What exactly is the problem with bestiality?

123shooter · 28-06-2017 11:28PM

Murrisk wrote: »

OK, here's the science bit. Basically, animals can be reservoirs for diseases. This means that they are capable of hosting a certain bacteria or virus without it doing them any damage. However, that microbe or virus could be harmful to humans. .

In a way I find that kind of offensive because animals are no different than humans as we are really nothing but animals unless you have god in your lives of course:rolleyes:

But I have been around all kinds of animals all my life (no sex) and the only thing I have ever caught is the odd flea and tick and ringworm from a mouse.

The things I have caught from the 2 legged animal variety is too many to mention. So they are the dirty diseased feckers.

Murrisk · 28-06-2017 11:31PM

123shooter wrote: »

In a way I find that kind of offensive because animals are no different than humans as we are really nothing but animals unless you have god in your lives of course:rolleyes:

What a bizarre statement.

123shooter wrote: »

But I have been around all kinds of animals all my life (no sex) and the only thing I have ever caught is the odd flea and tick and ringworm from a mouse.

Around them. Around. Do I to point out how that differs? Really? And you still caught stuff off them.

123shooter · 28-06-2017 11:35PM

Murrisk wrote: »

What a bizarre statement.

Around them. Around. Do I to point out how that differs? Really? And you still caught stuff off them.

Lived with them. Owned them Worked with them.

Not a bizzare statement, just got a lot more chance of catching stuff of humans.

Samaris · 28-06-2017 11:39PM

123shooter wrote: »

In a way I find that kind of offensive because animals are no different than humans as we are really nothing but animals unless you have god in your lives of course:rolleyes:

But I have been around all kinds of animals all my life (no sex) and the only thing I have ever caught is the odd flea and tick and ringworm from a mouse.

The things I have caught from the 2 legged animal variety is too many to mention. So they are the dirty diseased feckers.

Well, yeah, we are, but we're pretty adapted to those ones. We can mostly cope with those, although our ability to take on new ones is stretched. Edit: And of course you're more likely to catch things from humans, the things you'll catch are already inclined to take human hosts. But those ones are predictable - the ones that make the jump from animal to human are new strains and seem to be pretty difficult to kill out. Presumably because even without encouraging sexual contact with animals that jump happens quite often anyway in history and that's when the plagues break out. HIV was observed to have at least seven different origin points, where it crossed from animal to human.

Can anyone give me a straight answer as to why it is worth bringing a whole lot of unknown disease factors into the population for the sake of a very unusual paraphilia that has a few reasons to be discouraged. At what point is the needs of the few outweighed by the safety of the many?

ardinn · 28-06-2017 11:41PM

Funny I came across this thread as only today I have gotten not 1, not 2 but THREE watsapp vids containing beastiality!!

My phone needs to be burned!!

123shooter · 28-06-2017 11:43PM

Samaris wrote: »

Well, yeah, we are, but we're pretty adapted to those ones. We can mostly cope with those, although our ability to take on new ones is stretched.

Can anyone give me a straight answer as to why it is worth bringing a whole lot of unknown disease factors into the population for the sake of a very unusual paraphilia that has a few reasons to be discouraged. At what point is the needs of the few outweighed by the safety of the many?

I agree but the poster almost implied that animals are a host of disease and really humans are no different.

Murrisk · 28-06-2017 11:49PM

123shooter wrote: »

I agree but the poster almost implied that animals are a host of disease and really humans are no different.

Implied because it's true.

Human to human diseases are well-studied and can be treated effectively because of that. We know how human to human diseases behave in humans. What animals harbour in entirety is still very much an unknown quantity. You missed that point that because microbes can live in animals and cause them no ill health means that we can be unaware of them until it's too late.

Outlaw Pete · 28-06-2017 11:53PM

If animals are so hazardous then maybe we shouldn't be eating them either.

123shooter · 28-06-2017 11:54PM

Murrisk wrote: »

Implied because it's true. Human to human diseases are well-studied and can be treated effectively because of that. We know how human to human diseases behave in humans. What animals harbour in entirety is still very much an unknown quantity. You missed that point that because microbes can live in animals and cause them no ill health means that we can be unaware of them until it's too late.

I understand, but I also know that diseases do not jump species except in some cases. They used to say that aids started that way but who knows.

If all diseases could jump species we would all be dead.

123shooter · 28-06-2017 11:57PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

If animals are so hazardous then maybe we shouldn't be eating them either.

Good point and thats probably an easier way of catching a disease than the topic way. TB from cows and deer for example. Tape, round and thread worms as well.

Samaris · 28-06-2017 11:58PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

If animals are so hazardous then maybe we shouldn't be eating them either.

Again though, we take the risk of animal-transmitted diseases in return for continuing to eat meat. It is considered important enough for a certain risk of disease. If it comes to that, we take a certain amount of risk in keeping pets but the level of risk vs reward is worth it.

So is there a particular societal benefit to taking that risk (when there's other problems with the whole idea too) given the increased risk of animal-contracted STIs (ASTIs?) and their potential spread?

Murrisk · 29-06-2017 12:03AM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

If animals are so hazardous then maybe we shouldn't be eating them either.

Obviously the animals involved in husbandry are of the more well-studied variety. And measures can be taken to ensure that those raised for meat are safe to be consumed. There are parts of the world where animals are raised for meat carelessly and I would not be at all happy to eat their meat. Can't believe this has to be pointed out.

And it never ceases to be depressing when people refuse to even consider the rationale behind something if it's something they have decided they oppose. Why would anyone want to appear so wilfully ignorant? Whatever you're into, I guess?

Roger Hassenforder · 29-06-2017 12:04AM

pangbang wrote: »

I honestly think we aren't communicating properly.

i think so!

pangbang wrote: »

You are proving my point, you are telling me all the commonalities....my question is what is the difference? Youre answering it for me.

I don't know what you are saying about health. Genuinely. So at the risk of answering the wrong question.....I'll say it again, homosexuality was intrinsically linked with HIV (socially and scientifically) but that didn't make any difference to homosexuality becoming accepted.

THEREFORE

saying that bestiality could be the source of disease is a moot point. It wasn't a good enough reason to reject homosexuality, so its not a good reason to reject bestiality.

And to be clear, this must come off as terribly anti-gay, but I promise it isn't the intention. It just so happens to be a very good comparator for the subject at hand, and also the most recent change from "unacceptable" to "acceptable" in society.

this is where we're differing. both arguments are absurd, only mine is deliberately so, to demonstrate the absurdity of yours!

that once something morally or religiously wrong was illegal and is now legal, isn't justification for legalising something else that is also morally or religiously wrong, irrespective of the actual rational biological reason it is wrong.

there is no comparison between interspecies sex and intraspecies sex from a zoonose reservoir. 2.2 million die each year from zoonoses - 60% of human diseases are zoonoses, 75% of emerging diseases are zoonotic. why invite more?

Murrisk · 29-06-2017 12:07AM

123shooter wrote: »

I understand, but I also know that diseases do not jump species except in some cases. They used to say that aids started that way but who knows.

Obviously. Do we know all the zoonotic diseases that exist? Are they all documented? I doubt it very much.

Outlaw Pete · 29-06-2017 12:12AM

Murrisk wrote: »

Obviously the animals involved in husbandry are of the more well-studied variety. And measures can be taken to ensure that those raised for meat are safe to be consumed. Can't believe this has to be pointed out.

Lose the condescension please. I was being sarcastic given your ott attitude.

Yes, we do what we can to make sure animals are safe to consume, but that isn't always good enough, as I'm sure you're aware.

Murrisk · 29-06-2017 12:21AM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Lose the condescension please. I was being sarcastic given your ott attitude.

My attitude is hardly OTT in this thread. If anything, I have given solid reasoning that isn't based on feelings or morals, just biology and the potential for injury to human or animal. Really, using science as a rationale is OTT? Alrighty then. Lets get back to anthropomorphising.

Roger Hassenforder · 29-06-2017 01:45AM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

If animals are so hazardous then maybe we shouldn't be eating them either.

Cooking kills a lot of the pathogens

KwackerJack · 29-06-2017 01:51AM

OP Is your doctor qualified to give you that medication?

Are you old enough to take it?

123shooter · 29-06-2017 05:55AM

Murrisk wrote: »

My attitude is hardly OTT in this thread. If anything, I have given solid reasoning that isn't based on feelings or morals, just biology and the potential for injury to human or animal. Really, using science as a rationale is OTT? Alrighty then. Lets get back to anthropomorphising.

You are a little OTT mate. I understand if we go rogering them there could be an increased risk but if it were that easy for diseases to jump species then we wouldn't be able to go near them in any form.

Human diseases are far more a threat to us than catching foot n' mouth and again you cited animals as being reservoirs of bacteria and diseases. Well if that were the case then all farmers would be a health hazard and dropping like flies.

Samaris · 29-06-2017 07:57AM

123shooter wrote: »

You are a little OTT mate. I understand if we go rogering them there could be an increased risk but if it were that easy for diseases to jump species then we wouldn't be able to go near them in any form.

Human diseases are far more a threat to us than catching foot n' mouth and again you cited animals as being reservoirs of bacteria and diseases. Well if that were the case then all farmers would be a health hazard and dropping like flies.

It's not particularly easy, no, but it does happen. Given we already have human diseases, why actively add more illnesses to the population to benefit a tiny minority with this particular paraphilia? I do not see much on the "pros" side to outweigh this fairly large drawback.

Apart from the disease risk, there is also the non-uncommon side-effect of allergic reactions as well as injury. While the human in the piece probably brought it on themselves, it's abusive to the animal to expose it to injury.

With human diseases, we have certain precautions in place (mostly), and yes, they originally mostly came from animals too originally - from farming. But the risk (which wasn't known about anyway) was worth it for a continuous supply of food and to be able to settle into larger populations. I do not see a consequent benefit for society to encourage bestiality.

123shooter · 29-06-2017 08:07AM

Samaris wrote: »

. I do not see a consequent benefit for society to encourage bestiality.

I agree but wouldn't be funny to watch if someone proposed it in a parliament.:D

Odyssey 2005 · 29-06-2017 08:12AM

25 pages op...i don't know wether to be more impressed or saddened.!

Samaris · 29-06-2017 08:13AM

123shooter wrote: »

I agree but wouldn't be funny to watch if someone proposed it in a parliament.:D

That would be pretty hilarious.

"And, Joe, can you imagine, Joe..."

CFlat · 29-06-2017 09:56AM

123shooter wrote: »

I agree but wouldn't be funny to watch if someone proposed it in a parliament.:D

Ceann Comhairle- "So whats next on the agenda today?"

Proposer- " Its a bill about shaggin animals".

CC- "Now less of that unparliamentary language please".

Proposer-" No really, it's a bill about shagging animals".

sbsquarepants · 29-06-2017 10:22AM

You could count on the healy raes support anyway:D

sbsquarepants · 29-06-2017 10:34AM

Samaris wrote: »

Apart from the disease risk, there is also the non-uncommon side-effect of allergic reactions as well as injury. While the human in the piece probably brought it on themselves, it's abusive to the animal to expose it to injury. .

I don't know if that really holds water to be honest. The disease risk surely is very easily negated these days. The consent thing is a nonsense point as has been pointed out many times - we don't ask permission to kill them for food, or even for sport - we either care about their consent or we don't and we CLEARLY don't.

Samaris wrote: »

I do not see a consequent benefit for society to encourage bestiality.

There is no benefit for society, but I don't see a whole lot of risk either. A whole lot of things don't benefit society, or actively damage it and they're perfectly legal.

I think it's quite obvious that there is no actual logical reason for banning it, bar finding it repulsive - and that's not really a "valid" reason.

But that being said - good luck running for election on an "I want the right to fúck sheep" platform. Even in Kerry:D

Redhairedguy · 29-06-2017 11:08AM

If we start letting people shág animals, pretty soon they're going to want to be marrying them, and I don't like pedigree chum flavoured wedding cake....

Roger Hassenforder · 29-06-2017 11:26AM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I don't know if that really holds water to be honest. The disease risk surely is very easily negated these days. The consent thing is a nonsense point as has been pointed out many times - we don't ask permission to kill them for food, or even for sport - we either care about their consent or we don't and we CLEARLY don't.

I think it's quite obvious that there is no actual logical reason for banning it, bar finding it repulsive - and that's not really a "valid" reason.
D

Not to mind idiopathic disease, we do know 75% of emerging diseases are zoonotic, and we have little idea of their epidemiology. Let's not invite more by allowing people to fcuk their chinchillas, whether he appears to like it or not.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I think it's quite obvious that there is no actual logical reason for banning it, bar finding it repulsive - and that's not really a "valid" reason

Shagging corpses, assuming ones takes appropriate protection, including battering back the sides of the grave, also is repulsive, and illegal. But If you're willing to ignore the very evident health risks from giving the dog a proverbial bone, surely you'd consider digging up granny and giving her a dart?

Professor Moriarty · 29-06-2017 11:33AM

Redhairedguy wrote: »

If we start letting people shág animals, pretty soon they're going to want to be marrying them, and I don't like pedigree chum flavoured wedding cake....

Pretty soon the classrooms would be full of satyrs, centaurs, harpies...

Day Lewin · 29-06-2017 12:42PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Pretty soon the classrooms would be full of satyrs, centaurs, harpies...

We can skip a lot of the unpleasant preliminaries, so: because they are already.

What exactly is the problem with bestiality?

Comments