How hypocritical 99% of society is

Morality is a personal impulse.

Your continual refusal to answer a simple question forces me to assume an answer. Based on the quoted statement, bestiality is only wrong if a person believes it is wrong. In other words, you believe that bestiality is a justifiable act depending on the individual's personal preferences.

I don't see that milking cows makes them suffer much.

I disagree.

I watched the cows getting milked and they didn't seem to be doing anything that would indicate they were suffering.

Ok.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxJ3d_hnXXM

What makes you, a bunch of flesh and bones with a brain any more entitled to be treated with 'moral rights' than a gorilla or even a frog?

Great question, do you have an answer ?

Nobody has inherently got the right to anything, we grant it to one another based on it being seen as optimal for each of our wellbeings to do so.

You don’t need gastronomical gratification, people do need to eat (plants).

if you believe it is immoral to harm animals then you must also believe it is immoral to slaughter them animals.

You don’t need gastronomical gratification, people do need to eat (plants).

Surely there's more to eating meats than just gastronomical gratification; there are health benefits to eating meat, but I suppose that's contingent on which meat we're examining. One can survive as a vegetarian or vegan, but just as with meats, there are risks in exclusivity.

if you believe it is immoral to harm animals then you must also believe it is immoral to slaughter them animals.

Well it's a good thing that I don't consider harming animals immoral in and of itself.

Under what specific criteria do you believe it is immoral to harm an animal ?

Under what specific criteria do you believe it is immoral to harm an animal ?

As I said previously, it is difficult to place black and white categories on the immorality of animal abuse. We must handle situations as they arise.

However, bestiality is a black and white moral category. It's a wicked degrading act.

I'm just curious if that "black & white" status is based on some coherent-moral-principle (CoMoPr) or just more of a "gut instinct" ?

• ‘Cursed is he who lies with any animal.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’ (Deuteronomy 27:21)

How much and what type of meat is required for a human to maintain health ?

And one could argue that even plant-based foods can serve the purpose of gastronomical gratification.

• ‘Cursed is he who lies with any animal.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’ (Deuteronomy 27:21)
  

• ‘Cursed is the one who treats his father or his mother with contempt.’ (Deuteronomy 27:16)

It's nice to know that the admonishment against bestiality is condemned with the exact same gravity as parental contempt.

It's nice to know that the admonishment against bestiality is condemned with the exact same gravity as parental contempt.

That depends on how you understand the term "cursed." The point is that bestiality is clearly condemned. But it doesn't take a biblical scholar to see the depravity involved in humans having sex with animals.

I'm merely trying to point out that nobody is shocking potatoes with cattle prods in order to get them to move from one cage to another.

Consistent principles of textual interpretation.

I can show deference to that stance so long as the reasoning is consistent.

It's a purely conditional statement.

(IFF) causing pain and or discomfort to animals is "morally wrong" (THEN) slaughtering animals must also be at least equally "morally wrong"

(IFF) causing pain and or discomfort to animals is "morally neutral" (THEN) slaughtering animals must also be at least equally "morally neutral"

(IFF) bestiality is prohibited because of deuteronomy 27 (THEN) parental contempt must also be at equally prohibited because of deuteronomy 27

The fact that we are having a dialogue shows me you understand at least the most basic principles of textual interpretation. Do I really need to explain things such as definitions, grammar, and authorial intent for you to understand what I am referring to?

If they are both considered morally evil, then what point are you trying to make?

They should both carry equal penalties under the law.

For example, video of children speaking ill of their own parents (or even parents in general) should be censored in the same manner and with the same urgency as bestiality.