>

two of your arguments are just that... it can cause suffering.... what about a donkeys dick.....it is mental illness- what about the times when we were wrong about mental illness.... what about the tiny group of people that think it is ok on columbia.
/u/OnePhotoPerMonth (OP) has awarded 5 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >


Neither can a cat consent to be held 

I dare you to pick up a cat against it's will.
Cats are a wonderful way to teach children about consent. >

I've seen a vet tech in literal falconry gloves cowering in fear of doing that, heh. >

Per your third point, a parent will, as a matter of course, train their child and they will sometimes keep them in captivity. This is considered to be normal and acceptable. Sex with a child still isn't. Even if they initiate it. >

As I said in the post, you have to explain why what applies to humans applies to animals to. A child is a human, it's not acceptable to have sex with him because he has or will have a certain understanding and concept of sexuality >

I've shown that there's one category of beings that we train and keep in captivity and don't think it's moral to have sex with. Training and captivity are therefore not sufficient to make sex moral. Therefore your third point is incorrect. >


I've shown that there's one category of beings

My post isn't about "beings", it is about animals, therefore showing that my point isn't valid for some beings (especially if we are talking of humans, for which we have higher standards than animals, see murder) does not show that it's not valid for the animals >

What it shows is that your argument doesn't hold. Animals can't consent. That's why bestiality is wrong. >


Animals can't consent.

So is having a pet wrong? >

Having a pet is not always captivity, I had an outdoor cat that was my pet, it was it's choice to live with me, most pets would choose the home they know or people they feel comfortable with... most pet will not choose to have sex with a human >

But there are pets which are not outdoors pet, thus would be "kept in captivity" >

You said a cat can't consent, I gave you a scenario where a cat can consent. >

Ok, I admit you have disproved my argument, but I think doing so you've also disproved the argument made against bestiality, am I wrong? You're literally saying that an animal can consent, is that right? >

I am saying a cat can make a choice about where they live. Just because they can do that does not mean they can consent to everything you can think of. >

Can a cat consent to be trained? >

explain that more please. >


It makes the animal suffer. Not necessarily, there are animals (eg donkeys) with a penis much larger than the human's one, which for this reason wouldn't hurt the female animal.

"Not necessarily" isn't a point here, as the animal has literally no way of telling you it's suffering. You might think the sounds it's making are something they're not, and at that point you're just guessing for them.
This is the equivalent of saying you probably wouldn't hurt a coma patient if you fucked their body, because said coma patient has taken bigger dicks before, so it's ok.  

The animal can't consent. Neither can a cat consent to be held as a pet, or to be trained.

Whataboutism.
Also, this isn't even set in stone, as we don't have enough documented history of how domestication happened. There's arguments to this day that dogs/wolves approached humans first, by basically scavenging what we left behind, so it wasn't a situation where we suddenly caught a few hundred wolves and caged them into submission.  

which a male animal take the initiative to have sex with a woman, on which case I'd say it is doing it because it's desirable.

It's doing it on instinct, and that's not an argument towards consent. A child or teenager could also start the sexual advances towards an adult, that doesn't make the adult any less guilty or make it any less of a crime. "They came onto me first" isn't a defense for this. >


"Not necessarily" isn't a point here, as the animal has literally no way of telling you it's suffering

Animals avoid suffering; now consider an animal that is the active part in the sexual act: it is not avoiding it. So you haven't made a valid argument and my view hasn't changed, but you have disproved my point, should I award you a delta (honest technical question)?

Whataboutism.

Not an argument. If you're willing to say that we shouldn't keep animals as pet, that's another thing. 
About the evolutionary aspect, the fact the consider again an animal that is the active part and initiate the sexual act. 

It's doing it on instinct, and that's not an argument towards consent

That wasn't an argument toward consent >


should I award you a delta (honest technical question)?  

I'm fairly new to the sub, so I have no idea.  

Animals avoid suffering; now consider an animal that is the active part in the sexual act: it is not avoiding it.

Animals avoid relative suffering, not all suffering. Obviously there's no catch-all example for every animal on the planet, but dogs (for the most part) stay with their owner even if said owner is abusive and starving it, that doesn't mean it isn't suffering.
​

Not an argument. If you're willing to say that we shouldn't keep animals as pet, that's another thing.

Again: whataboutism. You're justifying an act by saying that something else is also wrong, not by saying the act itself is justifiable. Whether I agree that animals should be kept as pets or not is irrelevant.
​

That wasn't an argument toward consent

Then what's the point? Saying it's "desirable" isn't an argument for it being morally justifiable whatsoever. Someone wanting to die doesn't justify you pulling the trigger, you'll still be a murderer. >


dogs (for the most part) stay with their owner even if said owner is abusive and starving it, that doesn't mean it isn't suffering.

But per your own example, you can't know if it is suffering, maybe it likes to be beaten? I'd say we can fairly say when an animal is suffering and when it is not, even in your case it will mostly avoid the owner.

Again: whataboutism. You're justifying an act by saying that something else is also wrong, not by saying the act itself is justifiable. Whether I agree that animals should be kept as pets or not is irrelevant.

No, it's not irrelevant, because morality must be coherent, and if a thing is wrong because respect and goes against certain moral principles, then everything that respect and goes against the same moral principles must be considered equally wrong. If you are not willing to address other aspects of your "moral value scale" while talking about moral values you're debating in bad faith.

Then what's the point? 

I was anticipating a certain counterargument, see in the post >


With this I don't mean it's not wrong, but that no rational argument can be made, unless we decided other things are wrong.

What other things are you talking about? >

For example having a pet >


It goes against human natural behavior

Human's natural behavior is that once mature they have a biological imperative to have sex with other sexually mature humans in order to perpetuate the human species. 
Having sex with animals does not help in the perpetuation of the human species, so the desire to have sex with them is against human nature. 
And, it is just generally a sign of maladapted psychology.
"Sexual abusers of animals are more likely to have been victims of emotional neglect and abuse as children, and bestiality has been linked to subsequent aggression against humans. Bestiality is most commonly found among violent offenders, sex offenders, and the sexually abused." >

That's a study conducted in a western society, as I said in the post there are cultures where it's not a maladaptive behavior. 

Having sex with animals does not help in the perpetuation of the human species, so the desire to have sex with them is against human nature.

Do you to which others human behaviors that could be applied? >


That's a study conducted in a western society, as I said in the post there are cultures where it's not a maladaptive behavior

I do not believe there are entire “cultures” where beastiality is normalized. Please provide evidence for this claim. 

Do you to which others human behaviors that could be applied?

Yeah, all sorts of Paraphilias, like necrophilia are also contrary to human nature. >

What do you mean by culture? I mean the customs and traditions of a certain group of people. As I said in my post, there is a group of people in North Colombia that does practice it

Having sex with animals does not help in the perpetuation of the human species, so the desire to have sex with them is against human nature.

This applies to homosexuality among other things >


As I said in my post, there is a group of people in North Colombia that does practice it

A small group of people participating in an ongoing abuse cycle is not a culture. It is a failure of the wider culture that that group exists in to properly socialize them.

This applies to homosexuality among other things

You sure?
“Vasey and his student Doug VanderLaan tested this hypothesis among a group of men called fa'afafine on the Pacific island of Samoa. Fa'afafine are effeminate men who are exclusively attracted to men as sexual partners, and are generally recognized and tolerated as a distinct gender category — neither male nor female.
The researchers surveyed about 300 fa'afafine, and found that they were significantly more likely to be altruistic toward their nieces and nephews than either single men or women, or mothers or fathers. The scientists call this behavior avuncular, or uncle-like.” source 
Being gay can serve an important evolutionary role within a larger kinship group. If you have one or two prime age adults without children of their own, but who are willing to care for kids within the kin group, then your kin group is advantaged over a group without this extra set of hands. 
This helps perpetuate the human race. Fucking your dog does not. >

Is homosexuality in western countries wrong? Or do you have proves that they are helpful even outside of the Fa'afafine group?
Are hook up with contraception wrong? >


Is homosexuality in western countries wrong?

No, of course not. Homosexuality isn’t “wrong” anywhere. We are talking about a state of nature here, like in the long long ago. If we lived in a small tribe, and you were gay, and helped with the kids of your brother, and were otherwise a productive member of the tribe, then you being gay, and not competing for women, or producing more mouths to feed, is an advantage to the group. You being gay helps the group survive. Writ large, it helps the species survive to have a certain portion of the population not be procreating all the time. That portion can focus on other tasks, like inventing writing maybe. Or memorizing all the tribe’s lore and mythology. Parent don’t have time for that. Gay uncles do.
How does fucking dogs help humans survive in a state of nature? It doesn’t. Do it wrong, and you could injure or kill your dog. If they don’t like it they may run away. And now you are screwed since she woke you up in the night when assassins came prowling around. Injured or dead or run away dog, murdered in sleep from lack of barking. >

I don't see how the state of nature a long long time ago should influence our behavior: should we be able to have sex with women as soon as they are fertile, since it's more natural? >


I don't see how the state of nature a long long time ago should influence our behavior

Well, it does. There is an entire field of psychology that examines the many ways in which our development during the long long ago when we were living in small hunter gathered bands impacts our behaviors today. That is the “human nature” you claim dog fucking doesn’t go against. But, as I have said, it does go against that. It goes against our human nature as evidenced by the almost universal condemnation of the act by our ancient ancestors. They knew long before the field of psychology existed that animal fuckers were not kosher. They represented a dangerous deviation from normal human sexual socialization, and those that partook were shunned or even executed. 

should we be able to have sex with women as soon as they are fertile

Again, the entire reason why you think this is some gotcha is because we are indeed wired, from the long long ago, to want to do this. But, we have developed socially enough for out cultural norms to shift over time as to what is and is not an appropriate age difference for sex. But, most cultures don’t freak out when teens have sex with each other, since we know that they are indeed sexually mature. We just try to caution them as they are not psychologically mature yet. >

What about having sex with elderly women? Is that unnatural and wrong? >

CMV: It can't be argued making arguments in favour of this doesn't make you look like a creep. >

Not an argument >


It makes the animal suffer. Not necessarily, there are animals (eg donkeys) with a penis much larger than the human's one, which for this reason wouldn't hurt the female animal.

This assumes that animals have sex in the same manner as human beings. That's completely not true. What might be a short, perfunctory exercise in reproducing between animals potentially becomes a draw-out exercise solely to fulfil the desires of a human being who wants to have sex with an animal that can't communicate whether it is enjoying or, more likely, hating the experience. Claiming an animal can't suffer from an act of reproduction that its body was not designed to experience is a wild leap of logic.
​

The animal can't consent. Neither can a cat consent to be held as a pet, or to be trained. If you are going to argue that rape is worse than captivity, you should say why that would apply to animals, since I would say they don't have the same concept of sexuality and freedom that we have. If you are going somehow to argue that being kept as a pet may be desirable for animals, consider the situation in which a male animal take the initiative to have sex with a woman, on which case I'd say it is doing it because it's desirable.

You're saying that because we commit one heinous act to an animal, it should be ok to commit a marginally (in my opinion, far) worse act on them. What kind of moral code is this? The Two-Wrongs-Make-A-Right Doctrine? >


This assumes that animals have sex in the same manner as human beings

!Delta good point. Now though consider if the animal is the active part, and has sex like he normally would.

You're arguing that because animals rape each other, it's ok to rape an animal.

I'm not

You're also saying that because we commit one heinous act to an animal, it should be ok to commit a marginally (in my opinion, far) worse act on them

Not really, as I said in the post, I don't believe it can be argued bestiality is wrong without saying other things are wrong, one of this things is pet captivity >

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/NegativeOptimism (33∆).
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

This is a vile argument on par with attempting to morally justify pedophilia or incest. You can't win, because even if you were somehow able to convince anyone that bestiality is morally justifiable, you'd still come off as a disgusting creep. >

I have already addressed the "disgusting" argument, you haven't given me any argument >

You didn't really address the argument, you just listed them. How are they not offering an argument here? >

They said that it is repulsive, I've already said that repulsive is subjective. I find eating slugs repulsive, that doesn't mean it is wrong >

Being subjective is irrelevant, it's an argument that someone can make. Do you believe there is any truly objective stance? >


It's repulsive/disgusting. That's subjective

Not necessarily. Some things are disgusting because throughout history they were dangerous. Such as eating poop for example. 
We have evolved to find sex between a human and another animal absolutely disgusting. You'd need genetic engineering to change that. >

Clearly not, as some people a) do it b) argue for it >

There's people who eat poop and self amputate. Doesn't mean anything. >

Yeah exactly, for them isn't disgusting, so it's subjective >

If beastiality isn't wrong. 
What is? >

factory farming >

The fact that the repulsiveness of bestiality is subjective isn't an argument that it's not wrong.  Morality is always applied in a framework that is relevant to subjective human experiences.  Subjectively wrong and wrong are the same thing.  
I would also argue that if bestiality wasn't subjectively wrong, then people wouldn't get off on it.  It's the violation of the taboo that makes it appealing. >

I mean yes, but actually no, like at the end of the day that is true for everything, but we should be able to argue why something is wrong, besides "because it feels wrong". It still feels like a good point, !delta >

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/negatorade6969 (4∆).
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

"it can't be argued"
Provides several arguments. >

I may have worded that incorrectly, english is not my first language. I meant it can't be proved by means of  argument >

Do you believe anything can be proven by argument, or is everything subjective? >

We have to start from subjective prime principles, but from that things can be proven by argument. Like, causing unwanted suffering is bad >

Isn't one of those prime principles to not rape? >

I think the only point that is able to be argued here is the consent part... In terms of being a pet, the only "nonconsensual" thing about it would be keeping them in our houses, but that could be considered desirable, since it provides them shelter, and we also provide them food and water, all things that are natural for them to survive. Sex on the other hand is not crucial for their survival and we dont have a clear gauge if they like or dislike it, so even assuming that its somehow neutral for them, it would make it worse than being a pet, since there are no clear benefits. The only questionable form of consent situation would be the dog humping a girl but thats about it... >


it provides them shelter, and we also provide them food and water

!delta
The last thing you said remains true, but I think also training a dog is against their consent and doesn't really give them anything, except for the treats you give it, but you could say the same for sex >

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/NotSarcasmForSure (1∆).
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

Lack of consent seems reasonable enough. Your argument relies on pointing out the contradiction when people condemn bestiality and support animals as pets, more often than not trained. I do accept the immoral nature of keeping animals as pets.
However, I would say rape is worse than captivity, especially in the case of animals. The argument that they don't have the same concept of sexuality and freedom wouldn't suffice. The reason why they don't have the same concept of sexuality and freedom is due to their lack of intelligence, wherein they are unable to grasp concepts of the former kind, including consent
Consider a human, call them a marginal case human,  who is/has any, or all, of the following

Cognitive Disability
In Comatose
Infancy
Senility

Such a human wouldn't have the same grasp of former concepts as the animals and generally adopts the same moral status. Therefore, your counterargument would require the rape of a marginal case human to be not worse than their captivity.
Assuming argument from the grounds of deontology implying consent. >


Therefore, your counterargument would require the rape of a marginal case human to be not worse than their captivity

For some of those this doesn't work because they couldn't really be said to be kept in captivity, either because it's assumed they don't have autonomy (child) or because they can't move (comatose). I wouldn't say that the rape of someone with cognitive disability (assuming they really don't grasp what consenting and having sex means) is worse than keeping them captive; but again, you should consider someone that we would be OK to let on his own outside his house, but that at the same time wouldn't understand what being captive means. It's really an extreme case, and I think it doesn't work for that >

What is wrong with you? >

he is an edgy teenager that think he is so smart he can argue anything through whataboutisms. >

I'm not a teenager, it's just an argument, I don't understand why you would get so angry. If you thought it's wrong you should be able to disprove it with a laugh, the fact you are getting angry is quite telling in my opinion >

nah whataboutisms are very tiring to do... like your mental illness does not exist because we made mistakes in the past about mental illness. >

Lol, I can assure you that the denigration of a redditor isn't going to affect me in any way, I hope you're not so hurtful, malicious and angry in your day to day life, but I don't think that being like this online isn't going to affect you, good luck >

You just have a bad argument style, it reminds me of the people that don't trust science because science was wrong in the past. You seem to find one thing and think that applies to everything, it is a very weak argument style and you find yourself sating "what about....." or "what you saying is...." and trying to discredit without understanding, hopefully you get better at this kid, because most people don't really stoop that far down in intellect to help out. >

Dude, you are the one using buzzwords like "whataboutism" without even understanding which is the correct context to talk about them. I would say you may be the stupid teenager here, but it's pretty clear you are the classic 30 years also redditor neckbeard who lives in his mother basement, no doubt you are very much intelligenter than me sir.