|
United States43380 Posts
On June 14 2013 20:39 Evangelist wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 20:28 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 20:24 Evangelist wrote: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:
[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) 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.
If you think that eating animals is the most efficient way to get energy from the sun into humans then I have some basic physics for you and if you think that it doesn't make a difference how you get the energy then I have some starving children in Africa for you.
If you think animals are slaughtered in humane ways then I have some PETA videos for you to watch.
The fact that homosexuality may have a genetic component is not what makes it okay. It is okay because there is no harm done. The default position is freedom to do anything unless it harms another, imposition upon that is oppression. Homosexuals were oppressed not because their nature was made illegal but because acts which they desired to do which were no-one else's business were outlawed. How is this any different from that? As for the bringing of a child into this, that's not worth responding to except "animals aren't humans, they're not adults, they're not babies, they're not anywhere in between, they're just not humans".
Your position is contradictory and ultimately comes down to "I was raised to think this type of action with an animal is fine but this different type is bad and wrong and I lack the critical thinking to ask why, also animals are children and beastiality is pedophilia". I would be making far more sense than you if I told you that your terriers are slaves, you may house them and feed them but they exist purely for your pleasure and will never get the opportunity to live a truly free life. I don't make that argument because they're dogs and the concept of slavery doesn't apply to them but the fact that you're fine with your slave dogs and not fine with other people's sex slave donkey is what reveals you as a hypocrite using a shitty animal rights argument to veil what is, at its core, pure prejudice.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On June 14 2013 20:42 ExKkaMaGui wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 20:38 marvellosity wrote: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: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 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?
Your argument boils down to the fact that if a majority of people find something distasteful, it's fine to make it illegal. That's how oppression of minorities happens.
I'm not arguing against your right to call bestiality right or wrong. You're free to have your own opinion. But when you actually LEGISLATE based on what you find icky, then you're going down a very dark path.
But you're not understanding the argument at all, so I'm going to leave it beyond this post.
|
On June 14 2013 20:46 Evangelist wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Obvious false dichotomy.
If you support eating animals then you support eating children OMG!!!!!
Yeah... I expected a little more from you tbh 
|
On June 14 2013 20:40 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 20:26 S:klogW wrote:On June 14 2013 20:15 KwarK 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? 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.
Did you just compare raping an animal that is completely unable to express consent to homosexuality? That is the single most offensive thing I've ever seen you post, and can't for the life of me understand any kind of logical jump that allowed you to connect the two.
|
On June 14 2013 20:43 ExKkaMaGui wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 20:41 xM(Z wrote: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.
brazil is the new the netherlands!
it's porn. there are always money to be made in porn.
|
On June 14 2013 20:46 ExKkaMaGui wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 20:44 Reason wrote:On June 14 2013 20:40 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 20:26 S:klogW wrote:On June 14 2013 20:15 KwarK 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? 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.
Stop contradicting yourself.
|
United States43380 Posts
On June 14 2013 20:50 Mauldo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 20:40 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 20:26 S:klogW wrote:On June 14 2013 20:15 KwarK 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? 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. Did you just compare raping an animal that is completely unable to express consent to homosexuality? That is the single most offensive thing I've ever seen you post, and can't for the life of me understand any kind of logical jump that allowed you to connect the two.
I said homosexuality is intrinsically okay because it doesn't harm anyone.
|
On June 14 2013 20:49 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 20:42 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 20:38 marvellosity wrote: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: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:[quote] 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? Your argument boils down to the fact that if a majority of people find something distasteful, it's fine to make it illegal. That's how oppression of minorities happens. I'm not arguing against your right to call bestiality right or wrong. You're free to have your own opinion. But when you actually LEGISLATE based on what you find icky, then you're going down a very dark path. But you're not understanding the argument at all, so I'm going to leave it beyond this post.
You need to read everything I've been posting because you're clearing missing main crucial points.
I am not trying to argue anything.
Also, I never legislated anything.
When did you get that idea?
|
On June 14 2013 20:47 ExKkaMaGui wrote:Show nested quote +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.
We all have different preferences. So you're saying if you were forced to watch something, you'd rather watch two grandpas going at it rather than a Pamela Anderson (from 20 years) going at it with a horse. That's fine, but i'd rather watch (and be less disgusted by) the latter.
|
On June 14 2013 20:51 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 20:46 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 20:44 Reason wrote:On June 14 2013 20:40 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 20:26 S:klogW wrote:On June 14 2013 20:15 KwarK 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? 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. Stop contradicting yourself.
Whatever you say. Your name is really ironic though.
|
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.
I saw a documentary about the culling system and its anything but painless. Unless you think a death camp like system like what occured in ww2 was 'painless' to those experiencing it.
|
United States43380 Posts
On June 14 2013 20:52 ExKkaMaGui wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 20:49 marvellosity wrote:On June 14 2013 20:42 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 20:38 marvellosity wrote: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: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:
[quote]
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? Your argument boils down to the fact that if a majority of people find something distasteful, it's fine to make it illegal. That's how oppression of minorities happens. I'm not arguing against your right to call bestiality right or wrong. You're free to have your own opinion. But when you actually LEGISLATE based on what you find icky, then you're going down a very dark path. But you're not understanding the argument at all, so I'm going to leave it beyond this post. You need to read everything I've been posting because you're clearing missing main crucial points. I am not trying to argue anything. Also, I never legislated anything. When did you get that idea?
You made the argument that anything that you view as offensive is causing you literal harm and should be banned. You literally made that argument.
|
On June 14 2013 20:50 Mauldo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 20:40 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 20:26 S:klogW wrote:On June 14 2013 20:15 KwarK 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? 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. Did you just compare raping an animal that is completely unable to express consent to homosexuality? That is the single most offensive thing I've ever seen you post, and can't for the life of me understand any kind of logical jump that allowed you to connect the two.
Allow me to enlighten you.
If an animal mounts a woman and has sex with her, did she just rape the animal?
Clearly, bestiality /= rape.
Therefore, in certain circumstances there is consensual sex taking place between animals and humans, and nobody is coming to any harm.
A law was just passed making sex with animals, regardless of harm being inflicted or not, illegal.
If it's not to do with harm, it's because people find it disgusting.
Homosexuality /= harm, but was illegal because people find it disgusting.
There is the incredibly well concealed connection. You're welcome.
On June 14 2013 20:52 ExKkaMaGui wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 20:51 Reason wrote:On June 14 2013 20:46 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 20:44 Reason wrote:On June 14 2013 20:40 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 20:26 S:klogW wrote:On June 14 2013 20:15 KwarK 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:[quote] 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. Stop contradicting yourself. Whatever you say. Your name is really ironic though.
You said opinions are subjective.
I restated your opinion .
You said I didn't comprehend what you said and that you hadn't said anything at all, when in fact you had.
I said stop contradicting yourself.
You tried to make some kind of witty comment about my username.
yeah =/
|
No eating a child would make you a cannibal.
|
On June 14 2013 20:53 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 20:52 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 20:49 marvellosity wrote:On June 14 2013 20:42 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 20:38 marvellosity wrote: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: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:
[quote]
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? Your argument boils down to the fact that if a majority of people find something distasteful, it's fine to make it illegal. That's how oppression of minorities happens. I'm not arguing against your right to call bestiality right or wrong. You're free to have your own opinion. But when you actually LEGISLATE based on what you find icky, then you're going down a very dark path. But you're not understanding the argument at all, so I'm going to leave it beyond this post. You need to read everything I've been posting because you're clearing missing main crucial points. I am not trying to argue anything. Also, I never legislated anything. When did you get that idea? You made the argument that anything that you view as offensive is causing you literal harm and should be banned. You literally made that argument.
I never said that. Please quote me if I did.
What I said was, if something was bothering me, it CAN be viewed as harm since one of harm's definition is "wrongdoing". I NEVER said if anything bothers me, it should be banned. So yea, misread my post and accuse me again.
|
On June 14 2013 20:46 Evangelist wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Not really because in pedophilia, kids are people, That is where I draw the line.
|
On June 14 2013 20:55 electronic voyeur wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 20:46 Evangelist wrote: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. Not really because in pedophilia, kids are people, That is where I draw the line.
Watch where you draw the line though because some people will tell you that you are wrong.
|
United States43380 Posts
On June 14 2013 20:57 ExKkaMaGui wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 20:55 electronic voyeur wrote:On June 14 2013 20:46 Evangelist wrote: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. Not really because in pedophilia, kids are people, That is where I draw the line. Watch where you draw the line though because some people will tell you that you are wrong.
The line between humans and non humans is actually pretty easy to draw given the current range of species. It might be harder if we still had neanderthals and other proto humans but we don't. We have homo sapiens who we call humans and the rest, none of which are homo sapiens. It's really not any kind of slippery slope. Imagine there were many shapes, some squares, some triangles, some circles and so forth and we said "the ones with three sides are called triangles". Sure you could go "but where do you draw the line, why can't the ones with four sides be triangles" but you'd be an idiot. The ones with three sides get to be triangles and the people who are humans get to be humans and the squares aren't triangles and the dogs aren't humans.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On June 14 2013 20:55 ExKkaMaGui wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 20:53 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 20:52 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 20:49 marvellosity wrote:On June 14 2013 20:42 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 20:38 marvellosity wrote: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:On June 14 2013 20:22 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 20:19 marvellosity wrote:On June 14 2013 20:18 ExKkaMaGui wrote:
[quote]
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? Your argument boils down to the fact that if a majority of people find something distasteful, it's fine to make it illegal. That's how oppression of minorities happens. I'm not arguing against your right to call bestiality right or wrong. You're free to have your own opinion. But when you actually LEGISLATE based on what you find icky, then you're going down a very dark path. But you're not understanding the argument at all, so I'm going to leave it beyond this post. You need to read everything I've been posting because you're clearing missing main crucial points. I am not trying to argue anything. Also, I never legislated anything. When did you get that idea? You made the argument that anything that you view as offensive is causing you literal harm and should be banned. You literally made that argument. I never said that. Please quote me if I did. What I said was, if something was bothering me, it CAN be viewed as harm since one of harm's definition is "wrongdoing". I NEVER said if anything bothers me, it should be banned. So yea, misread my post and accuse me again.
On June 14 2013 19:20 ExKkaMaGui wrote:
I actually want to know how many people believe it shouldn't be illegal.
Am I the only one that think it should ABSOLUTELY be banned?
There you go. And your reasoning that it should absolutely be banned is because you find it disgusting. It's exactly what you said.
|
On June 14 2013 20:49 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 20:39 Evangelist wrote:On June 14 2013 20:28 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 20:24 Evangelist wrote: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:
[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) 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. If you think that eating animals is the most efficient way to get energy from the sun into humans then I have some basic physics for you and if you think that it doesn't make a difference how you get the energy then I have some starving children in Africa for you. If you think animals are slaughtered in humane ways then I have some PETA videos for you to watch. The fact that homosexuality may have a genetic component is not what makes it okay. It is okay because there is no harm done. The default position is freedom to do anything unless it harms another, imposition upon that is oppression. Homosexuals were oppressed not because their nature was made illegal but because acts which they desired to do which were no-one else's business were outlawed. How is this any different from that? As for the bringing of a child into this, that's not worth responding to except "animals aren't humans, they're not adults, they're not babies, they're not anywhere in between, they're just not humans". Your position is contradictory and ultimately comes down to "I was raised to think this type of action with an animal is fine but this different type is bad and wrong and I lack the critical thinking to ask why, also animals are children and beastiality is pedophilia". I would be making far more sense than you if I told you that your terriers are slaves, you may house them and feed them but they exist purely for your pleasure and will never get the opportunity to live a truly free life. I don't make that argument because they're dogs and the concept of slavery doesn't apply to them but the fact that you're fine with your slave dogs and not fine with other people's sex slave donkey is what reveals you as a hypocrite using a shitty animal rights argument to veil what is, at its core, pure prejudice.
I am a professional physicist, cheers.
At what point do we stop killing? Is it acceptable to kill plants because they just grow? Do we stop at amoeba? Proteins? The truth of the matter is that we can't prove that we aren't harming every single living thing we kill. Ultimately we have to kill SOMETHING to live and if we do it, we have to be humane and ensure it does not suffer. A 50,000V shock or gassing with carbon dioxide essentially renders the animal/human insensate. It can't feel anything worth feeling. It is also infinitely preferably to being slowly gored by a lion or a fellow beast in a contest over mating, or dying of old age with an infected broken leg because it tripped over a rock.
We have to accept that we ultimately have to get energy from somewhere. Plenty of animals do not have this moral difficulty and we do so in a much more humane way than most animals think to do so.
The position in the law regarding sex is VERY clear. Consent is required. If you agree to beastality you also agree to paedophilia and rape. Do you understand what you are saying here? You are saying that for your personal pleasure, not out of any need to survive or out of any requirement of living, you should be able to have sex with anything you desire regardless of how it feels about it or not. I'm fairly certain that if I stuck my cock up my dog's arse he would be doing everything in his power to get the fuck away from me but then I'm thirty six times the size of my dog. What could he do?
Furthermore, my dog is not a slave. He is a member of my family. I don't work him. I don't use him. In fact I feed him, entertain him, buy things for him, do things that HE wants and he is part of the family unit. How dare you try and tell me that I am abusing my dog because you want to make a moral point that you should be able to fuck a donkey.
The law is incredibly clear on this and you will find that not only am I correct but you will also find that the law legislates in the same way. The protections of children and adults are fundamentally different based on the idea of an inability to consent under law. That is also true of animals - they cannot consent, therefore they are protected. Yes, we are allowed to eat them but we are not allowed to torture them or make them suffer.
Get your head out of your arse. You're talking absolute bullshit and you know it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
