|
On June 18 2013 01:10 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 01:09 datcirclejerk wrote:On June 18 2013 01:05 marvellosity wrote:On June 18 2013 01:02 datcirclejerk wrote:On June 18 2013 00:52 marvellosity wrote:On June 18 2013 00:48 datcirclejerk wrote:On June 18 2013 00:45 micronesia wrote:On June 18 2013 00:44 datcirclejerk wrote:It is very much possible to argue morality in a rational way. No, it is absolutely not possible. I can't speak for you but I find morality to be very logical. I feel like this divide is similar to a religious / not religious divide, meaning we can't make any progress on it in this thread. Morality comes from evolved emotions, particularly empathy. I feel this to be so self-evident that if you deny it, you are correct that no progress could be made. As far as I'm concerned, I want laws to be made to prevent me coming to harm (including any situation where I chose a different walk of life I could be subjected to harm). So I want my property safe, I want my body/person to be safe, I don't want to be defrauded, or whatever. If someone's getting bummed by a dog then I don't care, because it doesn't cause any harm to me. Similarly, it's why I think drugs should be decriminalised/legalised, because someone having a joint at home or popping a few pills while out clubbing isn't harmful in itself either. (of course, people can do bad things on drugs, but then you punish those actions, with suitable due given to their current state of mind/body) Well, most people care whether or not others are being killed or harmed, not just themselves. Eh... cmon man. If someone else is being killed legally, then I am at risk of being killed legally. Hence I support laws against killing. Yeah but.... even if there was a law that guaranteed I would never be killed or harmed in any way but the people around me would, I'd oppose it on purely moral grounds. I wouldn't oppose it simply because I felt threatened. I think or at least hope that most people are this way. you're just not understanding what i'm saying at all, lol
I understand that you want to set self-preservation as the foundation for all morality. Unfortunately it won't work.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
No, I want laws to be based on prevention of harm to others, because I am one of those others.
edit: that's awfully vague, because that sounds like I want states to interfere in shit, which I don't, I want the state to leave me the fuck alone as much as possible ^^
|
United States24709 Posts
On June 18 2013 00:58 datcirclejerk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 00:53 micronesia wrote:
There's nothing wrong with using emotion to help us set up our hypotheses, and then analyzing these hypotheses logically and objectively after having time to 'cool off.' This is a way to use logic to create better laws without having to ignore your emotions, which is basically impossible. I never said there was anything wrong with it. I just said people need to accept that all their morality and suggested laws are ultimately based on emotion. This is too strong of a statement. To say that all morality and suggested laws are ultimately based on emotion is going too far. As I said, they can't be completely detached, either.
You are still succumbing to a fallacy, unfortunately. You think the "good" is an objective criteria, when it is also emotion. But whatever.
Who said anything about 'good'? We don't propose laws, and then say "is this law GOOD or BAD"? I believe you accused me of a fallacy with a strawman.
|
On June 18 2013 01:13 marvellosity wrote:
No, I want laws to be based on prevention of harm to others, because I am one of those others.
I want laws to be based on prevention of harm to others, because I feel bad when others get harmed.
On June 18 2013 00:53 micronesia wrote:
There's nothing wrong with using emotion to help us set up our hypotheses, and then analyzing these hypotheses logically and objectively after having time to 'cool off.' This is a way to use logic to create better laws without having to ignore your emotions, which is basically impossible.
When you say things like "better laws," you are implicitly making a normative judgment which is based on emotion. That is what I meant when I said "the good." People think they can judge morality based upon it's effects. They don't realize that judging those effects as either desirable or undesirable is itself morality and emotion.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On June 18 2013 01:15 datcirclejerk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 01:13 marvellosity wrote:
No, I want laws to be based on prevention of harm to others, because I am one of those others. I want laws to be based on prevention of harm to others, because I feel bad when others get harmed.
So why do you care if a dog bums a girl and no-one gets hurt?
|
On June 18 2013 01:17 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 01:15 datcirclejerk wrote:On June 18 2013 01:13 marvellosity wrote:
No, I want laws to be based on prevention of harm to others, because I am one of those others. I want laws to be based on prevention of harm to others, because I feel bad when others get harmed. So why do you care if a dog bums a girl and no-one gets hurt?
I don't care. Never said I did.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On June 18 2013 01:18 datcirclejerk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 01:17 marvellosity wrote:On June 18 2013 01:15 datcirclejerk wrote:On June 18 2013 01:13 marvellosity wrote:
No, I want laws to be based on prevention of harm to others, because I am one of those others. I want laws to be based on prevention of harm to others, because I feel bad when others get harmed. So why do you care if a dog bums a girl and no-one gets hurt? I don't care. Never said I did.
haha ok  so where do you stand on this law?
|
United States24709 Posts
On June 18 2013 01:15 datcirclejerk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 01:13 marvellosity wrote:
No, I want laws to be based on prevention of harm to others, because I am one of those others. I want laws to be based on prevention of harm to others, because I feel bad when others get harmed. Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 00:53 micronesia wrote:
There's nothing wrong with using emotion to help us set up our hypotheses, and then analyzing these hypotheses logically and objectively after having time to 'cool off.' This is a way to use logic to create better laws without having to ignore your emotions, which is basically impossible. When you say things like "better laws," you are implicitly making a normative judgment which is based on emotion. That is what I meant when I said "the good." People think they can judge morality based upon it's effects. They don't realize that judging those effects as either desirable or undesirable is itself morality and emotion.
Better laws mean laws that accomplish our objectives. I already admitted our objectives are often proposed as part of a moral/emotional process. However, deciding which proposed objectives are best for the country/whatever is more an exercise in logic than anything else. That's not to say legislative bodies don't often throw logic out the window and have knee-jerk emotional reactions, unfortunately.
|
Laws often follow the evolution of morals within a society. Someone like Durkheim, one of the first french sociologue, considered law as a good way to approach social fact and study them.
I see this law on bestiality as a desire coming from sweden to show that animal life is more important than what we used to believe, and thus that animals should be taken care of. It's a shifting that is happening right now all over Europe actually (and even over the world).
For exemple, in macroeconomic models on sustainable development, we used to only consider "consumption" as the important variable - and asking if there is a possibility of a sustainable development was basically asking if it is possible to keep consumption from going down despite using all our natural ressources. Now, new models add other variables such as the environment in itself, the biodiversity, considering that having animals alive is important for humanity happiness beyond what those natural ressources could give to humanity economically.
We care for animals and they have value beyond their usage by humanity, and thus it is perfectly logic to vote law after law so that this fact is present within our own insitutions.
|
On June 18 2013 01:24 WhiteDog wrote:
Laws often follow the evolution of morals within a society. Someone like Durkheim, one of the first french sociologue, considered law as a good way to approach social fact and study them.
I see this law on bestiality as a desire coming from sweden to show that animal life is more important than what we used to believe, and thus that animals should be taken care of. It's a shifting that is happening right now all over Europe actually (and even over the world).
For exemple, in macroeconomic models on sustainable development, we used to only consider "consumption" as the important variable - and asking if there is a possibility of a sustainable development was basically asking if it is possible to keep consumption from going down despite using all our natural ressources. Now, new models add other variables such as the environment in itself, the biodiversity, considering that having animals alive is important for humanity happiness beyond what those natural ressources could give to humanity economically.
We care for animals and they have value beyond their usage by humanity, and thus it is perfectly logic to vote law after law so that this fact is present within our own insitutions.
But what about the hypocrisy of wanting to treat animals better, but being legally okay with killing them?
So long as I stab the animal with a knife instead of a penis it's okay?
|
On June 18 2013 01:24 WhiteDog wrote:
Laws often follow the evolution of morals within a society. Someone like Durkheim, one of the first french sociologue, considered law as a good way to approach social fact and study them.
I see this law on bestiality as a desire coming from sweden to show that animal life is more important than what we used to believe, and thus that animals should be taken care of. It's a shifting that is happening right now all over Europe actually (and even over the world).
For exemple, in macroeconomic models on sustainable development, we used to only consider "consumption" as the important variable - and asking if there is a possibility of a sustainable development is asking if it is possible to keep consumption from going down despite using all our natural ressources. Now, new models add other variables such as the environment in itself, the biodiversity, considering that having animals alive is important for humanity happiness beyond what those natural ressources could give to humanity economically.
We care for animals and they have value beyond their usage by humanity, and thus it is perfectly logic to vote law after law so that this fact is present within our own insitutions.
Good points. Although I would argue it is better to reduce our own reproduction than to try and make our excessive population sustainable. I wouldn't want to live in a world without steak anyway.
On June 18 2013 01:22 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 01:18 datcirclejerk wrote:On June 18 2013 01:17 marvellosity wrote:On June 18 2013 01:15 datcirclejerk wrote:On June 18 2013 01:13 marvellosity wrote:
No, I want laws to be based on prevention of harm to others, because I am one of those others. I want laws to be based on prevention of harm to others, because I feel bad when others get harmed. So why do you care if a dog bums a girl and no-one gets hurt? I don't care. Never said I did. haha ok so where do you stand on this law?
Harm is my criteria for banning anything. Harm to humans, in particular. With regard to animals, some harm is allowed, but unnecessary cruelty should be banned. Such things are of course vague and difficult to pin down, but I still have a general idea about what they mean to me personally.
In short, I oppose making this illegal, except in cases where beastiality is highly likely to cause harm to an animal. I'm not an expert on animal vaginas, fortunately.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On June 18 2013 01:32 datcirclejerk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 01:22 marvellosity wrote:On June 18 2013 01:18 datcirclejerk wrote:On June 18 2013 01:17 marvellosity wrote:On June 18 2013 01:15 datcirclejerk wrote:On June 18 2013 01:13 marvellosity wrote:
No, I want laws to be based on prevention of harm to others, because I am one of those others. I want laws to be based on prevention of harm to others, because I feel bad when others get harmed. So why do you care if a dog bums a girl and no-one gets hurt? I don't care. Never said I did. haha ok so where do you stand on this law? Harm is my criteria for banning anything. Harm to humans, in particular. With regard to animals, some harm is allowed, but unnecessary cruelty should be banned. Such things are of course vague and difficult to pin down, but I still have a general idea about what they mean to me personally. In short, I oppose making this illegal, except in cases where beastiality is highly likely to cause harm to an animal. I'm not an expert on animal vaginas, fortunately.
Fair dinkum, seems we mostly agree anyways, just a slightly different personal philosophy on lawmaking (which probably boils down to the same thing in the end as well)
|
On June 18 2013 00:41 datcirclejerk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 00:33 micronesia wrote:On June 18 2013 00:28 datcirclejerk wrote:On June 17 2013 20:10 Nyovne wrote:On June 17 2013 20:09 syno wrote:
Meh, i hate saying this, but I guess you (mostly marvellosity and KwarK) are right.
It is (imo) fucked up and disgusting, but that should not be the foundation of a law. I got it now, finally. Agreed. Oh please... All of morality and by extension all of law are built upon human emotions. I'm getting sick of people talking about "logic" in this thread. Logic is nothing. Logic is simply how you rationalize the emotions you already have. I could come up with a hundred reasons to kill off hundreds of people from a purely pragmatic point of view, which is what most people mean when they say "logic." And yet no one would support it, because it is emotionally repugnant, pure and simple. Humans are feeling creatures, that's how we understand and relate to existence. That's how we decide actions, come up with principles, judge others, decide laws, vote, everything. Um, I don't get how you concluded that logic is useless, especially when creating laws. Logic is arguably the most important thing for humans to fall back on when trying to create a better society. Will there always be emotion involved in our decisions? Sure. People generally can't remain entirely detached and objective when thinking about issues that affect them. But the way to make the right decisions more often than not is the approach the issue logically, and as I said earlier, by using evidence appropriately to support your hypothesis. I often run into people who try to argue that logic is somehow a bad/useless thing, and it baffles me (this includes my mom lol). There is such a thing as a person who becomes overconfident in their own 'logic,' but that's their fault, not logic's. Usually, apparent failings of logic are actually failing to apply logic correctly. Our course isn't decided by logic. It can't be decided by logic, actually. Logic is not normative. We must decide what we want emotionally, first. You can apply logic to decide on the best way to achieve your goals, but it is asinine for anyone to say that "our laws should not be based on emotion."
Despite your username, you actually have a very good point, I say stronger than what Kwark and the others have so far. Also Veltro is raising very good points as well regarding logic working under a premise.
Just to summarize and refine your points, and I think this should end the debate, there is a simple and elegant solution to this whole "if we eat animals, why not fuck them" argument. Answer = culture. And on a lesser not, yes datcirclejerk, emotions.
In most human culture sex has been a greater taboo than murder. This is universal. There are harsh penalties in killing someone, but there are unspeakable penalties in having undesirable (adulterous, bestial, sodomous) sexual relationship. This is even reflected in myths, the most significant of which is found in the Genesis: "Eating of Apple" vs. Death of Abel. Moreover on the emotion vs. logic point, datcirclejerk I think understands it perfectly. Not everything can be argued in logical terms, that is, in terms of the logical formula that would process all the advantage/disadvantage scenario in every situation. If this is the case, we would be living in a world like I-Robot, where the robots have decided for us what is good and bad FOR US. I-Robot is actually conservative, the perfect expression of this "logical" state would be robot determining one's value according to his or her potential and actual contributions to society, and factoring it with other variables such as available resources, etc... I bet if this happens we can be sure majority of the population will be wiped out. We do not want this, at least this kind of perfect logic. Which is also the case with bestiality. It may be right or wrong or whatever, but humanity has simply decided until now that it is disgusting, regardless of the fact that we eat the very animals we profess to not harm by fucking. It does not follow. We as a human race simply decided so. There may be a few rebels here and there who want their cock in a dogs vagina or their pussy filled with horse cock, but they are the taboo, the unnatural.
|
On June 18 2013 01:41 either I or wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 00:41 datcirclejerk wrote:On June 18 2013 00:33 micronesia wrote:On June 18 2013 00:28 datcirclejerk wrote:On June 17 2013 20:10 Nyovne wrote:On June 17 2013 20:09 syno wrote:
Meh, i hate saying this, but I guess you (mostly marvellosity and KwarK) are right.
It is (imo) fucked up and disgusting, but that should not be the foundation of a law. I got it now, finally. Agreed. Oh please... All of morality and by extension all of law are built upon human emotions. I'm getting sick of people talking about "logic" in this thread. Logic is nothing. Logic is simply how you rationalize the emotions you already have. I could come up with a hundred reasons to kill off hundreds of people from a purely pragmatic point of view, which is what most people mean when they say "logic." And yet no one would support it, because it is emotionally repugnant, pure and simple. Humans are feeling creatures, that's how we understand and relate to existence. That's how we decide actions, come up with principles, judge others, decide laws, vote, everything. Um, I don't get how you concluded that logic is useless, especially when creating laws. Logic is arguably the most important thing for humans to fall back on when trying to create a better society. Will there always be emotion involved in our decisions? Sure. People generally can't remain entirely detached and objective when thinking about issues that affect them. But the way to make the right decisions more often than not is the approach the issue logically, and as I said earlier, by using evidence appropriately to support your hypothesis. I often run into people who try to argue that logic is somehow a bad/useless thing, and it baffles me (this includes my mom lol). There is such a thing as a person who becomes overconfident in their own 'logic,' but that's their fault, not logic's. Usually, apparent failings of logic are actually failing to apply logic correctly. Our course isn't decided by logic. It can't be decided by logic, actually. Logic is not normative. We must decide what we want emotionally, first. You can apply logic to decide on the best way to achieve your goals, but it is asinine for anyone to say that "our laws should not be based on emotion." Despite your username, you actually have a very good point, I say stronger than what Kwark and the others have so far. Also Veltro is raising very good points as well regarding logic working under a premise. Just to summarize and refine your points, and I think this should end the debate, there is a simple and elegant solution to this whole "if we eat animals, why not fuck them" argument. Answer = culture. And on a lesser not, yes datcirclejerk, emotions. In most human culture sex has been a greater taboo than murder. This is universal. There are harsh penalties in killing someone, but there are unspeakable penalties in having undesirable (adulterous, bestial, sodomous) sexual relationship. This is even reflected in myths, the most significant of which is found in the Genesis: "Eating of Apple" vs. Death of Abel. Moreover on the emotion vs. logic point, datcirclejerk I think understands it perfectly. Not everything can be argued in logical terms, that is, in terms of the logical formula that would process all the advantage/disadvantage scenario in every situation. If this is the case, we would be living in a world like I-Robot, where the robots have decided for us what is good and bad FOR US. I-Robot is actually conservative, the perfect expression of this "logical" state would be robot determining one's value according to his or her potential and actual contributions to society, and factoring it with other variables such as available resources, etc... I bet if this happens we can be sure majority of the population will be wiped out. We do not want this, at least this kind of perfect logic. Which is also the case with bestiality. It may be right or wrong or whatever, but humanity has simply decided until now that it is disgusting, regardless of the fact that we eat the very animals we profess to not harm by fucking. It does not follow. We as a human race simply decided so. There may be a few rebels here and there who want their cock in a dogs vagina or their pussy filled with horse cock, but they are the taboo, the unnatural.
So we just ban what society thinks is taboo?
|
On June 18 2013 01:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 01:41 either I or wrote:On June 18 2013 00:41 datcirclejerk wrote:On June 18 2013 00:33 micronesia wrote:On June 18 2013 00:28 datcirclejerk wrote:On June 17 2013 20:10 Nyovne wrote:On June 17 2013 20:09 syno wrote:
Meh, i hate saying this, but I guess you (mostly marvellosity and KwarK) are right.
It is (imo) fucked up and disgusting, but that should not be the foundation of a law. I got it now, finally. Agreed. Oh please... All of morality and by extension all of law are built upon human emotions. I'm getting sick of people talking about "logic" in this thread. Logic is nothing. Logic is simply how you rationalize the emotions you already have. I could come up with a hundred reasons to kill off hundreds of people from a purely pragmatic point of view, which is what most people mean when they say "logic." And yet no one would support it, because it is emotionally repugnant, pure and simple. Humans are feeling creatures, that's how we understand and relate to existence. That's how we decide actions, come up with principles, judge others, decide laws, vote, everything. Um, I don't get how you concluded that logic is useless, especially when creating laws. Logic is arguably the most important thing for humans to fall back on when trying to create a better society. Will there always be emotion involved in our decisions? Sure. People generally can't remain entirely detached and objective when thinking about issues that affect them. But the way to make the right decisions more often than not is the approach the issue logically, and as I said earlier, by using evidence appropriately to support your hypothesis. I often run into people who try to argue that logic is somehow a bad/useless thing, and it baffles me (this includes my mom lol). There is such a thing as a person who becomes overconfident in their own 'logic,' but that's their fault, not logic's. Usually, apparent failings of logic are actually failing to apply logic correctly. Our course isn't decided by logic. It can't be decided by logic, actually. Logic is not normative. We must decide what we want emotionally, first. You can apply logic to decide on the best way to achieve your goals, but it is asinine for anyone to say that "our laws should not be based on emotion." Despite your username, you actually have a very good point, I say stronger than what Kwark and the others have so far. Also Veltro is raising very good points as well regarding logic working under a premise. Just to summarize and refine your points, and I think this should end the debate, there is a simple and elegant solution to this whole "if we eat animals, why not fuck them" argument. Answer = culture. And on a lesser not, yes datcirclejerk, emotions. In most human culture sex has been a greater taboo than murder. This is universal. There are harsh penalties in killing someone, but there are unspeakable penalties in having undesirable (adulterous, bestial, sodomous) sexual relationship. This is even reflected in myths, the most significant of which is found in the Genesis: "Eating of Apple" vs. Death of Abel. Moreover on the emotion vs. logic point, datcirclejerk I think understands it perfectly. Not everything can be argued in logical terms, that is, in terms of the logical formula that would process all the advantage/disadvantage scenario in every situation. If this is the case, we would be living in a world like I-Robot, where the robots have decided for us what is good and bad FOR US. I-Robot is actually conservative, the perfect expression of this "logical" state would be robot determining one's value according to his or her potential and actual contributions to society, and factoring it with other variables such as available resources, etc... I bet if this happens we can be sure majority of the population will be wiped out. We do not want this, at least this kind of perfect logic. Which is also the case with bestiality. It may be right or wrong or whatever, but humanity has simply decided until now that it is disgusting, regardless of the fact that we eat the very animals we profess to not harm by fucking. It does not follow. We as a human race simply decided so. There may be a few rebels here and there who want their cock in a dogs vagina or their pussy filled with horse cock, but they are the taboo, the unnatural. So we just ban what society thinks is taboo?
Unless you have a good argument for not banning it, that's generally what societies do.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On June 18 2013 01:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 01:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 18 2013 01:41 either I or wrote:On June 18 2013 00:41 datcirclejerk wrote:On June 18 2013 00:33 micronesia wrote:On June 18 2013 00:28 datcirclejerk wrote:On June 17 2013 20:10 Nyovne wrote:On June 17 2013 20:09 syno wrote:
Meh, i hate saying this, but I guess you (mostly marvellosity and KwarK) are right.
It is (imo) fucked up and disgusting, but that should not be the foundation of a law. I got it now, finally. Agreed. Oh please... All of morality and by extension all of law are built upon human emotions. I'm getting sick of people talking about "logic" in this thread. Logic is nothing. Logic is simply how you rationalize the emotions you already have. I could come up with a hundred reasons to kill off hundreds of people from a purely pragmatic point of view, which is what most people mean when they say "logic." And yet no one would support it, because it is emotionally repugnant, pure and simple. Humans are feeling creatures, that's how we understand and relate to existence. That's how we decide actions, come up with principles, judge others, decide laws, vote, everything. Um, I don't get how you concluded that logic is useless, especially when creating laws. Logic is arguably the most important thing for humans to fall back on when trying to create a better society. Will there always be emotion involved in our decisions? Sure. People generally can't remain entirely detached and objective when thinking about issues that affect them. But the way to make the right decisions more often than not is the approach the issue logically, and as I said earlier, by using evidence appropriately to support your hypothesis. I often run into people who try to argue that logic is somehow a bad/useless thing, and it baffles me (this includes my mom lol). There is such a thing as a person who becomes overconfident in their own 'logic,' but that's their fault, not logic's. Usually, apparent failings of logic are actually failing to apply logic correctly. Our course isn't decided by logic. It can't be decided by logic, actually. Logic is not normative. We must decide what we want emotionally, first. You can apply logic to decide on the best way to achieve your goals, but it is asinine for anyone to say that "our laws should not be based on emotion." Despite your username, you actually have a very good point, I say stronger than what Kwark and the others have so far. Also Veltro is raising very good points as well regarding logic working under a premise. Just to summarize and refine your points, and I think this should end the debate, there is a simple and elegant solution to this whole "if we eat animals, why not fuck them" argument. Answer = culture. And on a lesser not, yes datcirclejerk, emotions. In most human culture sex has been a greater taboo than murder. This is universal. There are harsh penalties in killing someone, but there are unspeakable penalties in having undesirable (adulterous, bestial, sodomous) sexual relationship. This is even reflected in myths, the most significant of which is found in the Genesis: "Eating of Apple" vs. Death of Abel. Moreover on the emotion vs. logic point, datcirclejerk I think understands it perfectly. Not everything can be argued in logical terms, that is, in terms of the logical formula that would process all the advantage/disadvantage scenario in every situation. If this is the case, we would be living in a world like I-Robot, where the robots have decided for us what is good and bad FOR US. I-Robot is actually conservative, the perfect expression of this "logical" state would be robot determining one's value according to his or her potential and actual contributions to society, and factoring it with other variables such as available resources, etc... I bet if this happens we can be sure majority of the population will be wiped out. We do not want this, at least this kind of perfect logic. Which is also the case with bestiality. It may be right or wrong or whatever, but humanity has simply decided until now that it is disgusting, regardless of the fact that we eat the very animals we profess to not harm by fucking. It does not follow. We as a human race simply decided so. There may be a few rebels here and there who want their cock in a dogs vagina or their pussy filled with horse cock, but they are the taboo, the unnatural. So we just ban what society thinks is taboo? Unless you have a good argument for not banning it, that's generally what societies do.
yes, the very good argument is that if it's not hurting you, let people do what they like.
|
On June 18 2013 01:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 01:24 WhiteDog wrote:
Laws often follow the evolution of morals within a society. Someone like Durkheim, one of the first french sociologue, considered law as a good way to approach social fact and study them.
I see this law on bestiality as a desire coming from sweden to show that animal life is more important than what we used to believe, and thus that animals should be taken care of. It's a shifting that is happening right now all over Europe actually (and even over the world).
For exemple, in macroeconomic models on sustainable development, we used to only consider "consumption" as the important variable - and asking if there is a possibility of a sustainable development was basically asking if it is possible to keep consumption from going down despite using all our natural ressources. Now, new models add other variables such as the environment in itself, the biodiversity, considering that having animals alive is important for humanity happiness beyond what those natural ressources could give to humanity economically.
We care for animals and they have value beyond their usage by humanity, and thus it is perfectly logic to vote law after law so that this fact is present within our own insitutions. But what about the hypocrisy of wanting to treat animals better, but being legally okay with killing them? So long as I stab the animal with a knife instead of a penis it's okay?
I'm not sure it's legal to willingly kill an animal in Sweden, nor in France. Aside for food of course.
|
Does bestiality causes some inherent damage to society?, no?, then it shouldn't be banned. Period.
Animal cruelty laws make sense because we've grown to care for animals and in some ways see them as part of our social construct. But as far as I can imagine having sex with animal doesn't necessarily hurts it. If it does, then that person should be punished for animal cruelty. But if the act of beastiality itself doesn't cause any damage so why should it be banned?, because some people find it morally wrong?
If that's the criteria for making a law then just about everything should be banned.
|
emotions are exteriorisations/theoretical manifestations of pre-existing biological-chemical-electrical mechanisms. animals have those mechanisms too but perhaps less(?) evolved.
|
On June 17 2013 23:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 21:34 hypercube wrote:On June 17 2013 21:20 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 21:06 hypercube wrote:On June 17 2013 18:02 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 17:58 syno wrote:On June 17 2013 17:42 Nyovne wrote:
I've at the very least seen dogs, cats, rabits and a horse jump on and ride other creatures. Please explain this with it being unnatural. Lol, ok, didn't know about that. But still, if you wanna compare rape between humans and animals 1 on 1, that's just silly. That's like saying lions are murders and they deserve to die, or atleast like 20 years in jail. And hyenas are robbers, they should be in jail aswell. Are ants that invade termite mounds and eat their children guilty of war crimes? The difference is, we have a big brain, we are far more intelligent than any other animal. We don't just have to follow our instinct. We should know what's good and what's bad. And our big brains have decided that industrialised food production, with all its animal abuse, is good. Speak for yourself. Many of us are aware that it's not good to cause suffering on a massive scale. We just don't see an alternative that works on a large scale so we are stuck with it for now. Do they not have vegetables in your country? Not only do we have an alternative to eating meat, it was in fact the default system used for most of the history of human civilisation due to the inferior energy efficiency of meat and the tendency for a population to grow until it has exhausted its food supply. Regular access to meat is a very, very modern luxury which has come about due to industrialised meat production. It's not that we lack an alternative, meat eating is not the default position, we embraced animal abuse in order to gain the luxury of meat. Do they have manners in yours? But yeah, it's a luxury and I could probably go without meat if I put some thought into it. So yes, I am putting my own convenience above the rights of the animals. But the fact that I (or a large majority of society) is doing it, doesn't make it automatically right. I'm just amazed that you present regular meat eating, something which has for thousands of years been a luxury that only the elites were able to enjoy, as something without an alternative. It wasn't until the rationing of the second world war that meat became a part of the regular diet of people in England, this isn't a necessary thing with no reasonable alternative, this is a recent luxury we have embraced.
Eating meat was the default before eating vegetables was. We were a hunter gatherer society well before we were an agricultural society. Planting food was not the means of surviving for humanity and pre-humanity at all. Humans have eaten only meat for significantly longer than we have eaten only vegetables. While we can stomach both, humans have eaten meat as a necessity for much longer than we have as a luxury.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
