Be civil and follow principle of charity in the comments.

  • kablez@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 hour ago

    Both groups can emphatically agree on something - that they love the taste of animal meat.

  • Lovable Sidekick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    So you interviewed those people individually and determined that they are in fact the same people? Excellent work!

    Wait… you didn’t? Then go away.

  • Alberat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Zoophilia is banned because it’s gross. Killing animals is okay because it’s delicious. Lol jk but actually I’d be fine with being more vegetarian. But probably not vegan yet.

  • procapra@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    Outside the “food for survival” aspect (which I won’t touch on because everyone else already has)…Rape vs Murder is essentially the topic here.

    I’m in the camp that murder (as in intentional cold blooded murder) is comparatively worse. Culturally, I think the overwhelming majority of people disagree.

    I think there are people out there that would much rather be around someone who has killed in cold blood. I think there are far more people willing to accept that a former murderer has reformed. There is a certain degree of sanctity people give sex that they don’t even give life itself.

    Both are extraordinarily heinous crimes and i am in no way defending either.

  • folaht@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    Like some here who have said it before, it’s about survival.
    There’s no survival issue when it comes to zoophilia.
    There still is with eating meat.

    To say that most people don’t need meat is to ignore more than half the planet.
    I thought this place was aware that not everyone can afford a diet,
    let alone a healthy vegan diet.

    I’m not a big fan of pulling the ladder up behind oneself and start demanding
    everyone else to follow suit when they’re living in either developing nations or
    nations that are in a state of collapse or both.

    That said, since natural meat production is theoretically more expensive
    than growing meat in a lab,
    we’ll be heading towards the dissolution of eating farm animals soon
    and with it, most farm animals themselves.

    • Soulcreator@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Some of the countries with the large percentages of vegetarians, vegans or predominantly plant forward diets such as India or South East Asia are not wealthy by Western standards. Eating a ‘healthy’ plant forward diet does not have to be an expensive affair.

      The perception that a plant based diet is a wealthy western modern invention is white washing its unglamorous origins as a traditional eastern diet, especially in Buddhist, Jain, Hindu, etc cultures.

      To dismiss a plant forward diet because not everyone can afford to eat impossible burgers 7x a week is disingenuous, as people were eating diets with little to no meat for centuries before faux ‘beuf’ plant minces were invented.

      • Artemis_Mystique@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 hour ago

        Vegetarianism in India is more nuanced then that; I personally see it in 4 different facets.

        one is that it is the Upper Caste’s(who traditionally have more access to wealth) enforcing their values(religious requirement to be a vegetarian) on people who they see as below them.

        Many poor people in India disproportionately eat more meat than their richer counter parts.

        Animal protein is just cheaper and more dense than plant based protein, and plant based protein is also seasonal as compared to animal based protein.

        It also doesn’t help that vegetarianism has become a political issue in India, and is part of the ongoing culture wars happening in the country.

    • andallthat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 hours ago

      I agree. Just a comment on lab-grown meat. I’m not sure if that is going to help in developing markets. Maybe a big lab can produce meat that you can buy for less money than you’d need for a real steak in an advanced economy. That doesn’t mean that someone in the Philippines countryside can start their own meat-lab instead of raising chicken.

    • when@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Why such opposite reaction? X commited murder for its benefit and Y commited rape for its benefit. Both have dismissed the “consent of animals” for their respective benefits. You can either condone both or condemn both.

      • judgy_jackdaw@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        i am not claiming one is right and the other is wrong. i am simply claiming that, for reasons outside of my control, eating meat evokes a positive emotion within me while zoophilia evokes a negative emotion. just like i cannot help it when i find vanilla ice cream more delicious than chocolate ice cream, i cannot help it when i experience a positive emotion when eating meat and a negative emotion when confronted with zoophilia. i am not making a factual statement about reality, i am just expressing my emotions and letting that guide my sense of morality. and i am a mere observer of my emotions, not their author.

  • obey@lemmy.wtf
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 hours ago

    If alien species more powerful and smart came to earth i would rather be molested than killed and turned into a sausage.

  • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    13 hours ago

    I’m sure you would hear more than a few say something along the lines of 1) ending their life can be done relatively humanely. And it serves a fundamental purpose, for sustenance. While meat for sustenance is not actually necessary, it is considered a basic staple of our diets and generally acceptable. 2) Having sex with animals, though, harms them in a way and leaves them to live with that harm. It can traumatize the animal. It is inherently inhumane. And it serves no purpose but to satisfy a carnal desire, a morbid curiosity, or a sadistic appetite.

    I’m not saying that it is an altogether consistent or sound argument. It is something some can rationalize though. But, frankly, I would call either explanation at least a little bit bullshit.

    The answer to either their desire for meat or their revulsion to animal molestation is that their instincts give them those feelings. It is evolution. Animal meats and fats are a calorie dense and nutritionally valuable food source that our ancestors have eaten since before humans existed, and we’re mostly wired to enjoy the taste and crave it. A revulsion for sex outside of species helps make sure that we continue to make babies. It’s as simple as that.

    Some very few people don’t have one, the other or both of these instincts, but the vast majority do. Most of those people will happily rationalize the feeling that isn’t based in rationality, like above. Some will examine those feelings and rationalize themselves into changing/recontextualizing their feelings or choosing to not act upon them in light of their viewpoint or some virtue they’ve applied to the question. But most just do what feels right and is normalized and don’t ever really truly question it.

    And even if you are one of those people who has rationalized themselves into a rationally/morally superior position regarding meat eating, or maybe you never even had an instinctual desire for it, you almost certainly have other habits, values, opinions, etc. that go against every rationality too that just come with human nature.

    We’re people. We’re animals. We have intelligence. We have primal drives. Nobody is morally perfect. Nobody can even agree on what moral perfection is. Morality is both subjective on the whole, and objective for each and every one of us. We just gotta get along.

  • rossman@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Maybe it’s whatever grosses them out. A lot of unsanitary stuff is just prohibited out of safety. There’s like hunter ethics guides for handling game.

    It’s interesting but to me it seems more of a health concern. Ironically we laugh when dogs dry hump people. Or when horses get turned on and all.

  • Lettuce eat lettuce@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    22 hours ago

    Most people don’t use critical reasoning to make their decisions, hence why most people live their lives in a state of constant contradictions.

    My old philosophy professor once told us that the most effective way to expose somebody’s lack of critical reasoning about an issue is to just respond with, “who says?”

    Basically the Socratic method, ask them to justify the statements they make, and see how they respond. The vast majority of the time, you’ll quickly find out that they don’t have any good reasons to support their statements. They haven’t given them much thought at all, nor much thought to differing views/positions. They live their lives in ways that feel generally “correct” or pleasurable to them, and that’s it.

    Why do they think it’s alright to eat factory farmed meat? Because they like the taste, the thought of billions of animals living short, miserable lives, then being slaughtered and processed for us to consume doesn’t horrify or disgust them, so they keep doing it.

    Most people when challenged on it will put up some vague attempt to support their actions, “Other animals do it to each other, so why not us?” “Animals don’t have sophisticated minds, so it doesn’t actually cause them real suffering.” “Humans need animal protein to be healthy.” etc. All terribly weak arguments that are easily refuted. But most people don’t care, because most societies normalize meat consumption and factory farming. They grew up eating meat with other people eating meat all around them, and they never gave it any thought.

    Hence why most pet owners who eat meat would be absolutely horrified and disgusted if their dog or cat had a litter and somebody bought all of the puppies/kittens, only to torture, slaughter, and eat them. A completely inconsistent reaction given the fact that the pet owner happily eats other animals that are treated in the same way. But again, they didn’t reason themselves into their viewpoint, so they don’t worry about being consistent.

    This is further confirmed by anecdotes from vegetarians/vegans, who will tell you about all the awkward, unprompted reactions from meat-eaters when they find out they don’t eat meat. Many people get very defensive, often making snide or accusatory remarks about vegetarianism/veganism. They don’t like the idea that eating factory meat is morally wrong, because they like the taste and don’t want to make to effort to change their lifestyle to confirm with that moral principle. So they mock, tease, or try to “expose” inconsistencies in the vegetarian/vegan’s own worldview as a defense mechanism.

    If they can make the vegetarian/vegan look foolish, then that feels like a win psychologically to them, which provides mental and emotional comfort and allows them to slip back into their lifestyle without needing to confront their own moral failings.

    • Victoria Antoinette @lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      21 hours ago

      “Other animals do it to each other, so why not us?” “Animals don’t have sophisticated minds, so it doesn’t actually cause them real suffering.” “Humans need animal protein to be healthy.” etc. All terribly weak arguments that are easily refuted.

      if you care to articulate these refutations, i’d be fascinated to see how strong your arguments are.

      • Lettuce eat lettuce@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        18 hours ago
        1. The first argument is just another version of the “it’s natural/unnatural, therefore it’s right/wrong.” Many animals also eat their own young, rape each other, etc. Does that make it acceptable for humans to do it also? Of course not. Some homophobes will point out that homosexual relationships are evolutionarily disadvantageous, (“unnatural”) and therefore that means it’s wrong for humans to form homosexual relationships. Obviously a ridiculous argument, but it’s just the inverse form of the one above.
        2. Is it alright to torture a human infant or a severely developmentally disabled person? What about a person with very advanced Alzheimer’s? All three examples have little to no mental self-awareness, certainly less than a dog, pig, dolphin, etc. At what point is self awareness sufficiently low enough to make it morally acceptable to cause deliberate pain to that person for your own enjoyment? Second, there is a growing body of evidence that a large portion of animals, including many that are currently farmed/fished for consumption, demonstrate sentience beyond simple reflexes. Beyond the scientific studies, everyday experience indicates this in many animals. Dogs, pigs, birds, octopus, can all solve simple puzzles, demonstrate various apparent emotions like curiosity, fear, joy, confusion, anger, etc. Clearly some level of sentience is present, even if it’s quite simple.
        3. All essential nutrients humans need can be found in plants. You need to adjust your diet obviously, some nutrients like B12 and Iron are harder to get from a plant-based diet. While others, like Vitamin C and Fiber are easier. The old stereotype that vegetarians/vegans are all malnourished weaklings, is a myth. There are many vegetarian/vegan elite athletes, including Olympic medalists and world record holders, (Alex Morgan, Scott Jurek, Dotsie Bausch, Fiona Oakes, Meagan Duhamel). So at least in the developed world, (where factory farming is the most pervasive,) there is no nutritional need for the general population to eat animals.
        • jet@hackertalks.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          15 hours ago

          All essential nutrients humans need can be found in plants. You need to adjust your diet obviously, some nutrients like B12 and Iron are harder to get from a plant-based diet. While others, like Vitamin C and Fiber are easier.

          If you eat 100% plant based you will need to supplement which contradicts the first sentence.

          • judgy_jackdaw@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            8 hours ago

            the distinction between food and supplements is purely regulatory and semantic. at what point does something become a food or a supplement? if i lack vitamin c and i eat an orange, have i supplemented with vitamin c? b12 supplements are made through microbial fermentation, like alcohol or vinegar or lactic acid. if i need iron and i take a pill, i’ve supplemented with iron, but if need sodium and i eat salt, have i supplemented? starch and sugar are simple chemicals extracted from whole foods, yet they are still considered foods. my point is that there is no true objective distinction between food and supplements, it’s just a vague label like “natural/unnatural”

          • Lettuce eat lettuce@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            11 hours ago

            Reading on this a bit more, it looks like I was off on B12 specifically. Vegetarians can get this from eggs and milk, but full vegans need to either eat plant-based foods that are fortified with B12, or directly take a B12 supplement.

            So my first sentence should actually be, “All essential nutrients humans need can be provided by a plant-based diet.” That is accurate because it includes fortified plant-based foods, plant-based direct suppliments, and vegetarians.

  • Cam@scribe.disroot.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    If you need for survival to hunt and eat an animal you are just part of the ecosystem, a predator.
    Do you need to have sex with another species? In the wild it happens and even rape is natural, but the question could be “would you like to live in a human society like that?”.

    That said, animal farming is unethical and completely unnecessary nowadays. Most people would agree that killing an animal just for pleasure would be ethically wrong, but then we as a society rape to breed, grow in terrible conditions and kill in nightmarish ways farm animals just because “meat is good”.

    • weeeeum@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      This puts it best. Zoophillia and eating meat (what I assume they mean) are not morally comparable. Eating animals was a necessity for a long time, that has continued into modern life (because our brains are wired to LOVE meat). Nobody actually enjoys the process of killing animals, I’m sure if you had a butcher shop where you slaughtered live animals at the counter people would be horrified. We just like meat, we are literally wired to, and the process to obtain it is cruel and ugly.

      Zoophillia is completely different, there is zero material gain from it, and it’s done purely for the joy of the human initiating it.

  • communism@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Because they benefit from eating animals (they enjoy eating them) whereas they don’t benefit from having sex with animals (they don’t enjoy having sex with animals).

      • Dingaling@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        12 hours ago

        In the Bible they had to make a law against it

        So they did about eating Pork, but Christians like the taste so eat it anyway.

        “Leviticus 11:7-8 that pigs are considered unclean and should not be eaten.”

        • sudoer777@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 hours ago

          Funny enough initially in the Bible people weren’t supposed to eat meat at all, then they loosened the restrictions but had rules for certain species (although I don’t recall if animal sacrifices started before or after this). Then in the new testament they did away with a bunch of rules but in a very vague way so Christians get to cherry pick what they want and when then argue about it with other Christians. Although there was also a story about a blanket or something with a ton of “bad” meat where god said to eat so I guess that counts as justification