A top academic has caused outrage by appearing to approve of having sex with animals. . . because it's better than slaughtering them.

Philosopher and Animals Australia co-founder Peter Singer made the comments in a very long response to an article which he posted on Twitter/X. Titled “Zoophilia is Morally Permissible”, it was written by someone using a pseudonym Fire Bensto.

The article argued that it was actually OK to have a sexual relationship with animals (which it's not), and Singer was slammed for sharing it. But in explaining why he shared he, he dug an even bigger hole for himself. He went into great detail about how having a sexual relationship with an animal was not a bad thing because it would be treated better than seeing it brought up badly just to be slaughtered for food.

READ MORE: Danger tourists sneak into 'world's most dangerous town' that's been removed from maps

For more news from around the world, click here.

He bizarrely argued: “Imagine that you are an animal locked up all of your life in a factory farm stall too narrow for you even to 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.

• 

  Monkeys kill 10-year-old boy with intestine-ripping onslaught in third attack in a week

“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?”

Regardless of his argument, he was destroyed on social media by many people who were disgusted with the piece. British actor James Dreyfus posted: “Oh stop it, for goodness sake. What’s the matter with you??”

And another person commented: “I doesn’t challenge anything because it’s wrong. Someone who argues we ought to allow murder is not challenging anything they are just wrong. This is just wrong. It doesn’t need to be considered – reason permits us to make these calls.”

To stay up to date with all the latest news, make sure you sign up to one of our newsletters here.

Source: Read Full Article