|
Wow.. Internet never ceases to amaze me. Who would have thought a thread about bestiality would go into heated arguments.
It's a good thing they make this illegal since everyone I've met offline and ever mentioning this to find sex with animals as a horrific abuse.
|
United States42193 Posts
On June 14 2013 20:24 Evangelist wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 20:13 KwarK 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. 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.
If you think animals are the same as children I have some really bad news for you about where meat comes from.
What gets me about the animal rights aspect of this is that it is the most incredibly irrelevant part of breaching animal rights imaginable. There are 8.4 billion chickens killed each year and maybe thousands of cases of beastiality and that's the one people are going after? It's like banning anal sex as an environmentalist based on the CO2 produced by the trucks that move lube from lube factories to shops. It's an absolutely bizarre, irrelevant and nonsensical way to improve animal rights in a negligible way.
|
United Kingdom36158 Posts
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 didn't answer my question. If a majority of people found gay sex 'bothersome' or it was 'wrongdoing', do you think it would be right to legislate against gay sex?
|
Oh, I should note that as the owner of two terriers, on a human scale of mental age I'd put their mental acuity at around the level of a six to twelve months. Smart for an animal, definitely.
Some things just aren't worth playing devils advocate for.
|
Also, @Reason, if you want to go into that kind of stuff, there's TONS of philosophy books and courses on it.
Trust me, many philosophers more knowledgeable than me have this chain of thought.
|
You guys should check out the Zoophilia article on Wikipedia, espacially the part about pornography.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia
If it has to be a law, and people disrespect themselves enough, or get off on the humiliation - I`d prefer a law that forces you to tell someone if you ever had sex with an animal before having sex with said person, because the widespread of some nasty zoonoses is the only problem I see for society. And if you fail to tell, just like people will fail to follow that new law, you can at least sue the guy / girl when your penis falls off or your ovaries rot and you can`t have kids anymoe.
|
If there was a stupidest and most hilarious debate prize on TL I think this topic in general is a worthy candidate.
User was warned for this post
|
On June 14 2013 20:28 ExKkaMaGui wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 20:26 Reason wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
Would you care to explain why?
You're not making any sense to me and people are really doing their best to accommodate you... try returning the favour and humour me with an actual response.
I'm asking you about the relevance of "all opinions are subjective", why exactly are you mentioning that here?
What does it have to do with the discussion?
|
On June 14 2013 20:30 KasPra wrote:
If there was a stupidest and most hilarious debate prize on TL I think this topic in general is a worthy candidate.
You're not the first person to post this type of comment today but honestly it's starting to piss me off when people come into threads and write shit like this.
LOL OMG PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY DISCUSSING THIS???
Yes, do you have anything to contribute? I didn't think so.
There's nothing stupid and hilarious about having a measured discussion on recently passed litigation.
edit: sorry for double post, not intentional.
|
United States42193 Posts
On June 14 2013 20:29 Evangelist wrote:
Oh, I should note that as the owner of two terriers, on a human scale of mental age I'd put their mental acuity at around the level of a six to twelve months. Smart for an animal, definitely.
Some things just aren't worth playing devils advocate for.
Talk to me when your terriers grow into people.
|
United Kingdom12022 Posts
Does making it illegal actually change anything though?
Fair enough it makes it easier to legislate, but much with other things all that'll happen is people will still continue to do it, but just hide their acts more. Illegality very often doesn't change the amount things are done, just pushes them into hiding more, like sweeping them under a rug I guess.
|
On June 14 2013 20:32 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 20:28 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 20:26 Reason wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Would you care to explain why? You're not making any sense to me and people are really doing their best to accommodate you... try returning the favour and humour me with an actual response. I'm asking you about the relevance of "all opinions are subjective", why exactly are you mentioning that here? What does it have to do with the discussion?
Oh sorry, I misinterpreted what you said.
I thought you were trying to say opinion isnt subjective.
Ill sum up what I was trying to say so people can clearly comprehend it.
1. All opinions are subjective. Thus, no one can be 100% right or wrong.
2. I think the ban of bestiality shouldn't even be about animal abuse. It should be banned based on just the disgust factor alone. Of course, I do think it is abusive and should be banned for that reason as well.
3. Now, I ask the question. Do others think bestiality should be banned without question or is it arguable both ways?
Notice, I am not claiming anything or arguing anything. Just asking a question and stating my humble opinion.
No idea why people are trying to prove things to me.
|
On June 14 2013 20:35 Qikz wrote:
Does making it illegal actually change anything though?
Fair enough it makes it easier to legislate, but much with other things all that'll happen is people will still continue to do it, but just hide their acts more. Illegality very often doesn't change the amount things are done, just pushes them into hiding more, like sweeping them under a rug I guess.
Nope, wont do anything.
I just wish there was a way to enforce it so people stop fucking animals.
If only magic was real...
|
United Kingdom36158 Posts
ExKkaMaGui, could you answer my question please
|
United States42193 Posts
On June 14 2013 20:30 ExKkaMaGui wrote:
Also, @Reason, if you want to go into that kind of stuff, there's TONS of philosophy books and courses on it.
Trust me, many philosophers more knowledgeable than me have this chain of thought.
I'm not sure any philosophers are arguing that things done in the privacy of ones own home should be outlawed because they offend the sensibilities of an individual in no way involved precisely because of the homosexuality argument. Your exact argument has been used over and over in recent decades as a justification for banning homosexuality and has been thoroughly rejected by society at large. Care to link any of your philosophers?
|
What was it, I missed it responding to another guy.
|
On June 14 2013 20:36 ExKkaMaGui wrote:
2. I think the ban of bestiality shouldn't even be about animal abuse. It should be banned based on just the disgust factor alone.
This is not acceptable in our Western Society, nor should it be according to the values I personally hold which may or may not result from living in said society.
On June 14 2013 20:30 ExKkaMaGui wrote:
Also, @Reason, if you want to go into that kind of stuff, there's TONS of philosophy books and courses on it.
Trust me, many philosophers more knowledgeable than me have this chain of thought.
Oh my *god* I know that....ffs.... I'm asking why on Earth you feel the need to reduce the current discussion to some philosophical discussion about subjectivity and objectivity, not whether it's a valid discussion in and of itself.
In case you hadn't guessed, no I don't want to get into that kind of stuff in this thread and I'm asking why are you?
|
United Kingdom36158 Posts
On June 14 2013 20:37 ExKkaMaGui wrote:
What was it, I missed it responding to another guy.
On June 14 2013 20:29 marvellosity 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 didn't answer my question. If a majority of people found gay sex 'bothersome' or it was 'wrongdoing', do you think it would be right to legislate against gay sex?
|
On June 14 2013 20:28 Nausea wrote:
Wow.. Internet never ceases to amaze me. Who would have thought a thread about bestiality would go into heated arguments.
It's a good thing they make this illegal since everyone I've met offline and ever mentioning this to find sex with animals as a horrific abuse.
We shouldn't base our laws on feelings of disgust, but on more objective parameters. Doing otherwise has done a lot of harm in the past, and mankind should have learned from that. That's the point.
Bestiality is such a fringe phenomenon that I doubt any people in this thread care about it. That does not mean that we should give up on our principles in this case.
|
On June 14 2013 20:37 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 20:30 ExKkaMaGui wrote:
Also, @Reason, if you want to go into that kind of stuff, there's TONS of philosophy books and courses on it.
Trust me, many philosophers more knowledgeable than me have this chain of thought. I'm not sure any philosophers are arguing that things done in the privacy of ones own home should be outlawed because they offend the sensibilities of an individual in no way involved precisely because of the homosexuality argument. Your exact argument has been used over and over in recent decades as a justification for banning homosexuality and has been thoroughly rejected by society at large. Care to link any of your philosophers?
You're misreading my post.
What I said was that absolute truth does not exist in this world.
Immanuel Kant whom I quoted earlier is one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
