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)
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 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.
Okay.
1. The eating of plant and animal matter is the only known method of exchanging chemical energy between organisms that we know of. Until we develop a method of taking energy directly from the sun, I'm afraid we're stuck with it.
2. Large scale agriculture is the only method we know of which allows us to feed our population. In that sense, it's an us or them situation. The human body requires energy. Thus we breed it.
3. The culling system is designed to be as painless as possible and it is immoral to eat meat or vegetables that has been produced in an immoral way (kosher, halal). Stun the thing, put it out of its misery quickly and painlessly. It's a better end than a lot of humans have, thanks to religion.
4. Beastiality meets absolutely no human need. In the realm of sex, legally all that matters is consent. For the perspective of who is capable of consent, you compare intelligence, ableness to make self aware decisions, enticement, drug based inducements and so on.
In that sense, animals are much closer to children legally than they are to adults. In fact, they are closest to the human embryo in societies which recognise abortion rights. Furthermore while it is hard to prove "distress" in an animal, it is easy to prove consent. There isn't any.
That is all that is important. Killing never requires consent - it simply requires context. That is why killing soldiers in a war is legal, killing civilians is illegal. That is why juries will acquit desperation killings for abused housewives but will send cop killers down for life. That is why mass murdering an entire farm of cattle and leaving their corpses to rot is a criminal act, but sending them one by one to be processed for meat is not.
Please, though, don't let logic, due precedent, morality or any form of legal rights get in the way of your argument. Carry on. Explain to me how homosexuality (a fundamental property of the human psyche) and the resulting mutually consented sex is remotely comparable to buggering a child or a dog because you have an erection.
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?
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.
The argument I think comes down to "I don't like it so you shouldn't be able to do it". It's nothing more than oppression which is why I care, homosexuality didn't suddenly become okay when they were able to convince the majority to stop banning it, it was always okay and they were just oppressed.
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?
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?
Someone please answer me: What is the argument in favor of criminalizing/not allowing bestiality? If it is due to physical harm or cruelty, how do you qualify it? Thanks.
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.
it changes the commercialization of it on some extent; the abuse of it for money/gain. as far as those other private affairs go, i don't think it'll make a difference.
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 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?
No, I don't think gay sex should be banned. But I am not saying anyone can determine that. All it boils down to is if people who can make that choice believe it should be, it will be. I dont have that power and you dont either. So all we can do is voice our opinion. Why do you speak with so much authority when it's just your opinion?
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?
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?
Reread my post
1. So what?
2. I find that morally reprehensible as does the majority of civilized society.
3. That's already been made obvious by 10+ pages of discussion.
On June 14 2013 20:40 S:klogW wrote: Someone please answer me: What is the argument in favor of criminalizing/not allowing bestiality? If it is due to physical harm or cruelty, how do you qualify it? Thanks.
Its about consent. It is the same reason we do not criminalize paedophilia but we criminalize the act of having sex with a minor.
There are plenty of other reasons but that is the only one worth discussing here.
On June 14 2013 16:00 TOCHMY wrote: I've not much experience with beastiality... But I don't see why it should not be illegal
The issue is why need to legislate at all? Is it that mainstream in your country?
It's been illegal a long time since you are trying to perform sex with something that cannot give your consent about the act, therefore it's illegal and you will get convicted as a rapist etc. So no... it's not very mainstream in Sweden
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.
it changes the commercialization of it on some extent; the abuse of it for money/gain. as far as those other private affairs go, i don't think it'll make a difference.
People actually make significant money off it? That's hardly believable.
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?
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.
The argument I think comes down to "I don't like it so you shouldn't be able to do it". It's nothing more than oppression which is why I care, homosexuality didn't suddenly become okay when they were able to convince the majority to stop banning it, it was always okay and they were just oppressed.
His argument is that it was never okay, or not okay, because that's a matter of opinion and all opinions are subjective, therefore you don't have a point.
I'm really not well versed enough in debate to be able to handle that kind of view appropriately, I'd love to see you try ...
(or maybe I wouldn't because as I've mentioned already every single fucking thread is reduced to "morality is subjective" and then grinds to a halt) Bitterness aside I'd really love to see a concise rebuttal to that kind of pointless derailment so in future when people go "ah, but everything is subjective, therefore /thread" there's some way to neatly disregard such a fruitless way of thinking and discuss things in a more positive fashion
Groom them, bath them, tie them up, put them in a cage, slaughter them, and eat them, but for the love of god do not have fuck them! This is plain hypocrisy among humans! Go bestiality! Though personally not my kind of kink.
Personally, I think sex between 2 men is more disgusting than sex between a woman and a horse. I would also bet that STD's are more prevalent among gay men than bestiality people (or w/e you call them).
Apparently it's still legal in Denmark and Russia. Zoophilia activity also legal in some US states: AL, AS, DC, GU, HI, KY, MT, NV, NH, NJ, NM, MP, OH, TX, VT, VA, WV, WY ..and a lot of other countries. Source: wikipedia
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?
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.
The argument I think comes down to "I don't like it so you shouldn't be able to do it". It's nothing more than oppression which is why I care, homosexuality didn't suddenly become okay when they were able to convince the majority to stop banning it, it was always okay and they were just oppressed.
His argument is that it was never okay, or not okay, because that's a matter of opinion and all opinions are subjective, therefore you don't have a point.
I'm really not well versed enough in debate to be able to handle that kind of view appropriately, I'd love to see you try ...
You're not comprehending what I am saying. I WAS NOT trying to debating anything. All I was saying was let's share our opinions and why we think that way. So there was no argument from my end.
On June 14 2013 20:44 electronic voyeur wrote: Groom them, bath them, tie them up, put them in a cage, slaughter them, and eat them, but for the love of god do not have fuck them! This is plain hypocrisy among humans! Go bestiality! Though personally not my kind of kink.
Yep. Grooming you do to your kids. As does bathing them. You tie your kids to a chair for their own safety, put them in cots they can't escape. You can legally kill them up until the 24th week of their formulation. Oh and in many countries you can legally beat the living shit out of them or kill them if they marry the wrong person.
Definitely can't fuck them. Consent.
If you support bestiality then you similarly support paedophilia.
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?
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?
Reread my post
i don't think that anyone can really reply to that (yet/in this stage of the evolution) but i'd say that you'd have to accept the karma that comes with it. ps: i don't believe in karma but that is the best reply one could get imo
On June 14 2013 20:46 Crayfishy wrote: Personally, I think sex between 2 men is more disgusting than sex between a woman and a horse. I would also bet that STD's are more prevalent among gay men than bestiality people (or w/e you call them).
Apparently it's still legal in Denmark and Russia. Zoophilia activity also legal in some US states: AL, AS, DC, GU, HI, KY, MT, NV, NH, NJ, NM, MP, OH, TX, VT, VA, WV, WY ..and a lot of other countries. Source: wikipedia
That's really interesting. I find gay sex to be completely ok, but I view sex b/t a human and an animal to be completely disgusting.
On June 14 2013 20:46 Crayfishy wrote: Personally, I think sex between 2 men is more disgusting than sex between a woman and a horse. I would also bet that STD's are more prevalent among gay men than bestiality people (or w/e you call them).
Apparently it's still legal in Denmark and Russia. Zoophilia activity also legal in some US states: AL, AS, DC, GU, HI, KY, MT, NV, NH, NJ, NM, MP, OH, TX, VT, VA, WV, WY ..and a lot of other countries. Source: wikipedia
Yes well that's because you're a dumbarse but then we can't all be made perfect.
On June 14 2013 20:46 Crayfishy wrote: Personally, I think sex between 2 men is more disgusting than sex between a woman and a horse. I would also bet that STD's are more prevalent among gay men than bestiality people (or w/e you call them).
Apparently it's still legal in Denmark and Russia. Zoophilia activity also legal in some US states: AL, AS, DC, GU, HI, KY, MT, NV, NH, NJ, NM, MP, OH, TX, VT, VA, WV, WY ..and a lot of other countries. Source: wikipedia
Yes well that's because you're a dumbarse but then we can't all be made perfect.
haha afaik the practice of donkey fucking is pretty common in some regions of the world, don't really see a need for this law except water down the law with useless morality
On June 14 2013 20:46 Crayfishy wrote: Personally, I think sex between 2 men is more disgusting than sex between a woman and a horse. I would also bet that STD's are more prevalent among gay men than bestiality people (or w/e you call them).
Apparently it's still legal in Denmark and Russia. Zoophilia activity also legal in some US states: AL, AS, DC, GU, HI, KY, MT, NV, NH, NJ, NM, MP, OH, TX, VT, VA, WV, WY ..and a lot of other countries. Source: wikipedia
you realize aids probably comes from men having sex with monkeys right, but yeah keep furthering your homophopic agenda based on absolutely nothing
EPT
