Your first argument is restating the concept, not presenting why it is wrong. It’s tautological. Actually it’s a little worse than tautological, it sneaks in a motive. If someone was desirable and had sex with humans, would it be okay? I don’t think you or I think that.
The antecedent to it was bestiality. You know, the thing we were talking about. You said people can’t fuck animals because if they can’t fuck humans they can’t fuck animals. This not only didn’t answer the question, but added unnecessary and potentially wrong information. If someone was fucking humans, could they fuck animals? Is not having sex with humans the motivation? Or eat makes it wrong? You didn’t address the problem at all.
And I can’t believe I have to explain the second one. “It’s bad because only bad people do it” is insane. If bubble gum was only chewed by bad people then chewing gum wouldn’t be evil. Moreover, people are bad for doing bad things, things are not bad for having been done by bad people. Your answer is fairy tale logic. I do think everyone who’s had sex with animals is a bad person, but because they’ve had sex with animals, every other detail is irrelevant. Your statement would make it permissible to have sex with animals if I found even one person who didn’t do anything else bad and just fucked animals. Do you see how that does not define the action as wrong?
Anyway, the reason it is wrong is because animals cannot give informed consent, so any action non-medically necessary actions between humans and animals is automatically bad. This is because violating consent makes it impossible for two people to interact in a society fairly and have good outcomes. At the core of my argument is an axiom, that we should uphold a society which produces good outcomes. You can disagree with it, but just asking why to it will not reveal a deeper truth nor dispute my argument. Murder is also wrong because it unjustly removes the ability of someone to interact with society.
Asking why something is wrong is not the same as saying it is okay. It’s actually a good thing to take a step back and consider why certain things are right and wrong ON PRINCIPLE, not gut reaction or associations. That’s the only way to have a developed moral code and draw meaningful conclusions about the world. Asking why something is pious was literally the foundation of philosophy in the west, when Socrates was being killed for questioning things.
Congratulations, you won the debate and spelled out the exact reasons why having with animals is wrong. Now what? People will nod on and the next time they’re confronted about it, they’ll simply say “because you’re a freak of a human if you do it.”
Do you really think the tens, hundreds of millions of socialists who existed during the 20th century pondered about simple things like “why is murder wrong” and “why is fucking my dog wrong” beyond “because you shouldn’t do it?”
You should give a shit about being normal because otherwise socialism is just a fun little thought experiment and not something you try to convince people of. Save the “legit debate” criteria for matters that actually affect people like exploitation and poverty and why they’re bad and not attention seeking posits like “bestiality is okay, actually.”
![[CW: bestiality] Professional "moral philosopher" ponders whether it's OK to sexually assault animals, featuring AI art](https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/f26b2dce-7254-4537-acd1-5de623b591e0.png){kind=link}
Your first argument is restating the concept, not presenting why it is wrong. It’s tautological. Actually it’s a little worse than tautological, it sneaks in a motive. If someone was desirable and had sex with humans, would it be okay? I don’t think you or I think that.
Your second is also not an argument.
What? If someone was desirable and fucked humans, why wouldn’t it be okay?
And why is this wrong?
What the fuck are you talking about? How is “action has only been done bad people, therefore action bad” not an argument?
You’re not good at this.
The antecedent to it was bestiality. You know, the thing we were talking about. You said people can’t fuck animals because if they can’t fuck humans they can’t fuck animals. This not only didn’t answer the question, but added unnecessary and potentially wrong information. If someone was fucking humans, could they fuck animals? Is not having sex with humans the motivation? Or eat makes it wrong? You didn’t address the problem at all.
And I can’t believe I have to explain the second one. “It’s bad because only bad people do it” is insane. If bubble gum was only chewed by bad people then chewing gum wouldn’t be evil. Moreover, people are bad for doing bad things, things are not bad for having been done by bad people. Your answer is fairy tale logic. I do think everyone who’s had sex with animals is a bad person, but because they’ve had sex with animals, every other detail is irrelevant. Your statement would make it permissible to have sex with animals if I found even one person who didn’t do anything else bad and just fucked animals. Do you see how that does not define the action as wrong?
Anyway, the reason it is wrong is because animals cannot give informed consent, so any action non-medically necessary actions between humans and animals is automatically bad. This is because violating consent makes it impossible for two people to interact in a society fairly and have good outcomes. At the core of my argument is an axiom, that we should uphold a society which produces good outcomes. You can disagree with it, but just asking why to it will not reveal a deeper truth nor dispute my argument. Murder is also wrong because it unjustly removes the ability of someone to interact with society.
Asking why something is wrong is not the same as saying it is okay. It’s actually a good thing to take a step back and consider why certain things are right and wrong ON PRINCIPLE, not gut reaction or associations. That’s the only way to have a developed moral code and draw meaningful conclusions about the world. Asking why something is pious was literally the foundation of philosophy in the west, when Socrates was being killed for questioning things.
That’s great. Normal people do not care
Bro you’re on a socialist forum, I really don’t give a shit about being normal. Are you in fucking high school?
Congratulations, you won the debate and spelled out the exact reasons why having with animals is wrong. Now what? People will nod on and the next time they’re confronted about it, they’ll simply say “because you’re a freak of a human if you do it.”
Do you really think the tens, hundreds of millions of socialists who existed during the 20th century pondered about simple things like “why is murder wrong” and “why is fucking my dog wrong” beyond “because you shouldn’t do it?”
You should give a shit about being normal because otherwise socialism is just a fun little thought experiment and not something you try to convince people of. Save the “legit debate” criteria for matters that actually affect people like exploitation and poverty and why they’re bad and not attention seeking posits like “bestiality is okay, actually.”