|
On June 17 2013 01:01 Zambrah wrote:
I would be very interested in seeing what kind of harm is done to the animals involved in beastiality (okay, that sounded creepy.) What harm IS being done to these animals? I can't imagine very much/any at all considering the size of the animals (unless its like a chicken or something) and if you're a woman I can't imagine any harm at all.
If theres no real harm being done to the animals I seriously can't fathom how this could be illegal. Something you perceive as disgusting does not mean it deserves to be legislated against. I'm personally not a fan of scat porn but I believe that people have the right to shit on one another if they get off on that.
The other dimension to this is the animal's suffering, but since we can rule out psychological damage, this comes down to physical damage. So, if an animal receives no physical harm then how can this be considered harmful?
Consent should be a non-factor. We do not grant animals consent. Consent is only a factor between humans.
Overall, I just don't think that the government has a right to outlaw beastiality if it does not harm the animal. If it does harm the animal, well shit we have animal cruelty laws that cover that.
Why don't you look up some cases of bestiality before you make such a claim?
People who rape their pets are generally people who abuse them. One particular case rings in my head of this teen who locked his dog in his closet and only dragged her out to fuck her, and then throw her back into the closet where she nearly starved to death. Of course she tried to fight back every time but he would just beat her down. Saying animals can't suffer psychological damage definitely takes the ballgame of the most biologically ignorant statement I have ever heard in my entire life. I don't even have to cite this, it's already common knowledge that animals have complex emotions and psychological tendencies/bias' much like humans.
Saying we shouldn't legislate bestiality since sex with most animals doesn't physically harm them in itself is like saying we shouldn't legislate rape because sex with a human doesn't physically harm them inherently. The people who do this kind of shit are sick fucks who don't lovingly caress their dog or whatever, take them on a night on the town and give them a backrub and warm them up. These are people who grab their dog by the collar, throw them on the ground, pin them down, and fuck them, beat them, and throw them in the corner when they're done.
Consent should be a factor because no animal can fucking consent to this kind of thing. It's like a child, they simply don't have the mental capacity to understand consent. That in itself should make it illegal. These are people who can't get it anywhere else so they resort to fucking things that don't have the ability to say no.
I'm sorry if my post was a bit hard, but I take this issue very personally.
|
United States42653 Posts
On June 17 2013 01:09 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 01:01 Zambrah wrote:
I would be very interested in seeing what kind of harm is done to the animals involved in beastiality (okay, that sounded creepy.) What harm IS being done to these animals? I can't imagine very much/any at all considering the size of the animals (unless its like a chicken or something) and if you're a woman I can't imagine any harm at all.
If theres no real harm being done to the animals I seriously can't fathom how this could be illegal. Something you perceive as disgusting does not mean it deserves to be legislated against. I'm personally not a fan of scat porn but I believe that people have the right to shit on one another if they get off on that.
The other dimension to this is the animal's suffering, but since we can rule out psychological damage, this comes down to physical damage. So, if an animal receives no physical harm then how can this be considered harmful?
Consent should be a non-factor. We do not grant animals consent. Consent is only a factor between humans.
Overall, I just don't think that the government has a right to outlaw beastiality if it does not harm the animal. If it does harm the animal, well shit we have animal cruelty laws that cover that. Why don't you look up some cases of bestiality before you make such a claim? People who rape their pets are generally people who abuse them. One particular case rings in my head of this teen who locked his dog in his closet and only dragged her out to fuck her, and then throw her back into the closet where she nearly starved to death. Of course she tried to fight back every time but he would just beat her down. Saying animals can't suffer psychological damage definitely takes the ballgame of the most biologically ignorant statement I have ever heard in my entire life. Saying we shouldn't legislate bestiality since sex with most animals doesn't physically harm them in itself is like saying we shouldn't legislate rape because sex with a human doesn't physically harm them inherently. The people who do this kind of shit are sick fucks who don't lovingly caress their dog or whatever, take them on a night on the town and give them a backrub and warm them up. These are people who grab their dog by the collar, throw them on the ground, pin them down, and fuck them, beat them, and throw them in the corner when they're done. Consent should be a factor because no animal can fucking consent to this kind of thing. It's like a child, they simply don't have the mental capacity to understand consent. That in itself should make it illegal. I'm sorry if my post was a bit hard, but I take this issue very personally.
The previous laws covering animal abuse covered that and genuine zoophiles would be horrified by the treatment of the animal that you describe. As for your argument about mental capacity, that's precisely what makes it okay to do it. A child isn't protected just because it's vulnerable, it's protected because it's a vulnerable human. A plant has even less understanding of sex than an animal but that doesn't mean fucking a melon is worse than fucking a dog, it doesn't get worse the further you get from mental capacity.
|
On June 17 2013 01:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 01:09 Fruscainte wrote:On June 17 2013 01:01 Zambrah wrote:
I would be very interested in seeing what kind of harm is done to the animals involved in beastiality (okay, that sounded creepy.) What harm IS being done to these animals? I can't imagine very much/any at all considering the size of the animals (unless its like a chicken or something) and if you're a woman I can't imagine any harm at all.
If theres no real harm being done to the animals I seriously can't fathom how this could be illegal. Something you perceive as disgusting does not mean it deserves to be legislated against. I'm personally not a fan of scat porn but I believe that people have the right to shit on one another if they get off on that.
The other dimension to this is the animal's suffering, but since we can rule out psychological damage, this comes down to physical damage. So, if an animal receives no physical harm then how can this be considered harmful?
Consent should be a non-factor. We do not grant animals consent. Consent is only a factor between humans.
Overall, I just don't think that the government has a right to outlaw beastiality if it does not harm the animal. If it does harm the animal, well shit we have animal cruelty laws that cover that. Why don't you look up some cases of bestiality before you make such a claim? People who rape their pets are generally people who abuse them. One particular case rings in my head of this teen who locked his dog in his closet and only dragged her out to fuck her, and then throw her back into the closet where she nearly starved to death. Of course she tried to fight back every time but he would just beat her down. Saying animals can't suffer psychological damage definitely takes the ballgame of the most biologically ignorant statement I have ever heard in my entire life. Saying we shouldn't legislate bestiality since sex with most animals doesn't physically harm them in itself is like saying we shouldn't legislate rape because sex with a human doesn't physically harm them inherently. The people who do this kind of shit are sick fucks who don't lovingly caress their dog or whatever, take them on a night on the town and give them a backrub and warm them up. These are people who grab their dog by the collar, throw them on the ground, pin them down, and fuck them, beat them, and throw them in the corner when they're done. Consent should be a factor because no animal can fucking consent to this kind of thing. It's like a child, they simply don't have the mental capacity to understand consent. That in itself should make it illegal. I'm sorry if my post was a bit hard, but I take this issue very personally. The previous laws covering animal abuse covered that and genuine zoophiles would be horrified by the treatment of the animal that you describe.
My argument comes down to this:
Since an animal, much like a child, is inherently unable to give consent because they can not understand the concept of consent nor can they in animals case vocalize that nonconsent if it was there sex with animals should be illegal because of that.
Secondly, what you're saying, at least to me, is like saying the violent assault laws already cover all the shit that happens to women in rape. Since the sex itself is completely natural and doesn't physically hurt them at all, why include it? Everyone who enjoys having loving sex with their partners would never do that to each other, why ban a natural part of life that doesn't hurt anyone? People who rape women usually kidnap them and beat them, so we already got laws to cover it. Why get more?
Because of consent. Consent is an important thing, as well as psychological damage. Two things fucking animals will always entail. Non-consent and psychological damage.
Also, as for your edit, I seriously can't grasp that argument. Why not make it legal to hit dogs with a sledgehammer since it's completely legal to do it for a melon? We're not talking about melons, we're talking about animals. I want you to find me one case of a zoophile having sex with something like a dog or a cat and the animal not being psychologically or physically damaged.
|
since animals cant "say" if they want to have that kind of "contact" with humans...i think it is right to make laws against it. Animals have rights and we should respect that...i know Zoophiles see that from a "different angle"..but thats my 2 cents.
|
If it doesn't harm anybody (anything), then it doesn't need to be illegal. If it doesn't need to be illegal, then it shouldn't be illegal.
You can apply this very simple, basic principle to absolutely everything in life, and you should. The hard part is nailing down what constitutes harm.
|
What the fuck Kwark? Are you seriously defending zoophilia?
|
On June 16 2013 16:23 las91 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 08:40 Reason wrote:On June 15 2013 08:26 Ponera wrote:
I am officially cancelling my tickets to sweden.
Honestly, people who are into animals are no different from pedophiles, homosexuals or straight people. Well, they are in the sense that they partake in risky/potentially abusive behavior like pedophiles do but the brain lights up the same; they are attracted to what they are attracted to. It's just unfortunate that what they are attracted to happens to be a horse and there is no way in which to partake in the activity without potentially harming yourself or the animal. It's like pedophilia; they are attracted to children, that part is not their fault. However, partaking in their fantasies is what causes harm.
Would be a horrific spot to be in, mentally.
Being a pedophile isnt't a crime and not all of them act out their desires. Zoophiles who partake in their fantasies don't necessarily cause harm, thus the discussion. On June 15 2013 08:29 S_SienZ wrote:On June 15 2013 08:17 Reason wrote:On June 15 2013 08:15 S_SienZ wrote:On June 15 2013 07:53 Reason wrote:On June 15 2013 06:48 S_SienZ wrote:On June 15 2013 06:37 Reason wrote:On June 15 2013 06:21 S_SienZ wrote:On June 15 2013 06:14 Reason wrote:
[quote]
So do you think every law should come with it's associated reasoning? I'm sure that information is held somewhere... but I don't know. What do you suggest as an alternative to the current situation and can you elaborate on what you feel this situation is?
I certainly don't feel like laws are passed willy nilly for no clear reason. There's been (a still ongoing) hundreds of years of debate about that. It hasn't been conclusively resolved but it's been roughly divided into 2 camps: one side is saying laws are a social tool for regulation and essentially whatever the "source of law" in a society says is law. In that version, the content of law is generally checked by democracy, separation of powers, yadayada, you know the drill. The other camp is basically saying that laws and morals are one and the same. But personally, that camp's ideas is getting progressively untenable as globalisation forces the mingling of differing cultures. Think about it, if laws that are moral are ok, what's stopping the legislation of positive obligations? (Instead of don't do something, you have to do something). What's stopping say, a predominantly Catholic populace from voting a new law that makes church mandatory for EVERYONE. They'd argue its moral, it was voted by a majority. Laws passed are generally negative obligations because such laws are the least infringing of people's dignity. Also, a gap between law and morals is essential for moral goodness to even exist. Imagine a man walking past a beggar, he feels sorry for him and hands him his sandwich. The man has done a moral good deed and the beggar feels grateful. Now imagine if there was a law, for moral reasons, that compelled such charity. The beggar would (rightfully so) be entitled, and the moral merit of the deed is void since there was no choice involved. Laws are often based upon morals but morals are not based upon law. Our society doesn't seem to feel anybody has a moral obligation to do anything, save look after children properly, so I don't think laws of positive obligation are anything to be concerned about. Does the removal of choice alter the morality of an action? If you say "kill x person or I will kill you" it removes some of the responsiblity from myself, but it doesn't make the act of killing that person any more or less morally corrupt than doing it on my own, the only difference there is that I did it through my own choice and responsibility for this morally wrong action lies solely with me. If it was legally required to give money to homeless people that doesn't change the inherent morality of the action, it just places the credit of the action elsewhere as opposed to making it void, but that's not going to happen anyway. Your first statement raises more questions than it answers. Laws are often based upon morals, how often? Is there a principled method? Also is the problem of subjectivity, a conflation of the legal and the moral could only feasibly work with the existence of an objective moral code (if you look at the works of those who argue for such a case e.g. Aristotle, Finnis, they talk about self-evident (LOL) basic goods which all humans should strive towards), but such objective morals have yet to be proven. How do you resolve it when one side's morals fundamentally clash with anothers? Of course the removal of choice alters the morality of an action. Morality isn't an instrumentalist concept that's concerned with outcome, but about how we arrive at our decisions. If outcome were the sole determinant, businesses who grant scholarships for tax break purposes would be far more moral than the pauper who split his bread to a dying hobo. I think choice is a matter of responsibility and doesn't change the nature of the action, but motivation is entirely a separate issue. If I do a good deed for a selfish reason does that make it a bad deed? If I go back in time and kill Hitler, am I a cold blooded murderer or a hero? Am I both or neither? If I were American, I guess I would be sentenced to death for unlawful murder then high-fived all the way to the chair by everybody in the place, which seems a little strange. I think whether we like it or not a conflation of legality and morality is exactly what we wrestle with every day. I feel morals dictate laws and changes in law reflect the changing morality of the populace. I think that's a good thing and it seems to me that morals should actually overrule law as a result of this. Why should I be punished for murdering a genocidal maniac just because the basic act of murder is morally wrong? To consider laws without morals or morals without laws, I'd have to choose the latter, laws are just a shortcut to arriving at the right moral answer in the majority of cases, I guess this is where judge and jury come into play to explore the final aspects of an each individually. When one sides morals clash with the others, I guess you just have to go with the majority. If the majority of the population are pro-choice it stands to reason that this act has to be viewed as morally good, as there is no objective morality apparently, and if the majority of the population are pro-life it has to be morally corrupt. Compromise is often the only tool at our disposal and when uncompromising issues arise majority dictates morality. Using my own reasoning on this then I'd have to agree with this law if that's the way the majority of Sweden feels, but then you'd have to consider the morality of denying others their wishes simply because you disagree with it and that's where we get into issues of harm. The majority of Sweden may feel the act itself is immoral but I feel the act of outlawing certain activities because of purely a moral objection would itself be more immoral than the act itself, which is why I disagree with this ruling. Morality I think does and should dictate law but it's incredibly complex and intertwined. This is a difficult situation because everyone has decided that cruelty to animals is morally wrong and overrules the rights of the person inflicting the cruelty on the animal to do so. What I think is questionable is whether it really constitutes cruelty, laws based purely upon a simple moral objection with no connection to other pre-established moral guidelines are definitely not a good thing. But you don't have to make a choice between the 2. That's actually the beauty of the argument behind separation of laws and morals, it allows moral criticisms of the law. One could morally disagree with a legal provision while acknowledging that nonetheless he is legally obligated to do something. To clarify further, I don't see the problem with this law, if as a matter of public policy, Sweden feels sufficiently strongly against this, they decided to ban it. What I am essentially objecting, is the notion that beastiality is banned because it is morally wrong. There's 2 arguments at play here, what I think the law should be, and one regarding what the law now is in Sweden. Lets disregard the former for a moment here, for its just my 2 cents, I'm arguing that this law needs to be passed for the right reasons. Going back to the idea that laws are a social tool, the detachment of laws and morals is precisely what allows this to be passed. But the understanding of this as moral law, is what opens up the can of worms. I find this confusing because it seems to me what you're essentially saying is that if the majority of people in Sweden feel it's morally wrong then it's okay to ban it, but it's not okay if they decide to ban it because it's morally wrong. In scenario A the law remains detached from morals in essence, each Swede could have different reasons for supporting such a ban, ranging from personal views that such acts are immoral, to paranoia of potential diseases which might form because of such acts. Law remains social, it is law by virtue of the Swedish society saying so, for whatever reasons. In scenario B the law is passed because it is derived directly from morals. A logical causal connection exists. That is what I'm refuting. A. The majority of Swedes are against bestiality for a multitude of reasons, including morality. This is okay. B. The majority of Swedes are against bestiality for a single reason, morality. This is not okay. I don't understand. You really don't understand the basic difference between "multiple" and "single"? For a seemingly intelligent human being you've said some incredibly poorly thought out things. Basically, the government of Sweden in case A is understanding that the majority of Swedes are against bestiality but it could be because of risk of disease, worry about animal cruelty, "immorality" because they believe it is wrong, etc. Case B would be a direct result of believe it is immoral with no concern to the animal or the transmission of disease, etc. Basically, Case A considers multiple facets while Case B only considers one (immorality of the human being as judged by the societal context).
I understand the basic difference between multiple and single, I didn't see the relevance. If you had paid attention I was having a conversation with a specific poster and he explained in detail what the relevance of this was as far as he was concerned.
There was no need for you to make this post, the only poorly thought out comment is your own.
People still going on about consent huh -_- round and round and round we go.
|
On June 17 2013 01:18 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 01:14 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 01:09 Fruscainte wrote:On June 17 2013 01:01 Zambrah wrote:
I would be very interested in seeing what kind of harm is done to the animals involved in beastiality (okay, that sounded creepy.) What harm IS being done to these animals? I can't imagine very much/any at all considering the size of the animals (unless its like a chicken or something) and if you're a woman I can't imagine any harm at all.
If theres no real harm being done to the animals I seriously can't fathom how this could be illegal. Something you perceive as disgusting does not mean it deserves to be legislated against. I'm personally not a fan of scat porn but I believe that people have the right to shit on one another if they get off on that.
The other dimension to this is the animal's suffering, but since we can rule out psychological damage, this comes down to physical damage. So, if an animal receives no physical harm then how can this be considered harmful?
Consent should be a non-factor. We do not grant animals consent. Consent is only a factor between humans.
Overall, I just don't think that the government has a right to outlaw beastiality if it does not harm the animal. If it does harm the animal, well shit we have animal cruelty laws that cover that. Why don't you look up some cases of bestiality before you make such a claim? People who rape their pets are generally people who abuse them. One particular case rings in my head of this teen who locked his dog in his closet and only dragged her out to fuck her, and then throw her back into the closet where she nearly starved to death. Of course she tried to fight back every time but he would just beat her down. Saying animals can't suffer psychological damage definitely takes the ballgame of the most biologically ignorant statement I have ever heard in my entire life. Saying we shouldn't legislate bestiality since sex with most animals doesn't physically harm them in itself is like saying we shouldn't legislate rape because sex with a human doesn't physically harm them inherently. The people who do this kind of shit are sick fucks who don't lovingly caress their dog or whatever, take them on a night on the town and give them a backrub and warm them up. These are people who grab their dog by the collar, throw them on the ground, pin them down, and fuck them, beat them, and throw them in the corner when they're done. Consent should be a factor because no animal can fucking consent to this kind of thing. It's like a child, they simply don't have the mental capacity to understand consent. That in itself should make it illegal. I'm sorry if my post was a bit hard, but I take this issue very personally. The previous laws covering animal abuse covered that and genuine zoophiles would be horrified by the treatment of the animal that you describe. Secondly, what you're saying, at least to me, is like saying the violent assault laws already cover all the shit that happens to women in rape. Since the sex itself is completely natural and doesn't physically hurt them at all, why include it? Everyone who enjoys having loving sex with their partners would never do that to each other, why ban a natural part of life that doesn't hurt anyone? People who rape women usually kidnap them and beat them, so we already got laws to cover it. Why get more? Because of consent. Consent is an important thing, as well as psychological damage. Two things fucking animals will always entail. Non-consent and psychological damage.
You make a good point that animals can have deep affection for their owners, a variety of emotional states, and personalities and preferences similar to human beings. But I think you have to clearly distinguish between the psychological damage that is associated with the traumatic treatment of animals you described above, with the psychological damage that comes from an animal that may not "consent" to sex, but is otherwise treated well - and in which sex isn't painful as a result of penetration. In the latter case, considering the mental capabilities of an animal, if its not being harmed, I don't think you've clearly shown that the animal will suffer any significant psychological damage.
I think the reason why psychological trauma occurs is that you either have a painful emotional experience, or its the result of intense physical pain. If we consider a case in which penetration occurs gently, with lubrication and care...then bestiality may have the potential to provide a positive, or at the very least, a strange but neutral experience for the animal, and a form of emotional bonding between the man/woman and animal.
Of course in some cases where that is simply not possible, then it should probably be outlawed. But I don't think the fact that animals can't consent is reason enough to disallow the practise. Assuming no psychological trauma occurs, then at most what you're talking about is a situation where an animal doesn't want something (feels bad psychologically) which may either feel neutral or good in a strictly physical sense.
But this is precisely the way we treat animals in every other setting; although many people will try to "listen" to their animals, in many cases they are forced to do things (i.e. stay out in the rain, go to the garage, get spayed or neutered) without their consent. I'm all for animal rights; but if you were to take a strong stance on this issue on the basis of consent, then I feel you would virtually end up banning the ownership of pets in general.
|
United States42653 Posts
On June 17 2013 01:39 Jinsho wrote:
What the fuck Kwark? Are you seriously defending zoophilia?
Absolutely.
|
About time this law was passed
|
Out of curiousity, what if there is an understanding between owner and pet that their love is a true love that knows no bounds? (Like, none at all  )
|
United States42653 Posts
On June 17 2013 01:18 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 01:14 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 01:09 Fruscainte wrote:On June 17 2013 01:01 Zambrah wrote:
I would be very interested in seeing what kind of harm is done to the animals involved in beastiality (okay, that sounded creepy.) What harm IS being done to these animals? I can't imagine very much/any at all considering the size of the animals (unless its like a chicken or something) and if you're a woman I can't imagine any harm at all.
If theres no real harm being done to the animals I seriously can't fathom how this could be illegal. Something you perceive as disgusting does not mean it deserves to be legislated against. I'm personally not a fan of scat porn but I believe that people have the right to shit on one another if they get off on that.
The other dimension to this is the animal's suffering, but since we can rule out psychological damage, this comes down to physical damage. So, if an animal receives no physical harm then how can this be considered harmful?
Consent should be a non-factor. We do not grant animals consent. Consent is only a factor between humans.
Overall, I just don't think that the government has a right to outlaw beastiality if it does not harm the animal. If it does harm the animal, well shit we have animal cruelty laws that cover that. Why don't you look up some cases of bestiality before you make such a claim? People who rape their pets are generally people who abuse them. One particular case rings in my head of this teen who locked his dog in his closet and only dragged her out to fuck her, and then throw her back into the closet where she nearly starved to death. Of course she tried to fight back every time but he would just beat her down. Saying animals can't suffer psychological damage definitely takes the ballgame of the most biologically ignorant statement I have ever heard in my entire life. Saying we shouldn't legislate bestiality since sex with most animals doesn't physically harm them in itself is like saying we shouldn't legislate rape because sex with a human doesn't physically harm them inherently. The people who do this kind of shit are sick fucks who don't lovingly caress their dog or whatever, take them on a night on the town and give them a backrub and warm them up. These are people who grab their dog by the collar, throw them on the ground, pin them down, and fuck them, beat them, and throw them in the corner when they're done. Consent should be a factor because no animal can fucking consent to this kind of thing. It's like a child, they simply don't have the mental capacity to understand consent. That in itself should make it illegal. I'm sorry if my post was a bit hard, but I take this issue very personally. The previous laws covering animal abuse covered that and genuine zoophiles would be horrified by the treatment of the animal that you describe. My argument comes down to this: Since an animal, much like a child, is inherently unable to give consent because they can not understand the concept of consent nor can they in animals case vocalize that nonconsent if it was there sex with animals should be illegal because of that. Secondly, what you're saying, at least to me, is like saying the violent assault laws already cover all the shit that happens to women in rape. Since the sex itself is completely natural and doesn't physically hurt them at all, why include it? Everyone who enjoys having loving sex with their partners would never do that to each other, why ban a natural part of life that doesn't hurt anyone? People who rape women usually kidnap them and beat them, so we already got laws to cover it. Why get more? Because of consent. Consent is an important thing, as well as psychological damage. Two things fucking animals will always entail. Non-consent and psychological damage. Also, as for your edit, I seriously can't grasp that argument. Why not make it legal to hit dogs with a sledgehammer since it's completely legal to do it for a melon? We're not talking about melons, we're talking about animals. I want you to find me one case of a zoophile having sex with something like a dog or a cat and the animal not being psychologically or physically damaged.
I'm not going to look up cases of zoophiles for you but zoophilia is not the same thing as beastiality, zoophilia is a paraphilia in which the individual genuinely feels a strong sense of emotional attachment and love towards the target. Claiming that all beastiality involves neglect, violence and abuse of the animal completely ignores the fact that zoophiles love and are devoted to their animals in a way that people who don't share their paraphilia could never be capable of. It sucks that one case you read about involved the abuse of a pet but I don't think you know what zoophilia is.
Dogs are pack animals, given the chance they will leap at the opportunity to have sex with other members of the pack and give no fucks about it because they don't identify beyond "pack" and "not pack". That's like the basis of all canine domestication, they don't go "ewww, human" because they don't get that the two legged guy isn't another dog. As for psychological damage, dogs get conditioned by physical trauma because they understand it, they don't get the psychological implications of rape because they're dogs. You're applying human concepts to animals which they simply do not apply to.
Your knowledge of rape is very lacking. People who rape women generally are people the women already know, most often their partner, otherwise a friend or family member. Very rarely is kidnapping or physical violence involved. Furthermore rape in the case of humans causes psychological damage and is a violation of the rights of the person to their own body and of their consent. These things do not apply to pets, you can imprison a pet in your home, you can have them neutered, you can even get them put down, pets do not have the right to their own body and they certainly don't have any right of consent. Rape is a specifically human crime which is completely separate to kidnapping and so forth as you would know if you knew anything about it (I really suggest you actually do some research into this) and that is why we have laws against it.
As for the melon argument, I was illustrating the obvious flaw in what you wrote. You made the claim that an animal is incapable of understanding sex and should therefore be protected, much like a child. Here you make the argument that the more vulnerable something is, the more it needs to be protected, and you use the child as an example of this principle in action. I pointed out that this is nonsense with the example of the melon which is even more incapable of understanding sex than the child and the pet and is therefore even more vulnerable to rape. Obviously this is absurd because it's a melon, clearly vulnerability isn't the factor. The reason we protect children from sex is not just because they don't understand sex but because they are humans who don't understand sex. This is where your argument falls apart, you attempt to tie not understanding sex to vulnerability to rape and use the example of the child while completely ignoring the fact that the child has the unique advantage of being human, a factor not shared by pets.
|
United States24676 Posts
On June 17 2013 01:18 Fruscainte wrote:
My argument comes down to this:
Since an animal, much like a child, is inherently unable to give consent because they can not understand the concept of consent nor can they in animals case vocalize that nonconsent if it was there sex with animals should be illegal because of that.
This only makes sense if non-consensual sex carries similar levels of risk for the animal as it does for human children. We have found that adults having sex with children, even when there is no physical force or apparent mental trauma, is still often very detrimental to the well-being of the child. The degree to which this is true for animals seems to be to be much less. I don't think having sex with animals is a good idea, but I really don't see a need to ban it in cases where there isn't obvious physical abuse.
|
Problem is animals cant consent, they are almost biological machines, with the right conditioning anyone can get themselves a beast that will act as if its the shit.
Personally I wouldnt make it something criminal unless theres some serious abuse involved, but I wouldnt make it legal either, maybe give zoophile some psychological evaluation, if the guy is pathologically a zoophile, well id rather have him fuck a sheep than killhimself.
Also, a hefty fine and be done with it, that way at least the government is earning some money to turn a blind eye to something no one wants to see anyways.
|
Consent isn't the relevant issue. Harm is the relevant issue. Focus on harm when discussing banning anything.
|
United States42653 Posts
On June 17 2013 03:59 D10 wrote:
Problem is animals cant consent, they are almost biological machines, with the right conditioning anyone can get themselves a beast that will act as if its the shit.
Personally I wouldnt make it something criminal unless theres some serious abuse involved, but I wouldnt make it legal either, maybe give zoophile some psychological evaluation, if the guy is pathologically a zoophile, well id rather have him fuck a sheep than killhimself.
Also, a hefty fine and be done with it, that way at least the government is earning some money to turn a blind eye to something no one wants to see anyways.
You don't get to fine people for doing things you don't like. If you tax zoophiles to lower taxes on yourself then you might as well just go into their houses and steal their shit.
|
On June 17 2013 03:59 D10 wrote:
Problem is animals cant consent, they are almost biological machines, with the right conditioning anyone can get themselves a beast that will act as if its the shit.
Personally I wouldnt make it something criminal unless theres some serious abuse involved, but I wouldnt make it legal either, maybe give zoophile some psychological evaluation, if the guy is pathologically a zoophile, well id rather have him fuck a sheep than killhimself.
Also, a hefty fine and be done with it, that way at least the government is earning some money to turn a blind eye to something no one wants to see anyways.
Fleshlights can't consent. No one mind's them existing.
Not saying animals = fleshlight
But hinging purely on consent is meaningless without context.
If you're saying animal emotions = human emotions and hence their rights to consent have to be put on the table--then should we arrest dogs who rape other dogs for rape?
Unless the thing is literally Human's can't rape animals but animals can rape animals--then consent isn't the issue but race differences is the issue.
Do you see the problem that occurs if you purify the argument to just consent? I don't want to arrest dogs for raping other dogs just because we arrest based on consent--that is silly.
|
On June 17 2013 03:59 D10 wrote:
Problem is animals cant consent, they are almost biological machines, with the right conditioning anyone can get themselves a beast that will act as if its the shit.
Personally I wouldnt make it something criminal unless theres some serious abuse involved, but I wouldnt make it legal either, maybe give zoophile some psychological evaluation, if the guy is pathologically a zoophile, well id rather have him fuck a sheep than killhimself.
Also, a hefty fine and be done with it, that way at least the government is earning some money to turn a blind eye to something no one wants to see anyways.
Are you sure animals can't consent?
Does the animal try to prevent it, i.e. fight back/avoid the person? If yes, it doesn't consent. If no, it does.
I personally think zoophilia is pretty gross, but I'm not going to try to impose that view on everyone else.
|
On June 17 2013 01:04 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 01:01 Zambrah wrote:
I would be very interested in seeing what kind of harm is done to the animals involved in beastiality (okay, that sounded creepy.) What harm IS being done to these animals? I can't imagine very much/any at all considering the size of the animals (unless its like a chicken or something) and if you're a woman I can't imagine any harm at all.
If theres no real harm being done to the animals I seriously can't fathom how this could be illegal. Something you perceive as disgusting does not mean it deserves to be legislated against. I'm personally not a fan of scat porn but I believe that people have the right to shit on one another if they get off on that.
The other dimension to this is the animal's suffering, but since we can rule out psychological damage, this comes down to physical damage. So, if an animal receives no physical harm then how can this be considered harmful?
Consent should be a non-factor. We do not grant animals consent. Consent is only a factor between humans.
Overall, I just don't think that the government has a right to outlaw beastiality if it does not harm the animal. If it does harm the animal, well shit we have animal cruelty laws that cover that. The only argument I can think of is that yes, some animals can theoretically be hurt emotionally. Think of a dog that isn't really physically hurt but is abused in other ways. It can experience sadness and things like that. Also there are possible medical complications in both directions, but I haven't heard any strong arguments that really justify new legislation. I summary, I think the arguments for the complete banning of sex with animals are not with zero merit, but don't justify full bans (the same way I don't think we should ban other things unless we specifically have a good reason).
I would only say that the ban has zero merit in that what its trying to do should already be covered by animal cruelty laws in the first place. Maybe that requires an expansion of animal cruelty laws, but yeah, I don't think beastiality = animal cruelty in a way that requires specific legislation banning it. :-P
I'll have to look into the emotional impact on the animal though, because initially I have to believe its extraordinarily hard to prove an animal's emotional harm with regards to beastiality. Though I imagine that it could be included in animal abuse, if it CAN be proved, however difficult it may be to do so, it probably does have merit within animal cruelty legislation.
But uh, yeah, if noone is hurt, let people fuck their horses.
|
United States42653 Posts
On June 17 2013 04:11 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 03:59 D10 wrote:
Problem is animals cant consent, they are almost biological machines, with the right conditioning anyone can get themselves a beast that will act as if its the shit.
Personally I wouldnt make it something criminal unless theres some serious abuse involved, but I wouldnt make it legal either, maybe give zoophile some psychological evaluation, if the guy is pathologically a zoophile, well id rather have him fuck a sheep than killhimself.
Also, a hefty fine and be done with it, that way at least the government is earning some money to turn a blind eye to something no one wants to see anyways. Are you sure animals can't consent? Does the animal try to prevent it, i.e. fight back/avoid the person? If yes, it doesn't consent. If no, it does. I personally think zoophilia is pretty gross, but I'm not going to try to impose that view on everyone else.
I believe consent is meant in its legal sense here. Animals struggle in a lot of different situations, such as when being slaughtered, but their non consent has no legal value because they're animals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
