|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On June 14 2013 20:14 ExKkaMaGui wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 20:10 marvellosity wrote:On June 14 2013 20:04 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 20:00 marvellosity wrote:On June 14 2013 19:58 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 19:57 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:56 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 19:51 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:50 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 19:46 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree? I agree with you, but if I know that people in my community are fucking animals, to me, that's a harm because it bothers me that there are people out there that do that. I think you don't know what the word harm means. I think that attitude is far more harmful to society than some guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home yet you don't see me sending you to jail for it. Actually, harm can be defined simply as "wrongdoing", it's a common definition. Could you use that in a common sentence for me? Having people who fuck animals in society is a wrongdoing. (common for this discussion) No, "wrongdoing" is a terrible, terrible description because it becomes completely subjective, which defeats the whole purpose of it. This is the classical definition of harm, from JS Mill: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principleThe harm principle holds that the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals. John Stuart Mill articulated this principle in On Liberty, where he argued that, "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." So out of all the people, you quote a philosopher. Kant said it is impossible to obtain direct, unbiased knowledge about an object or event. So yea, quote a person's biased definition and imply it's true because you agree with it. Don't try to say my opinion is wrong in a topic where no one can truly be wrong. I quote the dude who originally/succinctly came up with a definition of harm, which we're using here. As Umlaut says, your whole argument is circular. Try thinking this way then: if an individual partakes in an action, in private, that does not harm (even if you call it wrongdoing) anyone else, then what's the problem? So a dude shagging a sheep in his bedroom. No-one else ever finds out. What's the harm to any other individual? Literally zero. Compare to any basic illegality. Murder, rape, assault, fraud, burglery. These all have effects on another human being, even if, say, a dude burgled a house and no-one knew about it. Someone has had their property infringed and removed. What harm to you, as a delicate flower, does a guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home do to you, if you don't know about it? Literally zero. Ok, so say I went to the tropical rain forest, and discovered a new species of frogs (highly likely since we've only discovered about 3% of species). The frogs are some special rainbow colored frog. I kill them all. You never find out about it. No harm right? Because you didn't know and it doesn't affect humans. Also, you brought up that definition of harm. Then to claim that "we" are using that definition? Pure arrogance. The difference is, you are saying I am wrong and trying to argue that I am indeed wrong. But all I am doing is stating my opinion and asking questions to gain some insight to what others think.
You're making an argument that you're being harmed when you're not. That's all there is to it really.
|
United States42654 Posts
On June 14 2013 20:16 ExKkaMaGui wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 20:13 Reason wrote:On June 14 2013 20:09 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 20:05 AmericanUmlaut wrote:On June 14 2013 19:58 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 19:57 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:56 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 19:51 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:50 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 19:46 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree? I agree with you, but if I know that people in my community are fucking animals, to me, that's a harm because it bothers me that there are people out there that do that. I think you don't know what the word harm means. I think that attitude is far more harmful to society than some guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home yet you don't see me sending you to jail for it. Actually, harm can be defined simply as "wrongdoing", it's a common definition. Could you use that in a common sentence for me? Having people who fuck animals in society is a wrongdoing. (common for this discussion) Do you recognize that your argument is circular? Bestiality should be illegal because it's harmful, it's harmful because harm can mean wrongdoing, and bestiality is "a wrongdoing". Your argument basically boils down to "bestiality should be illegal because I think so." You're not actually defining how it's harmful above and beyond any harm actually done to the animal, except in the sense that you consider your mental anguish at having to live in a world in which something disgusting is happening to be harm. To be clear, I am not arguing anything because that would imply I am trying to win by proving my point, which I am not doing. If I was arguing something, the sentence wasn't to support my argument. I just used the word in a sentence. And yes, my "mental anguish" at having to live in a world in which people are fucking animals was what I was calling harm. I am not saying I can't sleep at night, but it does bother me. So a small harm. lol your mental anguish at having to live in a world in which people are fucking animals is what you refer to as harm? The homophobe can make the exact same argument against homosexuality and would obviously be incredibly stupid in doing so, why do you think it's different here? It also bothers me that too many people are way too self interested in our society. I never called it mental anguish. All I was saying was if something is bothersome, it can be considered a harm. The question is up to what degree.
No, it really, really, REALLY cannot.
|
On June 14 2013 20:12 S:klogW wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 20:06 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 20:02 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:54 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:52 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:46 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:35 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:09 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 18:53 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 18:45 aNGryaRchon wrote:
[quote]
Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak.
I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise.
There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future.
Massive Facepalm. dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care. edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something. Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on. That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse. so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence. edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves. My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree? yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed. Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand. but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one  I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one. If someone believes that eating animals is literally murder then good luck to them, their position is intellectually sound although I think somewhat silly. Also I feel strongly about this because I think it's a litmus test for allowing sexual freedom based on principles of the government not being in the bedroom against just allowing what the majority think is fine. If we allow homosexuality and then ban beastiality based purely upon the distaste of the majority then we really haven't learned a thing. Could the harm then be that sex with other species might cause the transfer of disease to humans?
You know what, you raise a good question.
They might be banning it to stop the spread of STDs.
I cannot really say what they are going for here, but I think that might be it.
|
United States42654 Posts
On June 14 2013 20:17 Passion wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 20:12 Incognoto wrote:On June 14 2013 18:00 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 17:43 Reason wrote:On June 14 2013 17:38 KwarK wrote:
I strongly disagree with this change, if no animal is being harmed then who gives a fuck, people outrank animals anyway and the law has no place in the bedroom. o.O this doesn't sound like your typical overly-sarcastic post that says the complete opposite of what you believe in an effort to emphasise how stupid that line of thinking is. Bolded section is only thing that makes me still think this is a joke but tone is hard to detect on the internet.... Reading the following post I can only assume this is how you really feel about the issue ???  Murder of people is wrong, slaughter of animals is fine, the reason for this is that our system or morality puts value on sentience and we have it and they don't. We outrank them. No people are being harmed and this is in the bedroom between consenting adults and what we view legally as little more than biological machines for creating meat and other animal products, I'd much rather the law accepted that it simply had no place in the bedroom that going after things that the vast majority can hate on. Take gay sex. It's not fine because it's two consenting adults, it's fine because no-one is getting harmed because they're two consenting adults. The fact that consenting adults are involved doesn't necessarily make something fine, rather it is the lack of harm that makes it fine and the consent is relevant because it indicates a lack of harm. A man fucking a dog is fine for the exact same reason as gay sex, because no-one is getting harmed. The law has no place in the bedroom outside of protecting people and the previous laws already covered that. This is just picking a sexual niche and outlawing it for no reason, the previous law even covered the animal cruelty aspect, this law only criminalises no cruel beastiality. All right, here is a highly controversial question: by this logic, marriage between animals and humans should also be possible? No - he defines animals as meat machines. You can't marry a machine. The fact that animals are defined as such obviously is utterly ridiculous.
Care to elaborate on this? That is, as far as I can see, the avenue to attack my stance on but I honestly can't see how you can go down that road and not end up at "meat is murder".
|
|
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On June 14 2013 20:18 ExKkaMaGui wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 20:12 S:klogW wrote:On June 14 2013 20:06 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 20:02 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:54 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:52 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:46 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:35 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:09 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 18:53 xM(Z wrote:
[quote]
dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care.
edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something. Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on. That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse. so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence. edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves. My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree? yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed. Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand. but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one. If someone believes that eating animals is literally murder then good luck to them, their position is intellectually sound although I think somewhat silly. Also I feel strongly about this because I think it's a litmus test for allowing sexual freedom based on principles of the government not being in the bedroom against just allowing what the majority think is fine. If we allow homosexuality and then ban beastiality based purely upon the distaste of the majority then we really haven't learned a thing. Could the harm then be that sex with other species might cause the transfer of disease to humans? You know what, you raise a good question. They might be banning it to stop the spread of STDs. I cannot really say what they are going for here, but I think that might be it.
Kwark used the example already. What if you found gay sex 'bothersome'?
If the 90-95% of straight people in a country found gay sex 'bothersome', do you think it would be right to legislate against gay sex?
|
On June 14 2013 20:06 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 20:02 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:54 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:52 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:46 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:35 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:09 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 18:53 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 18:45 aNGryaRchon wrote:On June 14 2013 18:27 Reason wrote:
[quote]
Good lord making love is an expression synonymous with having sex, but usually implies an emotional connection or meaning behind the action than simply having sex.
Do you accept some people love animals?
Do you accept some people have sex with animals?
If the answer to both of those questions is yes then why is it so difficult for your infant mind to wrap itself around the concept that some people consider their intimate relations with an animal to be love making?
Seriously, stop being a massive penis. Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak. I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise. There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future. Massive Facepalm. dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care. edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something. Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on. That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse. so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence. edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves. My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree? yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed. Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand. but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one. If someone believes that eating animals is literally murder then good luck to them, their position is intellectually sound although I think somewhat silly.
you are hiding behind well established semantics but semantics nonetheless.
animal cruelty laws are hypocritical. you can not hide behind them and be a white knight for XYZ rights at the same time. you are using hypocritical concepts as a sound/valid premise for your argument and then, at the same time, you are judging people who dare to be hypocritical.
|
On June 14 2013 20:14 ExKkaMaGui wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 20:10 marvellosity wrote:On June 14 2013 20:04 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 20:00 marvellosity wrote:On June 14 2013 19:58 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 19:57 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:56 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 19:51 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:50 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 19:46 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree? I agree with you, but if I know that people in my community are fucking animals, to me, that's a harm because it bothers me that there are people out there that do that. I think you don't know what the word harm means. I think that attitude is far more harmful to society than some guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home yet you don't see me sending you to jail for it. Actually, harm can be defined simply as "wrongdoing", it's a common definition. Could you use that in a common sentence for me? Having people who fuck animals in society is a wrongdoing. (common for this discussion) No, "wrongdoing" is a terrible, terrible description because it becomes completely subjective, which defeats the whole purpose of it. This is the classical definition of harm, from JS Mill: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principleThe harm principle holds that the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals. John Stuart Mill articulated this principle in On Liberty, where he argued that, "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." So out of all the people, you quote a philosopher. Kant said it is impossible to obtain direct, unbiased knowledge about an object or event. So yea, quote a person's biased definition and imply it's true because you agree with it. Don't try to say my opinion is wrong in a topic where no one can truly be wrong. I quote the dude who originally/succinctly came up with a definition of harm, which we're using here. As Umlaut says, your whole argument is circular. Try thinking this way then: if an individual partakes in an action, in private, that does not harm (even if you call it wrongdoing) anyone else, then what's the problem? So a dude shagging a sheep in his bedroom. No-one else ever finds out. What's the harm to any other individual? Literally zero. Compare to any basic illegality. Murder, rape, assault, fraud, burglery. These all have effects on another human being, even if, say, a dude burgled a house and no-one knew about it. Someone has had their property infringed and removed. What harm to you, as a delicate flower, does a guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home do to you, if you don't know about it? Literally zero. Ok, so say I went to the tropical rain forest, and discovered a new species of frogs (highly likely since we've only discovered about 3% of species). The frogs are some special rainbow colored frog. I kill them all. You never find out about it. No harm right? Because you didn't know and it doesn't affect humans. Also, you brought up that definition of harm. Then to claim that "we" are using that definition? Pure arrogance. The difference is, you are saying I am wrong and trying to argue that I am indeed wrong. But all I am doing is stating my opinion and asking questions to gain some insight to what others think.
The difference is you have caused obvious harm to these frogs.
The "not finding out about it" is only relevant because you tried to say your problem with bestiality was essentially just the thought of it happening.
Nobody is saying just because it doesn't affect humans or just because nobody finds out about it that no harm is done.
The argument is that not all sex with animals causes harm to the animal. If it doesn't harm the animal or the person having sex with the animal and nobody finds out about it so can't have their sensibilities offended (which doesn't matter anyway, see homophobe, seperate tangent) then there has been no harm done.
I hope this clears that up for you and you don't feel the need to equate having sex with an animal and causing it no harm with covert extinction of entire species.
If you want to discuss whether it's possible to have sex with an animal and not cause it harm, fine then do so.
|
On June 14 2013 20:17 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 20:14 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 20:10 marvellosity wrote:On June 14 2013 20:04 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 20:00 marvellosity wrote:On June 14 2013 19:58 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 19:57 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:56 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 19:51 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:50 ExKkaMaGui wrote:
[quote]
I agree with you, but if I know that people in my community are fucking animals, to me, that's a harm because it bothers me that there are people out there that do that. I think you don't know what the word harm means. I think that attitude is far more harmful to society than some guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home yet you don't see me sending you to jail for it. Actually, harm can be defined simply as "wrongdoing", it's a common definition. Could you use that in a common sentence for me? Having people who fuck animals in society is a wrongdoing. (common for this discussion) No, "wrongdoing" is a terrible, terrible description because it becomes completely subjective, which defeats the whole purpose of it. This is the classical definition of harm, from JS Mill: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principleThe harm principle holds that the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals. John Stuart Mill articulated this principle in On Liberty, where he argued that, "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." So out of all the people, you quote a philosopher. Kant said it is impossible to obtain direct, unbiased knowledge about an object or event. So yea, quote a person's biased definition and imply it's true because you agree with it. Don't try to say my opinion is wrong in a topic where no one can truly be wrong. I quote the dude who originally/succinctly came up with a definition of harm, which we're using here. As Umlaut says, your whole argument is circular. Try thinking this way then: if an individual partakes in an action, in private, that does not harm (even if you call it wrongdoing) anyone else, then what's the problem? So a dude shagging a sheep in his bedroom. No-one else ever finds out. What's the harm to any other individual? Literally zero. Compare to any basic illegality. Murder, rape, assault, fraud, burglery. These all have effects on another human being, even if, say, a dude burgled a house and no-one knew about it. Someone has had their property infringed and removed. What harm to you, as a delicate flower, does a guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home do to you, if you don't know about it? Literally zero. Ok, so say I went to the tropical rain forest, and discovered a new species of frogs (highly likely since we've only discovered about 3% of species). The frogs are some special rainbow colored frog. I kill them all. You never find out about it. No harm right? Because you didn't know and it doesn't affect humans. Also, you brought up that definition of harm. Then to claim that "we" are using that definition? Pure arrogance. The difference is, you are saying I am wrong and trying to argue that I am indeed wrong. But all I am doing is stating my opinion and asking questions to gain some insight to what others think. You're making an argument that you're being harmed when you're not. That's all there is to it really.
Yes, you decide what's the definition of harm is.
You also decide what definition of harm we use in a discussion.
You also decide if I am being harmed.
"That's all there is to it really." so you also know what's true in reality.
You claim to know so much.
|
United States42654 Posts
On June 14 2013 20:18 ExKkaMaGui wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 20:12 S:klogW wrote:On June 14 2013 20:06 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 20:02 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:54 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:52 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:46 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:35 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:09 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 18:53 xM(Z wrote:
[quote]
dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care.
edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something. Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on. That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse. so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence. edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves. My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree? yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed. Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand. but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one. If someone believes that eating animals is literally murder then good luck to them, their position is intellectually sound although I think somewhat silly. Also I feel strongly about this because I think it's a litmus test for allowing sexual freedom based on principles of the government not being in the bedroom against just allowing what the majority think is fine. If we allow homosexuality and then ban beastiality based purely upon the distaste of the majority then we really haven't learned a thing. Could the harm then be that sex with other species might cause the transfer of disease to humans? You know what, you raise a good question. They might be banning it to stop the spread of STDs. I cannot really say what they are going for here, but I think that might be it.
No, it's just that they, like you, have the arrogance to have decided that if they don't like something then it shouldn't be allowed because God forbid people get to do what they want in their own homes if you personally disagree with it. They are doing it for the same selfish, hypocritical and oppressive reasons that you've voiced over and over in this topic.
|
|
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On June 14 2013 20:20 ExKkaMaGui wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 20:17 marvellosity wrote:On June 14 2013 20:14 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 20:10 marvellosity wrote:On June 14 2013 20:04 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 20:00 marvellosity wrote:On June 14 2013 19:58 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 19:57 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:56 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 19:51 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
I think you don't know what the word harm means. I think that attitude is far more harmful to society than some guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home yet you don't see me sending you to jail for it. Actually, harm can be defined simply as "wrongdoing", it's a common definition. Could you use that in a common sentence for me? Having people who fuck animals in society is a wrongdoing. (common for this discussion) No, "wrongdoing" is a terrible, terrible description because it becomes completely subjective, which defeats the whole purpose of it. This is the classical definition of harm, from JS Mill: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principleThe harm principle holds that the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals. John Stuart Mill articulated this principle in On Liberty, where he argued that, "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." So out of all the people, you quote a philosopher. Kant said it is impossible to obtain direct, unbiased knowledge about an object or event. So yea, quote a person's biased definition and imply it's true because you agree with it. Don't try to say my opinion is wrong in a topic where no one can truly be wrong. I quote the dude who originally/succinctly came up with a definition of harm, which we're using here. As Umlaut says, your whole argument is circular. Try thinking this way then: if an individual partakes in an action, in private, that does not harm (even if you call it wrongdoing) anyone else, then what's the problem? So a dude shagging a sheep in his bedroom. No-one else ever finds out. What's the harm to any other individual? Literally zero. Compare to any basic illegality. Murder, rape, assault, fraud, burglery. These all have effects on another human being, even if, say, a dude burgled a house and no-one knew about it. Someone has had their property infringed and removed. What harm to you, as a delicate flower, does a guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home do to you, if you don't know about it? Literally zero. Ok, so say I went to the tropical rain forest, and discovered a new species of frogs (highly likely since we've only discovered about 3% of species). The frogs are some special rainbow colored frog. I kill them all. You never find out about it. No harm right? Because you didn't know and it doesn't affect humans. Also, you brought up that definition of harm. Then to claim that "we" are using that definition? Pure arrogance. The difference is, you are saying I am wrong and trying to argue that I am indeed wrong. But all I am doing is stating my opinion and asking questions to gain some insight to what others think. You're making an argument that you're being harmed when you're not. That's all there is to it really. Yes, you decide what's the definition of harm is. You also decide what definition of harm we use in a discussion. You also decide if I am being harmed. "That's all there is to it really." so you also know what's true in reality. You claim to know so much.
Yes, I also claim chair is "thing with legs you sit on" and not "big leafy thing". You can call a chair a big leafy thing all you like, but I'm gonna stick with things with legs you sit on.
|
On June 14 2013 20:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 20:12 Incognoto wrote:On June 14 2013 18:00 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 17:43 Reason wrote:On June 14 2013 17:38 KwarK wrote:
I strongly disagree with this change, if no animal is being harmed then who gives a fuck, people outrank animals anyway and the law has no place in the bedroom. o.O this doesn't sound like your typical overly-sarcastic post that says the complete opposite of what you believe in an effort to emphasise how stupid that line of thinking is. Bolded section is only thing that makes me still think this is a joke but tone is hard to detect on the internet.... Reading the following post I can only assume this is how you really feel about the issue ??? Murder of people is wrong, slaughter of animals is fine, the reason for this is that our system or morality puts value on sentience and we have it and they don't. We outrank them. No people are being harmed and this is in the bedroom between consenting adults and what we view legally as little more than biological machines for creating meat and other animal products, I'd much rather the law accepted that it simply had no place in the bedroom that going after things that the vast majority can hate on. Take gay sex. It's not fine because it's two consenting adults, it's fine because no-one is getting harmed because they're two consenting adults. The fact that consenting adults are involved doesn't necessarily make something fine, rather it is the lack of harm that makes it fine and the consent is relevant because it indicates a lack of harm. A man fucking a dog is fine for the exact same reason as gay sex, because no-one is getting harmed. The law has no place in the bedroom outside of protecting people and the previous laws already covered that. This is just picking a sexual niche and outlawing it for no reason, the previous law even covered the animal cruelty aspect, this law only criminalises no cruel beastiality. All right, here is a highly controversial question: by this logic, marriage between animals and humans should also be possible? Marriage is a contract. Contracts require consent. Swing and a miss there I'm afraid. My argument was in fact that animals don't get consent. My argument pretty much rules out marriage to animals.
Logical answer, what can I say
|
On June 14 2013 20:19 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 20:18 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 20:12 S:klogW wrote:On June 14 2013 20:06 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 20:02 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:54 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:52 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:46 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:35 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:09 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on.
That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse. so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence. edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves. My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree? yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed. Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand. but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one. If someone believes that eating animals is literally murder then good luck to them, their position is intellectually sound although I think somewhat silly. Also I feel strongly about this because I think it's a litmus test for allowing sexual freedom based on principles of the government not being in the bedroom against just allowing what the majority think is fine. If we allow homosexuality and then ban beastiality based purely upon the distaste of the majority then we really haven't learned a thing. Could the harm then be that sex with other species might cause the transfer of disease to humans? You know what, you raise a good question. They might be banning it to stop the spread of STDs. I cannot really say what they are going for here, but I think that might be it. Kwark used the example already. What if you found gay sex 'bothersome'? If the 90-95% of straight people in a country found gay sex 'bothersome', do you think it would be right to legislate against gay sex?
And you missed my post a couple of pages ago when I said it's all SUBJECTIVE.
And that in the end, it's all a matter of opinion.
I think gay marriages should be legal, but there's tons of people who are against it.
Doesn't mean I am any more right than they are and vice versa.
|
On June 14 2013 20:21 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 20:20 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 20:17 marvellosity wrote:On June 14 2013 20:14 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 20:10 marvellosity wrote:On June 14 2013 20:04 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 20:00 marvellosity wrote:On June 14 2013 19:58 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 19:57 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:56 ExKkaMaGui wrote:
[quote]
Actually, harm can be defined simply as "wrongdoing", it's a common definition. Could you use that in a common sentence for me? Having people who fuck animals in society is a wrongdoing. (common for this discussion) No, "wrongdoing" is a terrible, terrible description because it becomes completely subjective, which defeats the whole purpose of it. This is the classical definition of harm, from JS Mill: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principleThe harm principle holds that the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals. John Stuart Mill articulated this principle in On Liberty, where he argued that, "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." So out of all the people, you quote a philosopher. Kant said it is impossible to obtain direct, unbiased knowledge about an object or event. So yea, quote a person's biased definition and imply it's true because you agree with it. Don't try to say my opinion is wrong in a topic where no one can truly be wrong. I quote the dude who originally/succinctly came up with a definition of harm, which we're using here. As Umlaut says, your whole argument is circular. Try thinking this way then: if an individual partakes in an action, in private, that does not harm (even if you call it wrongdoing) anyone else, then what's the problem? So a dude shagging a sheep in his bedroom. No-one else ever finds out. What's the harm to any other individual? Literally zero. Compare to any basic illegality. Murder, rape, assault, fraud, burglery. These all have effects on another human being, even if, say, a dude burgled a house and no-one knew about it. Someone has had their property infringed and removed. What harm to you, as a delicate flower, does a guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home do to you, if you don't know about it? Literally zero. Ok, so say I went to the tropical rain forest, and discovered a new species of frogs (highly likely since we've only discovered about 3% of species). The frogs are some special rainbow colored frog. I kill them all. You never find out about it. No harm right? Because you didn't know and it doesn't affect humans. Also, you brought up that definition of harm. Then to claim that "we" are using that definition? Pure arrogance. The difference is, you are saying I am wrong and trying to argue that I am indeed wrong. But all I am doing is stating my opinion and asking questions to gain some insight to what others think. You're making an argument that you're being harmed when you're not. That's all there is to it really. Yes, you decide what's the definition of harm is. You also decide what definition of harm we use in a discussion. You also decide if I am being harmed. "That's all there is to it really." so you also know what's true in reality. You claim to know so much. Yes, I also claim chair is "thing with legs you sit on" and not "big leafy thing". You can call a chair a big leafy thing all you like, but I'm gonna stick with things with legs you sit on.
Actually, I quoted the dictionary and harm being defined as wrongdoing is nowhere near the extremity as defining chair as big leafy thing
|
On June 14 2013 20:13 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 20:09 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 20:05 AmericanUmlaut wrote:On June 14 2013 19:58 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 19:57 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:56 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 19:51 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:50 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 19:46 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:35 xM(Z wrote:
[quote]
so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on.
but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better.
ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves. My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree? I agree with you, but if I know that people in my community are fucking animals, to me, that's a harm because it bothers me that there are people out there that do that. I think you don't know what the word harm means. I think that attitude is far more harmful to society than some guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home yet you don't see me sending you to jail for it. Actually, harm can be defined simply as "wrongdoing", it's a common definition. Could you use that in a common sentence for me? Having people who fuck animals in society is a wrongdoing. (common for this discussion) Do you recognize that your argument is circular? Bestiality should be illegal because it's harmful, it's harmful because harm can mean wrongdoing, and bestiality is "a wrongdoing". Your argument basically boils down to "bestiality should be illegal because I think so." You're not actually defining how it's harmful above and beyond any harm actually done to the animal, except in the sense that you consider your mental anguish at having to live in a world in which something disgusting is happening to be harm. To be clear, I am not arguing anything because that would imply I am trying to win by proving my point, which I am not doing. If I was arguing something, the sentence wasn't to support my argument. I just used the word in a sentence. And yes, my "mental anguish" at having to live in a world in which people are fucking animals was what I was calling harm. I am not saying I can't sleep at night, but it does bother me. So a small harm. To paraphrase gay rights activists, "some people are into beastiality, get over it". It's that simple. They are not causing you any harm by the definition used by everyone but you whereas your attitude, when turned into legislation, literally harms people who have done you no wrong. You are a hypocrite, a brute and you seek to use the government as a weapon against others.
1. It is entirely possible for cross species infections to result as a result of bestiality. AIDS was originally a disease amongst chimpanzees and got transferred to the human populace via blood infection through scratches.
2. It is impossible for an animal to give consent to have sex with a human.
3. It is immoral to take advantage of an animal in the same way it is immoral to take advantage of a child.
Cross species sex is not common but it is a natural phenomenon though not to anywhere near the same degree homosexuality is. More importantly it is almost always associated with dominant sexual behaviours and frequently results in offspring.
I am stunned to find there are people trying to compare beastality and human sexuality as if they are just subsets of the human sexual experience. One of them involves activity between consenting humans. The other involves the abuse of an animal - the equivalent of having sex with a child.
Horrible thread.
|
On June 14 2013 20:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 20:18 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 20:12 S:klogW wrote:On June 14 2013 20:06 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 20:02 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:54 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:52 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:46 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:35 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:09 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on.
That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse. so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence. edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves. My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree? yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed. Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand. but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one. If someone believes that eating animals is literally murder then good luck to them, their position is intellectually sound although I think somewhat silly. Also I feel strongly about this because I think it's a litmus test for allowing sexual freedom based on principles of the government not being in the bedroom against just allowing what the majority think is fine. If we allow homosexuality and then ban beastiality based purely upon the distaste of the majority then we really haven't learned a thing. Could the harm then be that sex with other species might cause the transfer of disease to humans? You know what, you raise a good question. They might be banning it to stop the spread of STDs. I cannot really say what they are going for here, but I think that might be it. No, it's just that they, like you, have the arrogance to have decided that if they don't like something then it shouldn't be allowed because God forbid people get to do what they want in their own homes if you personally disagree with it. They are doing it for the same selfish, hypocritical and oppressive reasons that you've voiced over and over in this topic.
What in the world are you talking about? When have I ever brought up oppression?
And I clearly said I THINK it shouldn't be allowed. So I'm not allowed to think now?
Difference is that you are claiming that what you believe SHOULD be the norm.
All I said was what I believed and asked others what they believed.
|
On June 14 2013 20:15 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 20:12 S:klogW wrote:On June 14 2013 20:06 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 20:02 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:54 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:52 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:46 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:35 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:09 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 18:53 xM(Z wrote:
[quote]
dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care.
edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something. Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on. That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse. so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence. edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves. My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree? yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed. Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand. but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one. If someone believes that eating animals is literally murder then good luck to them, their position is intellectually sound although I think somewhat silly. Also I feel strongly about this because I think it's a litmus test for allowing sexual freedom based on principles of the government not being in the bedroom against just allowing what the majority think is fine. If we allow homosexuality and then ban beastiality based purely upon the distaste of the majority then we really haven't learned a thing. Could the harm then be that sex with other species might cause the transfer of disease to humans? Better outlaw all sex given that humans already have STDs then.
Ah correct, sorry I missed that. Kwark, I had a question, maybe you could answer, what is the argument supporting the illegalizing of bestiality? Also how do they qualify cruelty or physical harm? Thanks.
|
On June 14 2013 20:25 ExKkaMaGui wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 20:20 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 20:18 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 20:12 S:klogW wrote:On June 14 2013 20:06 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 20:02 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:54 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:52 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:46 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:35 xM(Z wrote:
[quote]
so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on.
but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better.
ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves. My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree? yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed. Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand. but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one. If someone believes that eating animals is literally murder then good luck to them, their position is intellectually sound although I think somewhat silly. Also I feel strongly about this because I think it's a litmus test for allowing sexual freedom based on principles of the government not being in the bedroom against just allowing what the majority think is fine. If we allow homosexuality and then ban beastiality based purely upon the distaste of the majority then we really haven't learned a thing. Could the harm then be that sex with other species might cause the transfer of disease to humans? You know what, you raise a good question. They might be banning it to stop the spread of STDs. I cannot really say what they are going for here, but I think that might be it. No, it's just that they, like you, have the arrogance to have decided that if they don't like something then it shouldn't be allowed because God forbid people get to do what they want in their own homes if you personally disagree with it. They are doing it for the same selfish, hypocritical and oppressive reasons that you've voiced over and over in this topic. What in the world are you talking about? When have I ever brought up oppression? And I clearly said I THINK it shouldn't be allowed. So I'm not allowed to think now? Difference is that you are claiming that what you believe SHOULD be the norm. All I said was what I believed and asked others what they believed.
He believes if nobody is coming to any harm people should mind their own business, you believe if you don't like Justin Beiber you have the right to make it illegal for me to listen to him.
On June 14 2013 20:22 ExKkaMaGui wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 20:19 marvellosity wrote:On June 14 2013 20:18 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 20:12 S:klogW wrote:On June 14 2013 20:06 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 20:02 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:54 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:52 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:46 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:35 xM(Z wrote:
[quote]
so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on.
but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better.
ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves. My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree? yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed. Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand. but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one. If someone believes that eating animals is literally murder then good luck to them, their position is intellectually sound although I think somewhat silly. Also I feel strongly about this because I think it's a litmus test for allowing sexual freedom based on principles of the government not being in the bedroom against just allowing what the majority think is fine. If we allow homosexuality and then ban beastiality based purely upon the distaste of the majority then we really haven't learned a thing. Could the harm then be that sex with other species might cause the transfer of disease to humans? You know what, you raise a good question. They might be banning it to stop the spread of STDs. I cannot really say what they are going for here, but I think that might be it. Kwark used the example already. What if you found gay sex 'bothersome'? If the 90-95% of straight people in a country found gay sex 'bothersome', do you think it would be right to legislate against gay sex? And you missed my post a couple of pages ago when I said it's all SUBJECTIVE. And that in the end, it's all a matter of opinion. I think gay marriages should be legal, but there's tons of people who are against it. Doesn't mean I am any more right than they are and vice versa.
You have repeatedly pointed out that all opinions are subjective and nobody is truly right or wrong, for what reason I'm not sure.
If I live in a community of people and the majority agree that stealing is wrong and punishable then if I say to you "stealing is wrong in my community" then I'm right. If you disagree, you're wrong.
There's a lot of stuff that doesn't get written because it goes without saying, if in every thread people had to write "according to the morals of the Western Society that we live in it's wrong to steal" instead of just that "it's wrong" then there'd be a whole lot of redundant text clogging up threads.
Similarly, reducing every single topic regardless of nature into objective morality, subjective morality and the greater questions of the universe really serves no purpose apart from derailing discussion, so I'd like to ask you:
Where are you going with this?
|
On June 14 2013 20:26 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 20:22 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 20:19 marvellosity wrote:On June 14 2013 20:18 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 20:12 S:klogW wrote:On June 14 2013 20:06 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 20:02 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:54 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:52 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:46 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree? yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed. Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand. but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one. If someone believes that eating animals is literally murder then good luck to them, their position is intellectually sound although I think somewhat silly. Also I feel strongly about this because I think it's a litmus test for allowing sexual freedom based on principles of the government not being in the bedroom against just allowing what the majority think is fine. If we allow homosexuality and then ban beastiality based purely upon the distaste of the majority then we really haven't learned a thing. Could the harm then be that sex with other species might cause the transfer of disease to humans? You know what, you raise a good question. They might be banning it to stop the spread of STDs. I cannot really say what they are going for here, but I think that might be it. Kwark used the example already. What if you found gay sex 'bothersome'? If the 90-95% of straight people in a country found gay sex 'bothersome', do you think it would be right to legislate against gay sex? And you missed my post a couple of pages ago when I said it's all SUBJECTIVE. And that in the end, it's all a matter of opinion. I think gay marriages should be legal, but there's tons of people who are against it. Doesn't mean I am any more right than they are and vice versa. You have repeatedly pointed out that all opinions are subjective and nobody is truly right or wrong, for what reason I'm not sure. If I live in a community of people and the majority agree that stealing is wrong and punishable then if I say to you "stealing is wrong in my community" then I'm right. If you disagree, you're wrong. There's a lot of stuff that doesn't get written because it goes without saying, if in every thread people had to write "according to the morals of the Western Society that we live in it's wrong to steal" instead of just that "it's wrong" then there'd be a whole lot of redundant text clogging up threads. Similarly, reducing every single topic regardless of nature into objective morality, subjective morality and the greater questions of the universe really serves no purpose apart from derailing discussion, so I'd like to ask you: Where are you going with this?
I say "all opinions are subjective."
You say "for what reason I'm not sure."
I think we're done here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
