Because in a debate you have to prove your assertions. I want you to prove that making that sort consistency of reasoning between animals and humans is valid. I’m not expecting something mathematical, but at least an adequate explanation of why I should pretend an animal is like a 13 yr old girl or a retarded person. Yes there are some very very vague similarities in their mental capacities, but that was not sufficient for me.
I wanted you to explain to me what the consequences of the sex between an animal and a human being are for the animal and why that has any similarity between to a human/human relationship. I saw some vague ideas about a “power differential” but what does that mean to the animal? Please explain.
You made a mention of Pavlov in respect to our understanding of human psychology. Pavlov was a behaviorist though. Did he care if there was a “power differential” between the pigeon and the scientist? No. All that mattered was that the pigeon pecked on the “X”. He didn’t extrapolate human emotions on animals he simply observed behavior. So if you’d to explain how much we know about animal psychology and their negative reactions to “power differentials” go right ahead.
There is a famous bit of video footage that has been doing the rounds on those home video programmes which shows a man who is trying to take a dump in a field being chased by an aroused donkey that attempts to mount him repeatedley as he trys to escape, there is absolutley no doubt in my mind that had he not fought back and escaped he wood have got an ass reaming from hell. I cannot find or more to the point be bothered to find the actual footage but i’m sure others can corroborate my story. I also read a newspaper article about a particular dolphin off the coast of scotland that had taken to attempting coitus with - bizareley - only female divers, again, cant be assed to find it
but I think that some animals will genuinley shag anything, my guinea pig was never safe from my rabbits clutches i’ll tell you that much! With regards to whether its right or not to have sex with animals I think its entirely beside the point as those people who want to will do it regardless of the law, much like drug taking.
I would in turn ask you to prove that not making that sort consistency of reasoning between animals and humans is valid.
I can’t ‘prove’ anyhting. i can’t ‘prove’ that the Earth is spherical.
I can develop a line of reasoning based on observations that are consisent with that conclusion.
In this case I base my comparison on the following logic:
Humans and gerbils share a fairly recent common ancestor. The primary brain centres responsible for sensation of pain, lust and other ‘base’ emotions seem to have evolved very early in the mammalian line. We know we can extrapolate animal emotions form human experience: a dog yelping is in pain/frightened just like a human screaming. When I beat a dog it cows or attacks, just like a human. When I leave a puppy alone it cries, just like a child and so forth. All these things lead me to believe that we can divine animal experiences, reasoning and emotional states from human behaviour in similar circumstances.
You seem to be arguing that we can’t do so, or at least can’t do so in this case. Why?
You still haven’t told us how you support your position that since animals can’t consent, it is immoral for animals to have sex with each other.
I can’t even explain why women remain in relationships with men who beat them, but we all know that they do. I honestly can not explain what this power differential means to these women. I can’t explain why abused children never run away, preferring instead to be raped daily. I certainly can not explain what it means to an animal or a retarded human.
Of course I don’t need to be able to explain what it means to know a father having sex with his daughter is a Bad thing, or the beating up my wife is not a moral act.
No, but the pigeons will love that strawman as a source of nesting material.
I never suggested that Pavlov ever did care. I used Pavlov as evidence to falsify the wild claim that animal psychology and human psychology are ‘completely different’ and as such we can not extrapolate animal emotional states based on behaviour from human states and behvaiour in the same situation. Unless you dispute this point then you can let it rest.
Well, when an animal shows a distinct behavior like crying or attacking, it’s easy enough to tell it’s in distress. But if the animal shows no sign of distress, I’d like to know precisely what emotions you’re afraid the animal is experiencing, because I honestly have no clue. I don’t necessarily need a scientific proof, but you’re going to have to explain what you’re even talking about before I can agree.
That’s because it wasn’t really my position, it was a reductio ad absurdum.
Well if you can’t explain anything, you can hardly expect to gain any sort of agreement.
Fine, what behavior in animals are you talking about, precisely? The behavior discussed so far is the animal showing all signs of willingness and a lack of distress.
Sorry, I missed something. Yes, many animals can feel pain/fear/etc. We still breed/butcher them anyway. This could be spun into a justification for a vegan lifestyle, but doesn’t attack bestiality without also attacking every other nasty legal thing we do to animals.
I guess I’d be more willing, slightly, to compare bestiality to hunting, ranching, and agriculture if there was a saying about "the getting your rocks off of the fittest.”
What is at stake in bestiality? From the human point of view?
Well…Actually, I strongly oppose to the concept of “rape” being applied to animals at the first place.
What’s wrong exactly with raping a woman which makes us think this crime deserves a heavy sentence? Except if done with sheer brutality, it won’t result it much physical damage, assuming the rapist doesn’t carry AIDS. Likely much less than say, a punch in the face. So, what we’re punishing isn"t the physical damages. It’s the phychological damages, which can be severe and long-lasting.
As long as you don’t demonstrate that the psychological damages done to an animal by having an intercourse with it are devastating, I won’t agree to call such an intercourse a “rape”.
What’s wrong with raping a woman is not about what happens to the woman - it’s about what kind of person does it.
We object to people who behave that way. A hospital orderly who rapes a woman in a complete coma is a loathsome as a teacher who rapes a 13-year old student who, up until that horrible day, idolized him.
And what’s so horrible about the perosn who does something like that? Th fact that they cause the harm that they do. Without th eharm that they cause, there’s no reason to find that kind of person objectionable.
Blake,
The analogy between bestiality and pedophilia is a poor one for the purposes of this discussion. In general, the reason sex between minors and adults is frowned upon is because of the likely psychological consequences for the child (even if the child “consents,” and even if the experience itself is not unpleasant). As has already been touched upon, however, animals are not self-aware in the same way as humans – I’m not arguing that they are thoughtless automatons, acting solely on instinct, but even the smartest dog doesn’t sit around wondering, “but what does it all mean?”
Of course I can’t prove this, but neither can you offer substantial support for your (apparent) position that inter-species sex causes psychological harm to an animal. I see absolutely no reason to assume that it does. Personally, I think you’re making a much bolder leap than I, and I believe most people here would agree with me.
To an extent, but I don’t think the circumstances of intercourse among animals are at all similar to those of intercourse among humans. Again, this goes back to my assumption that animals do not place the same type of psychological significance on the sex act as humans. Sex between humans where there is great disparity in the power base has certain unfortunate consequences for the weaker party. However, because animal sexual psychology is vastly different from human sexaul psychology, the circumstances are different, and we shouldn’t divine the experience of the animal from the experience of the human in this case.
To sum up: it seems that our disagreement is rooted in our contrasting assumptions about the thought processes of animals (though please correct if I’ve misunderstood your argument). As I don’t think either assumption can be supported with anything other than anecdotal evidence, and as I think the large majority of people would find my assumption more reasonable, I have no problem leaving it at that.
Sorry it took so long, but I’ve been gone most of the week (And sick the rest…).
While this did give me something to think about, I don’t think I came to the same conclusion as you. The examples aren’t very comparable.
First off, a minor nitpick; a 13-year-old can consent. The law, however, only allows it to be legal if the two people involved are in a certain age-range. I think it’s a maximum of 4 years difference in most states, but I could certainly be wrong on that). I’m not sure exactly how that 4 years would translate to the other example… Same family?
More importantly, though, the two are already considered completely different under law. For example, one can not force a pair of 13-year-old kids to have sex, or to forcibly impregnate one. You can’t buy and sell kids, or have them put down when you don’t want them any more. You can’t test potentially unsafe products on kids. All of this is just fine with animals, though.