|
On June 15 2013 00:38 docvoc wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Since you mentioned killing, necrophilia laws are another good example of laws made to punish socially unacceptable behaviour regardless of there being any actual victim or harm done.
Some people are just so depraved there should be legal punishment to make it clear they are not welcome in society.
|
On June 15 2013 00:40 Aic wrote:Show nested quote +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....
Parliament spending more time on certain issues doesn't fix those issues faster 
On June 15 2013 00:42 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 00:38 docvoc wrote: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. Since you mentioned killing, necrophilia laws are another good example of laws made to punish socially unacceptable behaviour regardless of there being any actual victim or harm done. Some people are just so depraved there should be legal punishment to make it clear they are not welcome in society
I mean I don't think that's something worth fighting for but it's true... if the person consents before death that is. In this case it's different because nobody (sigh...) or nothing is harmed
|
On June 15 2013 00:23 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 00:04 mcc wrote: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 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.
Someone had to create that pornography, I was not talking about viewing it, but about creating it, you were not clear that you meant just viewing. Even viewing might be considered as harming someone indirectly and then we run into the whole problem I posted earlier.
Saying it is true of bestiality means that you probably did not watch the VICE video that was posted earlier. Seems not everyone is disgusted, maybe not even majority in some places.
|
Djzpaz, thank you !
The nuance is thin though, as my point at first was that it would be fine if consent COULD be determined, but as that can't be done for sure, the law makes sense. Hope I'm done with that ^^
|
On June 15 2013 00:43 Cynry wrote:
Djzpaz, thank you !
The nuance is thin though, as my point at first was that it would be fine if consent COULD be determined, but as that can't be done for sure, the law makes sense. Hope I'm done with that ^^
Alright then ^_^
English is my second language also, so it happens 
|
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.
I'm pretty sure that is not the argument you want to make, because it allows you to subjectively target whoever the fuck you want (interracial couples, gays, jews, islamists, LoL players, etc.)
For example, if a society finds homosexual men repulsive (a reach I know, but just pretend it happens somewhere in the world), then you can use your argument to justify exposing, punishing, and ostracizing them just for their disgusting acts, not because they committed any harm.
I really want to believe this is not what you meant.
|
On June 14 2013 22:12 Orek wrote:
Thank you TL. I just learned a new English word "bestiality."
"Bestial" is a prominent Latin-rooted word found in many Latin-based language French, Spanish, German, Russian, English, and others. Where are you from? I'm guessing Chinese or Japanese. Srangely, "Orek" sounds European.
|
On June 15 2013 00:46 mprs wrote:Show nested quote +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. I'm pretty sure that is not the argument you want to make, because it allows you to subjectively target whoever the fuck you want (interracial couples, gays, jews, islamists, LoL players, etc.) For example, if a society finds homosexual men repulsive (a reach I know, but just pretend it happens somewhere in the world), then you can use your argument to justify exposing, punishing, and ostracizing them just for their disgusting acts, not because they committed any harm. I really want to believe this is not what you meant.
He was saying it ironically I believe.
|
On June 15 2013 00:43 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 00:23 Zaqwe wrote:On June 15 2013 00:04 mcc wrote: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 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. Someone had to create that pornography, I was not talking about viewing it, but about creating it, you were not clear that you meant just viewing. Even viewing might be considered as harming someone indirectly and then we run into the whole problem I posted earlier. Saying it is true of bestiality means that you probably did not watch the VICE video that was posted earlier. Seems not everyone is disgusted, maybe not even majority in some places.
My point exactly is that this sort of tortured logic is wrong on the face of it. Nobody wants to ban viewing videos of assault, because people who watch knockout or fighting videos are not considered socially repugnant. Any sort of logical justification that viewing a video of a crime causes harm can be equally applied to other crimes, where suddenly nobody seems to care about this imaginary "harm" caused by viewing a video. The reality is that we are using backwards logic. Everyone hates paedophiles, so we reach into our moral toolbox and try to justify punishing them without admitting it's simply a matter of their behaviour being socially unacceptable.
I think we should just drop the pretense. It's okay to punish paedophiles, zoophiles, necrophiles, et cetera, just for being disgusting people who aren't welcome in society.
|
I think the main reasons for this law are moral ones.
If the animal would suffer physical injuries, then it would be a case of mistreating animals and no additional laws are needed.
I do not have any knowledge or statistics about mental issues something like this can cause on animals so I can not argue for or against it on this grounds. Maybe someone can provide scientific source material on this issue to elaborate on.
The only reason for me to forbid this was if the animal would suffer mental damage from it. (physical damage is already protected by other laws I think). But isn't training a horse for riding also some sort of mental damage or influence on the horse ?
I think the only reason for this law is a moral one and this is a bad decision. Although I would not have sex with an animal or encourage anyone to have sex with one because I find it disgusting, I would not forbid it by law.
The only reason to forbid it, is unnecessary harm to the animal and I do not know what the impacts on an animal are so I can't argue for or against it just state that we need more information on this topic in this thread.
And in my opinion: If someone is in the mental state of fucking or being fucked by a horse, or what ever, I do not think that a law would prevent him from doing so. Maybe it is to stop porn industry, because a quick google showed me that Sweden was/is one of the few countries where this was allowed.
|
The point is:
-If you believe animals have a right to consent, then you must oppose eating, killing, caging, etc. as well, otherwise you are being incoherent/hypocritical.
-If you believe animals should not be harmed (more specifically, harmed beyond a certain level, or "unnecessarily"), you should prove that bestiality unequivocally results in harm to the animal, and you should also oppose much worse practices.
-If you believe that bestiality should be banned because the majority considers it a perverted act, then you should also oppose homosexuality and numerous other practices.
|
On June 15 2013 00:50 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 00:43 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 00:23 Zaqwe wrote:On June 15 2013 00:04 mcc wrote: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 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. Someone had to create that pornography, I was not talking about viewing it, but about creating it, you were not clear that you meant just viewing. Even viewing might be considered as harming someone indirectly and then we run into the whole problem I posted earlier. Saying it is true of bestiality means that you probably did not watch the VICE video that was posted earlier. Seems not everyone is disgusted, maybe not even majority in some places. My point exactly is that this sort of tortured logic is wrong on the face of it. Nobody wants to ban viewing videos of assault, because people who watch knockout or fighting videos are not considered socially repugnant. Any sort of logical justification that viewing a video of a crime causes harm can be equally applied to other crimes, where suddenly nobody seems to care about this imaginary "harm" caused by viewing a video. The reality is that we are using backwards logic. Everyone hates paedophiles, so we reach into our moral toolbox and try to justify punishing them without admitting it's simply a matter of their behaviour being socially unacceptable. I think we should just drop the pretense. It's okay to punish paedophiles, zoophiles, necrophiles, et cetera, just for being disgusting people who aren't welcome in society.
A lot of necrophiles do it on people who didn't consent, do you think this is fine? Just curious... we're not going to convince you anyway since you've apparently decided that the argument is a "pretense"
|
Finally, I was getting tired of seeing what a free ride Swedes were getting in the animal sex department.
|
On June 15 2013 00:52 Vetro wrote:
The point is:
-If you believe animals have a right to consent, then you must oppose eating, killing, caging, etc. as well, otherwise you are being incoherent/hypocritical.
-If you believe animals should not be harmed (more specifically, harmed beyond a certain level, or "unnecessarily"), you should prove that bestiality unequivocally results in harm to the animal, and you should also oppose much worse practices.
-If you believe that bestiality should be banned because the majority considers it a perverted act, then you should also oppose homosexuality and numerous other practices.
1- I just think if we're going to breed them, may as well make it as painless to them. I don't oppose everything.
2- Why would I have to prove that it does harm the animal? Any reasonable person would say that the opposing party needs to prove that it doesn't harm the animal... I almost want to get angry because of how dumb that point was.
3- Not the case.
|
On June 15 2013 00:47 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 00:46 mprs wrote: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. I'm pretty sure that is not the argument you want to make, because it allows you to subjectively target whoever the fuck you want (interracial couples, gays, jews, islamists, LoL players, etc.) For example, if a society finds homosexual men repulsive (a reach I know, but just pretend it happens somewhere in the world), then you can use your argument to justify exposing, punishing, and ostracizing them just for their disgusting acts, not because they committed any harm. I really want to believe this is not what you meant. He was saying it ironically I believe.
Ah, I must have missed the context then. My apologies!
|
Did not know it was possible to do that with a horse? lol, how does it work? *confused*
|
On June 15 2013 00:55 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 00:52 Vetro wrote:
The point is:
-If you believe animals have a right to consent, then you must oppose eating, killing, caging, etc. as well, otherwise you are being incoherent/hypocritical.
-If you believe animals should not be harmed (more specifically, harmed beyond a certain level, or "unnecessarily"), you should prove that bestiality unequivocally results in harm to the animal, and you should also oppose much worse practices.
-If you believe that bestiality should be banned because the majority considers it a perverted act, then you should also oppose homosexuality and numerous other practices.
1- I just think if we're going to breed them, may as well make it as painless to them. I don't oppose everything. 2- Why would I have to prove that it does harm the animal? Any reasonable person would say that the opposing party needs to prove that it doesn't harm the animal... I almost want to get angry because of how dumb that point was. 3- Not the case.
2- Guilty until proven innocent then? Is that what you are arguing?
|
On June 15 2013 00:55 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 00:52 Vetro wrote:
The point is:
-If you believe animals have a right to consent, then you must oppose eating, killing, caging, etc. as well, otherwise you are being incoherent/hypocritical.
-If you believe animals should not be harmed (more specifically, harmed beyond a certain level, or "unnecessarily"), you should prove that bestiality unequivocally results in harm to the animal, and you should also oppose much worse practices.
-If you believe that bestiality should be banned because the majority considers it a perverted act, then you should also oppose homosexuality and numerous other practices.
1- I just think if we're going to breed them, may as well make it as painless to them. I don't oppose everything. 2- Why would I have to prove that it does harm the animal? Any reasonable person would say that the opposing party needs to prove that it doesn't harm the animal... I almost want to get angry because of how dumb that point was. 3- Not the case.
@point 2 Well Like I said this is a point that requires further studies.
If it is as harmful to an animal as every other practice (killing it and eating it not counting) we do to them legally on a daily bases it should not be illegal on the logic side of things.
|
On June 15 2013 00:53 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 00:50 Zaqwe wrote:On June 15 2013 00:43 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 00:23 Zaqwe wrote:On June 15 2013 00:04 mcc wrote: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 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. Someone had to create that pornography, I was not talking about viewing it, but about creating it, you were not clear that you meant just viewing. Even viewing might be considered as harming someone indirectly and then we run into the whole problem I posted earlier. Saying it is true of bestiality means that you probably did not watch the VICE video that was posted earlier. Seems not everyone is disgusted, maybe not even majority in some places. My point exactly is that this sort of tortured logic is wrong on the face of it. Nobody wants to ban viewing videos of assault, because people who watch knockout or fighting videos are not considered socially repugnant. Any sort of logical justification that viewing a video of a crime causes harm can be equally applied to other crimes, where suddenly nobody seems to care about this imaginary "harm" caused by viewing a video. The reality is that we are using backwards logic. Everyone hates paedophiles, so we reach into our moral toolbox and try to justify punishing them without admitting it's simply a matter of their behaviour being socially unacceptable. I think we should just drop the pretense. It's okay to punish paedophiles, zoophiles, necrophiles, et cetera, just for being disgusting people who aren't welcome in society. A lot of necrophiles do it on people who didn't consent, do you think this is fine? Just curious... we're not going to convince you anyway since you've apparently decided that the argument is a "pretense"
I think it's pretty difficult to harm someone who is already dead.
Do you disagree that these are moral laws, rather than logical ones motivated by preventing harm?
|
On June 15 2013 00:42 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 00:38 docvoc wrote: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. Since you mentioned killing, necrophilia laws are another good example of laws made to punish socially unacceptable behaviour regardless of there being any actual victim or harm done. Some people are just so depraved there should be legal punishment to make it clear they are not welcome in society.
That is a significantly more succinct way of putting it, yeah that is what I mean, and that is the argument I'm trying to draw upon. Generally I think that when it comes to actions, the libertarian style of, "if it harms no one, why should I care?" is not always a good way to think of it at all, some actions should not be part of society whether or not they harm anyone. Of course, some would disagree with me on that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
