4 ms·

> if all acts were between consenting parties (obviously, beastiality is inherently non-consentual) Consuming a filet mignon is non-consensual (as it regards t

> if all acts were between consenting parties (obviously, beastiality is inherently non-consentual) Consuming a filet mignon is non-consensual (as it regards the late beast, that is). IOW, it should be at least as legal to fuck a cow as to eat one. After all, in the former case, the cow gets to keep chewing its cud.

n3rdy 14y ago
Disturbing, but valid point.
- doktrin 14y ago
  It's actually a fairly shallow argument, of the "it's hip to be libertarian" variety. Does it apply to domestic animals? Does the argument extend to animal torture? If not, then why? Which animal cruelty laws should we strip from the books? Note to self : when debating the legal and moral ramifications beastiality on HN at 2 in the morning, go to bed.
  - n3rdy 14y ago
    It can go the other way too. Should it be illegal to kill animals for food? How is bestiality more cruel to an animal than how some pigs are raised in factory farms, or veal, or the frequent abuse of chickens that we've turned a blind eye to? What about animal testing in laboratories?
    - skorgu 14y ago
      Not the OP but it should be (and generally /is/) illegal to be cruel to animals even if you're going to end up eating them. Pain is much more morally questionable than death; I'd vastly rather simply cease being alive than have some horrible suffering inflicted on me. That we don't seem to care about enforcing those laws is one thing but simply saying "cruelty is illegal and rape is cruelty" doesn't sound inherently incompatible with eating meat.
    - dalke 14y ago
      Where does the argument stop? Why limit yourself to vertebrates, or even animals? Is it cruel to poison an ant nest in your yard? Is it cruel to eat wheat, cut down at the prime of its life? What about corn, which wouldn't exist without human intervention? Is sex with a flower, a plant sex organ, count as bestiality? Humans can empathize with things which aren't humans, and with animals is relatively easy to empathize with pain. The laws are a function of, among other things, our level of empathy with a species and its use for other means. Dogs and cats, beloved by many, take a very special place in our laws, while tasty chickens are less so. Lowly wheat is neutral on the empathy scale, while most are decidedly not fond of roaches. The balance of concerns changes over time. Should some day we be able to synthesize meat directly ("Panda meat while you wait!" "Put some tiger in your tummy today!"), then I predict there will be a larger call for "more ethical" treatment of animals currently raised for food. The arguments against bestiality vary. Some just think it's squicky, which is likely an aspect of empathy. Others think that in human cultures, sex must be consensual (not rape), by people who can make an informed decision (not children, not unconscious), and without the taint of a power imbalance (boss/employee, teacher/student). Though even then, an adult child having sex with a parent is also squicky by many despite passing these rules. Empathy with animals extends that view to animals, and it's hard to tell if an animal consents, and is not doing so from power imbalance. I am not an ethicist, but I think this gives an outline of the factors by which we tend to say that sex with delicious pigs is a no-no while sex with pretty flowers is odd, but not specifically regulated.
- 89a 14y ago
  Not really valid, a steak is already dead and no longer suffering. An animal that's been raped still feels pain
thomasjoulin 14y ago
You could argue that livestock farming for human consumption (i.e killing cows to eat one) is very different from raping cows. In fact, there are laws on how to treat and kill livestock (granted there are multiple documentaries showing how nobody cares about those laws...)
- noste 14y ago
  It is my understanding that artificial insemination is a very common procedure in modern livestock farming, and therefore one could argue that livestock farming for human consumption already encompasses rape at industrial scale.
- jobigoud 14y ago
  How is it different when one can be perfectly healthy without eating animals ? Some find pleasure in raping cows, others in eating them. Is it a debate on whether it's more desirable to be killed than raped ?
praptak 14y ago
I agree that the argument from non-consensuality does not hold water, but there is a different argument - interspecies sex carries the risk of contracting a disease. This carries the act from the land of consenting adults (plus a non-consenting-but-who-cares animal) to endangering the whole population - germs that cross the inter-species barrier tend to be nasty ones.
coldarchon 14y ago
You have every right to not consume any food at all.
gadders 14y ago
Well, in Germany, Belgium, Denmark and Sweden you can [1]. Germany even has a pressure group for it: Zoophile Engagement for Tolerance and Information - ZETA. (I think they could give NAMBLA a run for their money as "worst membership to put on your CV".) They're taking the idea of "a nation of animal lovers" rather too literally. [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20523950 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20523950
- brazzy 14y ago
  Actually, Germany has recently (2012-12-14) changed the animal protection law to sex with animals illegal.
  - gadders 14y ago
    Oh man. ZETA must be, er, spitting feathers...
    - brazzy 14y ago
      Personally, I think it's hypocritical bullshit. Causing needless pain to animals "unnecessarily" is already illegal. If someone wants to have sex with an animal in a way that doesn't cause it pain, why should that be illegal while there are dozens of very painful (but apparently "necessary") things people do to animals legally, some of which the recent law originally banned but which were removed from it after industry lobbying.
scotty79 14y ago
I don't think eating live cows is legal. Once they are dead I suppose you can legally do anything you fancy (apart from producing some some sort of bio-hazard or disturbance in the neighborhood).
rdl 14y ago
Is this really a debate we want to have on Hacker News?

n3rdy 14y ago

Disturbing, but valid point.

doktrin 14y ago
It's actually a fairly shallow argument, of the "it's hip to be libertarian" variety. Does it apply to domestic animals? Does the argument extend to animal torture? If not, then why? Which animal cruelty laws should we strip from the books? Note to self : when debating the legal and moral ramifications beastiality on HN at 2 in the morning, go to bed.
- n3rdy 14y ago
  It can go the other way too. Should it be illegal to kill animals for food? How is bestiality more cruel to an animal than how some pigs are raised in factory farms, or veal, or the frequent abuse of chickens that we've turned a blind eye to? What about animal testing in laboratories?
  - skorgu 14y ago
    Not the OP but it should be (and generally /is/) illegal to be cruel to animals even if you're going to end up eating them. Pain is much more morally questionable than death; I'd vastly rather simply cease being alive than have some horrible suffering inflicted on me. That we don't seem to care about enforcing those laws is one thing but simply saying "cruelty is illegal and rape is cruelty" doesn't sound inherently incompatible with eating meat.
  - dalke 14y ago
    Where does the argument stop? Why limit yourself to vertebrates, or even animals? Is it cruel to poison an ant nest in your yard? Is it cruel to eat wheat, cut down at the prime of its life? What about corn, which wouldn't exist without human intervention? Is sex with a flower, a plant sex organ, count as bestiality? Humans can empathize with things which aren't humans, and with animals is relatively easy to empathize with pain. The laws are a function of, among other things, our level of empathy with a species and its use for other means. Dogs and cats, beloved by many, take a very special place in our laws, while tasty chickens are less so. Lowly wheat is neutral on the empathy scale, while most are decidedly not fond of roaches. The balance of concerns changes over time. Should some day we be able to synthesize meat directly ("Panda meat while you wait!" "Put some tiger in your tummy today!"), then I predict there will be a larger call for "more ethical" treatment of animals currently raised for food. The arguments against bestiality vary. Some just think it's squicky, which is likely an aspect of empathy. Others think that in human cultures, sex must be consensual (not rape), by people who can make an informed decision (not children, not unconscious), and without the taint of a power imbalance (boss/employee, teacher/student). Though even then, an adult child having sex with a parent is also squicky by many despite passing these rules. Empathy with animals extends that view to animals, and it's hard to tell if an animal consents, and is not doing so from power imbalance. I am not an ethicist, but I think this gives an outline of the factors by which we tend to say that sex with delicious pigs is a no-no while sex with pretty flowers is odd, but not specifically regulated.
89a 14y ago
Not really valid, a steak is already dead and no longer suffering. An animal that's been raped still feels pain

thomasjoulin 14y ago

You could argue that livestock farming for human consumption (i.e killing cows to eat one) is very different from raping cows. In fact, there are laws on how to treat and kill livestock (granted there are multiple documentaries showing how nobody cares about those laws...)

noste 14y ago
It is my understanding that artificial insemination is a very common procedure in modern livestock farming, and therefore one could argue that livestock farming for human consumption already encompasses rape at industrial scale.
jobigoud 14y ago
How is it different when one can be perfectly healthy without eating animals ? Some find pleasure in raping cows, others in eating them. Is it a debate on whether it's more desirable to be killed than raped ?

praptak 14y ago

I agree that the argument from non-consensuality does not hold water, but there is a different argument - interspecies sex carries the risk of contracting a disease. This carries the act from the land of consenting adults (plus a non-consenting-but-who-cares animal) to endangering the whole population - germs that cross the inter-species barrier tend to be nasty ones.

coldarchon 14y ago

You have every right to not consume any food at all.

gadders 14y ago

Well, in Germany, Belgium, Denmark and Sweden you can [1]. Germany even has a pressure group for it: Zoophile Engagement for Tolerance and Information - ZETA. (I think they could give NAMBLA a run for their money as "worst membership to put on your CV".) They're taking the idea of "a nation of animal lovers" rather too literally. [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20523950 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20523950

brazzy 14y ago
Actually, Germany has recently (2012-12-14) changed the animal protection law to sex with animals illegal.
- gadders 14y ago
  Oh man. ZETA must be, er, spitting feathers...
  - brazzy 14y ago
    Personally, I think it's hypocritical bullshit. Causing needless pain to animals "unnecessarily" is already illegal. If someone wants to have sex with an animal in a way that doesn't cause it pain, why should that be illegal while there are dozens of very painful (but apparently "necessary") things people do to animals legally, some of which the recent law originally banned but which were removed from it after industry lobbying.

scotty79 14y ago

I don't think eating live cows is legal. Once they are dead I suppose you can legally do anything you fancy (apart from producing some some sort of bio-hazard or disturbance in the neighborhood).

rdl 14y ago

Is this really a debate we want to have on Hacker News?