|
On June 14 2013 21:51 Morthy wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Which is precisely why the whole idea that animal's "consent" is necessary for them to be fucked, needs further justification. Hence, the current discussion.
|
On June 14 2013 21:49 S_SienZ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 21:46 Nausea wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
Huh??? I just pointed out that eating an animal has far more reason than fucking it. Homosexuals can't reproduce with sex but at least both of them can say they want to have sex.
|
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.
You are so totally missing the point.
There have been ZERO cases of anyone fucking an animal and getting away with it because suffering could not be proven since the animal "couldn't speak for itself" (That idea in itself is highly questionable. Obviously "animals" can't communicate as well as people, and some, like the chicken in the example, pretty much can't at all and we can be pretty sure it would never appreciate a fucking).
The law is a pointless populist moralist hoax. Also, laws should not be theorycrafted by the uninformed. If they don't do anything, like this one, they're obviously crap.
|
On June 14 2013 16:00 JustPassingBy wrote:
Can't you just persecute the people for animal cruelty? If that is not "enough", then perhaps the animal cruelty laws do not go far enough. But I see no reason to create another extra law for that.
My view exactly.
I do think it should be illegal, as animal welfare should be more important than the expression an extremely rare perversion, but I think it should fall under animal cruelty laws, so you don't essentially destroy a sick man's life because of his sickness.
|
United States43365 Posts
On June 14 2013 21:52 Nausea wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 21:49 S_SienZ wrote:On June 14 2013 21:46 Nausea wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Huh??? I just pointed out that eating an animal has far more reason than fucking it. Homosexuals can't reproduce with sex but at least both of them can say they want to have sex.
If two gay guys fuck then all the humans having sex have consented. If a guy and a cow fuck then all the humans having sex have still consented. Only if animal consent is given value and ignoring animal non consent is treated as an abuse does it become relevant and animal non consent to things is a massive can of worms of which beastiality is an inconceivably irrelevant aspect.
|
On June 14 2013 21:52 Nausea wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 21:49 S_SienZ wrote:On June 14 2013 21:46 Nausea wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Huh??? I just pointed out that eating an animal has far more reason than fucking it. Homosexuals can't reproduce with sex but at least both of them can say they want to have sex.
The whole point of rape though, is that because we have the capacity to express ourselves and possess rationality, that we require something extra, consent, for sex. The underlying logic here is the protection of one's autonomy, that one should never be treated as merely a means but an end itself. (By one I mean human)
All of that does not apply at all to animals, which is why some people, myself included, are arguing that any legislation that is based upon such a flawed foundation, to the detriment of liberty of humans, is wrong.
|
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?
This is just boiling down to a difference between how we view things. I most definitely support laws protecting animals at some small losses of liberty for humans. Basically any law that is about the treatment of animals (how much space they get, whether you can use electric shocks, etc) limits the liberty of humans in some way, and that is totally fine with me. My view on it is that just because humans outrank animals doesn't mean there are no limits to what we can do to them.
|
On June 14 2013 21:50 Reason wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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.
I agree that doesn't mean I am okay with it. I'm just saying if you can make a sex animal breeding farm then sure go for it I don't care. But as you will know that would never happen because it's not normal.
We do things for a reason. We breed animals to eat them.
Edit: Just to clarify. You can look at pets. They are bred as pleasure animals, they are bred for a reason and that's to have a companion, not slaves. Both have laws do protect them.
And I myself care less about animals that get bred to be killed then pets.
|
On June 14 2013 21:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 21:52 Nausea wrote:On June 14 2013 21:49 S_SienZ wrote:On June 14 2013 21:46 Nausea wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Huh??? I just pointed out that eating an animal has far more reason than fucking it. Homosexuals can't reproduce with sex but at least both of them can say they want to have sex. If two gay guys fuck then all the humans having sex have consented. If a guy and a cow fuck then all the humans having sex have still consented. Only if animal consent is given value and ignoring animal non consent is treated as an abuse does it become relevant and animal non consent to things is a massive can of worms of which beastiality is an inconceivably irrelevant aspect.
So beastiality is irrelevant? Not in this thread since it's about a law passed against just that and nothing else.
|
about the chicken thing.
a chicken lays eggs that are usually, in diameter/circumference, way above that of a normal sized penis. so if it can squeeze out an egg ... (and ye, it's the same hole)
|
Surprised people are defending this. It's almost like they participate themselves.
Whether said creature enjoys it or not, it's by definition, unnatural. It's shocking and bad and wrong.
|
United States43365 Posts
On June 14 2013 21:55 Liquid`Nazgul 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? This is just boiling down to a difference between how we view things. I most definitely support laws protecting animals at some small losses of liberty for humans. Basically any law that is about the treatment of animals (how much space they get, whether you can use electric shocks, etc) limits the liberty of humans in some way, and that is totally fine with me. My view on it is that just because humans outrank animals doesn't mean there are no limits to what we can do to them.
I only buy free range chickens and eggs because given the choice I believe that is the ethical decision but I do not support legislating to force other people to financially support animal welfare over whatever they want to spend their money on because I place a higher value on liberty than I do on animal welfare. For me this law smacks of populism and hypocrisy overriding principles of liberty because of its negligible value to the tiny, tiny number of animals having non physically harmful sex with humans (physically harmful sex already being covered under animal abuse) at the cost of bringing the government back into the bedroom. I think if it were not for the "eww, gross" value it would never have passed and distaste is no reason for legislating sexual behaviour.
|
On June 14 2013 21:59 Nekovivie wrote:
Surprised people are defending this. It's almost like they participate themselves.
Whether said creature enjoys it or not, it's by definition, unnatural. It's shocking and bad and wrong.
Laws need to be made for the right reasons.
Banning something just because it's "unnatural" or offends the feelings or tastes of the majority is how democracies descend into populism. The role of the law is to prevent tyranny of the majority.
Conflating the "legal" and the "moral" produces very dangerous consequences and are best kept apart. Don't get me wrong, if someone came up to me and told me he fucked cows, I'd be disgusted by the thought of it, I certainly would never become best buds with him, I just don't think he should be locked up or sanctioned for it.
|
United States43365 Posts
On June 14 2013 21:58 Nausea wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 21:54 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 21:52 Nausea wrote:On June 14 2013 21:49 S_SienZ wrote:On June 14 2013 21:46 Nausea wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Huh??? I just pointed out that eating an animal has far more reason than fucking it. Homosexuals can't reproduce with sex but at least both of them can say they want to have sex. If two gay guys fuck then all the humans having sex have consented. If a guy and a cow fuck then all the humans having sex have still consented. Only if animal consent is given value and ignoring animal non consent is treated as an abuse does it become relevant and animal non consent to things is a massive can of worms of which beastiality is an inconceivably irrelevant aspect. So beastiality is irrelevant? Not in this thread since it's about a law passed against just that and nothing else.
Which is part of my issue with it. How many cases is this law going to be relevant to in Sweden annually? If you believe in animal consent then you are wasting your time trying to prosecute people having non harmful sex with animals because it's a tiny, tiny minority of people in a carnivorous country.
|
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.
I'm now convinced you're trolling. There's no legitimate way you could compare bestiality, a sexual practice between a human and a necessarily non-consenting animal, to homosexuality, a sexual practice between two consenting humans. There's also no way you could sit here saying that the human's freedom to buttfuck a pig is more important than the pig's inherent and natural right not to have a farmer's dick shoved into its asshole.
Animals have no natural right not to be eaten by a species higher up in the food chain. I.e., a squirrel can't yell at a hawk to stop eating his friends, because the natural order is for the stronger to consume the weaker. It's therefore an extension of the natural food chain for us to breed pigs for meat and eat them.
However, our enlightened nature has made us aware of the suffering a pig could and most likely will experience if faced with an unclean (read: painful, unmerciful) death. So we have rules in place to stop such unnecessary suffering. The hawk could give a shit less if the squirrel it's eating is still alive when he starts to eat it, but we care about that pig.
And while we allow animals to be bred for food as a natural extension of the food chain, there is NO natural statute that excuses animals raping each other. Beyond dolphins raping women out in the ocean or chimps getting a bit too randy with their zookeepers I guess, but that has no inherent value beyond domination and orgasm, and is generally not exhibited by most of the natural world.
Eating other animals is a natural thing. Raping them for our own pleasure and then arguing that the law telling us to stop is misguided because we can eat them is not. It's a screwed perspective that is an odd, and slightly horrifying honestly, extension of libertarianism.
I, seriously, am flabbergasted.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On June 14 2013 21:59 Nekovivie wrote:
Surprised people are defending this. It's almost like they participate themselves.
Whether said creature enjoys it or not, it's by definition, unnatural. It's shocking and bad and wrong.
I don't think you understand what "by definition" means.
|
|
|
I'm now convinced you're trolling. There's no legitimate way you could compare bestiality, a sexual practice between a human and a necessarily non-consenting animal, to homosexuality, a sexual practice between two consenting humans. There's also no way you could sit here saying that the human's freedom to buttfuck a pig is more important than the pig's inherent and natural right not to have a farmer's dick shoved into its asshole.
Animals have no natural right not to be eaten by a species higher up in the food chain. I.e., a squirrel can't yell at a hawk to stop eating his friends, because the natural order is for the stronger to consume the weaker. It's therefore an extension of the natural food chain for us to breed pigs for meat and eat them.
However, our enlightened nature has made us aware of the suffering a pig could and most likely will experience if faced with an unclean (read: painful, unmerciful) death. So we have rules in place to stop such unnecessary suffering. The hawk could give a shit less if the squirrel it's eating is still alive when he starts to eat it, but we care about that pig.
And while we allow animals to be bred for food as a natural extension of the food chain, there is NO natural statute that excuses animals raping another species. Beyond dolphins raping women out in the ocean or chimps getting a bit too randy with their zookeepers I guess, but that has no inherent value beyond domination and orgasm, and is generally not exhibited by most of the natural world.
Eating other animals is a natural thing. Raping them for our own pleasure and then arguing that the law telling us to stop is misguided because we can eat them is not. It's a screwed perspective that is an odd, and slightly horrifying honestly, extension of libertarianism.
I, seriously, am flabbergasted.
EDIT: fucked up the BBcode. Sorry 'bout that. Post is in response to Kwark though, FYI
|
I tolerate bestiality and don't see any severe problems with it as long as the animal is not forced to do it. And current laws already cover such problematics. As already mentioned earlier in the thread, there are countless more severe matters that still get less attention.
However, I dislike the reasoning that humans can do whatever we want to animals because some of us actually believe we are superior beings.
|
On June 14 2013 22:02 Mauldo 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. I'm now convinced you're trolling. There's no legitimate way you could compare bestiality, a sexual practice between a human and a necessarily non-consenting animal, to homosexuality, a sexual practice between two consenting humans. There's also no way you could sit here saying that the human's freedom to buttfuck a pig is more important than the pig's inherent and natural right not to have a farmer's dick shoved into its asshole. Animals have no natural right not to be eaten by a species higher up in the food chain. I.e., a squirrel can't yell at a hawk to stop eating his friends, because the natural order is for the stronger to consume the weaker. It's therefore an extension of the natural food chain for us to breed pigs for meat and eat them. However, our enlightened nature has made us aware of the suffering a pig could and most likely will experience if faced with an unclean (read: painful, unmerciful) death. So we have rules in place to stop such unnecessary suffering. The hawk could give a shit less if the squirrel it's eating is still alive when he starts to eat it, but we care about that pig. And while we allow animals to be bred for food as a natural extension of the food chain, there is NO natural statute that excuses animals raping each other. Beyond dolphins raping women out in the ocean or chimps getting a bit too randy with their zookeepers I guess, but that has no inherent value beyond domination and orgasm, and is generally not exhibited by most of the natural world. Eating other animals is a natural thing. Raping them for our own pleasure and then arguing that the law telling us to stop is misguided because we can eat them is not. It's a screwed perspective that is an odd, and slightly horrifying honestly, extension of libertarianism. I, seriously, am flabbergasted.
You're assuming the existence of natural rights though.
Most people on the other side, I'm presuming would dispute that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
