Conversation

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
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
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.
1
5
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
I don't know? Like, there's some really good theories, but I'd like to discuss them more. Like, disease is good, but it brings up more questions in me about *other* disease-related taboos, and also frequency of disease required to create that taboo.