Bestiality vs Murder?

If you had to do one of these things to a dog, which would you do?

  • Kill it.
  • Sex it.
  • Can’t deside
0 voters

According to Jewish and modern morality,
Giving an animal sexual pleasure is worse then killing it.

In ancient Isreal they’d stone you to death if you sucked off your favorite horse.

Let’s see how the moral clocks are ticking at ILP today…

Why do I say murder?
Well, if you killed a mentally handicapped human, that’d be “bad”, because even if that being was not as intelligent as a normal human, they still want to live and have feelings.

YarRr, there are pleanty of animals which have more witt and self-sustaining capacity then a retarded human. But what negates the animal’s wanting to live and having feelings?

If you killed a person and ate him or her, it would not be a “senseless act of killing”, it would be “killing for food”, just like hunting is? Etc.
That’s why I chose the word “murder” for this post.

Break out the KY, straight up.

I mean really, what’s worse, dick intrusion or the intrusion of a bullet?

I don’t wanna sound crude here but the answer is easy enough from my perspective.

This is an… .interesting thread though.

You’re the minority.

A hunter or a butcher has more public respect then a zoophile.

We’re talking murder/sex right?

Not like… fucking a pig instead of using it for food.

Vegetarians only in this thread so far, I suppose?

I’d kill that dog straight up.

EDIT: Very good thread topic, Dan~- this one has been coming for a while now.

I’m saving lives and getting busy, sounds like a fair trade.

This is some heavy shit… :sunglasses:

The idea that immoral actions should be punished – can potentially lead to violent ‘punishment’ towards a non-violent ‘sin’.

But at the root, I’ve estimated that all beings want to be accepted, not punished. If I guy or girl got licked off and swallowed, the psychological message would basically be: acceptance. Acceptance of a part of someone which was often suppressed, hidden, and insecure. If only for a few minutes, the feeling of total acceptance is that of an ecstacy.

The feeling of total acceptance can theoretically exist without sexual intimacy, BUT, as humans only personally accept what pleases them, you’ll most likely only feel the ecstacy of total-acceptance during some form of intimacy [and thus the concept of “true love” attaching itself to human sexual partnerships].

And the opposite end of the scale, there is total inacceptance, which manifests as hate. When persons strongly believe [due to popularity of a moral idea] that something is not acceptable, they will hate it, and be potentially willing to punish it.

The “reason” for “moral-justice” is the pleasure of acceptance, and the pain of inacceptance. The pleasure of acceptance can be given to a body for any reason, or for no reason at all. Ex: some children love others for “no reason”; they simply enjoy the feeling of accepting others.

But the source of pleasure has been shifting. The mass produced luxury products have been gaining positions of power and glory, whilst the more child-like “love-without-reason” – is almost non-existent in society. Whereever the pleasure comes from, the power will move into. The will to please is The Will To Power.

Well that’s what I’m trying to figure out.

I mean if we’re talking about say… a pig here. Well chances are it’s going to be killed for food anyways so I would just give it a nice prayer and off it.

But if we’re just talking straight up ‘Murder’ murder or sex, then definitely sex.

Yipe. Uccisore has taken the side of population-control and sexual morality.
So-far [on the votes] we’ve got:
1 _ Population-controller.
3 _ I can’t bring myself to kill someone/something.

You’d have to eat allot of meat before you get a full indirect murder-point.

Jesus, here comes the abortion thesis, also:

Is it worse to kill an old man, or a child?
If it’s worse to kill a child, that means it’s worse to end a life when it has more potential years and innocence ahead of it. Is it worse to kill a fetus or a 5 year old? Etc.

So, if we are going by age-based death-morality, killing an old or adult animal is not really that bad, as they will be dieing within a few years anyways, and if you kill them painlessly, it’s allot less painful for them then a slow death by natural disease.

I only clicked “sex it” because I can’t bring myself to kill something. It is my emotional nature.


Can you explain to me how you mean ‘murder’? Like, when it is murdering an animal, and when it is just regular killing an animal?

“Ew” actually comes to mind.

Beastiality isn’t my thing. Neither is killing. Though, I’m no vegetarian.

Bang (as in a gunshot…not…you know)

Yeah, because we are talkin’ about Pro-life vs Anti-life judgments.
Population control is one of the most controversial issues I can think of on the entire earth, because all beings want to live and mate, they don’t want to die and be celebate.

I’ll explain and go into details here:

The sexing would be intimate. It would take time and you’d have to do it with your hands or another part of your body. You’d have to personally face this being and do something to it.

The murdering would be close and personal also. You would have to beat the animal to death, watch it try to escape, watch it as it felt the fear and the pain. 'Twould also take a few minutes and be done with your own body.

No guns or strap-on-vibraters in the imagined moral thought-experiment, because these will distance someone from what they are causing.


Yes, guns and artillery distance a person from what they are doing to another being, and also things like nukes and bombers/fighters, it all has a distancing-effect on the personal-responsability-emotional-complex.

Can I add that after I killed the dog, I would also kill the motherf*cker who put me in the position to choose between the two acts?

EDIT: With the conditions you stipulated, Dan~, I admit it would be a more difficult choice, but at that point, I feel it’s not even really a moral question anymore, it’s just a “what would gross you out less, dude?” type of question.

Lmfao. Agreed.


Anger doesn’t fix anything.

Well in this case ‘murder’ would be pouring salt on a slug and laughing as it dissolves to death. Killing would be a native hunting an animal, giving it a proper recognition and appreciation, and then using it for food and whatever else.

Of course nowadays with like… pigs being raised in little metal cubes and then being sysematically slaughtered the concept of the appreciative hunter has diminished immensely…

Yeah, Old_Gobbo, I need to reference back to my EDIT above. Depending on how we define ‘killing’ and ‘sex’, this could speedily become a non-ethical question.
My take on it is that because we kill animals for food, as well as kill them for sport, as well as kill them just for being inconvenient (i.e. rats and so on), then I can justify killing the animal in this case. If you need a moral ground, here it is:

In effect, someone has demanded that you have sex with an animal- the only way out of the situation is to kill the animal instead. Killing the animal to preserve your own human dignity and virtue as a good person is surely at least as good of a reason as killing it because it, I dunno, got into your house and shit in your cornflakes uninvited.