|
On June 17 2013 07:09 KwarK wrote:
I am asking for evidence that the concept of rape has any relevance to animals and so far I've not gotten any. Zerg_Russian stated that animals can get PTSD from abuse but I'm pretty sure he meant physical abuse rather than sexual. I asked him to clarify but he did not. I have repeatedly requested that people who claim to be better informed provide evidence and so far have just gotten an article claiming that dogs don't experience shame and another challenging the reasoning of the first one. So again, docvoc, do you have any evidence for that? The Pit of Despair experiment did a total of zero research on sexual abuse on monkeys or dolphins.
I dont think this experiment was ever done, no one raped dogs, dolphins, horses and monkeys and then ran behavioral data analysis because its not ethical, but the precedents indicate that the result you were claiming is impossible to happen, such as shame, has been verified in other kinds of abuse.
No one knows for sure at this point if sexual abuse of an animal is bad for him.
|
On June 17 2013 05:05 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 05:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 17 2013 04:48 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 04:41 Paljas wrote:On June 17 2013 04:35 butchji wrote:On June 17 2013 04:34 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 04:29 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 17 2013 04:23 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 04:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 17 2013 04:11 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
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 was thinking about it and that's something I wasn't sure about. Even if the animal does not physically show that it does not want to have sex by fighting back or by displaying some kind of physical and observable behavior, is this necessary and sufficient proof that the animal consents to sex? What if the animal would prefer not to have sex, but would not dare or does not understand how to display behavior indicating this to be the case? I don't think it's radical to imagine that could be the case in some instances. I think it makes more sense to conclude that because there is no communication possible, that we have to err on the side of not allowing any sex with animals, on the off chance that it may be violating the animal in many or even just some cases. I think it makes less sense to err on the side of allowing sex with animals just because it may be okay with some or even many animals. Sorry, I think I've missed an important step in your argument here. If I'm following correctly it goes like this 1) Animals are incapable of communicating their wishes to us 2) We shouldn't do things to them if we don't know whether or not they consent 3) 2 only applies to sex with them, not eating them or domesticating them or using them as farm tools or keeping them as pets or doing medical research on them I don't understand how 3 logically follows from 2. Logically, yeah, we'd not capture them/eat them by that logic. However realistically it becomes a moral issue. It turns out that domesticating them and eating them in some cases greatly benefits humans. With raping animals, however, there is no real gain to humans on the whole. So it doesn't seem as worthwhile to violate their autonomy. It's tricky, and it's probably why it remains a 'hot topic' in bioethics To me your post reads "I like meat so consent doesn't matter if I want a steak but I don't like fucking them so consent is really important for that". It's a colossal hypocrisy, you don't get to argue one is fine and the other isn't, especially when your argument is rooted in animal welfare and the thing you claim is fine is killing them and the thing you claim is not fine is non harmful sex. Your desire for a steak is not a necessary thing for the good of the species. KwarK, may I ask why this topic is so important to you? somebody is wrong on the internet, thats very important. on topic: Kwark, if we asume that eating animals is wrong, would you agree with the points of falldownmarigold? No, I would still disagree with his premises but his argument would at least be internally consistent. I think animal consent has no value, I'm fine with eating them. If someone were to genuinely believe that animal consent had value, that beastiality was literally equivalent to rape and that slaughtering an animal to eat was literally equivalent to murder then their argument would be internally consistent but based upon premises which I did not agree with. However instead we've been getting that animal non-consent only matters when they're not being harmed and when the thing happening is something that I personally don't want to do which is just bullshit. I'd be happy to debate the value of animal consent but the only person in this topic to argue that animals are literally people is Evangelist who QQed out earlier. Everyone else has gone with "animals are people only when it suits me". Eating animals is OK because it's a normal, healthy and unavoidable aspect of life (if humans don't eat them, something else will). Having sex with an animal seems optional. Society can then have a say in if it's OK to use that option or not. Society gets to have a say in whether or not an individual gets to do something optional? Even if it doesn't harm another member of society? Since when? Why? How do you reconcile that with liberty?
lol. Since drug wars, since seat belt laws, since prostitution bans, since gun control, since the Affordable Care Act...
The problem is people can twist logic around so that "harm" means absolutely anything. They can say eating at McDonald's is harmful to society. They can say not buying something is harmful to society. They can say having children, or drinking soda, or owning an object, are all harmful to society. Absolutely anything goes, unfortunately. And no, you can't reconcile that thinking with liberty, but that doesn't stop us.
|
as long as its consensual.. animals can orgasm too right?
|
Probably, i thought was the way of evolution to make sure everything fucks a lot.
|
On June 17 2013 07:41 datcirclejerk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 05:05 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 05:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 17 2013 04:48 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 04:41 Paljas wrote:On June 17 2013 04:35 butchji wrote:On June 17 2013 04:34 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 04:29 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 17 2013 04:23 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 04:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:
[quote]
I was thinking about it and that's something I wasn't sure about. Even if the animal does not physically show that it does not want to have sex by fighting back or by displaying some kind of physical and observable behavior, is this necessary and sufficient proof that the animal consents to sex?
What if the animal would prefer not to have sex, but would not dare or does not understand how to display behavior indicating this to be the case? I don't think it's radical to imagine that could be the case in some instances.
I think it makes more sense to conclude that because there is no communication possible, that we have to err on the side of not allowing any sex with animals, on the off chance that it may be violating the animal in many or even just some cases. I think it makes less sense to err on the side of allowing sex with animals just because it may be okay with some or even many animals. Sorry, I think I've missed an important step in your argument here. If I'm following correctly it goes like this 1) Animals are incapable of communicating their wishes to us 2) We shouldn't do things to them if we don't know whether or not they consent 3) 2 only applies to sex with them, not eating them or domesticating them or using them as farm tools or keeping them as pets or doing medical research on them I don't understand how 3 logically follows from 2. Logically, yeah, we'd not capture them/eat them by that logic. However realistically it becomes a moral issue. It turns out that domesticating them and eating them in some cases greatly benefits humans. With raping animals, however, there is no real gain to humans on the whole. So it doesn't seem as worthwhile to violate their autonomy. It's tricky, and it's probably why it remains a 'hot topic' in bioethics To me your post reads "I like meat so consent doesn't matter if I want a steak but I don't like fucking them so consent is really important for that". It's a colossal hypocrisy, you don't get to argue one is fine and the other isn't, especially when your argument is rooted in animal welfare and the thing you claim is fine is killing them and the thing you claim is not fine is non harmful sex. Your desire for a steak is not a necessary thing for the good of the species. KwarK, may I ask why this topic is so important to you? somebody is wrong on the internet, thats very important. on topic: Kwark, if we asume that eating animals is wrong, would you agree with the points of falldownmarigold? No, I would still disagree with his premises but his argument would at least be internally consistent. I think animal consent has no value, I'm fine with eating them. If someone were to genuinely believe that animal consent had value, that beastiality was literally equivalent to rape and that slaughtering an animal to eat was literally equivalent to murder then their argument would be internally consistent but based upon premises which I did not agree with. However instead we've been getting that animal non-consent only matters when they're not being harmed and when the thing happening is something that I personally don't want to do which is just bullshit. I'd be happy to debate the value of animal consent but the only person in this topic to argue that animals are literally people is Evangelist who QQed out earlier. Everyone else has gone with "animals are people only when it suits me". Eating animals is OK because it's a normal, healthy and unavoidable aspect of life (if humans don't eat them, something else will). Having sex with an animal seems optional. Society can then have a say in if it's OK to use that option or not. Society gets to have a say in whether or not an individual gets to do something optional? Even if it doesn't harm another member of society? Since when? Why? How do you reconcile that with liberty? lol. Since drug wars, since seat belt laws, since prostitution bans, since gun control, since the Affordable Care Act... The problem is people can twist logic around so that "harm" means absolutely anything. They can say eating at McDonald's is harmful to society. They can say not buying something is harmful to society. They can say having children, or drinking soda, or owning an object, are all harmful to society. Absolutely anything goes, unfortunately. And no, you can't reconcile that thinking with liberty, but that doesn't stop us.
Drug wars cause a lot of harm, and just one of many concerns about letting drugs go free is that it endangers kids and teenagers.
Seat belts is a law to protect the lazy and the young, by making it a law adults are far more pressured to make sure kids have their seat belts on.
Ban on prostitution is a stupid law (in my eyes) that not all countries agree with, just like people here disagree with this law, but it has been known to endanger women and some believe it degrading to women (but not men for some reason).
Gun control is also to protect people as guns can be quite easily used to cause a lot of harm to people.
Not being from the US nor reading up on too much about the healthcare (which I assume Affordable Care Act is) I don't know about that last point.
Apart from prostitution ban the examples don't really fit into Kwarks statement as drugs and seatbelt laws help protect kids for one and gun control helps protect members of society in general, and I would expect Kwark to disagree with prostitution ban when its something between consenting adults, unless he holds the stance of it being degrading or endangering women, but then the latter is actually a reason that excludes it from his statement.
|
My thoughts:
We can own and kill animals for food without their consent but THIS is something that is more harmful or on par with violence towards animals?
Cruelty towards animals is a huge issue, especially for the industrial farm/livestock businesses - I question the priority or need to legislate things like this.
I also question the effectiveness or penalty of such legislature.
|
On June 17 2013 05:05 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 05:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 17 2013 04:48 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 04:41 Paljas wrote:On June 17 2013 04:35 butchji wrote:On June 17 2013 04:34 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 04:29 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 17 2013 04:23 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 04:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 17 2013 04:11 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
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 was thinking about it and that's something I wasn't sure about. Even if the animal does not physically show that it does not want to have sex by fighting back or by displaying some kind of physical and observable behavior, is this necessary and sufficient proof that the animal consents to sex? What if the animal would prefer not to have sex, but would not dare or does not understand how to display behavior indicating this to be the case? I don't think it's radical to imagine that could be the case in some instances. I think it makes more sense to conclude that because there is no communication possible, that we have to err on the side of not allowing any sex with animals, on the off chance that it may be violating the animal in many or even just some cases. I think it makes less sense to err on the side of allowing sex with animals just because it may be okay with some or even many animals. Sorry, I think I've missed an important step in your argument here. If I'm following correctly it goes like this 1) Animals are incapable of communicating their wishes to us 2) We shouldn't do things to them if we don't know whether or not they consent 3) 2 only applies to sex with them, not eating them or domesticating them or using them as farm tools or keeping them as pets or doing medical research on them I don't understand how 3 logically follows from 2. Logically, yeah, we'd not capture them/eat them by that logic. However realistically it becomes a moral issue. It turns out that domesticating them and eating them in some cases greatly benefits humans. With raping animals, however, there is no real gain to humans on the whole. So it doesn't seem as worthwhile to violate their autonomy. It's tricky, and it's probably why it remains a 'hot topic' in bioethics To me your post reads "I like meat so consent doesn't matter if I want a steak but I don't like fucking them so consent is really important for that". It's a colossal hypocrisy, you don't get to argue one is fine and the other isn't, especially when your argument is rooted in animal welfare and the thing you claim is fine is killing them and the thing you claim is not fine is non harmful sex. Your desire for a steak is not a necessary thing for the good of the species. KwarK, may I ask why this topic is so important to you? somebody is wrong on the internet, thats very important. on topic: Kwark, if we asume that eating animals is wrong, would you agree with the points of falldownmarigold? No, I would still disagree with his premises but his argument would at least be internally consistent. I think animal consent has no value, I'm fine with eating them. If someone were to genuinely believe that animal consent had value, that beastiality was literally equivalent to rape and that slaughtering an animal to eat was literally equivalent to murder then their argument would be internally consistent but based upon premises which I did not agree with. However instead we've been getting that animal non-consent only matters when they're not being harmed and when the thing happening is something that I personally don't want to do which is just bullshit. I'd be happy to debate the value of animal consent but the only person in this topic to argue that animals are literally people is Evangelist who QQed out earlier. Everyone else has gone with "animals are people only when it suits me". Eating animals is OK because it's a normal, healthy and unavoidable aspect of life (if humans don't eat them, something else will). Having sex with an animal seems optional. Society can then have a say in if it's OK to use that option or not. Society gets to have a say in whether or not an individual gets to do something optional? Even if it doesn't harm another member of society? Since when? Why? How do you reconcile that with liberty?
You're right, I was too narrow. Society gets a say in everything people do (not just the optional bits). Like it or not that's the sacrifice you make when you join a society.
So then eating animals is accepted because people generally view it as acceptable.
Bestiality is controversial because on one hand a lot of people don't like it (for a variety of opinions) yet on the other hand people value freedom. Society then has to find some balance that 'works'.
|
Are there any animals who have sex with other animal species?
Added the poll at page 29 in the op
|
On June 17 2013 08:52 Orangered wrote:
Are there any animals who have sex with other animal species?
Added the poll at page 29 in the op
Horses and donkeys have sex to make mules.
|
lol, that poll is ridiculous. You can't expect people to give independent answers when they've been raised their entire lives to think a specific way.
|
On June 14 2013 16:00 TOCHMY wrote:
I've not much experience with beastiality... But I don't see why it should not be illegal
Well the reason why it should be illegal is about consent. An animal can't really intelligently consent to sex at the same level a human does. That's the official reasoning anyways.
|
well the reason we get rapists behind bars is because the brave victims come forward and testify. I don't expect a dog to be able to do that. So... the only way to have an unbiased trial is to test the dog's genitals. And doing so without consent is basically sexual abuse. LOL
my opinion: this is vulgar and i hope the 8% voting yes are just misclicks.
|
On June 17 2013 08:02 Destro wrote:
as long as its consensual.. animals can orgasm too right?
Orgasm is not consent, man. It's physical.
|
On June 17 2013 09:17 SnipedSoul wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 08:52 Orangered wrote:
Are there any animals who have sex with other animal species?
Added the poll at page 29 in the op Horses and donkeys have sex to make mules.
Lion + Tiger = Liger
Also, ancient man crossbred with neanderthals to make not African folk.
|
Killing animals is legal, but having sex with animals is not.
This simply shows that the society passing this law is okay with murder but not sex. Which is okay, depending on one's moral compass.
I dislike murder more than I dislike sex, so in my opinion, punishments for killing should be harsher than punishment for having sex.
We do this with humans (murder has a harsher punishment than rape) and we should do it for animals as well.
|
On June 17 2013 12:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Killing animals is legal, but having sex with animals is not.
This simply shows that the society passing this law is okay with murder but not sex. Which is okay, depending on one's moral compass.
I dislike murder more than I dislike sex, so in my opinion, punishments for killing should be harsher than punishment for having sex.
We do this with humans (murder has a harsher punishment than rape) and we should do it for animals as well.
Where is killing animals for the sake of killing legal? (aside from hunting, tradition passed down thousands of years and most people eat and/or don't waste their kills.) I'd love to see this civilized country you speak of. How about you use your words and actually explain you mean "eating". Never mind I know why, because you can't compare eating animals and fucking them.
|
who the fuck voted yes in the poll?
|
United States24751 Posts
On June 17 2013 12:32 PSdualwielder wrote:
who the fuck voted yes in the poll?
Probably either people who wanted to screw with you (and succeeded), or people who were born with an attraction to animals in some capacity. Are you blaming them for this?
|
On June 17 2013 12:21 Zooper31 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 12:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Killing animals is legal, but having sex with animals is not.
This simply shows that the society passing this law is okay with murder but not sex. Which is okay, depending on one's moral compass.
I dislike murder more than I dislike sex, so in my opinion, punishments for killing should be harsher than punishment for having sex.
We do this with humans (murder has a harsher punishment than rape) and we should do it for animals as well. Where is killing animals for the sake of killing legal? (aside from hunting, tradition passed down thousands of years and most people eat and/or don't waste their kills.) I'd love to see this civilized country you speak of. How about you use your words and actually explain you mean "eating". Never mind I know why, because you can't compare eating animals and fucking them.
I'm against eating people. I'm also against raping people.
Laws against eating people is harsher than laws against raping them.
|
On June 17 2013 13:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 12:21 Zooper31 wrote:On June 17 2013 12:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Killing animals is legal, but having sex with animals is not.
This simply shows that the society passing this law is okay with murder but not sex. Which is okay, depending on one's moral compass.
I dislike murder more than I dislike sex, so in my opinion, punishments for killing should be harsher than punishment for having sex.
We do this with humans (murder has a harsher punishment than rape) and we should do it for animals as well. Where is killing animals for the sake of killing legal? (aside from hunting, tradition passed down thousands of years and most people eat and/or don't waste their kills.) I'd love to see this civilized country you speak of. How about you use your words and actually explain you mean "eating". Never mind I know why, because you can't compare eating animals and fucking them. I'm against eating people. I'm also against raping people. Laws against eating people is harsher than laws against raping them.
What does that have to do with Bestiality?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
