Asklemmy

54608 readers

474 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 7 years ago

MODERATORS

[Ethics] Why do people condemn Zoophilia on the basis of other animal's inability to consent but those same people kill animals without asking for their consent? Why such inconsistency? (lemmy.world)

submitted 21 hours ago by when@lemmy.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

123 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Be civil and follow principle of charity in the comments.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] mortemtyrannis@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 hours ago

On a significant level this is basically it.

I don’t believe moral facts exist and so every permissible behaviour ultimately is affected by societal expectations as well as individual inclination.

People clutch pearls over anything and everything but it’s interesting to observe how what was a pearl clutching behaviour previously (I.e. showing some ankle in Victorian era England) is now not even a concern.