• Suddenly unable to log into your ZooVille account? This might be the reason why: CLICK HERE!

The article, "Why is it fine to eat animals, but not fine to have intercourse with them?"

Z

Zoo50

Citizen of Zooville
This post concerns the following article, which was recently posted in the resources section of Zooville:

Zoo Philosophy - Hdeal Alhadi - Why is it fine to eat animals, but not (fine) to have intercourse with them?

TLDR; A non-zoo vegan reasons between meat-consumption and zoophilia. Discovers the logical inconsistency of the argument of animal consent regarding meat production and bestiality. Also points out IQ or intelligence is not a reason to deny a...
www.zooville.org www.zooville.org

What are your thoughts on it? I've always wondered why people are fine with eat meat, but not fine with having sex with animals. People argue that animals can't "consent" to sex -- but the fact is, animals can't "consent" to being slaughtered by people. In my opinion, this hypocrisy is likely due to speciesism -- speciesism is the belief that humans are "superior" to non-human animals.

I am a vegetarian and I do not eat meat because I am not a speciesist -- I think that humans are equal to other animals. (I thinking eating meat is wrong). Many non-zoo meat eaters think that animals are "lower" than humans (in value), and thus are fine with eating meat.
 
Last edited:
Also wanted to add that this issue goes beyond just eating meat. For example, people spay and neuter (castrate) animals without their "consent", yet that is legal. (Even though people say sex with animals should be illegal because it doesn't involve "consent"). Spaying and neutering also violates an animal's sex organs more than sex with an animal does, yet that (spaying and neutering) is legal but sex with animals isn't. So laws are hypocritical and irrational.
 
I think you would have a hard time arguing this with someone that actually believes in speciesism. I know a couple of them and their point of view is that we technically rape cows and horses in order to breed them because they aren’t giving consent to be artificially inseminated and such for agriculture and the like. So if you were actually speciesist, then would you likely believe that animals should do as they please and not be exploited at all.

I feel that animals are equal to some extent, but I also know that people evolved in large part due to the eating of animals and it had become a normal thing, and I am sure when the first people saw a lion eating a gazelle, they figured that was the normal way of life, and that’s kind of the same way people see it now.
 
sds1988 said:
I think you would have a hard time arguing this with someone that actually believes in speciesism. I know a couple of them and their point of view is that we technically rape cows and horses in order to breed them because they aren’t giving consent to be artificially inseminated and such for agriculture and the like. So if you were actually speciesist, then would you likely believe that animals should do as they please and not be exploited at all.

I feel that animals are equal to some extent, but I also know that people evolved in large part due to the eating of animals and it had become a normal thing, and I am sure when the first people saw a lion eating a gazelle, they figured that was the normal way of life, and that’s kind of the same way people see it now.
Click to expand...

Actually, speciesists are more likely to be OK with exploiting animals, because they view animals as being "lower" than humans.

Also, regarding the lion/gazelle example: lions don't know about ethics, so it's not wrong when a lion eats a gazelle. Humans do know ethics (they know better) -- and they know animals can feel pain and suffering, which is why humans shouldn't eat animals.
 
My thoughts are that it's primarily influenced by religion. Christianity is pretty wide spread, especially in the US. The bible mentions that Christians have dominion over nature (hence the fact that we can use animals as if they were products), but also mentioned that "lying with a beast" was a sin punishable by death. I think many of our laws and social constructs stem from these religious norms.
 
caniformia said:
My thoughts are that it's primarily influenced by religion. Christianity is pretty wide spread, especially in the US. The bible mentions that Christians have dominion over nature (hence the fact that we can use animals as if they were products), but also mentioned that "lying with a beast" was a sin punishable by death. I think many of our laws and social constructs stem from these religious norms.
Click to expand...

You're probably correct that there is a religious (Christian) influence. But ideally, in a country like the United States which has "separation of church and state", laws should not be made based on religious morals.

The idea that humans are "above" other animals needs to be stopped. Also, humans are part of nature, not "above" it.
 
Zoo50 said:
You're probably correct that there is a religious (Christian) influence. But ideally, in a country like the United States which has "separation of church and state", laws should not be made based on religious morals.

The idea that humans are "above" other animals needs to be stopped. Also, humans are part of nature, not "above" it.
Click to expand...

That's just it, "ideally". Not much separation happens.
 
Zoo50 said:
You're probably correct that there is a religious (Christian) influence. But ideally, in a country like the United States which has "separation of church and state", laws should not be made based on religious morals.

The idea that humans are "above" other animals needs to be stopped. Also, humans are part of nature, not "above" it.
Click to expand...
Maybe not above nature, but definitely superior in other ways.. intelligence and technological advances.. some humans are more advanced than others.. I mean, there's humans out there still living in the jungles and haven't progressed much yet. Some people rely on others for help or a better way of life. Some governments are totally screwed up so people up and leave to other countries for a fresh start. I have a friend who lived in Puerto Rico and she said it wasn't great there.. She did a lot of dog rescue in Puerto Rico, she said Puerto Ricans treat their dogs like shit. Some of them have a bit of a backwards mindset. Meanwhile in most places in the US treat dogs like children (or like partners). http://www.sophiegamand.com/deaddogbeach
 
shrimpsoda said:
Maybe not above nature, but definitely superior in other ways.. intelligence and technological advances.. some humans are more advanced than others.. I mean, there's humans out there still living in the jungles and haven't progressed much yet. Some people rely on others for help or a better way of life. Some governments are totally screwed up so people up and leave to other countries for a fresh start. I have a friend who lived in Puerto Rico and she said it wasn't great there.. She did a lot of dog rescue in Puerto Rico, she said Puerto Ricans treat their dogs like shit. Some of them have a bit of a backwards mindset. Meanwhile in most places in the US treat dogs like children (or like partners). http://www.sophiegamand.com/deaddogbeach
Click to expand...

Actually, dolphins are superior to humans in intelligence (or, at the very least, they have comparable intelligence). Also, in the case of a mentally-disabled person, or a person in a coma, that person may be perceived as "less intelligent", but that doesn't make them less valuable than other people morally. So intelligence should not be the factor which makes people decide whether a being has moral worth.
 
The fact is that we have lower standards of ethics toward animals BECAUSE HUMANS ARE VIOLENT APES!!!!!

Animals are lucky we give them any attention whatsoever from our ethical conscience. We are still working on getting humans to accept that, when you buy an animal to use as a living baby doll, it's not really okay to throw it away like a piece of garbage when it has become an adult.

We're still trying to get people to figure out the difference between someone that uses a dog as a living fleshlight and someone that actually falls in love with their animals and wants to make love to them as they would a human sexual partner. The cynicism of people toward animal sex is really partly justifiable. Considering the other horrific shit humans do to animals, it wouldn't be surprising if zoophiles were nothing but people that saw dogs as a fancy fleshlight or dildo.

I mean be realistic, if you were not a zoophile yourself but were an ordinary person that was a little bit concerned about the state of animal rights, considering the fact that you already know that there are people that use dogs as:

1) wind-up toys that you can watch fighting each other to the death while making bets on them,

2) living baby dolls you can throw away like garbage when they are no longer basically infants

3) mindless trophies for advertising wealth and status

For all the concern that many humans have toward animals, they might as well be soulless pieces of plastic.

Be realistic: if zoophiles actually were people that thought nothing more of their dogs and horses than someone that owned a fancy fleshlight, then wouldn't that just fit? Look at the pattern. Tell me that this assumption does not fit into the pattern. I dare you.

If we want the human race to think that we have a more developed moral conscience than most people, then we are going to have to work on our own community for a while and start getting ourselves ready for our future reemergence. We shit the bed pretty bad by turning a blind eye to animal prostitution and other bad behaviors. We let the toxic amoral libertarian ethics of Generation Y infest our own thinking.

It's only a matter of time before we reemerge in society, and if we want people to change their perceptions, then we are going to have to not only show ourselves to be better than something that fits into that toxic pattern: we are going to have to be able to prove that we are actually taking a position of moral leadership.

Some of us zoophiles actually are prepared to take positions of moral leadership. The one good thing about going balls-deep into a bitch and emptying your nuts into her is that the concomitant flood of oxytocin just might increase your level of empathy toward the animal beyond that of a normal dog-owner. Being genuinely in love with a living thing can result in you becoming its champion.

However, think about this clearly: UNTIL LESS THAN A CENTURY AGO, WE WERE LUCKY TO GET PEOPLE TO REALIZE IT WASN'T OKAY FOR ONE RACE OF HUMANS TO EXTERMINATE THE OTHER RACE OF HUMANS. WE ONLY JUST BARELY MANAGED TO CONVINCE WESTERNERS TO SEE THAT THE HOLOCAUST WAS A MORAL TRAVESTY. THE HUMAN RACE HAS A LONG WAY LEFT TO GO.

Just because we have a long way left to go doesn't mean we should give up on the human race, though.

Us zoophiles should make it our mission to exercise moral leadership. Someday, I hope that people will look up to us.
 
Zoo50 said:
Actually, dolphins are superior to humans in intelligence (or, at the very least, they have comparable intelligence). Also, in the case of a mentally-disabled person, or a person in a coma, that person may be perceived as "less intelligent", but that doesn't make them less valuable than other people morally. So intelligence should not be the factor which makes people decide whether a being has moral worth.
Click to expand...
Dolphins are intelligent but they're not advanced like we are. As smart as they are, the ones in Taiji are unable to escape their hunters, due to how advanced humans are in methods of collecting food. As for people, that depends.. Most homeless people are handicapped, or all the drugs made them mentally ill/handicapped, and they're pretty much disregarded by most of society. I try to help them when I can, by giving them food/water, but sometimes they refuse it. That isn't too smart of them. I do not give food/water to the people who just want money.
 
How do you exercise veganism/vegetarianism with a pet that eats meat? Dogs eat meat, cats, lizards, snakes, even my dear chickens will chase down creatures smaller than them. Or a dog that has a naturally high prey drive? I have a relative that is a hunter and he has a couple of labs (no, he is not zoo, he is a normie) that retrieve his fowl for him when he shoots them down. Call it cruel if you want, but I think it's great that his labs are doing what they were bred to do. A lot of dogs serve a purpose and work. I see nothing wrong with that. Here is a video of a dog working together with a mink to kill rats
 
shrimpsoda said:
Dolphins are intelligent but they're not advanced like we are. As smart as they are, the ones in Taiji are unable to escape their hunters, due to how advanced humans are in methods of collecting food. As for people, that depends.. Most homeless people are handicapped, or all the drugs made them mentally ill/handicapped, and they're pretty much disregarded by most of society. I try to help them when I can, by giving them food/water, but sometimes they refuse it. That isn't too smart of them. I do not give food/water to the people who just want money.
Click to expand...

Dolphins don't have opposable thumbs, which is why they can't build things the way humans do. That does not mean they are inferior to humans though. Morally, dolphins have the same right to live that humans have, and humans are not "superior" to them (as a species). It is speciesist to think that humans are "superior" to other species.

Saying that dolphins aren't "advanced" like humans simply isn't true. They're advanced in ways that humans are not, such as echo location.

shrimpsoda said:
How do you exercise veganism/vegetarianism with a pet that eats meat? Dogs eat meat, cats, lizards, snakes, even my dear chickens will chase down creatures smaller than them. Or a dog that has a naturally high prey drive? I have a relative that is a hunter and he has a couple of labs (no, he is not zoo, he is a normie) that retrieve his fowl for him when he shoots them down. Call it cruel if you want, but I think it's great that his labs are doing what they were bred to do. A lot of dogs serve a purpose and work. I see nothing wrong with that. Here is a video of a dog working together with a mink to kill rats
Click to expand...

Hunting is intrinsically cruel, morally wrong, and speciesist, because it treats non-human animals as "objects" that are "lower" in value than humans. It terminates an animal's life, and that is just as wrong as causing a dog to be killed. (For example, deer are living beings with a right to live, just like dogs). There is definitely something wrong with dogs helping to hunt (because hunting itself is wrong). Also, the rat-killing video is wrong (because rats also have a right to live).

With regard to a pet's diet, one can give them less meat, or they can give them a vegetarian diet.
 
Last edited:
PETA people eating tasty animals its all a cover check most of the financial records of these so called animal rights groups and compare them to how many animals they actually help you will see most of it goes to other things not helping the animals I am a farmer and spend a lot of time taking care of my livestock and all these activist groups have done is make it harder for me to take care of them when you have to treat an animal with a 300 dollar shot you don't over treat them we don't make that much money to start with the packer plants make all the money exporting the top cuts of meat and import the meat we eat that the consumer has no idea where it was raised and the treatment it has had I will spent the whole night out in the cold during calving to bring th new borns into the barn and sit there and hold the calf up to make sure it gets its mothers milk than grab a quick nap in the barn so I can be there if something goes wrong the majority farmers out there are deticated to the craft of course there are bad apples out there and it is no different than in the eveeyday life of the human world but with there being less and less farmers out there raising livestock you have to rely on imported livestock that has less overwatch on there regulations for producing a quality product and that first one that says we make so much money on livestock to feed 150 beef cattle can run well over fifty thousand dollars a year without the cost of veterinarian and pasture rent and fuel expense and haying equipment minerals and than tack on the labor and corraling and fencing and than buying hay if your short because of a drought oh and than I have all the same bills as a person living in the city
 
terryfasthughes said:
the packer plants make all the money exporting the top cuts of meat and import the meat we eat that the consumer has no idea where it was raised and the treatment it has had

but with there being less and less farmers out there raising livestock you have to rely on imported livestock that has less overwatch on there regulations for producing a quality product

and that first one that says we make so much money on livestock to feed 150 beef cattle can run well over fifty thousand dollars a year without the cost of veterinarian and pasture rent
Click to expand...

The solution to this is to not eat meat in the first place. That way one doesn't have to worry about the things you mentioned. By not eating meat, one is not supporting the cruel and unethical animal slaughter industry.

Humans should treat cows as living beings, not as "products". Cows should not be exploited by humans (and that means no cow should be killed).
 
Hunting isn’t cruel if you use the body of the animal you hunt for food and materials. Many dogs were bred for hunting and protection. I think it’s a beautiful thing when they’re used for what they were created for. Agree to disagree. To each their own.

Vegetarian/vegan cannot replace good old fashioned korean bbq, or german sausages. My dad said the best sausage he ever ate came from a moose he shot. Learning to hunt and try moose is on my bucket list so I can try what my dad tried.
 
There is a ground squirrel in my backyard that steals my chickens’ feed. I’m going to trap it and release it in the next town over, about 15 miles away, where it will either be prey to a hawk or a coyote. The squirrel deserves to live, yes, but so does the hawk or coyote. Not all animals can go vegan or vegetarian. I would not feed my dog vegetarian food. I have already placed a vegetable and raw meat in front of him many times, he always goes straight for the meat. That is his preference.
 
The point of the article is that if animals are property to kill for food, animal as property for sex shouldn't be any ethically better or worse. It is true, but most get triggered once an animal is not murdered but instead pleasured consentually.
 
terryfasthughes said:
PETA people eating tasty animals its all a cover check most of the financial records of these so called animal rights groups and compare them to how many animals they actually help you will see most of it goes to other things not helping the animals I am a farmer and spend a lot of time taking care of my livestock and all these activist groups have done is make it harder for me to take care of them when you have to treat an animal with a 300 dollar shot you don't over treat them we don't make that much money to start with the packer plants make all the money exporting the top cuts of meat and import the meat we eat that the consumer has no idea where it was raised and the treatment it has had I will spent the whole night out in the cold during calving to bring th new borns into the barn and sit there and hold the calf up to make sure it gets its mothers milk than grab a quick nap in the barn so I can be there if something goes wrong the majority farmers out there are deticated to the craft of course there are bad apples out there and it is no different than in the eveeyday life of the human world but with there being less and less farmers out there raising livestock you have to rely on imported livestock that has less overwatch on there regulations for producing a quality product and that first one that says we make so much money on livestock to feed 150 beef cattle can run well over fifty thousand dollars a year without the cost of veterinarian and pasture rent and fuel expense and haying equipment minerals and than tack on the labor and corraling and fencing and than buying hay if your short because of a drought oh and than I have all the same bills as a person living in the city
Click to expand...
I appreciate good farmers. I think more people should buy locally raised and butchered meat, for both better quality of food and supporting a local family/individual.
 
ZTHorse said:
The point of the article is that if animals are property to kill for food, animal as property for sex shouldn't be any ethically better or worse. It is true, but most get triggered once an animal is not murdered but instead pleasured consentually.
Click to expand...
I think it’s fine as long as the animal is being taken care of well. Many people have a FWB thing with their dog. Their dog is treated good though, so what’s the problem?
 
Yes lets let all the livestock go wild and than we will be dealing with more feral hogs that have overran many parts of the world and have bred latger than the normal wild hogs and have decimated thoose herds and now the feral hogs have attacked people out camping and terrorized them on hiking trails just letting everything run ramped in nature is not the answer either we as humans can't manage our ownselves properly and we have a much higher intelligence and on your thoughts toward all of us going vegan we cannot produce enough food as it is so people around the world arent starving and taking crops off where I live is almost impossible I spent 4hours today getting ewuipment unstuck from the field we are so wet this year that in my state more than a million acres either didn't get planted or won't get harvested and 2 years ago we went through a severe drought farmers make up very little of the population and are expected to feed a lot more people than what we can realistically manage and than you tack on the organic graze which I produce both organic and conventional crops you yield almost half less as being organic due to the lack of feetilizer you can put on and the pressure from weeds choke out your crops and than you piss of the environmentalists because you have to burn all this diesel to work up the soil to control the weeds so to appease them they have us put def in our diesel tractors which cause us to burn more fuel but it is a little cleaner but the def fluid is highly corrosive and comes in plastic jugs that we can't recycle because they have had corrosive material in it and in ten years they will come out and say it causes cancer
 
shrimpsoda said:
Hunting isn’t cruel if you use the body of the animal you hunt for food and materials. Many dogs were bred for hunting and protection. I think it’s a beautiful thing when they’re used for what they were created for. Agree to disagree. To each their own.

Vegetarian/vegan cannot replace good old fashioned korean bbq, or german sausages. My dad said the best sausage he ever ate came from a moose he shot. Learning to hunt and try moose is on my bucket list so I can try what my dad tried.
Click to expand...

This is such nonsense. Hunting (killing an animal) is an intrinsically cruel, immoral, and speciesist activity. It treats some animals as having "less value" than others, which is wrong. It doesn't matter if the animal's body is used for various purposes -- killing an animal itself is wrong (just as killing a dog is wrong). If someone killed a dog and then ate their body, that would be immoral -- similarly, hunting and killing a moose is immoral. It is not "beautiful" when a dog does hunting with a human (it is terrible).

Vegetarian / vegan foods can replace animal meat, and vegetarian food involves no animal cruelty / speciesism (and they taste better than meat). Because killing an animal is on your "bucket" list, you are apparently callous and have no respect for animal life.

ZTHorse said:
The point of the article is that if animals are property to kill for food, animal as property for sex shouldn't be any ethically better or worse. It is true, but most get triggered once an animal is not murdered but instead pleasured consentually.
Click to expand...

Agree, it is hypocritical that murdering a non-human animal is legal, but having sex with an animal is illegal. The reasons for these laws are hypocritical and inconsistent --"consent" is why people say zoo sex is illegal, yet no "consent" occurs when slaughtering an animal.

shrimpsoda said:
I appreciate good farmers. I think more people should buy locally raised and butchered meat, for both better quality of food and supporting a local family/individual.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. The fact that that an animal is killed "locally" does not make it more ethical (killing an animal is intrinsically unethical, regardless of whether it is "local"). People should not buy any meat.
 
The good boy gets the duck, and gets some pussy at home for bringing his humans’ dinner ? 4F6D8072-1F90-4AF0-A35E-5E9AA683E7C9.jpeg
053746F9-3739-4A65-979A-FAE876801234.jpeg
 
shrimpsoda said:
How do you exercise veganism/vegetarianism with a pet that eats meat?
Click to expand...

My dog gets everything that I eat minus the few things that are unhealthy for him (but I usually prepare food that works for both of us) plus food made of animals. The latter is mostly fish and poultry. Mammal based food is the exception.

@Zoo50 Is there a place in this forum or outside where you explain the foundation of your ethics? I would like to understand why you think that this or that is wrong/immoral/unethical or how you determine that all animals have an equal non-zero value.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top