I guess when I used the word natural I really meant "normal according to human evolution". Incidentally, homosexuality has always been a part of human nature, even though it doesn't propagate the species.

You say homosexuality is ok, because it has always been a part of human nature, even though it doesn't propagate the species. So zoophilia is ok, because it has always been a part of human nature (yes, even before you first heard about it!), even though it doesn't propagate the species.
[/quote]

Therefore my real point was that I don't think you chose a very good analogy.

Now maybe you can clarify your position a bit? What are you really trying to get at with this line of reasoning? Not legalizing bestiality I assume - maybe you're just using it as an analogy for why meat eating should be illegal?

Not saying "should" at all, on either side of either thing. I'm asking why the laws are different.

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

I think the point here is that the stated reason for bestiality laws is that it is cruelty to animals, and if applied consistently, this would extend to meat eating.

I think this has already been said, but eating the flesh of a dead animal doesn't hurt it. Every living thing dies - so that means we're getting into the whole mishmash about how the animals are treated while alive, and of course letting them live wild doesn't ensure a healthy pain-free existence.

It's hard to continue the discussion until it's clear what it's really about.

Originally Posted by Abra

You say homosexuality is ok, because it has always been a part of human nature, even though it doesn't propagate the species. So zoophilia is ok, because it has always been a part of human nature (yes, even before you first heard about it!), even though it doesn't propagate the species.

I already clarified my stance on this, but I;ll do it again... homosexuality WITH CONSENT is ok - you can't get consent from an animal.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

I think this has already been said, but eating the flesh of a dead animal doesn't hurt it. Every living thing dies - so that means we're getting into the whole mishmash about how the animals are treated while alive, and of course letting them live wild doesn't ensure a healthy pain-free existence.

It's hard to continue the discussion until it's clear what it's really about.

That "whole mishmash" is kinda a big deal, though. It's an incredibly cruel process overall. Maybe it would make more sense, if this entire thread were about industrialized meat production instead of just "eating meat". Of course they're not synonymous but that's what I'm assuming is being talked about here.

When you get charged with bestiality, you get charged with cruelty to an animal, not with "being icky". So why do we pay lip service to cruelty if the industrial producers are allowed to do their business like they do?

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

I already clarified my stance on this, but I;ll do it again... homosexuality WITH CONSENT is ok - you can't get consent from an animal.

Makes you wonder... how many species like dildos?

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

That "whole mishmash" is kinda a big deal, though. It's an incredibly cruel process overall. Maybe it would make more sense, if this entire thread were about industrialized meat production instead of just "eating meat". Of course they're not synonymous but that's what I'm assuming is being talked about here.

When you get charged with bestiality, you get charged with cruelty to an animal, not with "being icky". So why do we pay lip service to cruelty if the industrial producers are allowed to do their business like they do?

Well damn... when you state it like that it's hard to argue with.

Personally I really have no desire to discuss free range farming and animal cruelty. Mostly because while I completely agree non-free range is cruel and should be stopped, I aint gonna stop eating meat!

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

I think this has already been said, but eating the flesh of a dead animal doesn't hurt it. Every living thing dies - so that means we're getting into the whole mishmash about how the animals are treated while alive, and of course letting them live wild doesn't ensure a healthy pain-free existence.

It's hard to continue the discussion until it's clear what it's really about.

Things die. That's fine. How 'bout the torture? Most Americans are actually for better treatment of livestock. So why don't we have laws to protect animal abuse in factory farms?

Letting them live wild doesn't ensure a pain free existence, but it gives them a better, more natural life.

Of course, we may be using different definitions of what makes something 'natural.' (You never gave me the criteria.)

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

I already clarified my stance on this, but I;ll do it again... homosexuality WITH CONSENT is ok - you can't get consent from an animal.

Completely true. I agree. And you also can't get consent from an animal before you torture (like, actual torture, standing in your own shit for months and getting crushed by the weight of your own fat) or kill an animal.

One thing is currently legal, and the other isn't.

Lastly,

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Well damn... when you state it like that it's hard to argue with.

Personally I really have no desire to discuss free range farming and animal cruelty. Mostly because while I completely agree non-free range is cruel and should be stopped, I aint gonna stop eating meat!

In a capatalist society, buying is voting. ;__;

Well, I did say that, when I used the term natural I really meant "normal for humans according to evolution".

And animal cruelty isn't implied in your OP. Eating meat can mean after hunting or free-range. That's basically why I was asking for clarification a couple posts ago. I agree with Indie - if this realy is about animal cruelty in industrial farming, maybe you should sstart another thread about it. This one includes too many off-topic sub discussions.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Well, I did say that, when I used the term natural I really meant "normal for humans according to evolution".

Do you see how you were being completely misleading earlier, then? I thought we were talking about clouds in the sky natural, bears in the woods natural, chickens in the sun natural. Or maybe not having chickens constantly rape each other natural. I had no idea you were using a highly anthropomorphic definition of natural.

But that natural's ok too. There's a natural compassion for animals most humans have. We evolved this altruistic sense. We didn't evolve to let the animals we domesticated for thousands of years suffer. We needed to keep them healthy for food.

Also, why do we have laws protecting dogs from murder, but not pigs and cows? Completely different point I know, I just want to hear your stance on this.

And animal cruelty isn't implied in your OP. Eating meat can mean after hunting or free-range. That's basically why I was asking for clarification a couple posts ago. I agree with Indie - if this realy is about animal cruelty in industrial farming, maybe you should sstart another thread about it.

My OP said "torture." And "abuse." But if torture's not a synonym for "cruelty" then I need your dictionary. And the OP had a link to what a CAFO is. . . Did you read the OP?

This one includes too many off-topic sub discussions.

I think this thread is pretty.

Oh yeah I see how there was a misunderstanding. No problem there, I was happy to explain better what I meant.

I guess the question on altruism toward animals is, how far should it extend? I mean, in between posting here, I was posting on Rant and Rave about how I poked my eye with a stick accidentally while trying to save a turtle from getting mashed on the road... and yet just before that I had a sub sandwich with salami and ham and pepperoni in it.

I don't personally think there's anything wrong with hunting as long as you're following the rules and not killing an animal with unweened offspring. By your definition it's natural, right? Wolves and foxes do it all the time (and in fact they tend to take the weak ones, often meaning young). It's also natural by my definition. If a human hunter doesn't kill something chances are an animal will. Yes, making animals live in their own filth (those that don't want to that is!) is cruel, as is limiting them from being able to walk or anything, but a quick clean kill isn't unnecessarily cruel.

Dogs are one of the few animals we can really form a bond with and that bond with us as well. But I think the real reason for the laws has more to do with the fact that from the beginning certain animals were tagged as good eatin' and good farming animals. Herding and flocking animals mostly. Dogs of course were used to control them because their natural predatory impulse was very useful in herding the farm animals where we want them.

I think the laws you refer to actually make more sense than making pot illegal but legalizing alcohol, which causes massive amounts of deaths.

** edit**

Let me clarify real quick - I see nothing wrong with hunting or free range farming - but I do think industrialized farming should be illegal.

There is already ongoing thread debating vegetarianism, it might be more interesting if this one stuck with bestiality.

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

Moral disgust (in cases like this) is essentially nothing more than physical disgust in the form of social pressure. It reenforces physical disgust in case it's not enough to prevent a behavior that is overly risky.

I think this gets to the heart of the matter here. There really is no reason for bestiality to be illegal. It is simply a genetically risky behavior elevated to an extremely strong social more in the form of a law - the protection of the animal really has nothing to do with it logically. Also, I am not convinced that this is psychologically damaging for the animal, or that it should be considered rape. Have you ever seen two animals have sex? It looks pretty violent and hardly like the female is giving consent. Furthermore, it's not a stretch for me to imagine a dog (or other domesticated animal) who is very close to a human possibly giving consent to sex. Objectum sexuality, which is certainly more bizarre than bestiality to me, is considered valid by many psychologists. I don't see any harm in bestiality being legal.

Originally Posted by Abra

Neaderthals had a larger brain volume than us. Hm. I think, since society would hold both species with equal regard (we'd probably broaden our idea of 'species'), it wouldn't be taboo.

I'm going to have to disagree here. Considering that even interracial relations are still taboo some places I can't see most humans being progressive enough to allow interspecies relations. But, who knows, it's all speculation I guess.

Originally Posted by Abra

You are the best poster of this thread.

Neaderthals had a larger brain volume than us. Hm. I think, since society would hold both species with equal regard (we'd probably broaden our idea of 'species'), it wouldn't be taboo.

Larger cranial capacity is not indicative of capability re: higher intelligence.

Originally Posted by Abra

I just asked: what is natural?

I'll tell you one thing, plopping your dong inside an animal certainly doesn't constitute it.

Originally Posted by Warheit

Larger cranial capacity is not indicative of capability re: higher intelligence.

Hominin evolution would like to have a word with you.

I'll tell you one thing, plopping your dong inside an animal certainly doesn't constitute it.

Abra: "What is natural?" You: "Not ____!" That's as informative as Abra: "What's an orange?" You: "Not a toaster!"

Originally Posted by hermine_hesse

There is already ongoing thread debating vegetarianism, it might be more interesting if this one stuck with bestiality.

Point of the thread is to point out and discuss an inconsistency in policy. So we discuss both, in relation with each other. Tricky, right?

I'm going to have to disagree here. Considering that even interracial relations are still taboo some places I can't see most humans being progressive enough to allow interspecies relations. But, who knows, it's all speculation I guess.

But. But we'd have equal status in society. We'd grow up together, go to the same schools and everything.

And as already said, it happened in the past, frequently enough for archeaologists and evolutionists to posit sapiens simply absorbed neandertalus, rather than eradicating them or through direct outcompetition.

If you didn't know, neaderthals were pretty smart. Just as advanced as we were at the time, making necklaces and art, holding funerals.

It's illegal because we find it distasteful, the same reason almost everything is illegal. Not for any rational reason. I'm not saying it goes against reason, it's just a desire like all the others that are the basis for any action. People like to pretend we have rational reasons beyond the fact that we just feel some things are right and others are wrong, like needing certain laws for society to function, but I think those are mostly excuses.

Originally Posted by Abra

Hominin evolution would like to have a word with you.

No, I would like to have a word with you. I earned a double major degree. One of them happens to be in Anthropology, studying evolutionary and biological anthropology extensively, as well doing 3D image remodeling of ancient remains (Egyptian) and tons of other fun stuff you probably have not dabbled in. I am going to guess I know more. Well, I won't guess, I know I do. Here is a basic lesson that I learned many years ago:

Homo sapiens (modern day humans) have a cranial capacity anywhere from 950 cm3 to 1850 cm3. In Neanderthals, we see ranges from 1250 cm3 to 1900 cm3. Thus, indicating that Neanderthals had a larger cranial capacity than modern humans. We clearly know that Homo sapiens and their evolution as a species progressed much further than Neanderthals. That is self-evident. We have done so with a smaller cranial capacity as well, yet we have a higher ability to to learn and have higher cognitive intelligence and abilities. Do you know how we account for the difference in these numbers?

(And this isn't demeaning Neanderthals, they are actual my favorite to discuss, as one of my dissertations was on Neanderthal/Human interbreeding and archaic admixture of DNA in humans, re: recessive genetics, in particular, red hair -- I find them dudes and dudettes to be most excellent.)

And, I asked you to justify why you believe having sex with animals is normal. The burden of proof is on you. And FWIW, you are going to go down the moral relativism route. Not a good one, IMO.

First off grinding up animal bones and making it into jello, is totally unnatural, and unnecessary. My mother would even say that eating green jello is perverse(she really hates green jello). My point, humans do all sort of unnatural, unnecessary things all the time, and we don't think twice about it. That line of thinking isn't even close to valid.

Secondly animals can consent to sex. Animals can even initiate sex, and if they start it then obviously they want it. In fact some animals can even rape people. If an animal rapes you, are you being cruel to the animal? That entire line of thinking is stupid, and people can use common sense to very easily tell what an animal wants.

Third, humans have sex not only to have children but as a way to socialize. Other animals also use sex to socialize. Sex isn't always about having children, even in the animal world. So there is nothing wrong with animals having sex as a way to socialize.

Which goes to the fourth, that animals of different species can and some times do touch each other in sexual ways. They also do gay stuff in social situations. So all this stuff is actually natural and common in the animal world anyway.

Lets face it. Its banned because people think it is disgusting. Everything else is just an excuse to try to justify them pushing their beliefs on other people.

Originally Posted by Warheit

No, I would like to have a word with you. I earned a double major degree. One of them happens to be in Anthropology, studying evolutionary and biological anthropology extensively, as well doing 3D image remodeling of ancient remains (Egyptian) and tons of other fun stuff you probably have not dabbled in. I am going to guess I know more. Well, I won't guess, I know I do. Here is a basic lesson that I learned many years ago:

Homo sapiens (modern day humans) have a cranial capacity anywhere from 950 cm3 to 1850 cm3. In Neanderthals, we see ranges from 1250 cm3 to 1900 cm3. Thus, indicating that Neanderthals had a larger cranial capacity than modern humans. We clearly know that Homo sapiens and their evolution as a species progressed much further than Neanderthals. That is self-evident. We have done so with a smaller cranial capacity as well, yet we have a higher ability to to learn and have higher cognitive intelligence and abilities. Do you know how we account for the difference in these numbers?

(And this isn't demeaning Neanderthals, they are actual my favorite to discuss, as one of my dissertations was on Neanderthal/Human interbreeding and archaic admixture of DNA in humans, re: recessive genetics, in particular, red hair -- I find them dudes and dudettes to be most excellent.)

I've only taken one archeaology course at university (and not many years ago--this past semester). Just repeating what I was taught, like you. But what you just said alone doesn't mean it was a mental specialness, rather than a bodily one, that made us survive. I've also read that they had poorer speech capabilities (and I've also read that they aren't so different from ours), which could certainly account for them dying out in hard times when clearer/louder communication was necessary. Shed some light here?

And, I asked you to justify why you believe having sex with animals is normal. The burden of proof is on you. And FWIW, you are going to go down the moral relativism route. Not a good one, IMO.

No, that's not what you said. You said justify why it's natural. And when I asked you to define "natural," you ignored me and changed the word you used. But, fuck, I'm having fun, so go ahead and define 'normal' for me. Because jesus my socks aren't mismatched enough today (how not normal!).

And who cares what route I take if the points are valid?

Originally Posted by Alric

Lets face it. Its banned because people think it is disgusting. Everything else is just an excuse to try to justify them pushing their beliefs on other people.

Jumping back to the animal rights bit, [insert any factory farm video here]. Pretty disgusting, if you ask me.

Originally Posted by Abra

I've only taken one archeaology course at university. Just repeating what I was taught, like you. But what you just said alone doesn't mean it was a mental specialness, rather than a bodily one, that made us survive. I've also read that they had poorer speech capabilities (and I've also read that they aren't so different from ours), which could certainly account for them dying out in hard times when clearer/louder communication was necessary. Shed some light here?

I can PM you about this sort of stuff, but if you were taught that CC is linked to capacity for intelligence I would ask for a refund, because clearly that is not the case. Neanderthals had speech capabilities, but as far as we know they didn't developed an advanced language like we have. Pretty hard to trace. However, we share some genetic link to language with them (FOXP2), which could be affirmation of mating and admixture with humans. Research in this is still ongoing. (Subjects like this always will.) And regarding their extinction, a lack of language could definitely play a role in that, but albeit a minor one. There actually is no universally accepted reason as to why they went extinct, only theories. I think there is truth to a lot of the various ones. Probably a lot of things. I would exclude diet from that list though.

No, that's not what you said. You said justify why it's natural. And when I asked you to define "natural," you ignored me and changed the word you used. But, fuck, I'm having fun, so go ahead and define 'normal' for me.

And who cares what route I take if the points are valid?

Simply in this regard: an accepted standard. Bonin' animals if you are human: not acceptable.

Originally Posted by Warheit

I can PM you about this sort of stuff, but if you were taught that CC is linked to capacity for intelligence I would ask for a refund, because clearly that is not the case. Neanderthals had speech capabilities, but as far as we know they didn't developed an advanced language like we have. Pretty hard to trace. However, we share some genetic link to language with them (FOXP2), which could be affirmation of mating and admixture with humans. Research in this is still ongoing. (Subjects like this always will.) And regarding their extinction, a lack of language could definitely play a role in that, but albeit a minor one. There actually is no universally accepted reason as to why they went extinct, only theories. I think there is truth to a lot of the various ones. Probably a lot of things. I would exclude diet from that list though.

PM me. I am interested. Especially on how you know the language thing was 'minor,' and how we define the genus Homo (along with the scientific evidence that inspired the definition). Because I was taught "homo is defined by a rise in intelligence" and it was based off of cranial capacity increase, since we don't have any extinct homo to test the intelligence of. Neanderthals are in that genus, and recent, too. There have even been debates on whether it's a different species or subspecies. If you didn't know about that, I'm surprised. And if you did, I'm ashamed you didn't mention it.

Simply in this regard: an accepted standard. Bonin' animals if you are human: not acceptable.

An accepted standard is to attend work in a suit. T-shirts in workplaces should be outlawed.

Alternatively,

Acceptable by how many? The majority? Polls indicate a majority of Americans would prefer better living conditions for farm animals. It's not acceptable to the majority, so why isn't it outlawed?

Also, not sure if basing morality on the majority is a good idea. Shit, look how long we had slavery.

Originally Posted by Abra

But. But we'd have equal status in society. We'd grow up together, go to the same schools and everything.

And as already said, it happened in the past, frequently enough for archeaologists and evolutionists to posit sapiens simply absorbed neandertalus, rather than eradicating them or through direct outcompetition.

If you didn't know, neaderthals were pretty smart. Just as advanced as we were at the time, making necklaces and art, holding funerals.

Touche. I can definitely see this version of a hypothetical human/neanderthal future as well. My train of thought was that considering how poorly races and different cultures interact in some instances, there would be the possibility that neanderthals and humans could end up being segregated and odds with each other. I suppose many factors, such as geographic location and scarcity of resources, would contribute to how the two species would interact. Both are valid eventualities. Interesting to think about, huh?