That is your interpretation of the question. I wonder what you were thinking about. This lady on the other hand is doing research on taboos. So that seems a valid question to get some results, no?
Conversation
She's defending it pretty strongly. I don't think I've seen a single response from her that was defending or even accepting the anti-beastiality side
1
1
7
She's not arguing for or against bestiality. She's asking about the origination of the taboo.
2
1
4
There's a very important contextual "Why?" following that question though. She doesn't understand why it's considered so "taboo". The only ones who don't consider beastiality taboo are obviously the ones who see nothing "repulsive" about "touching the genitals of other species".
1
Maybe the "why" should've been clarified. 'How did it become taboo?' might be less confusing for those arguing that she's advocating for the normalization of bestiality.
1
1
Find me an example of her agreeing with someone who is arguing against beastiality in this thread, and I may agree with you. What I've seen through her responses is not overwhelmingly pro-beastiality, it's completely pro-beastiality.
1
1
You haven’t read her respond if that’s what you’re taking from here. Completely pro bestiality is a completely false statement.
1
2
I've read her responses. Given the division among those responding, it seems she really should be clearer in her responses. Everything, contextually, seems to be siding with "why is beastiality bad, because it doesn't make sense to me that it is considered bad".
1
I haven't read anything context of, "of course we all consider beastiality bad, but the origins of the taboo are interesting to me. How do you think that originated?"
Notice the clarity. She really could have done a better job of wording everything, if she truly was 100% neutral
1
She’s not always good at articulating things well despite her verbosity and intellect. According to her posts in the past, she’s on the autism spectrum. Doesn’t mean that her lack of clarity translate to supporting bestiality.
2
1
To be clear: My metaethical stance is nihilism; my object-ethical stance is something like 'reduce harm.' If it hurts a living creature, it's probably worse than if it doesn't hurt them. Bestiality seems to have a relatively high rate of harm; I do not approve of causing harm.
Thanks for the clarification. So are you simply asking about the origins of the taboo and why it seems to hurt the animals involved?
1
I was asking about the origins of the taboo, yes. I wasn't asking about why it seems to hurt the animals... it seems to depend a lot on the animal? And when it does hurt it seems obvious why it hurts (physical damage)? I guess I find that question less interesting.
1