Bones is Back

Despite everything, it's still me.

[Bones is Back @_boneslime]

@LogicThylacine @Zoophier The zeta principles are fine, this isn't about that. It's about the fact that animal abusers have hidden behind the zeta flag, and the zoo community has sheltered them. Yet you maintain that the people who are open about their fetish are the ones who can't be trusted.

[Bones is Back @_boneslime]

@LogicThylacine @Zoophier 🙄 Why do I bother...

[Bones is Back @_boneslime]

@LogicThylacine @Zoophier What happened to all the followers of the zeta principles?

[Bones is Back @_boneslime]

@Chezetaki @LogicThylacine @Zoophier That is not what I was talking about.

[Bones is Back @_boneslime]

@LogicThylacine @Zoophier Seems like your little group has a much bigger problem with sheltering abusers than mine. But what would I know

[Bones is Back @_boneslime]

@hereforthezoo Wow, this new strain must be even more contagious than we thought.

[Bones is Back @_boneslime]

@MillerMatthew20 @hereforthezoo "Critical thinker" on Twitter jumps to uncritical conclusion. Bravo?

[Peter Singer @PeterSinger]

Q: You posted an article indicating that sexual intercourse with animals is morally permissible. You've also in the past published a book arguing for veganism.

That being the case, is it your official position that eating animals is not okay but having sex with them is?

A: I didn't write the article on the permissibility of zoophilia. It was published in the Journal of Controversial Ideas, a journal that pushes back against "cancel culture" by providing an outlet for controversial ideas, which authors can publish under a pseudonym. I am a founding co-editor of that journal. The fact that we judge an article worthy of publication does not indicate that I or my co-editors agree with the views contained in it. We send articles submitted to us out for peer review, and if the reviewers consider that the article contains controversial ideas that are defended by argument of a sufficiently high standard to warrant publication, we publish the article. The Journal of Controversial Ideas is free and open access, for everyone to read. We rely on donations from supporters of freedom of thought and discussion to sustain it.

You asked me whether it is my view that eating animals is not okay but having sex with them is. Here is one way of thinking about this question.

Imagine that you are an animal locked up all of your life in a factory farm stall too narrow for you to even turn around, let alone walk a single step, so that you have nothing to do all day except stand up and lie down on a floor consisting of bare metal slats. Then you are crammed into a truck and driven for many hours to a place where you will be slaughtered. This is what happens to millions of pigs in the US today, and the lives of billions of other factory-farmed animals are no better.

Now imagine that you are an animal living with a person who cares for you and loves you in all the ways that most people love their companion animals, but in addition, this person sometimes has sexual contact with you, making sure that the contact does not hurt you, and leaving you free to move away if you don't like it. You live out your natural lifespan like this, and when you get old and terminally ill and are in distress, the person who cares for you, full of sadness, takes you gently to a veterinarian who puts you to sleep.

Which animal would you rather be?

[Peter Singer @PeterSinger]

Another thought-provoking article is "Zoophilia Is Morally Permissible" by Fira Bensto (pseudonym), which is just out in the current issue of @JConIdeas.

This piece challenges one of society's strongest taboos and argues for the moral permissibility of some forms of sexual contact between humans and animals. This article offers a controversial perspective that calls for a serious and open discussion on animal ethics and sex ethics.

Read and ponder: https://t.co/N1ZEkBtPPm

Art generated by Open AI’s DALL-E.

[Bones is Back @_boneslime]

@senjii2022 @garylfrancione @PeterSinger @JConIdeas Give me one historical example of when that has ever turned out to be true.

[Bones is Back @_boneslime]

@CoolestGeekJBS @garylfrancione @PeterSinger @JConIdeas Or perhaps his argument is about the minimisation of harm and suffering by attempting to measure those things objectively, rather than to assume their presence through the application of anthropocentric tests like verbal consent, which clearly do not apply to animals.

[Bones is Back @_boneslime]

@senjii2022 @garylfrancione @PeterSinger @JConIdeas People who prefer to challenge their "gut feeling" instead of relying on it. Revulsion is not a valid alternative to a counter-argument.

[Bones is Back @_boneslime]

@hereforthezoo @MillerMatthew20 Comparing Singer to Nazis isn't new. Take a look at this 1999 article from The Guardian. Nearly 25 years on and people are still making the same lazy conflation to sidestep the need for any worthwhile critique of his arguments. https://t.co/1R9ZjSReDK

[Bones is Back @_boneslime]

@JeaRousseau @7ip7ap @PeterSinger Then by extension, you're saying it's also impossible to prove it was non-consentual. In some places, the criminal penalty for bestiality is life in prison, or even death. Should people be put to death for a crime where victimhood cannot be established?

[Bones is Back @_boneslime]

@janehallett @PeterSinger @washingtonpost got u fam https://t.co/Ovbzn5zGNd