|
On June 14 2013 22:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 21:58 Nausea wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
What I find to be the important part of this law is that it will point out who's fucking animals so they can get some therapy.
|
On June 14 2013 22:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 21:55 Liquid`Nazgul 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? 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.
*waits until a new AIDS-like virus gets passed to humans from chickens or whatever you have here, so Kwark could eat his words! 
still, why can't you see this as more of a precaution and less as a ban on liberties?
|
On June 14 2013 18:05 NeThZOR wrote:
Makes me think of that Pamela Anderson video where the horse did her. Disgusting.
Haha, no way that happened.
No human woman could possibly survive that, those things are as large as my leg.
Besides, wasn't she a mainstream actress at some point?
I don't think that you can sink that low when you acted in main-stream television.
|
1878 Posts
On June 14 2013 22:07 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 22:00 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 21:55 Liquid`Nazgul 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? 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. *waits until a new AIDS-like virus gets passed to humans from chickens or whatever you have here, so Kwark could eat his words! still, why can't you see this as more of a precaution and less as a ban on liberties?
Most needlessly paranoid precautionary measures, are opposed on the basis of liberties. E.g. 24/7 surveillance cameras on the grounds of privacy.
Legal systems need to be consistent, you can't just look at this as an isolated case. Such decisions will have implications on the philosophies behind a legal system and will affect future decisions on other matters as well. Like Kwark said before, you can't value an animal's consent in one aspect and completely disregard it on the grounds of "well we've got to eat".
|
On June 14 2013 22:09 Meow-Meow wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 18:05 NeThZOR wrote:
Makes me think of that Pamela Anderson video where the horse did her. Disgusting. Haha, no way that happened. No human woman could possibly survive that, those things are as large as my leg. Besides, wasn't she a mainstream actress at some point? I don't think that you can sink that low when you acted in main-stream television.
I've seen many vids of women getting fucked by horses,, so it does work,, somehow.. You should check it out,, it's out there,, on the web..
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On June 14 2013 22:07 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 22:00 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 21:55 Liquid`Nazgul 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? 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. *waits until a new AIDS-like virus gets passed to humans from chickens or whatever you have here, so Kwark could eat his words! still, why can't you see this as more of a precaution and less as a ban on liberties?
Because it's not what it is?
|
United States42653 Posts
On June 14 2013 22:06 Nausea wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 22:02 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 21:58 Nausea wrote: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:
[quote]
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. What I find to be the important part of this law is that it will point out who's fucking animals so they can get some therapy.
Why not just chemically castrate them like we did to Turing? Forcing people who aren't harming other people to go to therapy to better fit in with mainstream sexual morality is not useful, healthy or benevolent.
|
Thank you TL. I just learned a new English word "bestiality."
|
On June 14 2013 22:09 Meow-Meow wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 18:05 NeThZOR wrote:
Makes me think of that Pamela Anderson video where the horse did her. Disgusting. Haha, no way that happened. No human woman could possibly survive that, those things are as large as my leg. Besides, wasn't she a mainstream actress at some point? I don't think that you can sink that low when you acted in main-stream television.
It didn't happen, I've seen it before so yes they can, yes she was, you'd be surprised.
|
On June 14 2013 22:11 Zinnwaldite wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 22:09 Meow-Meow wrote:On June 14 2013 18:05 NeThZOR wrote:
Makes me think of that Pamela Anderson video where the horse did her. Disgusting. Haha, no way that happened. No human woman could possibly survive that, those things are as large as my leg. Besides, wasn't she a mainstream actress at some point? I don't think that you can sink that low when you acted in main-stream television. I've seen many vids of women getting fucked by horses,, so it does work,, somehow.. You should check it out,, it out there,, on the web..
Well women come in all sizes just like men. Extra small, small, medium, large, xl, xxl and holy shit.
|
On June 14 2013 22:11 Zinnwaldite wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 22:09 Meow-Meow wrote:On June 14 2013 18:05 NeThZOR wrote:
Makes me think of that Pamela Anderson video where the horse did her. Disgusting. Haha, no way that happened. No human woman could possibly survive that, those things are as large as my leg. Besides, wasn't she a mainstream actress at some point? I don't think that you can sink that low when you acted in main-stream television. I've seen many vids of women getting fucked by horses,, so it does work,, somehow.. You should check it out,, it out there,, on the web..
Mangas don't count. If someone wants to make beast-porn, it makes sense to make it manga.
Not only is it much less effort, but the compliance-rate of the target-audience of that medium should be beyond 90%.
And no, I'm not even going to try googling that.
Best case: it's an obvious fake.
Worst: it's not and I get nightmares.
|
United States42653 Posts
On June 14 2013 22:04 Mauldo wrote:
more important than the pig's inherent and natural right not to have a farmer's dick shoved into its asshole.
I simply don't recognise that as being a thing, I disagree with it and choose not to do it but I disagree with a great many things. I just don't want to use the law as a weapon to force those I disagree with not to do things that don't harm other people.
|
A swedish exchange student actually told me that some swedish adolescents go to a farmer and pay him for having sex with one of his animals if they can't find a horny girl in town. He said it was a general habit where he came from, but he didn't participate.
But this was like 10 years ago, so maybe things have changed since then.
|
1878 Posts
On June 14 2013 22:16 UglyBastard wrote:
A swedish exchange student actually told me that some swedish adolescents go to a farmer and pay him for having sex with one of his animals if they can't find a horny girl in town. He said it was a general habit where he came from, but he didn't participate.
But this was like 10 years ago, so maybe things have changed since then.
Just out of curiosity, did you ask him whether he asked his friends how it was like?
Coz I can see some people genuinely wanting to fuck animals instead of humans, hey if some people want to fuck cars, anything can happen. But using an animal as a substitute for a girl... I dunno how that would even work.
|
On June 14 2013 22:12 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 22:06 Nausea wrote:On June 14 2013 22:02 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 21:58 Nausea wrote: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:
[quote]
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. What I find to be the important part of this law is that it will point out who's fucking animals so they can get some therapy. Why not just chemically castrate them like we did to Turing? Forcing people who aren't harming other people to go to therapy to better fit in with mainstream sexual morality is not useful, healthy or benevolent.
and why not just stick everyone in a matrix style incubator so that no one can harm anyone.
|
United States42653 Posts
On June 14 2013 22:16 UglyBastard wrote:
A swedish exchange student actually told me that some swedish adolescents go to a farmer and pay him for having sex with one of his animals if they can't find a horny girl in town. He said it was a general habit where he came from, but he didn't participate.
But this was like 10 years ago, so maybe things have changed since then.
The Kinsey reports found that rural America reported 40-50% of the population having engaged in some kind of beastiality although that was a few generations ago now.
|
The Swedes being all pretentious and stuff, thinking that a horse actually feels them :D
|
On June 14 2013 22:16 UglyBastard wrote:
A swedish exchange student actually told me that some swedish adolescents go to a farmer and pay him for having sex with one of his animals if they can't find a horny girl in town. He said it was a general habit where he came from, but he didn't participate.
But this was like 10 years ago, so maybe things have changed since then.
This is some of these absurd urban myths that are older than the sun and always happen to "a friend of mine".
If I had a € for every time I heard the "sex has first anal sex with bf, her anus rips, she shits the bed, they blame the dog, father shoots the dog"-story from completely independent people all over Germany, I could buy a family-sized pizza and a coke.
|
United States42653 Posts
On June 14 2013 22:20 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 22:12 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 22:06 Nausea wrote:On June 14 2013 22:02 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 21:58 Nausea wrote: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:
[quote]
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. What I find to be the important part of this law is that it will point out who's fucking animals so they can get some therapy. Why not just chemically castrate them like we did to Turing? Forcing people who aren't harming other people to go to therapy to better fit in with mainstream sexual morality is not useful, healthy or benevolent. and why not just stick everyone in a matrix style incubator so that no one can harm anyone.
I was using the Turing tragedy as an argument against forced therapy if that was unclear.
|
Those who define themselves as liberalists and disagree with kwark should really go check what liberalism is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
