|
United States43458 Posts
On June 14 2013 22:51 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 22:48 Thor.Rush wrote:
Whether it's legal or not doesn't matter to me. Though I think it would be dangerous to go around arresting people who are involved sexually with an animal and not physically harming it, no matter how disgusting it might be to the majority of people. To me that sounds similar to banning gay sex. There are differences of course, but still.. I think one big difference is concent. And its really offensive to draw the comparison you just did :/
Homosexuality wasn't outlawed over a consent issue, it was outlawed because a majority of moralists felt they had the moral right to oppress a minority who weren't hurting anyone. The comparison being drawn here is that the same group are targeting others who are still socially acceptable to target, not that gay sex is the same as beastiality.
|
On June 14 2013 16:14 Orangered wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 16:11 nttea wrote:
We can own them, pet them, restrain them but god forbid someone tries something sexual with them. Stupid law but if i were to protest something it'd be something more important so W/E. Are you implying you think sex with animals is ok?
Some people, seriously. How can they not see that this clearly breaks the Levitical code.
|
I might as well just kill myself now 
|
On June 14 2013 22:51 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 22:48 Thor.Rush wrote:
Whether it's legal or not doesn't matter to me. Though I think it would be dangerous to go around arresting people who are involved sexually with an animal and not physically harming it, no matter how disgusting it might be to the majority of people. To me that sounds similar to banning gay sex. There are differences of course, but still.. I think one big difference is consent. And its really offensive to draw the comparison you just did :/
Sorry I didn't mean to. It just seems to me that this kind of law is made because sex between a human and animal is disgusting and taboo, and not made for the protection of animals.
|
"horses are the species most often involved in bestiality".... am I a chauvi if my first thought after reading this was "hmm, does this refer to men or to women doing it with the horse"? XD""
anyway, bestiality should be illegal. so its a step in the correct direction.
|
I think this is a good thing, animals are not consenting and i think that's the issue.
|
United States43458 Posts
On June 14 2013 23:07 jax1492 wrote:
I think this is a good thing, animals are not consenting and i think that's the issue.
Animals can't consent, their consent or lack of has no legal standing.
|
On June 14 2013 23:07 jax1492 wrote:
I think this is a good thing, animals are not consenting and i think that's the issue.
Or perhaps because it's just wrong? It has been around for quite a while and a quick google search could show you ...all types of disturbing stuff.
|
Tbh, i think this is more a statement from Sweden saying "hey look at us, we don't tollerate those sick barbaric activities anymore, we're civilized" than anything else.
If a farmer likes fucking his pig, this law obviously won't stop him doing that, and "sweden" knows that.
|
United States24752 Posts
If the old law prevented animal sex in cases of obvious abuse, then I don't see a need to make the law more strict. It seems unnecessary to me.
Not that I have plans for animal sex, but I don't really care if an animal can consent to sex as long as it isn't being obviously hurt/abused. On the other hand if there are health problems with it (I have no idea) they should be addressed.
|
On June 14 2013 23:08 AnomalySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 23:07 jax1492 wrote:
I think this is a good thing, animals are not consenting and i think that's the issue. Or perhaps because it's just wrong? It has been around for quite a while and a quick google search could show you ...all types of disturbing stuff.
Nothing is "just wrong". That's just something people say when they're lazy or cannot substantiate a claim.
You could say it feels wrong. But that's about it and laws based on "feel" are terrible.
|
On June 14 2013 23:15 micronesia wrote:
If the old law prevented animal sex in cases of obvious abuse, then I don't see a need to make the law more strict. It seems unnecessary to me.
Not that I have plans for animal sex, but I don't really care if an animal can consent to sex as long as it isn't being obviously hurt/abused. On the other hand if there are health problems with it (I have no idea) they should be addressed.
This is pretty much my opinion. I LOVE eating animals so I'm not exactly in a position to scream about animal rights or consent or whatnot. But I also think animals should be protected from abuse while they are alive so as long as they aren't being abused...go for it. I'm quite certain that if you stick your junk in a horse and it doesn't like it, a nice kick will let you know.
|
On June 14 2013 23:23 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 23:15 micronesia wrote:
If the old law prevented animal sex in cases of obvious abuse, then I don't see a need to make the law more strict. It seems unnecessary to me.
Not that I have plans for animal sex, but I don't really care if an animal can consent to sex as long as it isn't being obviously hurt/abused. On the other hand if there are health problems with it (I have no idea) they should be addressed. This is pretty much my opinion. I LOVE eating animals so I'm not exactly in a position to scream about animal rights or consent or whatnot. But I also think animals should be protected from abuse while they are alive so as long as they aren't being abused...go for it. I'm quite certain that if you stick your junk in a horse and it doesn't like it, a nice kick will let you know.
First of all, no sticking your junk in a horse will not necessarily make it kick lol. The reason the animal is being abused is because we aren't always talking about an animal that is as big as a horse here. We are talking about a cat or a dog or another animal sometimes that is smaller and can be pretty much raped by the human. Humans cannot communicate with the animal, therefore the animal cannot consent to us. The inter-species part is what makes the act unwholesome and unable to be justified, because not only can we not communicate with the animal, but we also (as humans don't have a mating season) cannot be sure as to when the animal is ready to mate in the mating season (if said animal has a season). There are too many things that can't be justified in beastiality to make it legal.
|
On June 14 2013 23:05 Thor.Rush wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 22:51 ComaDose wrote:On June 14 2013 22:48 Thor.Rush wrote:
Whether it's legal or not doesn't matter to me. Though I think it would be dangerous to go around arresting people who are involved sexually with an animal and not physically harming it, no matter how disgusting it might be to the majority of people. To me that sounds similar to banning gay sex. There are differences of course, but still.. I think one big difference is consent. And its really offensive to draw the comparison you just did :/ Sorry I didn't mean to. It just seems to me that this kind of law is made because sex between a human and animal is disgusting and taboo, and not made for the protection of animals.
Yeah thats cool, like Kwark said its the people that think its disgusting and taboo making laws to make themselves more comfortable at the expense of other people. Just like they did with gays. I don't think your government should be allowed to tell you not to bend over infront of a horse.
No harm to animals should be the goal, and I think they already had that in place. and while this might help with that, it comes with blanket outlawing something that maybe shouldn't be?
|
On June 14 2013 23:39 docvoc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 23:23 Klondikebar wrote:On June 14 2013 23:15 micronesia wrote:
If the old law prevented animal sex in cases of obvious abuse, then I don't see a need to make the law more strict. It seems unnecessary to me.
Not that I have plans for animal sex, but I don't really care if an animal can consent to sex as long as it isn't being obviously hurt/abused. On the other hand if there are health problems with it (I have no idea) they should be addressed. This is pretty much my opinion. I LOVE eating animals so I'm not exactly in a position to scream about animal rights or consent or whatnot. But I also think animals should be protected from abuse while they are alive so as long as they aren't being abused...go for it. I'm quite certain that if you stick your junk in a horse and it doesn't like it, a nice kick will let you know. First of all, no sticking your junk in a horse will not necessarily make it kick lol. The reason the animal is being abused is because we aren't always talking about an animal that is as big as a horse here. We are talking about a cat or a dog or another animal sometimes that is smaller and can be pretty much raped by the human. Humans cannot communicate with the animal, therefore the animal cannot consent to us. The inter-species part is what makes the act unwholesome and unable to be justified, because not only can we not communicate with the animal, but we also (as humans don't have a mating season) cannot be sure as to when the animal is ready to mate in the mating season (if said animal has a season). There are too many things that can't be justified in beastiality to make it legal.
What on earth does "unwholesome" even mean? That's just a conservative buzzword to label something bad without any evidence other than "we think it's icky."
And fine, forget the horse, if you try to fuck a cat and it scratches, bites, runs away, then the cat has said it doesn't want to be fucked and you don't fuck the cat.
The "consent" argument doesn't work with animals because we own them without their consent and we kill and eat them without their consent. I can't exactly draw a line and say that with sex you suddenly need consent.
|
On June 14 2013 22:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 22:31 mcc wrote:On June 14 2013 22:16 KwarK wrote: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. According to your personal concept of "harm to other people". Other people have different concept of "harm to other people" and theirs can easily support this ban while using the same logic that you use to oppose it. Harm to other people is for example vague in terms how far do you go in the causal link of action and consequence. You seem to consider only very immediate harm, others might consider consequences further down the line, purely statistical consequences or consider consequences that are less likely. Well we have the farmer and the pig. The farmer seems up for it because he's doing it and the pig isn't a person. How is my concept of harming other people flawed in this case because I honestly don't see any other people in a coupling between a farmer and a pig?
Me neither 
I was more commenting on your justification of your opinion, not really on your opinion. My point being that the "no harm" principle can for some people include things like supporting ban on something because it statistically increases something considered harmful. For example (completely theoretical) if banning bestiality would decrease incidence of AIDS by 0.1% without any direct causal link, the ban could be justified by the "no-harm" rule. Basically the no-harm rule is quite subjective and is not a good guide for policy decisions alone.
|
Saw a docu on this once made in the netherlands, featured was a woman that had regular sex with her dog because she couldn't stand men or something, the dog was a run-of-the-mill golden retriever that I'm guessing didn't mind one bit and seemed like a pretty happy/sociable dog lol.
Just sayin'....
|
On June 14 2013 22:33 S_SienZ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 22:31 mcc wrote:On June 14 2013 22:16 KwarK wrote: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. According to your personal concept of "harm to other people". Other people have different concept of "harm to other people" and theirs can easily support this ban while using the same logic that you use to oppose it. Harm to other people is for example vague in terms how far do you go in the causal link of action and consequence. You seem to consider only very immediate harm, others might consider consequences further down the line, purely statistical consequences or consider consequences that are less likely. It's not his personal concept. You really think any legal system could function without established conceptions of harm and tests of causation? There's a reason only immediate harm is considered, because we need to justify sanctioning a human by depriving him of his liberty. Taking into account things like statistical harm is the kind of reasoning that leads to horribly disproportionate laws like the UK's imprisonment for public protection in 03.
Yes, legal systems have harm defined for specific purposes. But many legal systems are built with the long term/statistical harm in mind also and yet they do not produce any terrible oppressive societies. It is purely YOUR opinion that only immediate harm should be considered and it is only your opinion that accounting for statistical harm necessarily leads to horrible laws. And your opinion is about as valid as the competing ones. The only thing you can measure is results to which each approach leads and then judge it based on some ethical criteria. If you do not agree on those ethical criteria, then there is no consensus possible and neither opinion is more valid then the other.
|
On June 14 2013 23:15 micronesia wrote:
If the old law prevented animal sex in cases of obvious abuse, then I don't see a need to make the law more strict. It seems unnecessary to me.
Not that I have plans for animal sex, but I don't really care if an animal can consent to sex as long as it isn't being obviously hurt/abused. On the other hand if there are health problems with it (I have no idea) they should be addressed.
In law, sometimes it's good to clarify things to prevent loopholes... The old law prosecuted only in some cases, the ones of "obvious abuse"... It can be assumed that "regular abuse" wasn't prosecuted. There's no reason not to make a law which doesn't "miss" as much.
Also the fact that you don't really care doesn't mean bestiality should be accepted. Your logic seems to be that in some cases, the animal is fine with it, so it's ok. Is it actually something that you want to protect? 
|
Why is everyone saying that animals can't consent ? Sure, they can't say "yes", but I'm pretty sure most animals will go the fuck away if they don't like something done to them. So as long as they don't we can assume they are ok with it, or too dumb to care (this may be the greyest area imo).
"What if one ties the animal ?". Well now that's abuse, and that was already covered by the law. All one has to do is prove it. Can't always be done, and injuries can be prevented I guess...
Shit, just convinced myself... Good thing none of this matters or will have any impact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
