Agree with the general message, but constructing an exaggerated character that is easy to criticise by design does not equate to winning any kind of real argument.
Right? This kind of shit is why people don't like vegans. Even if it's not representative of the entire group, I feel like 4/5 of the time I hear vegan talking points, it's this kind of wild nonsense.
It's like how evangelical Christians give the whole religion a bad name. It's fine to believe what you believe, but vilifying others for not believing the same thing is gross, ass-backwards propaganda at best.
I reject your statement that it is okay to be a Christian
Or, you know, it's a meme and people engage with it, ideally sparking a thought in them
Man with his hand up a cow's vagina: I'm not a zoophile, I'm a farmer. There's a difference!
I mean... Is he getting sexual pleasure from it? If not, it really isn't zoophilia.
A gynocologist isn't necesarily into women, even though they look at vaginas all day.
I have genuinely wondered how many... looks up "foot doctor" ...podiatrists are into feet, how many of them aren't and are sick of being asked/accused, and how many are in the unenviable position of having a foot fetish while also being genuinely interested in the medical field of podiatry, thereby finding themselves in a never ending war between the two.
...What was this post about again?
I feel like you wouldn't keep your foot fetish for long as a podiatrist.
You're not going to be looking at beautiful, healthy feet all day long.
I know people who have a fetish for human body grossness. Smegma, the dirt between toes, that sort of shit. So maybe there are podiatrists out there having the time of their lives scraping off calluses and gunk.
Pfft yeah that's very fair
I don't think the invader's pleasure is part of the equation. Gynecologists aren't rapists because they have consent. If they went around looking up women's vaginas without consent, they'd be rapists. And a cow can't express meaningful consent to a human.
I hear over & over again through entertainment media (like 'Law & Order' shows & other legal shows) that Raping & Pedophilila is not about sex pleasure, it is about power. Scientific research says that Raping & Pedophilila is about sex pleasure & it is about power. So it is reasonable to assume Zoophillia is the same.
Whether it is sexually pleasurable or power difference or both, it really does not matter. It really is that it is not what the animals want. You do not need to completely be able to communicate to the animals, like done within same species & races. There are behaviors that communicate things, just need someone that been around-knows them. Do not need a good Animal Behaviorist or someone who pays attention. Out of their species & not expressing a want for it, before it happens the very first time &/or the animals are trapped.
Me when I personally get an exemption from zoophilia laws
There’s also knowing the difference between eating a burger and sticking your dick in it.
That's quite the false equivalence you got there bud.
Not only that, but it is harmful to The Living Earth, members of our species involved in the industries that make it (animals & Etc. & their products intended for their young & Etc.) & the consumers of such foods, not just those animals they consuming & their products for their young & Etc.. These points should never be separated, but instead Intertwined, because more diverse communications are more successful in effect, getting people to care-critically think-change behaviors & that is reality of intersectionalism.
I would continue be a Vegan, even if being a Vegan had no benefit to myself & others of our species. Was neutral health wise & jobs involved in it was good jobs. Though how can jobs involved in raising (more industrialized is even more worse), destroying &/Or taking away animals' products for their youth & Etc., how can be done without mental sickness? The people working in it every work-day have the highest suicide rates (not police, military & Etc.). Let alone the recordings that show additional animals & Etc. abuses some workers do upon them, definitely mental effects & animals & Etc.. Animals & Etc. abuse never stays within the abusers, though could be hidden for Capitalism profits, because the abusers live with others-us. One of the strongest & thus common link between true (justice system convicting wrong people) sick people on death rows is that they hurt-killed-tortured animals & Etc.. More I think about it, mental damage, hidden through recruiting & resulting in the poor & immigrant people doing the jobs. While I typing-out this reply, it comes to me there is no way for Non-Vegan Foods to be neutral in effect on all of our species. So I will now have to stop thinking of that way.
I used "& Etc." after "animals", because not all Beings non-Vegans consume are animals only. Example insects are on a huge decline, around the world, yet consuming insects, their products for their youth & Etc. are on the rise.
I used "& Etc." after "animals"/"insects, their products for their youth", because some Beings' products we consume are not just for their youth. Example: Bees use the honey they gather to feed their youth & for building their hives.
I did not just simply use Beings (let alone Species), instead of animals/insects to not make it confusing. I have had people that are not coming from same thoughts on Life, even my brother, ask me what is meant by Beings.
will I die from starvation if I don't fuck an animal?
Nope. Just like you won't die of starvation if you don't eat an animal.
So, real question, where do you draw the ethical line? Are crickets or ants subject to this discussion? Like, is eating crickets supporting their genocide? Arguably, owning and using any kind of plastic material contributes to the depopulation of species world-wide, as does modern agriculture. Is eating corn or soybeans contributing to the genocide of insects or birds? Where is the line for you?
I draw the line at factory farming sentient creatures.
What if I were in control of a switch at a trolley track with a trolley barrelling down and if I were to eat a cheeseburger that is sitting next to me, the trolley would stop and if not it would start multi-track drifting over one cow and five chicken that are currently tied on the tracks and then run into an ammunition depot located in the Urgent Care section of an actively used children's hospital, killing all patients?
That happens regularly to me for some reason.
That happens regularly to me for some reason.
Average trolley problem
Me when I die from starvation (I haven't eaten an animal since 2017)
I can say I love rice, but people look at me funny when I fuck it. What gives?
When people say this, it makes it sound that they think zoophilia is bad not because it harms the animal, but because they think it's a weird kink.
While that's a point, they don't look at you funny cuz they think you're abusing the rice (inb4 culinary jokes)
False equivalence aside.
So, genuine question.
Theoretically, if it was possible to obtain animal consent, you'd be cool with it ?
We're gonna have to figure this one out when we encounter aliens.
Personally, i'm open to the idea of human-alien relationships. I don't think most animals rise to the level of intelligence necessary to make a good romantic partner (and yes, that includes a good chunk of humans 😝), but if there were a nonhuman animal I could play chess and discuss literature with, I guess I'd consider fucking it.
Yeah, see my other reply.
Im down for some strange, but not at the expense of anyone (or anything) else.
Honestly it's one of those "way more subjective than most people are willing to admit but we have made some lines anyway, because semi-arbitrary lines are how society functions".
That's before you even get in to full subjectivism's like what even is intelligence and who gets to decide where the thresholds are.
In this hypothetical scenario I'd still think it weird but not morally objectionable
huh, that is not the answer i was expecting.
I would assume it'd be one of those "yes they consent but we don't deem them as possessing the intellectual capacity to be making that kind of decision"
Like it is with children.
This of course assumes the human side is at an acceptable intellectual level of development.
Or even the idea that the power dynamic in such an encounter would always skew significantly in the human direction, given that animals aren't usually (legally) considered the same as far as rights, agency and autonomy are concerned.
A place for solarpunks working toward a world without speciesism
Rules
