Bay 12 Games Forum

Well. That was amusing. Telemarketer trying to sell some kind of bupkis vehicle protection nonsense. Asked if my car was a '02 or later. Told 'em it was a '95 model. I don't believe I've ever had one of those folks hang up that quickly before.

@ FD: Nah, that was a legit question. I'm aware that there's focused ones, but for violent murder to actually be banned it'd take a blanket hunting ban... meat industry, etc., so forth, so on.

The argument made usually doesn't hinge on harm*, though, but rather consent. It doesn't really matter how humane you make the meat industry (or anything involving quite a bit... pets, reserves, there's just this whole swath of massively consent violating activities we don't even blink at.) it's still necessarily violating the concept of consent -- further, it flies in the face of how we treat entities that can consent, because we don't legally allow people to let themselves be eaten... hunted, killed at all (though that is loosening a bit, in some situations), corralled into limited spaces (generally concentration camp/native reserve type things are fairly condemned, at least from what I've seen.), etc., so forth, so on. Hell, society in general (and most people) even frown on or intervene with pet-like interaction between humans. More involved there than just appeal to the numbers, but... yeah.

Which is why, if I were going to argue against zoophilia on a moral basis, I wouldn't be using consent as a basis for my argument. It's incredibly obvious we, as a species**, do not actually give a shit about whether animals do or do not give consent (or at least only care when it's not inconvenient ). S'why I have a minor compulsion to poke at the argument when it comes up, because it's almost painfully obvious those arguing from the position of consent are incredibly rarely doing so in good faith. They don't apply the heuristic even remotely consistently, and it's... annoying? I guess.

After all, it's a professional slaughterer who uses a single incision across the throat, cutting through all veins and arteries. IIRC, With such a blood loss, the animal looses consciousness within 30 seconds and often much sooner.

If that were done to a human, we'd still consider it fairly violent murder, in most situations

What's porc?

Pig. Swine. Pork. Porc.

*That's actually an easier one to make, but considerably more limited in potential scope. As scriv rightfully mentioned, cross species interaction of that sort can often lead to damage. Problem being for those wishing to universally condemn the practice is that not all interaction does, and if you were trying to stick to a consistent justification pattern you'd have to allow the edge cases.
** And from what I've seen it's an incredibly rare individual that actually consistently cares about consent.

You can violently murder them, skin them, and consume their flesh, without people batting an eyelash or asking if they want to be murdered, skinned, and ate (not that that would matter, as the laws generally disallow that even with consent, iirc), but frisky times come up and suddenly everyone's in jail. Consistency!

I'unno, it does sort of fit in with the general western trend of sex somehow being exponentially worse than violence...

O'clock, Darv. 1 o'clock. PM. 1300, 18/10/2013. The thirteenth hour of the eighteenth day of the tenth month of the two thousand and thirteenth year of our Lord. _{tomorroooooowww}

Every saturday is also a 1

... usually.

FUCK IT I can't sprite. I can't do art for shit.

"FEEL MY PAIN AND KNOW MY SUFFERING! AHAHAHAHAHA!"

I notice a conspicuous lack of statement regarding moose.