Anatoly Karlin @powerfultakes
Replying to @RichardHanania
I’m against legalizing bestiality because the animal consent problem hasn’t been solved, but probably actually will be quite soon thanks to Al (at least for the higher animals with complex languages). So why not wait a few more years. I don’t see disgust as a good reason. It was an evolutionary adaptation of the agricultural era against the spread of zoonotic illnesses, but technology will soon make that entirely irrelevant as well.
There’s no animal I’m aware of that has a mental capacity beyond that of a child. We don’t think children are capable of giving consent - are we clearing the way to legalise paedophilia too, or are there animals with the mental capacity to provide informed consent that only lack the ability to communicate that consent?
Spoiler: It’s not a communication issue. If this technocratic psycho was more concerned with actually contemplating the morality of the question, and less focused on rearranging the insides of a parrot, his takes might be a little less monstrous.
It’s always funny realizing those who think they’re asking the tough questions that others aren’t smart enough to consider only ever talk about the same handful of topics: putting down minorities, advocating white supremacy, whining about anyone to the left of Pinochet and fucking animals/kids.
Like that’s 95% of the content on the Motte or "I"DW.
lgbt rights bad because Chesterton fence something something.
also
Consent standards:
(╯°o°）╯︵ ┻━┻
(ᕗ ͠° ਊ ͠° )ᕗ [dolphussy]
A bit of a tangent but I loathe the Chesterton’s fence argument. Not only does it shift the burden of proof to proving a negative (“show me this thing is not actually beneficial”) but it straight up demands you to make the conservative argument for them. Before you get rid of this bad thing, please demonstrate your understanding of why it’s good actually!
a cursed idea I just had: chesterton’s fence is the engine of sealioning
I find it’s a great way to figure out who to immediately stop listening to.
Kinda makes you wonder what they’d be capable of if they stopped spending all their time whining that they can’t say the thing they never fucking shut up about.
ah yes the interminable dork web
are they still running that theme?
(e: shower thought, had a better i)
Not after all of the “intellectuals” showed their asses on Twitter or in real life lol
Can only play that card as long as you don’t give away your hand by being a complete moron in public over and over again
Considering that US Republicans are OK with marrying and impregnating 12y olds, everything is possible, sadly.
…and that’s just what they openly advocate for - It sickens me to contemplate the bit they’re too uncomfortable to share.
I don’t want to endorse dolphin fucking or whatever but idk if we can necessarily very accurately map non human intelligence onto stages of human intelligence development. Like human children can idk stack blocks but they’re also very emotionally volatile and forgetful. Whales can’t stack blocks but they have a lot of emotional stability, good memories, and large stable social groups. How do you map between that? They’re not human.
In some ways non human animals appear very similar, especially other mammals and their social relationships and emotions. In other ways they appear very different. They’re their own thing and I think overly simplifying their minds by trying to work out some human age equivalent will just mislead us. It’s not like a pig that can do calculus would suddenly become a reasonable romantic partner haha.
as a pig that can do calculus, this explains why I’m still single
Who gave you a keyboard? Back to the truffle dig swine!
you went to college for calculus and the only job you could find was in law enforcement? damn guess biden’s economy really is shit /s
Agreed - and for that reason (particularly when balanced against the questionable benefit), I think it’s wise to err on the side of caution.
yes, that’s why I don’t eat them either
GIGACHAD
I don’t know, those blue whales look mighty submissive and breedable tho
Philosophical question: if brutally torturing and murdering billions of animals is fine, why do we draw the line at sex? I’m a vegetarian and have never ideated it, but the position is untenable.
edit: What I’m saying is apparently nobody gives a fuck about consent when we’re talking about putting intelligent beings in a box barely bigger than themselves and feeding them slop until we think they’re overweight enough to unceremoniously dump dozens at a time into a gas chamber where we choke them while they’re conscious. But now that wieners are involved we’re suddenly holier than thou? Come on.
HMMMMM I WONDER
shots are on me tonight, vegetarian reply guy with pretend opinions was my last square before blackout!
deleted by creator
Centaurs raise a few more small issues
If you think my opinion is a meme then countering the argument should be easy.
“I can excuse bestiality, but I draw the line at animal cruelty”
That’s a nice way to put the question, yes.
Thinking about morality requires you to look like a gross idiot sometimes when you have to ask the questions that seem obviously wrong on the face of it. But that’s exactly what I’m asking, why does it seem so ridiculous to ask this question? Is it not obvious that fucking an animal is not as bad as treating it like shit for its lifetime and then brutally killing it? Is it not hypocritical to equate the two?
I understand that asking this question makes me look like a pig fucker but I’ll take the L if it gives us something interesting to talk and think about.
edit: If the act of fucking an animal hurts it then that is obviously immoral, but if they barely notice then it seems to me that the answer to the question of why that is wrong is internal to humans. I guess that’s what I’m asking; what is that thing we have internalised as wrong (which I have, as well, just for the record)? What is the moral reasoning behind that thing? Is it just that we’re weird about sex and we project those feelings onto the animal?
If people who eat meat are going to denounce bestiality as wrong (which again, I do as well, because of said internalised thing) I feel there should be some form of reasoning that is congruous with having no qualms about killing and eating animals.
I think your framing is flawed (I don’t think it’s an issue of consent so much as it’s an issue of creating animal suffering for personal benefit), but I broadly agree - I personally get past the hypocrisy because I have no interest in fucking animals, and push the suffering I cause by eating animal products to the back of my mind and pretending it’s not a thing. Responsibility is also meaningfully abstracted in the food example, making it far easier to pretend you’re not at fault compared to having a chicken impaled on your dick.
In a similar way, people consuming products made in sweatshops and people downloading CSA material are both exploiting children.
Interesting, thanks for the reply. For the record, the comment I replied to argued consent, hence the response.
edit: I just realized I’m wrong, that was the argument by the original OP.
deleted by creator