Is it evil or immoral?

40 years ago they said homosexuality was evil. 40 years ago they said wearing women’s clothing was a crime.

Is it evil, wicked, and immoral? What if you are a bonified homosexual? What if you are born male, but imagine you are a woman, and feel attracted to a woman, and you feel like a lesbian. So you are a bonified homosexual in that sense. But what if you are born male, and because you feel like you are a woman, you are attracted to yaoi, hot anime yugioh guys making out, and you are aroused at the idea of hot male homosexuality, so you are a bonified homosexual in that sense too. And the only porn you can look at is hot yuri, hot yaoi, or hot futa porn, hetero porn just bores you. Does being bored at the idea of heterosexuality mean you are evil and immoral?

Let’s say this. Say you are a good person, you are born male, you care about animals, you don’t eat meat, you want to save planet Earth, and you aren’t sexually attracted to human men because they act like apes, are barbarians who don’t care about animals, war with each other constantly, make nothing but rules and regs, and don’t care about planet Earth. These human men disgust you, they act like apes, look like apes, but society tells you to be gay and it’s okay to be gay. But you don’t want to be gay with male humans, because really what turns you on is male horses. Because male horses are strong, noble, pure of heart, and much sexier than male humans. It’s like a pheromone overload. And you imagine your purpose in life, to be utterly dominated and impregnated by them. And this fills you with glee. Because you know your purpose, is to be the mother of his babies, and you know the horse is much stronger than you, could crush your weak body with his feet, you are inferior to the horse and the horse knows it. He will thrash you, and you know there is a real danger of being ripped apart and damaged by him, and you know that you are only a female, one of many, to be used and abused by him, easily replaced. He is an utter beast, about to unleash, and you feel completely and utterly satisfied, but when you are around Male humans, you are utterly and completely disgusted, because human males are mean, meat-eaters, and weak and apeish. But society expects and tells you that having sex with evil, odious, ape-like male humans is good, having sex with noble, superior, equine male horses is evil.

Humans say murder is evil, yet all they do is murder dogs at the pound every day. This is because they are disgusting cowards who want to expand their city, they are selfish and do not care about anyone’s wellbeing but their own.

It is a well-known fact that many girls ride horses bareback to achieve orgasm. But if they are in one piece of land, society says they are evil, wicked, and must suffer and be punished. But if they walk 5 feet and cross to the other side of the land, society says they are good, nice, and perfectly alright people. Do you know how stupid humanity is? They are a race of idiots and primates. If I have a girlfriend who is 17 years old, an angry mob full of torchbearers is shouting at the top of their lungs, running after me trying to murder both me and her, screaming “Murica”, saying I am evil and deserve to die. But if I row my boat half a mile to the other side of the river, the people on the other side welcome me in open arms, and chant “Bacon” “Bacon” Bacon". Both sides disgust me, “Murica” because it is an angry mob of simpletons, and the bacon-eaters are disgusting, ignoble meat-eaters.
Both sides are evil primates who deserve harsh judgement.

If I was born in the jungle, and I don’t speak English, and I don’t know anything about society. Say I am in the jungle, smoking a plant I dug up from the ground. Then a bunch of Swat, Police invade the jungle, and then arrest me in some babbling language I don’t understand. What did I do wrong? Now they torture me and lock me up for reasons I don’t understand, making me eat butchered animals that I would have never ate normally, just because I dug up a random herb from the ground.

Humans are an evil, disgusting, race of hyprocrits who routinely make bad decisions. They are a sadistic and evil race, they like to lock all life-forms in cages. They are hypocrits because they call locking people up in cages as compassionate. But locking someone up in a cage is actually the worst kind of torture and they know it. In Captain America, the Avengers are the sane and rational ones. They try to save America but noone will listen to them, Iron Man and his iron fist simply will not listen to logic and reason. It doesn’t matter that he has a 200 IQ because he is a moron, idiot, and will not listen to logic and reason. And the Avengers try to save lives, but their reward is getting locked in a cage with nothing to do, which is the ultimate kind of torture, cruel yet usual punishment. I hate humans, I hate society, and I hate the world, I hope they all get divine intervention, they are a stupid race of baboons and primitives. It is as Ecmandu said, we are in a world ran by idiots and we are clearly here for torture.

An animal cannot give consent and this is why bestiality is wrong both legally and morally. The
fact that humans eat the meat of animals is irrelevant for one has nothing to do with the other

Has your mind been affected by the blog written by the female (see rant thread, killing women is natural and healthy by mannequin) who equates morality with orgasm, or the fulfillment of her sexuality?

Maybe you didn’t read it… Either way, you two don’t sound so different…

So, surreptitious, are you saying that “consenting” is what defines morality of an act? So, if somebody doesn’t “consent”, the action could never be moral?

If an organism cannot give consent, then, how do we decide what is a moral action? You seem to be saying that there is a possibility that bestiality can be moral, but, only on the conditions that they consent.

Also, is consent merely verbal?

A lack of consent can be expressed in many ways, and doing it verbally, is just one method of doing so, and since there are several methods of expressing consent or non-consent, it is actually possible to express both simultaneously, this happens with people regularly when they are indecisive (think of a female who finds herself in the situation of being able to cheat on her mate), half-in-half-out, however, I think that consent or non-consent that should be prioritized in the case of people should be verbal, mind over body, but only as long as the mind is in control or assertive (don’t say one thing, and act another way, if the body overcomes, the consent, or lack of, loses credibility).

When I attack an animal, and it flees or attacks back, couldn’t we say that, this resistance, is evidence of a lack of consent of my intent or action?

Similarly when a baboon lets another baboon give it a massage, isn’t it consenting on some level?

So, following from this, if “Ultimate Philo.” wants to have sex with a horse or whatever other specie, and it does not resist, and perhaps derives pleasure from it, could we not view this as consent, and thus, moral, according to your line of thinking?

Shouldn’t this idea of consent apply to everything, then?

Do you really think, that, the human specie, is consenting to everything that is happening to them?

Certainly not, so, does that make everything we are ignorant of, that is happening to us, immoral?

Further, that it can only become moral, under the conditions that we are able to perceive it, and consent to it, and this has nothing to do with the nature of the action?

You say that, it is because of the fact that it is due to a lack of consent, that it is illegal (and also immoral), but how can that be? If morality or the legality of an action is defined by whether one consents or not, then, the law could, according to this line of thought, potentially be immoral itself, or that otherwise, there ought to be a sort of fluid law that assembles itself in reference to consent or a lack of consent…

When I stroke my dog’s head and then pull my hand away, he pushes his head under my hand because he wants me to continue. This implies consent.

A horse could indicate lack of consent to sex in a number of ways, e.g. by kicking you in your special private place.

Animals withhold consent from being killed and eaten by doing everything they can to avoid it. This shows that eating animals is wrong. It is not true that eating animals has nothing to do with bestiality - they are both examples of humans using animals for their own ends.

Sex with a horse may not be wrong if the horse voluntarily comes back for more, indicating consent. Personally I find the idea of sex with a horse rather repellent, but I recognise that this is an aesthetic response, not an ethical or moral one.

Consent is often an indicator of morality rather than a deciding factor. Even if a horse could reasonably be considered to have given consent to sex with a human, this would not necessarily mean that the human was not behaving wrongly in having sex with the horse. Horses are nervous and highly strung animals, and the experience would probably be psychologically damaging to the horse. It is really for this kind of reason - the effect on the animal - that bestiality is morally wrong, rather than because the animal cannot give consent. Animals, after all, are not inanimate objects. They have interests of their own - which, once again, is why it is wrong to kill and eat them.

Is it evil or immoral?
Neither, it is Beyond Good and Evil, remember why Nietzche lost it? Because of a horse.

Erasing all the God is real boom and bust shit. But show me one gay couple who don’t want it.

Ahh… so THAT’S how he contracted syphilis!

reading this triggered a random thought, figured i’d share it:

question: if no woman consented to sex, would rape be an immoral act?

Eh as long as there is a bible as a moral authority then these will still be seen as immoral by some

Good and Evil are not independent of context.

I would say so. Because why would you want to bring a child into such a world?