|
On June 14 2013 20:53 KwarK wrote:
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 20:55 ExKkaMaGui wrote:
I never said that. Please quote me if I did.
On June 14 2013 19:25 ExKkaMaGui wrote:
What I was trying to point out was that animal cruelty shouldn't even be considered in this case.
We should ban it just because it's disgusting.
There's your quote, now please stop contradicting yourself. Twice I've had to ask you that now and it's becoming tiresome <insert stupid joke about my username that doesn't make any sense because I've just quoted you contradicting yourself>
|
United Kingdom36158 Posts
Your quote-find was better, Reason. I'm sad 
|
The likely assumptions are that at the very least every now and then an animal does not like this without being able to express itself. No clue why you would argue for it being legal. Just because we kill animals doesn't mean it is okay to give them a shitty life on the way. There are plenty of laws protecting animals even though we kill them for consumption. There are people breaking the law for just about every law we have. Even if animal rights laws aren't all lived up to that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.
|
United Kingdom36158 Posts
On June 14 2013 21:06 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
The likely assumptions are that at the very least every now and then an animal does not like this without being able to express itself. No clue why you would argue for it being legal. Just because we kill animals doesn't mean it is okay to give them a shitty life on the way. There are plenty of laws protecting animals even though we kill them for consumption. There are people breaking the law for just about every law we have. Even if animal rights laws aren't all lived up to that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.
What if a dog starts humping a woman and the woman goes along with it?
|
On June 14 2013 21:08 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 21:06 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
The likely assumptions are that at the very least every now and then an animal does not like this without being able to express itself. No clue why you would argue for it being legal. Just because we kill animals doesn't mean it is okay to give them a shitty life on the way. There are plenty of laws protecting animals even though we kill them for consumption. There are people breaking the law for just about every law we have. Even if animal rights laws aren't all lived up to that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist. What if a dog starts humping a woman and the woman goes along with it?
Still no consent.
Come on, people. You've seen enough cases of 14 and 15 year olds banging their teachers and resulting in a criminal conviction to know how this works.
|
United States42190 Posts
On June 14 2013 21:03 Evangelist wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 20:49 KwarK wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
Consent between humans is required because forcing a human is causing them harm and harm to humans matters. Consent isn't a magic spell needed to make things okay, the principle of consent is necessary to ensure that the other human is not forced and therefore harmed. A situation in which all the humans involved consent is fine, you've made sure no humans are being harmed, you don't need to get the consent of the non humans because their consent is utterly irrelevant.
Your dog is not a slave not because he is a member of your family, an utterly absurd concept, but because he is a fucking dog. When you took your dog you abducted him, when you leave him in the house you are imprisoning him, when you cuddle with him you are using him but that doesn't make him a slave because he is a biological machine with no rights that exists purely for your pleasure so you get to do these things to him.
I honestly do not understand why you keep confusing people and animals. It is precisely because I am able to make this distinction, one that you seem to be really struggling with, that I can be okay with beastiality and not okay with pedophilia or rape. Pedophilia and rape cause harm to a human, beastiality does not.
|
On June 14 2013 21:08 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 21:06 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
The likely assumptions are that at the very least every now and then an animal does not like this without being able to express itself. No clue why you would argue for it being legal. Just because we kill animals doesn't mean it is okay to give them a shitty life on the way. There are plenty of laws protecting animals even though we kill them for consumption. There are people breaking the law for just about every law we have. Even if animal rights laws aren't all lived up to that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist. What if a dog starts humping a woman and the woman goes along with it?
LOL. This is a good point though. There can be consent between an animal and a human. Just because it's disgusting to most does not mean it should be illegal (as others have already pointed out, comparing to the legality of gay sex).
|
United Kingdom36158 Posts
On June 14 2013 21:10 Evangelist wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 21:08 marvellosity wrote:On June 14 2013 21:06 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
The likely assumptions are that at the very least every now and then an animal does not like this without being able to express itself. No clue why you would argue for it being legal. Just because we kill animals doesn't mean it is okay to give them a shitty life on the way. There are plenty of laws protecting animals even though we kill them for consumption. There are people breaking the law for just about every law we have. Even if animal rights laws aren't all lived up to that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist. What if a dog starts humping a woman and the woman goes along with it? Still no consent. Come on, people. You've seen enough cases of 14 and 15 year olds banging their teachers and resulting in a criminal conviction to know how this works.
It's not a human, that's the argument. Nazgul's argument is "making the animal's life shitty". Well if the animal wants it, that's not a very good argument to make.
|
On June 14 2013 21:08 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 21:06 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
The likely assumptions are that at the very least every now and then an animal does not like this without being able to express itself. No clue why you would argue for it being legal. Just because we kill animals doesn't mean it is okay to give them a shitty life on the way. There are plenty of laws protecting animals even though we kill them for consumption. There are people breaking the law for just about every law we have. Even if animal rights laws aren't all lived up to that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist. What if a dog starts humping a woman and the woman goes along with it?
I think that is a great point to bring up, but still easily refuted. There are laws protecting children from having sex with adults. Yet plenty of times the sex between an adult and a child will be consensual. However these laws exist because we conclude that the majority of children aren't able to properly express themselves at times. By law you protect 99 kids who couldn't express themselves, by lumping in the one example where it was fine, with the rest. Sometimes the sex between an adult and a child isn't a problem at all (as in your example with the dog). However we conclude that we have to protect all children because the majority of them aren't able to express themselves properly.
Just because there exists consensual sex between an animal and an adult doesn't mean there shouldn't be a law protecting the majority of the cases. An animal cannot express itself and if it is at all a possibility that sex with animals is not consensual then I believe there should be a law against it. Because of the inability to express themselves you have to lump in the 1 example of consensual animal sex to protect 99 others.
|
|
|
United States42190 Posts
On June 14 2013 21:06 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
The likely assumptions are that at the very least every now and then an animal does not like this without being able to express itself. No clue why you would argue for it being legal. Just because we kill animals doesn't mean it is okay to give them a shitty life on the way. There are plenty of laws protecting animals even though we kill them for consumption. There are people breaking the law for just about every law we have. Even if animal rights laws aren't all lived up to that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.
The old law covered things that actually harmed animals like a man fucking a chicken or something. This new law bans sex even if no harm is done to either the human or the animal. It can only be justified through personal distaste, the same justification that was used for banning homosexuality, or on the principle of animal consent which is a massive can of worms of which beastiality is the most irrelevant nonsensical part of. It is absurd that someone who genuinely strongly believed in animal consent would think that non harmful beastiality, a very rare occurrence, was a more pressing matter than industrialised food production, that argument is just a cover for the first.
|
United Kingdom36158 Posts
On June 14 2013 21:12 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 21:08 marvellosity wrote:On June 14 2013 21:06 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
The likely assumptions are that at the very least every now and then an animal does not like this without being able to express itself. No clue why you would argue for it being legal. Just because we kill animals doesn't mean it is okay to give them a shitty life on the way. There are plenty of laws protecting animals even though we kill them for consumption. There are people breaking the law for just about every law we have. Even if animal rights laws aren't all lived up to that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist. What if a dog starts humping a woman and the woman goes along with it? I think that is a great point to bring up, but still easily refuted. There are laws protecting children from having sex with adults. Yet plenty of times the sex between an adult and a child will be consensual. However these laws exist because we conclude that the majority of children aren't able to properly express themselves at times. By law you protect 99 kids who couldn't express themselves, by lumping the one example where it was fine, with the rest. Sometimes the sex between an adult and a child isn't a problem at all (as in your example with the dog). However we conclude that we have to protect all children because the majority of them aren't able to express themselves properly. Just because there exists consensual sex between an animal and an adult doesn't mean there shouldn't be a law protecting the majority of the cases. An animal cannot express itself and if it is at all a possibility that sex with animals is not consensual then I believe there should be a law against it. Because of the inability to express themselves you have to lump in the 1 example of consensual animal sex to protect 99 others.
The argument boils down to the fact that you're equating an animal's worth to a human's worth.
It's not easily refuted, because as Kwark brings up, we do all sorts of things to animals that we don't do to humans, namely killing them, eating them, breeding them for milk, eggs, and whatever.
A kid is not a dog, and in how we treat kids and animals, they are definitively not equal, so the comparison is false.
|
This law will affect 0.00001% of the population
|
Arguing for better treatment of animals isn't at all the same as equating them to a human's worth. You can bring up that straw man argument for any law that protects animals.
|
Laws are mainstream forms of sociaty behaviour.
Beeing cruel to animals or even humans lies at the core of each person.
I see it very easy: if i want others to be good, first i ahve to give them a good example.
|
On June 14 2013 21:12 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 21:08 marvellosity wrote:On June 14 2013 21:06 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
The likely assumptions are that at the very least every now and then an animal does not like this without being able to express itself. No clue why you would argue for it being legal. Just because we kill animals doesn't mean it is okay to give them a shitty life on the way. There are plenty of laws protecting animals even though we kill them for consumption. There are people breaking the law for just about every law we have. Even if animal rights laws aren't all lived up to that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist. What if a dog starts humping a woman and the woman goes along with it? I think that is a great point to bring up, but still easily refuted. There are laws protecting children from having sex with adults. Yet plenty of times the sex between an adult and a child will be consensual. However these laws exist because we conclude that the majority of children aren't able to properly express themselves at times. By law you protect 99 kids who couldn't express themselves by lumping the one example where it was fine with the rest. Sometimes the sex between an adult and a child isn't a problem at all (as in your example with the dog). However we conclude that we have to protect all children because the majority of them aren't able to express themselves properly. Just because there exists consensual sex between an animal and an adult doesn't mean there shouldn't be a law protecting the majority of the cases. An animal cannot express itself and if it is at all a possibility that sex with animals is not consensual then I believe there should be a law against it. Because of the inability to express themselves you have to lump in the 1 example of consensual animal sex to protect 99 others.
I disagree. The reason we do not allow a child and adult to have sex even when it is consensual is to protect the child's mind and his/her mental development. There are huge psychological implications for the child. When it comes to animals it shouldn't matter as long as it's consensual and no harm is done.
|
Does Sweden produce meat (cows & sheep)? Well in the future it won't, since they want to ban artificial insemination.
|
Meh, disagree with the notion that human rights should transpose directly into animal rights.
We single out consent as the key element for sex between humans because of human rights, but human rights itself is a legal construct, it's not something we're innately born with, it's just something that we as a society find necessary for a good life. It makes no sense to unquestioningly transpose them to animals.
If Sweden feels strongly enough against beastiality to outlaw it on the grounds of public policy, fair enough, but the idea that animals have rights under which humans have an obligation or duty against is ridiculous. "Animal-rights" are more a deal between humans to not make animal's lives miserable, it should not be seen as a similar paradigm to human rights.
|
United States42190 Posts
On June 14 2013 21:17 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
Arguing for better treatment of animals isn't at all the same as equating them to a human's worth. You can bring up that straw man argument for any law that protects animals.
There are numerous people in this topic, such as Evangelist, who are arguing that beastiality is literally the same as rape, that the lack of consent in both cases is the exact same thing and also that his dog is a literal member of his family. It ought to be a straw man but it's really not, people are actually arguing it.
|
On June 14 2013 21:12 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 21:08 marvellosity wrote:On June 14 2013 21:06 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
The likely assumptions are that at the very least every now and then an animal does not like this without being able to express itself. No clue why you would argue for it being legal. Just because we kill animals doesn't mean it is okay to give them a shitty life on the way. There are plenty of laws protecting animals even though we kill them for consumption. There are people breaking the law for just about every law we have. Even if animal rights laws aren't all lived up to that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist. What if a dog starts humping a woman and the woman goes along with it? I think that is a great point to bring up, but still easily refuted. There are laws protecting children from having sex with adults. Yet plenty of times the sex between an adult and a child will be consensual. However these laws exist because we conclude that the majority of children aren't able to properly express themselves at times. By law you protect 99 kids who couldn't express themselves, by lumping in the one example where it was fine, with the rest. Sometimes the sex between an adult and a child isn't a problem at all (as in your example with the dog). However we conclude that we have to protect all children because the majority of them aren't able to express themselves properly. Just because there exists consensual sex between an animal and an adult doesn't mean there shouldn't be a law protecting the majority of the cases. An animal cannot express itself and if it is at all a possibility that sex with animals is not consensual then I believe there should be a law against it. Because of the inability to express themselves you have to lump in the 1 example of consensual animal sex to protect 99 others.
Do animals consent to being imprisoned and eaten?
What does it say about us if we protect or simply disregard their rights as and when it suits us?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
