Asklemmy

54624 readers

453 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 7 years ago

MODERATORS

105

[Ethics] Why do people condemn Zoophilia on the basis of other animal's inability to consent but those same people kill animals without asking for their consent? Why such inconsistency? (lemmy.world)

submitted 2 days ago by when@lemmy.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

256 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Be civil and follow principle of charity in the comments.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] sunbeam60@feddit.uk 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I guess because animals (eg tigers) eat other animals (e.g deer) and have evolved exactly towards that purpose. That’s how their species survives.

It’s not often that I see a tiger performing sexual assault on a deer. That’s not required for the tiger’s survival.

Now whether humans are “naturally” meat eaters and therefore we should feel “better” about eating animals I don’t know. Nutritionally I think the evidence probably leans towards being omnivore, similar to many other apes and monkeys.