|
On June 14 2013 18:28 PerryHooter wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 17:44 Greenei wrote:
It's totally fine to hold cows against their 'will', slaugther them and eat them. but god forbid you but your penis in them. because THAT would be animal cruelty... Chances are that the fucking cow or orse or pig doesn't even mind your little human dick. It's completely nonsensical and just a byproduct of an irrational culturous development. Everyone should be able to fuck their animals as long as it doesn't violate the animal cruelty laws. Almost all legislation is affected by "culture", how is that a problem? Laws can't be created in a vacuum, they need to relate to reality, or else they end up going against the public perception of what's right and wrong. Criminalizing this and still allowing the slaughter industry appear weird to some, but it really isn't. All animal protection laws are about not having the animals suffer more than is necessary. Considering our meat consumption we need to be able to kill them and eat them, and that pain involved is considered necessary. If you want to slaughter it in a special fashion for religious reasons, that has been judged acceptable as well (at least in sweden, but the rising xenophobia in europe might force a change in some countries). When it comes to satisfying your weird and taboo urges, that isn't reason enough to have the animals suffer. Unnecessary pain, and hence criminalization is justified.
The point is that there is no suffering involved for cows or horses. Eating meat is just as unnecessary as fucking cows. Both is for pleasure purposes. The reason why beastiality is looked down upon more then eating meat is completly irrational. If someone rapes their cat or dog it falls under animal cruelty law and that's fine but raping a cow? That makes little sense.
|
On June 14 2013 16:02 Sufficiency wrote:
I feel it should be illegal, because technically an animal cannot give consent for sex, so when it occurs it's "rape" or "animal cruelty" depending on how you look at it.
Not sure why this is worthy of GD, btw. I am sure most people find this repulsive.
Given that you legally own them, I'm pretty sure you're the one who decides if they give consent or not.
|
On June 15 2013 02:25 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 02:21 Excludos wrote:On June 15 2013 02:17 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 02:14 Excludos wrote:On June 15 2013 02:11 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 01:24 Excludos wrote:On June 15 2013 01:19 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 01:17 Excludos wrote:On June 15 2013 01:15 Zaqwe wrote:On June 15 2013 01:05 Skwid1g wrote:
[quote]
This is the silliest argument I've ever seen, it makes absolutely no sense.
The reason viewing child pornography is illegal is because:
1) It vastly reduces the "demand" for the stuff, which means there will be less "supply" of the stuff. I think the ACLU considers it evidence to a crime, thus not protected.
2) Simply viewing a minor in a sexually explicit way is illegal by itself (IRL/in porn/whatever), because they are not old enough to consent.
3) Whether you believe it being viewed "hurts" or not, the fact of the matter is that it DOES cause pain. No, you clicking on the link will not harm the victim, that much is true. But if the video/pictures/whatever are able to be plastered all over the internet on porn sites/whatever, it can definitely cause pain, etc.
You could go on and on with logical reasons it's illegal, just like you could with bestiality. But just saying "they're nasty xD" is an awful way to justify anything. Does viewing a knockout video on youtube create a "demand" for assault? Why then is it not a crime to view or possess knockout videos? Let's examine a hypothetical situation: Someone is walking down the street and finds a flash drive on the ground. He takes it home and finds it contains child pornography. He then keeps it, views it regularly, and therefore violated child pornography laws. Has he caused harm? If so, what harm? Who is his victim? Dude, this is pretty clear cut. If there is profit to be gained in child pornography, which there will be if it was legal, then more hild pronography will be made, and thus more children raped. This is extremely black and white. You understand that the demand is there even if it is not legal and I doubt illegality is seriously decreasing said demand. Yes, because no amount of laws ever decrease demands for any product in ever. In fact, laws are kinda useless, no one follows them anyways. Sometimes they do sometimes they do not. Nice of you to offer useless generalizations even though my post implied specifics of this particular scenario. Considering that attraction is pretty much given biologically and people watching child pornography are probably attracted to children so they will be most of the market. Considering that laws governing sexual behaviour have low compliance as they go against one of the most powerful instincts and they are not extremely well enforced. Thus my conclusion. Unless you have hard empirical data, which part of my argument is problematic to you ? Anyway I am not disputing that there is some decrease, but not significant. And thus the question arises, is it worth it ? Making people that otherwise would never hurt anyone into criminals. It is problematic question. I've made 3 more posts since that one where I explain my stance a bit more in depth. I don't feel like repeating them. As far as I can tell you said nothing in them regarding your claim that banning it significantly reduces demand. It makes it easier for people to put up a website anyone could visit and pay money to download child porn from. I really, really, don't want to make it easier for people to film Child pornography and sell it. Think of this scenario: what if there is actually a lot of people who enjoy child porn, and someone ends up earning a ton of cash through his new website "ChildTube". Lets just keep it illegal, shal we?  How does it make it easier to setup a website. Setting up such a site would still be illegal. The only thing that would be legal would be viewing, commercial usage would still be illegal. And that is where my question comes in. Making viewing illegal makes sense only if it actually increases demand. If it does not, making viewing legal would be a better course of action.
It could be possible to make a special case where sharing is illegal, but viewing is not. I don't have any statistics to back up any claim that deman would increase in this case. But even if there is a slight chance that it does, I really don't want to take any chances on something this serious. Child pronography is about the most repulsive thing I can think of, and it literally destroys lives.
|
|
|
On June 15 2013 02:20 Desmoden wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 20:06 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 20:02 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:54 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:52 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:46 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:35 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:09 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 18:53 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 18:45 aNGryaRchon wrote:
[quote]
Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak.
I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise.
There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future.
Massive Facepalm. dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care. edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something. Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on. That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse. so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence. edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves. My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree? yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed. Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand. but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one  I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one. ^this should have stopped all discussion
Why? If animals had such rights, sex with them would be rape rather than bestiality.
Bestiality is illegal due to the act being perverted, not due to concern for the animal.
It makes perfect sense when you understand that bestiality is a moral law, not an animal protection law.
|
Not gonna lie - I expected way more than 209 cases since 1970.
Good on you rest of Sweden, good on ya.
|
Well guess I'll have to cancel my trip to Sweden then... Kappa
|
On June 15 2013 02:37 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 02:25 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 02:21 Excludos wrote:On June 15 2013 02:17 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 02:14 Excludos wrote:On June 15 2013 02:11 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 01:24 Excludos wrote:On June 15 2013 01:19 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 01:17 Excludos wrote:On June 15 2013 01:15 Zaqwe wrote:
[quote]
Does viewing a knockout video on youtube create a "demand" for assault? Why then is it not a crime to view or possess knockout videos?
Let's examine a hypothetical situation: Someone is walking down the street and finds a flash drive on the ground. He takes it home and finds it contains child pornography. He then keeps it, views it regularly, and therefore violated child pornography laws.
Has he caused harm? If so, what harm? Who is his victim? Dude, this is pretty clear cut. If there is profit to be gained in child pornography, which there will be if it was legal, then more hild pronography will be made, and thus more children raped. This is extremely black and white. You understand that the demand is there even if it is not legal and I doubt illegality is seriously decreasing said demand. Yes, because no amount of laws ever decrease demands for any product in ever. In fact, laws are kinda useless, no one follows them anyways. Sometimes they do sometimes they do not. Nice of you to offer useless generalizations even though my post implied specifics of this particular scenario. Considering that attraction is pretty much given biologically and people watching child pornography are probably attracted to children so they will be most of the market. Considering that laws governing sexual behaviour have low compliance as they go against one of the most powerful instincts and they are not extremely well enforced. Thus my conclusion. Unless you have hard empirical data, which part of my argument is problematic to you ? Anyway I am not disputing that there is some decrease, but not significant. And thus the question arises, is it worth it ? Making people that otherwise would never hurt anyone into criminals. It is problematic question. I've made 3 more posts since that one where I explain my stance a bit more in depth. I don't feel like repeating them. As far as I can tell you said nothing in them regarding your claim that banning it significantly reduces demand. It makes it easier for people to put up a website anyone could visit and pay money to download child porn from. I really, really, don't want to make it easier for people to film Child pornography and sell it. Think of this scenario: what if there is actually a lot of people who enjoy child porn, and someone ends up earning a ton of cash through his new website "ChildTube". Lets just keep it illegal, shal we? How does it make it easier to setup a website. Setting up such a site would still be illegal. The only thing that would be legal would be viewing, commercial usage would still be illegal. And that is where my question comes in. Making viewing illegal makes sense only if it actually increases demand. If it does not, making viewing legal would be a better course of action. It could be possible to make a special case where sharing is illegal, but viewing is not. I don't have any statistics to back up any claim that deman would increase in this case. But even if there is a slight chance that it does, I really don't want to take any chances on something this serious. Child pronography is about the most repulsive thing I can think of, and it literally destroys lives.
Problem is that removing outlet from those people may actually increase the chance of worse things happening. Banning it does not have only clear positives. So if the increase in demand is only very slight it still might be better to accept it. There are no easy solutions for complex societal problems.
Also, if that is the most repulsive thing you can think about, then I hope you never run into the repulsive things that happened throughout human history that are orders of magnitude worse.
|
On June 15 2013 02:54 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 02:20 Desmoden wrote:On June 14 2013 20:06 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 20:02 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:54 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:52 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:46 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:35 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:09 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 18:53 xM(Z wrote:
[quote]
dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care.
edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something. Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on. That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse. so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence. edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves. My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree? yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed. Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand. but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one. ^this should have stopped all discussion Why? If animals had such rights, sex with them would be rape rather than bestiality. Bestiality is illegal due to the act being perverted, not due to concern for the animal. It makes perfect sense when you understand that bestiality is a moral law, not an animal protection law.
Which is why it shouldn't be law. And this entire affair is very sad. What right do I, or my government, have to suppress other people's sexuality? It's a very serious thing, much more serious than most people give it credit for. If you argue that it's a moral law and that it is right on a moral basis then you can use the same argument against homosexuality with no problem aswell. Except we've come to the conclusion that it's not a very sound argument to make.
|
On June 15 2013 02:21 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 02:17 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 02:14 Excludos wrote:On June 15 2013 02:11 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 01:24 Excludos wrote:On June 15 2013 01:19 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 01:17 Excludos wrote:On June 15 2013 01:15 Zaqwe wrote:On June 15 2013 01:05 Skwid1g wrote:On June 15 2013 00:23 Zaqwe wrote:
[quote]
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. This is the silliest argument I've ever seen, it makes absolutely no sense. The reason viewing child pornography is illegal is because: 1) It vastly reduces the "demand" for the stuff, which means there will be less "supply" of the stuff. I think the ACLU considers it evidence to a crime, thus not protected. 2) Simply viewing a minor in a sexually explicit way is illegal by itself (IRL/in porn/whatever), because they are not old enough to consent. 3) Whether you believe it being viewed "hurts" or not, the fact of the matter is that it DOES cause pain. No, you clicking on the link will not harm the victim, that much is true. But if the video/pictures/whatever are able to be plastered all over the internet on porn sites/whatever, it can definitely cause pain, etc. You could go on and on with logical reasons it's illegal, just like you could with bestiality. But just saying "they're nasty xD" is an awful way to justify anything. Does viewing a knockout video on youtube create a "demand" for assault? Why then is it not a crime to view or possess knockout videos? Let's examine a hypothetical situation: Someone is walking down the street and finds a flash drive on the ground. He takes it home and finds it contains child pornography. He then keeps it, views it regularly, and therefore violated child pornography laws. Has he caused harm? If so, what harm? Who is his victim? Dude, this is pretty clear cut. If there is profit to be gained in child pornography, which there will be if it was legal, then more hild pronography will be made, and thus more children raped. This is extremely black and white. You understand that the demand is there even if it is not legal and I doubt illegality is seriously decreasing said demand. Yes, because no amount of laws ever decrease demands for any product in ever. In fact, laws are kinda useless, no one follows them anyways. Sometimes they do sometimes they do not. Nice of you to offer useless generalizations even though my post implied specifics of this particular scenario. Considering that attraction is pretty much given biologically and people watching child pornography are probably attracted to children so they will be most of the market. Considering that laws governing sexual behaviour have low compliance as they go against one of the most powerful instincts and they are not extremely well enforced. Thus my conclusion. Unless you have hard empirical data, which part of my argument is problematic to you ? Anyway I am not disputing that there is some decrease, but not significant. And thus the question arises, is it worth it ? Making people that otherwise would never hurt anyone into criminals. It is problematic question. I've made 3 more posts since that one where I explain my stance a bit more in depth. I don't feel like repeating them. As far as I can tell you said nothing in them regarding your claim that banning it significantly reduces demand. It makes it easier for people to put up a website anyone could visit and pay money to download child porn from. I really, really, don't want to make it easier for people to film Child pornography and sell it. Think of this scenario: what if there is actually a lot of people who enjoy child porn, and someone ends up earning a ton of cash through his new website "ChildTube". Lets just keep it illegal, shal we?
Argument from unfounded assumption is incredibly easy. Think of this scenario: what if there is actually a lot of people who are attracted to children who wind up legally watching child porn made in the 1950s and their stepchildren wind up unmolested?
Let's maybe think our arguments a bit more carefully through?
|
Good for us, although it has never been accepted of course.
I saw some sick documentary a time ago though, in some South American, where they would have sex with donkey's first before trying a girl, maybe it was Chile or something? I can't remember the name or the country but if someone know's the documentary please link! ^_^
|
On June 15 2013 02:37 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 02:25 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 02:21 Excludos wrote:On June 15 2013 02:17 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 02:14 Excludos wrote:On June 15 2013 02:11 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 01:24 Excludos wrote:On June 15 2013 01:19 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 01:17 Excludos wrote:On June 15 2013 01:15 Zaqwe wrote:
[quote]
Does viewing a knockout video on youtube create a "demand" for assault? Why then is it not a crime to view or possess knockout videos?
Let's examine a hypothetical situation: Someone is walking down the street and finds a flash drive on the ground. He takes it home and finds it contains child pornography. He then keeps it, views it regularly, and therefore violated child pornography laws.
Has he caused harm? If so, what harm? Who is his victim? Dude, this is pretty clear cut. If there is profit to be gained in child pornography, which there will be if it was legal, then more hild pronography will be made, and thus more children raped. This is extremely black and white. You understand that the demand is there even if it is not legal and I doubt illegality is seriously decreasing said demand. Yes, because no amount of laws ever decrease demands for any product in ever. In fact, laws are kinda useless, no one follows them anyways. Sometimes they do sometimes they do not. Nice of you to offer useless generalizations even though my post implied specifics of this particular scenario. Considering that attraction is pretty much given biologically and people watching child pornography are probably attracted to children so they will be most of the market. Considering that laws governing sexual behaviour have low compliance as they go against one of the most powerful instincts and they are not extremely well enforced. Thus my conclusion. Unless you have hard empirical data, which part of my argument is problematic to you ? Anyway I am not disputing that there is some decrease, but not significant. And thus the question arises, is it worth it ? Making people that otherwise would never hurt anyone into criminals. It is problematic question. I've made 3 more posts since that one where I explain my stance a bit more in depth. I don't feel like repeating them. As far as I can tell you said nothing in them regarding your claim that banning it significantly reduces demand. It makes it easier for people to put up a website anyone could visit and pay money to download child porn from. I really, really, don't want to make it easier for people to film Child pornography and sell it. Think of this scenario: what if there is actually a lot of people who enjoy child porn, and someone ends up earning a ton of cash through his new website "ChildTube". Lets just keep it illegal, shal we? How does it make it easier to setup a website. Setting up such a site would still be illegal. The only thing that would be legal would be viewing, commercial usage would still be illegal. And that is where my question comes in. Making viewing illegal makes sense only if it actually increases demand. If it does not, making viewing legal would be a better course of action. It could be possible to make a special case where sharing is illegal, but viewing is not. I don't have any statistics to back up any claim that deman would increase in this case. But even if there is a slight chance that it does, I really don't want to take any chances on something this serious. Child pronography is about the most repulsive thing I can think of, and it literally destroys lives.
We seem to be getting off track from the original point. I am sure we all agree that fighting child pornographers is great, and they do indeed harm children.
However if we narrowly adopt the view that only causing harm should be a criminal act, then the law should criminalize "encouragement or support for the creation of" rather than possession or viewing. Then in a court of law it would be required to prove support (such as showing credit card payments used to fund the content). Such a law wouldn't be acceptable to most people because then paedophiles would be free to view obscene material as long as they don't harm anyone.
The reason the law is not so narrow is because society at large doesn't just want to punish people who create it or support the creation. We live in a society that wants to punish people for being despicable, and that is why possession and viewership are illegal in general. Ultimately the average person doesn't care if harm is being done, they just want to punish sick and disgusting perverts for doing socially unacceptable things.
|
On June 15 2013 02:23 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 02:20 Desmoden wrote:On June 14 2013 20:06 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 20:02 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:54 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:52 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:46 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:35 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:09 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 18:53 xM(Z wrote:
[quote]
dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care.
edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something. Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on. That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse. so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence. edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves. My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree? yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed. Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand. but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one. ^this should have stopped all discussion Unless of course people argue also on basis other than consent. And surprisingly they do, gasp.
This should have stopped all consent based discussion, which it didn't, gasp. His point stands.
On June 15 2013 02:54 Zaqwe wrote:
Bestiality is illegal due to the act being perverted, not due to concern for the animal.
This is not true and it's been painful reading your ignorant posts in this thread, please stop, you don't know what you're talking about.
On June 15 2013 03:06 Zaqwe wrote:
The reason the law is not so narrow is because society at large doesn't just want to punish people who create it or support the creation. We live in a society that wants to punish people for being despicable, and that is why possession and viewership are illegal in general. Ultimately the average person doesn't care if harm is being done, they just want to punish sick and disgusting perverts for doing socially unacceptable things.
Again, so completely and utterly wrong it boggles the mind that you're still confidently posting here as if you're doing anything other than talking out of your ass.
|
On June 15 2013 03:00 HellRoxYa wrote:
What right do I, or my government, have to suppress other people's sexuality?
It's your democratic right.
|
Oh damn, there goes Naniwa's shot at love.
User was warned for this post
|
On June 15 2013 02:54 Zaqwe wrote:
It makes perfect sense when you understand that bestiality is a moral law, not an animal protection law.
How do you know the animal is enjoying it? Animals aren't mindless drones that aren't capable of thinking or feeling. They're have been several studies that have shown this (you can find them if you want them). This law protects these animals that don't have the ability to express their displeasure.
|
On June 15 2013 03:06 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 02:23 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 02:20 Desmoden wrote:On June 14 2013 20:06 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 20:02 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:54 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:52 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:46 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:35 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:09 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on.
That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse. so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence. edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves. My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree? yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed. Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand. but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one. ^this should have stopped all discussion Unless of course people argue also on basis other than consent. And surprisingly they do, gasp. This should have stopped all consent based discussion, which it didn't, gasp. His point stands. Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 02:54 Zaqwe wrote:
Bestiality is illegal due to the act being perverted, not due to concern for the animal.
This is not true and it's been painful reading your ignorant posts in this thread, please stop, you don't know what you're talking about.
You say I am wrong, yet you can't refute anything I have said.
Interesting.
|
On June 15 2013 03:06 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 02:37 Excludos wrote:On June 15 2013 02:25 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 02:21 Excludos wrote:On June 15 2013 02:17 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 02:14 Excludos wrote:On June 15 2013 02:11 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 01:24 Excludos wrote:On June 15 2013 01:19 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 01:17 Excludos wrote:
[quote]
Dude, this is pretty clear cut. If there is profit to be gained in child pornography, which there will be if it was legal, then more hild pronography will be made, and thus more children raped. This is extremely black and white. You understand that the demand is there even if it is not legal and I doubt illegality is seriously decreasing said demand. Yes, because no amount of laws ever decrease demands for any product in ever. In fact, laws are kinda useless, no one follows them anyways. Sometimes they do sometimes they do not. Nice of you to offer useless generalizations even though my post implied specifics of this particular scenario. Considering that attraction is pretty much given biologically and people watching child pornography are probably attracted to children so they will be most of the market. Considering that laws governing sexual behaviour have low compliance as they go against one of the most powerful instincts and they are not extremely well enforced. Thus my conclusion. Unless you have hard empirical data, which part of my argument is problematic to you ? Anyway I am not disputing that there is some decrease, but not significant. And thus the question arises, is it worth it ? Making people that otherwise would never hurt anyone into criminals. It is problematic question. I've made 3 more posts since that one where I explain my stance a bit more in depth. I don't feel like repeating them. As far as I can tell you said nothing in them regarding your claim that banning it significantly reduces demand. It makes it easier for people to put up a website anyone could visit and pay money to download child porn from. I really, really, don't want to make it easier for people to film Child pornography and sell it. Think of this scenario: what if there is actually a lot of people who enjoy child porn, and someone ends up earning a ton of cash through his new website "ChildTube". Lets just keep it illegal, shal we? How does it make it easier to setup a website. Setting up such a site would still be illegal. The only thing that would be legal would be viewing, commercial usage would still be illegal. And that is where my question comes in. Making viewing illegal makes sense only if it actually increases demand. If it does not, making viewing legal would be a better course of action. It could be possible to make a special case where sharing is illegal, but viewing is not. I don't have any statistics to back up any claim that deman would increase in this case. But even if there is a slight chance that it does, I really don't want to take any chances on something this serious. Child pronography is about the most repulsive thing I can think of, and it literally destroys lives. We seem to be getting off track from the original point. I am sure we all agree that fighting child pornographers is great, and they do indeed harm children. However if we narrowly adopt the view that only causing harm should be a criminal act, then the law should criminalize "encouragement or support for the creation of" rather than possession or viewing. Then in a court of law it would be required to prove support (such as showing credit card payments used to fund the content). Such a law wouldn't be acceptable to most people because then paedophiles would be free to view obscene material as long as they don't harm anyone. The reason the law is not so narrow is because society at large doesn't just want to punish people who create it or support the creation. We live in a society that wants to punish people for being despicable, and that is why possession and viewership are illegal in general. Ultimately the average person doesn't care if harm is being done, they just want to punish sick and disgusting perverts for doing socially unacceptable things.
Such law would be acceptable to great many people if not for fearmongering and namecalling of people like you. Lets also punish schizophrenics because they do sick and disgusting things. The thing you call "moral" laws are stupid and should be abolished as all victimless crimes. Fortunately as time goes on views like yours are getting weaker.
|
On June 15 2013 03:09 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 03:06 Reason wrote:On June 15 2013 02:23 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 02:20 Desmoden wrote:On June 14 2013 20:06 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 20:02 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:54 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:52 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:46 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:35 xM(Z wrote:
[quote]
so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on.
but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better.
ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves. My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree? yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed. Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand. but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one. ^this should have stopped all discussion Unless of course people argue also on basis other than consent. And surprisingly they do, gasp. This should have stopped all consent based discussion, which it didn't, gasp. His point stands. On June 15 2013 02:54 Zaqwe wrote:
Bestiality is illegal due to the act being perverted, not due to concern for the animal.
This is not true and it's been painful reading your ignorant posts in this thread, please stop, you don't know what you're talking about. You say I am wrong, yet you can't refute anything I have said. Interesting.
You claimed bestiality is illegal due to the act being perverted, not due to concern for the animal.
Prove it.
You can't?
Interesting.
|
On June 15 2013 03:12 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 03:09 Zaqwe wrote:On June 15 2013 03:06 Reason wrote:On June 15 2013 02:23 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 02:20 Desmoden wrote:On June 14 2013 20:06 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 20:02 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:54 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:52 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:46 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree? yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed. Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand. but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one. ^this should have stopped all discussion Unless of course people argue also on basis other than consent. And surprisingly they do, gasp. This should have stopped all consent based discussion, which it didn't, gasp. His point stands. On June 15 2013 02:54 Zaqwe wrote:
Bestiality is illegal due to the act being perverted, not due to concern for the animal.
This is not true and it's been painful reading your ignorant posts in this thread, please stop, you don't know what you're talking about. You say I am wrong, yet you can't refute anything I have said. Interesting. You claimed bestiality is illegal due to the act being perverted, not due to concern for the animal. Prove it.
If it's motivated by concern for the animal, animal cruelty laws would be enough.
Bestiality criminalizes sex with animals, regardless of any harm or cruelty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
