EPTThis is much the same reason for bestiality laws. Who cares if they are nor harming the animal or the animal likes it? It's revolting. People who do such things should be exposed, punished, and ostracized just for their disgusting acts, not because they have committed any harm.
Bestiality in Sweden soon to be illegal - Page 22
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Zaqwe
591 Posts
This is much the same reason for bestiality laws. Who cares if they are nor harming the animal or the animal likes it? It's revolting. People who do such things should be exposed, punished, and ostracized just for their disgusting acts, not because they have committed any harm. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On June 15 2013 00:00 Zaqwe wrote: Child pornography is illegal despite the fact that unless the person paid for it they aren't actually harming anyone. Most people are okay with this because paedophiles are so repugnant and despicable it is acceptable to punish them just for being disgusting. This is much the same reason for bestiality laws. Who cares if they are nor harming the animal or the animal likes it? It's revolting. People who do such things should be exposed, punished, and ostracized just for their disgusting acts, not because they have committed any harm. Actually the harm in child pornography and sex with minors is the possibility of psychological harm (among others). That is the point of the whole thing. So no, it is actually a ban based on harm. EDIT:clarification added | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On June 14 2013 23:59 Cynry wrote: 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. I hate to have to say that because it's creepy but I think it's easy enough to demonstrate that your argument uses a pretty loose definition of "consent"... And again I'm sorry for doing this but what if you applied the same argument to "children". It holds up, and shows that this "consent" you speak of is worthless when it comes to defining what actions are ethical. And yes you can argue that there are additional problems when it comes down to human beings but the fact that it's worse doesn't mean bestiality ok just because animals can "consent". For one, sometimes what you actually see is "obedience". | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5281 Posts
On June 14 2013 23:07 KwarK wrote: Animals can't consent, their consent or lack of has no legal standing. so make one, make it legal for animals to have to give consent. oh wait ... you can't. well, why bother in the first place, it would ruin your cause anyway. using hypocrisy to combat hypocrisy is so mainstream now. | ||
|
yOngKIN
Korea (North)656 Posts
| ||
|
Cynry
810 Posts
Also, did you read my whole post ? I said it was harder for "dumb" animals, like sheeps or whatever. Again, pretty sure that a cat would make his lack of consent very very clear. But as it is not true for all, among other reasons, I understand why they would change the law. I don't agree or disagree with it because it doesn't concern me in the slightest (my goldfish is really happy with our relation), but I understand. And that's what I meant when I said I convinced myself, at first it seemed like a completely unecessary law to me. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On June 15 2013 00:10 yOngKIN wrote: This issue is pretty simple. If the act is not intrinsically harmful to people and environment, no matter how disgusting it is, let it be. "Intrinsic" is the key here. Like there is nothing intrinsically wrong with being homosexual. But if one is homosexual and goes on to spread disease, then treat it as such, as a person spreading disease, and not attribute it to being homosexual. The same is true for bestiality. If it's what floats a persons boat, leave him or her be. Just address whatever complications arise accordingly and not blame it on bestiality, as long as it is not intrinsic to it. If I take that literally, it means I can do whatever I want to non-humans. So I can pick up a dog, tie it up and torture it in my basement for years, because it's not harmful to people or the environment. On June 15 2013 00:14 Cynry wrote: So it's easy to demonstrate but you won't do it. Much better to draw a debatable parrallel with children. Right. Also, did you read my whole post ? I said it was harder for "dumb" animals, like sheeps or whatever. Again, pretty sure that a cat would make his lack of consent very very clear. But as it is not true for all, among other reasons, I understand why they would change. I don't agree or disagree with it because it doesn't concern me in the slightest (my goldfish is really happy with our relation), but I understand. I did. Sorry you can't read... Did you miss the part where I said kids may not run but it doesn't mean that they consent AND it doesn't mean that it's morally right. | ||
|
Zaqwe
591 Posts
On June 15 2013 00:04 mcc wrote: Actually the harm in child pornography and sex with minors is the possibility of psychological harm (among others). That is the point of the whole thing. So no, it is actually a ban based on harm. EDIT:clarification added Viewing pornography is not the same as having sex. Some people will try to make ridiculous arguments to claim that harm is done by someone viewing a video. For example claiming that the video being viewed is harming the victim all over again. Of course those arguments are preposterous on the face of them and we all know it. Nobody tries to ban viewing videos of assault. The reality and simple truth is that child pornography is illegal simply because most people find it despicable and the people who view it are so repugnant that it is a social good to punish them, ostracize them, and ensure they can never live a normal life. Not because they harmed anyone at all, simply because they are disgusting. Many countries even have laws against drawn child pornography and other obscenities. The same is true of bestiality. It's just so disgusting and beyond the pale that people who engage in it should be legally punished and ousted from society, not due to causing any harm but just for being awful people. | ||
|
duckmaster
687 Posts
| ||
|
Zaqwe
591 Posts
On June 15 2013 00:25 duckmaster wrote: We use animals to benefit ourselves, and our justification for that is solely based on the fact that we value our own lives much more than an animal's life, so when a horse pulls a plough our gains outweigh the horse's suffering. Meanwhile we use laws to prevent any unnecessary harm/suffering towards the animals, where we don't gain anything. Fucking an animal is completely unnecessary, and likely to cause suffering that might very well go unnoticed (right now a swede could have sex with a horse and then lie to the court that the animal did not mind), so it is only logical to make it illegal. Bestiality doesn't give anything, it only might take. To be realistic, a horse pulling a plough probably doesn't harm it at all. In fact that could be described as a symbiotic relationship, much as exists between an employer and employee. The horse receives food, shelter, medical care, and therefore survives much easier and healthier than it would in the wild. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5281 Posts
On June 14 2013 23:59 Cynry wrote: 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. trying to fuck a house dog and trying to fuck a wild dog are 2 different things. you trained your house dog to get used to you, to take all kind of shit from you and that's a reason as to why he does/may submit to you, but that doesn't meant that's what he wants to do. dogs can and do what their owners/masters tell them until they die. is that consent?, nope. that's what we trained them to do. you raped them earlier in life so now they don't know better. first we fuck their freedom then we fuck them, literally. (pet)slaves can't consent. it's illegal for them to do so because they don't have the rights a free animal does. go fuck a wild horse and see how it goes. you have my consent. | ||
|
peidongyang
Canada2084 Posts
thank god i guess? | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On June 15 2013 00:23 Zaqwe wrote: Viewing pornography is not the same as having sex. Some people will try to make ridiculous arguments to claim that harm is done by someone viewing a video. For example claiming that the video being viewed is harming the victim all over again. Of course those arguments are preposterous on the face of them and we all know it. Nobody tries to ban viewing videos of assault. The reality and simple truth is that child pornography is illegal simply because most people find it despicable and the people who view it are so repugnant that it is a social good to punish them, ostracize them, and ensure they can never live a normal life. Not because they harmed anyone at all, simply because they are disgusting. Many countries even have laws against drawn child pornography and other obscenities. The same is true of bestiality. It's just so disgusting and beyond the pale that people who engage in it should be legally punished and ousted from society, not due to causing any harm but just for being awful people. The reason why child pornography is bad is that there are people who pay money to get them produced and to distribute them. An individual viewed presumably doesn't matter but it creates a demand for them. As for bestiality, it doesn't seem to matter if you have no regard for the animal but just because you don't care doesn't mean that it doesn't matter. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On June 14 2013 18:05 KwarK wrote: Sorry, clearly you're confused by your colossal amount of idiocy. When I said I was fine with this because no animal was being harmed I wasn't suggesting that that was the only way of judging whether something was right or wrong. Rape is wrong, even though it doesn't involve any animals at all. I brought up harm of animals because it is eminently relevant to this issue but it's actually less relevant to other issues such as rape which doesn't involve any animals at all. There are things which make things bad and in this case harm of animals would be one of them but in other cases we might use other factors. Hopefully that clears up my point for you so you can avoid making such incredibly, obscenely stupid straw men arguments in future. One thing I learnt from this thread. It's fine to be rude and call others idiots if you are a mod, it's not fine if you aren't. | ||
|
Cynry
810 Posts
[B]On June 15 2013 00:15 Djzapz I did. Sorry you can't read... Did you miss the part where I said kids may not run but it doesn't mean that they consent AND it doesn't mean that it's morally right. If you ask me to read between the lines, please at least do the same for what I try to write (english isn't my native). BECAUSE WE AGREE HERE. Consent, or lack of, can be formulated in some ways by some animals, but not all of them, not all the time. Thus a law that avoid this grey area by simply forbidding the act altogether makes sense. To the other guy that answered my first post and all of those that will in the same way : Thank you for understanding only half of what I wrote and calling me a horse fucker. Very honest of you good sir. You can go fuck yourself and you don't need my consent for that, I'm sure. At least it's legal, heh. | ||
|
Zaqwe
591 Posts
On June 15 2013 00:30 Djzapz wrote: The reason why child pornography is bad is that there are people who pay money to get them produced and to distribute them. An individual viewed presumably doesn't matter but it creates a demand for them. As for bestiality, it doesn't seem to matter if you have no regard for the animal but just because you don't care doesn't mean that it doesn't matter. If someone pays for it they are as guilty as someone who pays for a hitman to kill someone. However even in cases where someone doesn't financially support it, we punish them legally simply for viewing a video/photograph. Trying to claim someone is causing harm by viewing a video is backwards logic. We already have decided paedophiles are so disgusting and evil they should be punished for their tastes, then we work backwards from our desire to punish them to dream up some way they could be linked to harm. Of course when applying the same logic to other crimes like assault or murder, nobody is so gung-ho on punishing viewers of fight videos on youtube, etc. As I already mentioned, even drawings are illegal in many countries. These are logical extensions of the child porn laws, which are not designed to punish harm but rather punish people for socially unacceptable desires. Bestiality laws are exactly the same. They punish people for socially unacceptable desires. Whether they harmed anyone/anything is irrelevant. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On June 15 2013 00:35 Cynry wrote: If you ask me to read between the lines, please at least do the same for what I try to write (english isn't my native). BECAUSE WE AGREE HERE. Consent, or lack of, can be formulated in some ways by some animals, but not all of them, not all the time. Thus a law that avoid this grey area by simply forbidding the act altogether makes sense. I'm sorry if I misunderstood, I was under the impression that you were saying, like many others, that it's fine if consent can be determined. I'm fine with a complete ban because no "freedoms" that matter are lost and it bans some animal abuse. [B]On June 15 2013 00:37 Zaqwe wrote: If someone pays for it they are as guilty as someone who pays for a hitman to kill someone. However even in cases where someone doesn't financially support it, we punish them legally simply for viewing a video/photograph. Just because you don't pay doesn't mean that you're not supporting the back end. | ||
|
docvoc
United States5491 Posts
On June 14 2013 23:45 Klondikebar wrote: 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. So your argument is that if we kill something and that is ok, then we should be allowed to rape it. EDIT: Even if the consent argument is unsatisfactory to you, and I'm not saying you are pro-bestiality or anything, there are other arguments in here that you might find better. I'm not going to argue the morality of bestiality, because I truly think that the fact is clear cut. | ||
|
AUFKLARUNG
Germany245 Posts
If anti-bestiality laws are to be argued on these grounds, it is simply to assume that human society has developed a sense of aesthetics that serve no functional purpose, at least directly, and contrarily offer no practical harm to humans, but are still strictly observe on the sheer weight of "culture". This is neither new nor novel, as human history is rife with examples of this. Laws on heritage and identity, and as soft examples,dress codes, and other expression of social decorum all fall under this category. What makes this possible is humanity being social in nature. As long as it is the expression of the many, or the powerful few, it becomes the norm, sometimes expressed in law. There may be a few outliers, but again, society and power. | ||
|
Aic
Sweden62 Posts
On June 14 2013 16:56 DorF wrote: A total of 209 cases of bestiality, of which 161 involved horses, have been documented since the 1970s. wow that's shockingly low number. I came here thinking " maybe we Swedes are weird" but 200 cases in 43 years ? not even bothered. What a wonderful way to spend government resources on something that happens up to 5 times a year? Don't we have slightly more important issues to worry about. Like say resession, immigration issue, riots in Stockholm etc.... | ||
| ||
