|
You know what, Kwark.
If you seriously think you can justify raping animals based upon my ownership of a rescue dog then frankly I worry for your future children.
You're reported. I hope Nazgul throws the fucking hammer at you. Can't believe they let someone like you mod this place. It's mental.
|
United States42656 Posts
Animals can't be raped, silly. They're not people. Also unless there's a risk of my future children being non human I think I'll manage. You keep assuming that because I think animals don't get the same rights as people then I think that people don't get the same rights as people because you literally equate humans and animals as being the same thing. I do not, I am capable of distinguishing between the two and it is very likely that my children will be human.
|
On June 14 2013 21:21 KwarK wrote:
Animals can't be raped, silly. They're not people.
You're fucking disgusting. Seriously if this is the kind of twat you think should moderate this place just ban me now because I want no further part of this community.
User was banned for maryring.
|
On June 14 2013 21:19 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 21:12 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: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?
What you are advocating here is that just because we kill animals we should also condone animal abuse, and I simply don't share that idea. I believe that because we eat them we should treat them decently along the way. The reason for this law is the exact same as any other animal protection law that is in place despite us eating them.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On June 14 2013 21:23 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 21:19 Reason wrote:On June 14 2013 21:12 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: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? What you are advocating here is that just because we kill animals we should also condone animal abuse, and I simply don't share that idea. I believe that because we eat them we should treat them decently along the way. The reason for this law is the exact same as any other animal protection law that is in place despite us eating them.
No, there is already a law covering cruelty to animals in Sweden.
This law is above and beyond the idea of cruelty to animals. The argument you're making is that the scenarios in which there isn't cruelty to animals (i.e. the dog initiating) should be legislated against, because cruelty to animals is ALREADY legislated against.
|
On June 14 2013 21:23 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 21:19 Reason wrote:On June 14 2013 21:12 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: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? What you are advocating here is that just because we kill animals we should also condone animal abuse, and I simply don't share that idea. I believe that because we eat them we should treat them decently along the way. The reason for this law is the exact same as any other animal protection law that is in place despite us eating them.
Fair enough, but then that all boils down to one's conception of the law.
A more liberal person would argue that laws should be minimalist, to ensure autonomy, so it should be confined to what we can or cannot legally do. Others (usually the more paternalistic countries) would argue that law is about what we should do.
|
United States42656 Posts
On June 14 2013 21:24 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 21:23 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:On June 14 2013 21:19 Reason wrote:On June 14 2013 21:12 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: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? What you are advocating here is that just because we kill animals we should also condone animal abuse, and I simply don't share that idea. I believe that because we eat them we should treat them decently along the way. The reason for this law is the exact same as any other animal protection law that is in place despite us eating them. No, there is already a law covering cruelty to animals in Sweden. This law is above and beyond the idea of cruelty to animals. The argument you're making is that the scenarios in which there isn't cruelty to animals (i.e. the dog initiating) should be legislated against, because cruelty to animals is ALREADY legislated against.
Pretty much this. The old law already covered abuse, this new law can only be argued for on the grounds of animal consent or on the grounds of oppression of things we dislike being virtuous. Evangelist was leading the charge on animal consent with his views that animals are literally people, that beastiality is literally rape and that if someone was okay with it then they were literally a threat to children but he seems to have given up. ExKkaMaGui was leading the oppression viewpoint with his argument that distaste is literally harm and that if someone doesn't like someone else doing something then they are being harmed and should be able to ban it but he's given up too.
|
It seems to me that there are number of points in flux in this thread.
The difficulty arises when so many premises are not shared.
For example, Nazgul's recent premise is that saving the 99 from suffering is worth restricting the freedom of the 1.
Even if the majority do find that premise acceptable, a large percentage of people don't.
Kwark believes that animals are not given equal rights to human beings and thus it is unreasonable to say that it is okay to eat them, slaughter them, and fondle them, but it's not okay to penetrate them.
Another belief that Kwark has is that as long as it doesn't harm another person or (maybe animal), what a person does in their bedroom is not the governments business.
These are valuable philosophical and moral stances, so it makes me sad to see so many people in the thread saying things like, "EWW GROSS BEASTIALITY" without stopping to consider the actual law in the context of the previous laws.
|
On June 14 2013 21:23 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 21:19 Reason wrote:On June 14 2013 21:12 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: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? What you are advocating here is that just because we kill animals we should also condone animal abuse, and I simply don't share that idea. I believe that because we eat them we should treat them decently along the way. The reason for this law is the exact same as any other animal protection law that is in place despite us eating them.
We've already decided they don't deserve to be treated like humans, because we eat them.
So... we're not going to treat animals like humans, we're going to own them and essentially do whatever we want with them, including consuming them, short of actually torturing them or causing them unnecessary harm.
So... what you have to do now to justify this law is prove that bestiality causes harm to animals, or that an animal could come to some sort of harm through an act of bestiality that isn't already covered by existing animal cruelty laws.
I don't think anyone can do that and until someone can I don't think this is something that should be legislated.
edit: To be more specific, we aren't allowed to cause harm to animals just for the sake of causing harm. If we're allowed to own them because we're lonely and murder them because we're hungry we should be allowed to have sex with them because we're horny; as long as the animal isn't injured.
|
On June 14 2013 21:24 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 21:23 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:On June 14 2013 21:19 Reason wrote:On June 14 2013 21:12 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: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? What you are advocating here is that just because we kill animals we should also condone animal abuse, and I simply don't share that idea. I believe that because we eat them we should treat them decently along the way. The reason for this law is the exact same as any other animal protection law that is in place despite us eating them. No, there is already a law covering cruelty to animals in Sweden. This law is above and beyond the idea of cruelty to animals. The argument you're making is that the scenarios in which there isn't cruelty to animals (i.e. the dog initiating) should be legislated against, because cruelty to animals is ALREADY legislated against.
This law basically means that sex with animals can be considered animal cruelty. Animals can't speak up for themselves or point out whether it should be considered cruelty. The law forbids the action of having sex with an animal, in order to avoid situations where it should be considered animal cruelty. The problem is that in court it will be impossible to prove whether an animal gave consent or not. A woman can simply say "I said no". So because an animal can't speak up for itself and explain what happened this law is meant to protect them as a whole. If someone wants to have sex with an animal, and the animal likes it too, by all means I don't care about the action itself. The law is meant to protect animals because they cannot explain when it was consensual and when it wasn't.
It is a completely standard usage of the law to assume that even though occasionally it is fine, overall it is not a good thing. Same goes for laws against sex with children, people using drugs, traffic rules, and many more. There will be plenty of situations where sex with children, or using drugs, crossing a street, will not do any harm to anyone. The law however assumes that because there are too many situations where it does go wrong (and thus have a negative impact on society) and that it should be avoided in order not to damage people.
|
United States42656 Posts
On June 14 2013 21:28 goldenwitch wrote:
It seems to me that there are number of points in flux in this thread.
The difficulty arises when so many premises are not shared.
For example, Nazgul's recent premise is that saving the 99 from suffering is worth restricting the freedom of the 1.
Even if the majority do find that premise acceptable, a large percentage of people don't.
Suffering of animals isn't under discussion here as this law does nothing to change that, animal abuse was already illegal.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On June 14 2013 21:31 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 21:24 marvellosity wrote:On June 14 2013 21:23 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:On June 14 2013 21:19 Reason wrote:On June 14 2013 21:12 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: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? What you are advocating here is that just because we kill animals we should also condone animal abuse, and I simply don't share that idea. I believe that because we eat them we should treat them decently along the way. The reason for this law is the exact same as any other animal protection law that is in place despite us eating them. No, there is already a law covering cruelty to animals in Sweden. This law is above and beyond the idea of cruelty to animals. The argument you're making is that the scenarios in which there isn't cruelty to animals (i.e. the dog initiating) should be legislated against, because cruelty to animals is ALREADY legislated against. This law basically means that sex with animals can be considered animal cruelty. Animals can't speak up for themselves or point out whether it should be considered cruelty. The law forbids the action of having sex with an animal, in order to avoid situations where it should be considered animal cruelty. The problem is that in court it will be impossible to prove whether an animal gave consent or not. A woman can simply say "I said no". So because an animal can't speak up for itself and explain what happened this law is meant to protect them as a whole. If someone wants to have sex with an animal, and the animal likes it too, by all means I don't care about the action itself. The law is meant to protect animals because they cannot explain when it was consensual and when it wasn't.
Incorrect, it could already be considered animal cruelty if there was suffering.
Until now, bestiality was illegal in Sweden only if it could be proven that the animal had been subjected to suffering.
If you fuck a chicken then fairly obviously it has been subjected to suffering, so it's illegal. It already can be considered animal cruelty.
|
On June 14 2013 21:21 KwarK wrote:
Animals can't be raped, silly. They're not people. Also unless there's a risk of my future children being non human I think I'll manage. You keep assuming that because I think animals don't get the same rights as people then I think that people don't get the same rights as people because you literally equate humans and animals as being the same thing. I do not, I am capable of distinguishing between the two and it is very likely that my children will be human.
Where's the report link? 
|
If we're talking about nature and our need for sex.
We can't impregnate animals to my knowledge so there is no reason to have sex with animals. You can't share sexual love with animals, since they don't have sex for fun(not talking about monkeys). And as the master race we should respect other animals. I mean even if the animal wanted to have sex, it isn't because he likes you. It's because he is dominating you and trying to have babies.
Because we eat animals we should also be able to fuck them is the most stupid thing I've ever heard. They get bred to be eaten they don't know better, animals we bred don't get bred to be fucked. There are rules to make that as humane as possible, because no one follows those rules doesn't make us hypocrites.
|
United States42656 Posts
On June 14 2013 21:31 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 21:24 marvellosity wrote:On June 14 2013 21:23 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:On June 14 2013 21:19 Reason wrote:On June 14 2013 21:12 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: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? What you are advocating here is that just because we kill animals we should also condone animal abuse, and I simply don't share that idea. I believe that because we eat them we should treat them decently along the way. The reason for this law is the exact same as any other animal protection law that is in place despite us eating them. No, there is already a law covering cruelty to animals in Sweden. This law is above and beyond the idea of cruelty to animals. The argument you're making is that the scenarios in which there isn't cruelty to animals (i.e. the dog initiating) should be legislated against, because cruelty to animals is ALREADY legislated against. This law basically means that sex with animals can be considered animal cruelty. Animals can't speak up for themselves or point out whether it should be considered cruelty. The law forbids the action of having sex with an animal, in order to avoid situations where it should be considered animal cruelty. The problem is that in court it will be impossible to prove whether an animal gave consent or not. A woman can simply say "I said no". So because an animal can't speak up for itself and explain what happened this law is meant to protect them as a whole. If someone wants to have sex with an animal, and the animal likes it too, by all means I don't care about the action itself. The law is meant to protect animals because they cannot explain when it was consensual and when it wasn't.
Which is the problem people have with it. If the law makes the argument that lack of animal consent is cruelty then first the law has to accept that lack of animal consent is a meaningful concept with legal standing which has huge implications which go far beyond this. If animal consent actually mattered to any of the legislators behind this law then they're making a law about the most irrelevant aspect of the issue imaginable. If I lived in a society in which billions were legally murdered every year and thousands were legally raped you wouldn't see me writing laws banning rape because I'd be much more busy with the murder thing. You can't care about animal consent when it suits you and not at other times.
|
On June 14 2013 21:33 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 21:31 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:On June 14 2013 21:24 marvellosity wrote:On June 14 2013 21:23 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:On June 14 2013 21:19 Reason wrote:On June 14 2013 21:12 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: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? What you are advocating here is that just because we kill animals we should also condone animal abuse, and I simply don't share that idea. I believe that because we eat them we should treat them decently along the way. The reason for this law is the exact same as any other animal protection law that is in place despite us eating them. No, there is already a law covering cruelty to animals in Sweden. This law is above and beyond the idea of cruelty to animals. The argument you're making is that the scenarios in which there isn't cruelty to animals (i.e. the dog initiating) should be legislated against, because cruelty to animals is ALREADY legislated against. This law basically means that sex with animals can be considered animal cruelty. Animals can't speak up for themselves or point out whether it should be considered cruelty. The law forbids the action of having sex with an animal, in order to avoid situations where it should be considered animal cruelty. The problem is that in court it will be impossible to prove whether an animal gave consent or not. A woman can simply say "I said no". So because an animal can't speak up for itself and explain what happened this law is meant to protect them as a whole. If someone wants to have sex with an animal, and the animal likes it too, by all means I don't care about the action itself. The law is meant to protect animals because they cannot explain when it was consensual and when it wasn't. Incorrect, it could already be considered animal cruelty if there was suffering. Until now, bestiality was illegal in Sweden only if it could be proven that the animal had been subjected to suffering.If you fuck a chicken then fairly obviously it has been subjected to suffering, so it's illegal. It already can be considered animal cruelty.
The issue is that since an animal can't speak up for itself it becomes impossible to prove suffering, unless it is something physically absurd like a man fucking a chicken. This law protects other non physically absurd cases.
|
The problem is the starting point that animals need to be protected, and since they cannot express consent should be blanked banned, is an infringement of liberties of a human that cannot be justified a priori. The onus is therefore, on the proponent to justify it, which is the point of this whole discussion. It all boils down to "Do animals deserve a similar rights-based protection regime as humans?", which I don't see how anyone could argue in the affirmative unless they were advocates of legally enforced vegetarianism.
|
On June 14 2013 21:36 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 21:33 marvellosity wrote:On June 14 2013 21:31 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:On June 14 2013 21:24 marvellosity wrote:On June 14 2013 21:23 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:On June 14 2013 21:19 Reason wrote:On June 14 2013 21:12 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: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? What you are advocating here is that just because we kill animals we should also condone animal abuse, and I simply don't share that idea. I believe that because we eat them we should treat them decently along the way. The reason for this law is the exact same as any other animal protection law that is in place despite us eating them. No, there is already a law covering cruelty to animals in Sweden. This law is above and beyond the idea of cruelty to animals. The argument you're making is that the scenarios in which there isn't cruelty to animals (i.e. the dog initiating) should be legislated against, because cruelty to animals is ALREADY legislated against. This law basically means that sex with animals can be considered animal cruelty. Animals can't speak up for themselves or point out whether it should be considered cruelty. The law forbids the action of having sex with an animal, in order to avoid situations where it should be considered animal cruelty. The problem is that in court it will be impossible to prove whether an animal gave consent or not. A woman can simply say "I said no". So because an animal can't speak up for itself and explain what happened this law is meant to protect them as a whole. If someone wants to have sex with an animal, and the animal likes it too, by all means I don't care about the action itself. The law is meant to protect animals because they cannot explain when it was consensual and when it wasn't. Incorrect, it could already be considered animal cruelty if there was suffering. Until now, bestiality was illegal in Sweden only if it could be proven that the animal had been subjected to suffering.If you fuck a chicken then fairly obviously it has been subjected to suffering, so it's illegal. It already can be considered animal cruelty. The issue is that since an animal can't speak up for itself it becomes impossible to prove suffering, unless it is something physically absurd like a man fucking a chicken. This law protects other non physically absurd cases.
On June 14 2013 21:31 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 21:24 marvellosity wrote:On June 14 2013 21:23 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:On June 14 2013 21:19 Reason wrote:On June 14 2013 21:12 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: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? What you are advocating here is that just because we kill animals we should also condone animal abuse, and I simply don't share that idea. I believe that because we eat them we should treat them decently along the way. The reason for this law is the exact same as any other animal protection law that is in place despite us eating them. No, there is already a law covering cruelty to animals in Sweden. This law is above and beyond the idea of cruelty to animals. The argument you're making is that the scenarios in which there isn't cruelty to animals (i.e. the dog initiating) should be legislated against, because cruelty to animals is ALREADY legislated against. This law basically means that sex with animals can be considered animal cruelty. Animals can't speak up for themselves or point out whether it should be considered cruelty. The law forbids the action of having sex with an animal, in order to avoid situations where it should be considered animal cruelty. The problem is that in court it will be impossible to prove whether an animal gave consent or not. A woman can simply say "I said no". So because an animal can't speak up for itself and explain what happened this law is meant to protect them as a whole. If someone wants to have sex with an animal, and the animal likes it too, by all means I don't care about the action itself. The law is meant to protect animals because they cannot explain when it was consensual and when it wasn't. It is a completely standard usage of the law to assume that even though occasionally it is fine, overall it is not a good thing. Same goes for laws against sex with children, people using drugs, traffic rules, and many more. There will be plenty of situations where sex with children, or using drugs, crossing a street, will not do any harm to anyone. The law however assumes that because there are too many situations where it does go wrong (and thus have a negative impact on society) and that it should be avoided in order not to damage people.
This is a really weird debate I'll admit.
There seems to be two crucial points, consent and harm.
We've already completely disregarded consent in animals, we own them and eat them, there are no laws against doing things to an animal against it's consent.
The only thing we have deemed unacceptable is harming animals. (but it's okay to harm them 100% and kill them, but if you harm them and leave them alive it's not okay)
So the consent issue is a non-issue here. We don't respect animals in terms of consent, we get to decide what happens to them as long as we don't hurt them. If I can have sex with an animal without hurting it then I haven't broken that rule.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On June 14 2013 21:35 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 21:21 KwarK wrote:
Animals can't be raped, silly. They're not people. Also unless there's a risk of my future children being non human I think I'll manage. You keep assuming that because I think animals don't get the same rights as people then I think that people don't get the same rights as people because you literally equate humans and animals as being the same thing. I do not, I am capable of distinguishing between the two and it is very likely that my children will be human. Where's the report link?
Rape is a legal construct involving humans. What's to report?
|
United States42656 Posts
On June 14 2013 21:36 Morthy wrote:
If we're talking about nature and our need for sex.
We can't impregnate animals to my knowledge so there is no reason to have sex with animals. You can't share sexual love with animals, since they don't have sex for fun(not talking about monkeys). And as the master race we should respect other animals. I mean even if the animal wanted to have sex, it isn't because he likes you. It's because he is dominating you and trying to have babies.
Because we eat animals we should also be able to fuck them is the most stupid thing I've ever heard. They get bred to be eaten they don't know better, animals we bred don't get bred to be fucked. There are rules to make that as humane as possible, because no one follows those rules doesn't make us hypocrites.
They don't know better than to be eaten but they do know better than to be fucked? Really? Care to elaborate upon that? Do cows have a meaningful understanding of the implications of sexual abuse but are completely in the dark when it comes to murder?
They get bred to be eaten but not to be fucked? So it's okay if I breed an animal to be fucked? It's just not okay to use it for something other than what you bred it for?
What you wrote is so full of holes it's more hole than words.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
