|
On June 14 2013 21:36 KwarK 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. 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.
In society there are thousands upon thousands of issues to fix. Different people focus on different things that they care about. If every time someone was trying to improve something you point to some war that is going on we would get nowhere.
|
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? I don't want to watch vileness like this post getting spread.
|
Do you guys realize that if a human wants to sexually abuse animal he can do so whether it is illegal or legal without consequence because the animal cannot phone the police and report the crime. The only thing this law will do is force Swedish utorrent websites such as piratebay to delete the bestiality content and that's in my opinion a good thing.
P.S. I would also like to report Kwark. ^
|
There's no discussion to be had in this thread really. Plexa close this thread.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
United Kingdom36158 Posts
On June 14 2013 21:42 edlover420 wrote:
Do you guys realize that if a human wants to sexually abuse animal he can do so whether it is illegal or legal without consequence because the animal cannot phone the police and report the crime. The only thing this law will do is force Swedish utorrent websites such as piratebay to delete the bestiality content and that's in my opinion a good thing.
P.S. I would also like to report Kwark.
Animals can neighver report such baahrberous mooders.
|
On June 14 2013 21:38 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 21:35 hypercube wrote: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?
It's also a word that means unconsensual sex. Including it in the criminal code doesn't overwrite the original meaning of the word.
|
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.
If an animal is capable of psychological harm from having sex with a human if there is no physical harm, which I don't believe to be true, then animals are suffering psychologically and unacceptably from being bred in captivity, slaughtered in front of each other, the monotony of the same routine and food everyday... etc
We don't attribute that level of sophistication to them at any other time, so why suddenly do it here?
On June 14 2013 21:42 edlover420 wrote:
Do you guys realize that if a human wants to sexually abuse animal he can do so whether it is illegal or legal without consequence because the animal cannot phone the police and report the crime. The only thing this law will do is force Swedish utorrent websites such as piratebay to delete the bestiality content and that's in my opinion a good thing.
P.S. I would also like to report Kwark. ^
He said animals can't be raped, whether he's right or wrong that's not a reportable offense.
|
United States42186 Posts
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.
But why would the law protect the animal at the loss of the liberty of the human?
If I want to rear a cow, let it graze in my garden and then eat it then the law says that in that situation my desire for beef is more important than the cows continued existence but if I want to fuck it then the law says that my desire to fuck it is less important the cow's welfare.
This law restricts human freedom in the name of animal welfare and for that to be a noble cause it first must be shown that animal welfare is more important than human freedom. Now clearly we have socially decided that there is a line which is why you can't torture puppies for fun and so forth but this is really, really far on the "it's okay" side of that line. We still have battery farmed hens because people want the freedom to save a few pennies on eggs at the cost of immense animal suffering.
|
i dont get all this nitpicking about animal rights and morality in this thread, its completly minor and irrelevant
u cant beat up ur pet, you can kill it. you cant fuck your pet, you can eat it.
i dunno, kinda weird yo
|
On June 14 2013 21:44 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 21:38 marvellosity wrote:On June 14 2013 21:35 hypercube wrote: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? It's also a word that means unconsensual sex. Including it in the criminal code doesn't overwrite the original meaning of the word.
Just coz laymen butchered or diluted the meaning of a legal term, doesn't make the resultant definition the correct one.
|
On June 14 2013 21:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 21:36 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: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. But why would the law protect the animal at the loss of the liberty of the human? If I want to rear a cow, let it graze in my garden and then eat it then the law says that in that situation my desire for beef is more important than the cows continued existence but if I want to fuck it then the law says that my desire to fuck it is less important the cow's welfare. This law restricts human freedom in the name of animal welfare and for that to be a noble cause it first must be shown that animal welfare is more important than human freedom. Now clearly we have socially decided that there is a line which is why you can't torture puppies for fun and so forth but this is really, really far on the "it's okay" side of that line. We still have battery farmed hens because people want the freedom to save a few pennies on eggs at the cost of immense animal suffering.
Well let's face it, you need food. You don't need to fuck, and especially an animal you can't reproduce with.
|
United Kingdom36158 Posts
On June 14 2013 21:44 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 21:38 marvellosity wrote:On June 14 2013 21:35 hypercube wrote: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? It's also a word that means unconsensual sex. Including it in the criminal code doesn't overwrite the original meaning of the word.
Again, consent is very much a human thing.
Murder is between human beings, because humans kill animals all the time. If Kwark said "you can't murder animals, silly" would you report him also? Because we do 'murder' animals in order to eat them. But it's not the same. Murder is a human killing a human.
I don't understand why people want to report Kwark for taking this position.
|
On June 14 2013 21:32 KwarK wrote:
Suffering of animals isn't under discussion here as this law does nothing to change that, animal abuse was already illegal.
Then the arguments against this law ultimately come down to the question whether it's redundant, not whether it's justified.
As Nazgul puts it:
On June 14 2013 21:31 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
This law basically means that sex with animals can be considered animal cruelty.
I think there is merit to the idea that this law just serves the purpose of legal security in those cases where it formerly may (or may not?) have been possible to defend against accusations of animal abuse along the lines of "no donkeys were harmed in the production of this movie, only fucked". And this law spells out that sex with animals is one type of animal abuse... so what if the former law should have already covered that? Apparently, there was too much room for interpretation, and that's gone now... which is nice, and a benefit for which some redundancy can be tacitly accepted, imho.
|
On June 14 2013 21:39 KwarK wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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.
Of course they don't know better in both ways, I never said such thing. I only said that animals don't share the same love we share with other humans, so implying that an animal WANTS to have sex with you for fun is stupid. He wants sex with you because it's his nature and it's programmed in it.
Even talking about what animals think is stupid. We don't even know what animals think so as long that's a grey place there needs to be a law for it.
Yes I would agree there. If you bred animals as sex pleasures, it wouldn't be that big of a problem. But try to do that.
|
On June 14 2013 21:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 21:36 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: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. But why would the law protect the animal at the loss of the liberty of the human? If I want to rear a cow, let it graze in my garden and then eat it then the law says that in that situation my desire for beef is more important than the cows continued existence but if I want to fuck it then the law says that my desire to fuck it is less important the cow's welfare. This law restricts human freedom in the name of animal welfare and for that to be a noble cause it first must be shown that animal welfare is more important than human freedom. Now clearly we have socially decided that there is a line which is why you can't torture puppies for fun and so forth but this is really, really far on the "it's okay" side of that line. We still have battery farmed hens because people want the freedom to save a few pennies on eggs at the cost of immense animal suffering.
Ironically the similar Kantian ideas which formed the basis of rape laws in the first place are the ones being violated with this anti-"rape" law. LOL.
|
On June 14 2013 21:44 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 21:36 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: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. If an animal is capable of psychological harm from having sex with a human if there is no physical harm, which I don't believe to be true, then animals are suffering psychologically and unacceptably from being bred in captivity, slaughtered in front of each other, the monotony of the same routine and food everyday... etc We don't attribute that level of sophistication to them at any other time, so why suddenly do it here? Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 21:42 edlover420 wrote:
Do you guys realize that if a human wants to sexually abuse animal he can do so whether it is illegal or legal without consequence because the animal cannot phone the police and report the crime. The only thing this law will do is force Swedish utorrent websites such as piratebay to delete the bestiality content and that's in my opinion a good thing.
P.S. I would also like to report Kwark. ^ He said animals can't be raped, whether he's right or wrong that's not a reportable offense.
Probably not the right place to have this discussion but he was wrong AND condescending. Not a good combination.
|
United States42186 Posts
On June 14 2013 21:39 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 21:36 KwarK 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. 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. In society there are thousands upon thousands of issues to fix. Different people focus on different things that they care about. If every time someone was trying to improve something you point to some war that is going on we would get nowhere.
True, the "if you really cared you'd ...." fallacy is absurd unless they really don't care about that other thing. But in this case people are trying to argue that they aren't the same thing, that violating animal consent to kill them is a completely different situation to violating animal consent to fuck them and that needs justifying. If I were to go "if you really cared about people you'd speak up against the human rights abuses in Syria" and the person disagreed with the human rights abuses in Syria but couldn't do anything about it then I'd be making that fallacy. However if the person thought that those human rights abuses were fine but other minor issues were really important then they'd be a hypocrite.
|
On June 14 2013 21:46 Nausea wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 21:44 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 21:36 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: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:
[quote]
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. But why would the law protect the animal at the loss of the liberty of the human? If I want to rear a cow, let it graze in my garden and then eat it then the law says that in that situation my desire for beef is more important than the cows continued existence but if I want to fuck it then the law says that my desire to fuck it is less important the cow's welfare. This law restricts human freedom in the name of animal welfare and for that to be a noble cause it first must be shown that animal welfare is more important than human freedom. Now clearly we have socially decided that there is a line which is why you can't torture puppies for fun and so forth but this is really, really far on the "it's okay" side of that line. We still have battery farmed hens because people want the freedom to save a few pennies on eggs at the cost of immense animal suffering. Well let's face it, you need food. You don't need to fuck, and especially an animal you can't reproduce with.
Food =/= meat
Also the idea that sex is only for reproduction is archaic, by that reasoning you would also justify anti-gay sex legislation, which btw is still a thing where I come from.
|
On June 14 2013 21:47 Morthy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 21:39 KwarK wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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. Of course they don't know better in both ways, I never said such thing. I only said that animals don't share the same love we share with other humans, so implying that an animal WANTS to have sex with you for fun is stupid. He wants sex with you because it's his nature and it's programmed in it. Even talking about what animals think is stupid. We don't even know what animals think so as long that's a grey place there needs to be a law for it. Yes I would agree there. If you bred animals as sex pleasures, it wouldn't be that big of a problem. But try to do that.
That's called falling into a super-obvious-not-even-intended-to-be-a-trap trap and completely discrediting everything you've said.
On June 14 2013 21:48 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 21:44 Reason wrote:On June 14 2013 21:36 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: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:
[quote]
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. If an animal is capable of psychological harm from having sex with a human if there is no physical harm, which I don't believe to be true, then animals are suffering psychologically and unacceptably from being bred in captivity, slaughtered in front of each other, the monotony of the same routine and food everyday... etc We don't attribute that level of sophistication to them at any other time, so why suddenly do it here? On June 14 2013 21:42 edlover420 wrote:
Do you guys realize that if a human wants to sexually abuse animal he can do so whether it is illegal or legal without consequence because the animal cannot phone the police and report the crime. The only thing this law will do is force Swedish utorrent websites such as piratebay to delete the bestiality content and that's in my opinion a good thing.
P.S. I would also like to report Kwark. ^ He said animals can't be raped, whether he's right or wrong that's not a reportable offense. Probably not the right place to have this discussion but he was wrong AND condescending. Not a good combination.
PM me why you think he should be reported if that's what you really think, otherwise I'm confused.
|
On June 14 2013 21:49 S_SienZ wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 14 2013 21:46 Nausea wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 21:44 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 21:36 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: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:
[quote]
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. But why would the law protect the animal at the loss of the liberty of the human? If I want to rear a cow, let it graze in my garden and then eat it then the law says that in that situation my desire for beef is more important than the cows continued existence but if I want to fuck it then the law says that my desire to fuck it is less important the cow's welfare. This law restricts human freedom in the name of animal welfare and for that to be a noble cause it first must be shown that animal welfare is more important than human freedom. Now clearly we have socially decided that there is a line which is why you can't torture puppies for fun and so forth but this is really, really far on the "it's okay" side of that line. We still have battery farmed hens because people want the freedom to save a few pennies on eggs at the cost of immense animal suffering. Well let's face it, you need food. You don't need to fuck, and especially an animal you can't reproduce with. Food =/= meat Also the idea that sex is only for reproduction is archaic, by that reasoning you would also justify anti-gay sex legislation, which btw is still a thing where I come from.
Not really you can't compare humans with animals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
