|
On June 18 2013 01:57 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 01:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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.
Well the argument is that they're hurting the animals and causing a small amount of emotional harm (disgust) across the rest of the population.
|
Docvoc, what does the "gatherer" part of hunter gatherer mean ? They ate meat if they were lucky enough to find/kill some, else it was vegetables, much easier to come accross and "hunt". And I think eating meat as necessity is fine, the problem lies in the fact that our way of eating it now is indirectly causing great harm to animals.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On June 18 2013 02:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 01:57 marvellosity wrote:On June 18 2013 01:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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. Well the argument is that they're hurting the animals and causing a small amount of emotional harm (disgust) across the rest of the population.
I suggest you read the rest of the thread for a rather extensive rebuttal <3
|
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.
He's arguing that since the "human race" has decided zoophelia is taboo, it should be okay to ban it. I have a problem with that logic because it leads to being able to ban anything considered taboo (like homosexuality, for instance, something that is also currently defined as taboo by a good deal of Americans)
The reason a law pops up matters a damn lot because that argument could be used to pass other laws. The US is suffering from the Patriot act right now because of laws passed 12 years ago based on gut emotional "oh it makes sense" logic. If it's okay to pass a law simply because the act being banned is considered taboo, what happens 20 years from now when a conservative wave sweeps the youth and suddenly something we consider normal *now* is considered taboo?
I think bestiality is a complete and utterly disgusting thing. But I've met many people who think the same about lesbians. And much like I would not want to ban lesbians just because some people dislike it, I'm not supportive of banning bestiality just because I don't like it.
And that's just my personal opinion on the matter, philosophically, I dislike societies that are okay with killing something they find psychologically sentient enough to care about being fucked.
If you think animals are just like people and we shouldn't rape them--then you should treat them like people and not kill them.
And, if you want for there to be the arbitrary ban on raping animals because they can't consent, then should we punish animal on animal rape? Should we punish a dog for raping another dog if it's obvious the victim did not consent?
Do you see why we need the reason and logic of the law to be present in order to know what the law is actually doing.
|
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?
Redundant! Taboo by definition is something that is banned! And this is the natural tendency of human society - [in older times] premarital sex, active powerful women in society (at least in some cultures), fucking pre "legal aged" people, and [recent modern times] discrimination, irrationality, animistic worship etc. You see the variables changed and will continue to change, but what remains constant? The human variable, culture. So when humans at a given period decide what is taboo and what is not, it simply follows that society and individuals are expected to behave accordingly.
|
On June 18 2013 02:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 01:57 marvellosity wrote:On June 18 2013 01:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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. Well the argument is that they're hurting the animals and causing a small amount of emotional harm (disgust) across the rest of the population.
This actually presents an extremely difficult question, namely, how to justify or quantify psychological harm. The problem is that psychological harm is entirely subjective and individualized.
We all accept that the psychological harm of a person being raped is justified and real, and therefore punishable. But suppose I were to claim that seeing a mustache causes me psychological distress and harm. I cannot simply demand that everyone in society shave their facial hair. Somewhere we have to draw a line between psychological harm that we accept and that we don't. I would say that the psychological harm that comes from knowing that people are having sex with animals falls on the side that we should reject, because it is largely a culturally conditioned reaction.
|
On June 18 2013 01:57 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 01:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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.
"Harm" or "hurt" are extremely perilous and empty concepts. In my "culture" argument, the simple fact is that humanity long decided that it wants some things taboo and others not. Something has to happen, I don't know what, but wake me up when the day arrives that the majority would not only profess to want to fuck their pets and other animals but actually already do it. Then we can talk about taboo again. For now, this is it. No logic of if ok to murder, then ok to fuck. Just humans deciding what is and what is not.
|
On June 18 2013 02:07 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 02:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 18 2013 01:57 marvellosity wrote:On June 18 2013 01:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Well the argument is that they're hurting the animals and causing a small amount of emotional harm (disgust) across the rest of the population. I suggest you read the rest of the thread for a rather extensive rebuttal <3
There's no real facts here so it's just a bunch of different people saying they value different things differently for different reasons.
|
On June 18 2013 02:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 02:07 marvellosity wrote:On June 18 2013 02:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 18 2013 01:57 marvellosity wrote:On June 18 2013 01:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Well the argument is that they're hurting the animals and causing a small amount of emotional harm (disgust) across the rest of the population. I suggest you read the rest of the thread for a rather extensive rebuttal <3 There's no real facts here so it's just a bunch of different people saying they value different things differently for different reasons.
The fact is that if we simply ban things that disgusts some group of people out in the world we'd end up banning absolutely everything.
|
On June 18 2013 02:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 02:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 18 2013 02:07 marvellosity wrote:On June 18 2013 02:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 18 2013 01:57 marvellosity wrote:On June 18 2013 01:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Well the argument is that they're hurting the animals and causing a small amount of emotional harm (disgust) across the rest of the population. I suggest you read the rest of the thread for a rather extensive rebuttal <3 There's no real facts here so it's just a bunch of different people saying they value different things differently for different reasons. The fact is that if we simply ban things that disgusts some group of people out in the world we'd end up banning absolutely everything.
No, we can differentiate. Lots of things are banned because they disgust people. Yet not everything that disgusts people is banned.
For example, you may want to ban a business in your neighborhood because it smells really bad.
|
On June 18 2013 02:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 02:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 18 2013 02:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 18 2013 02:07 marvellosity wrote:On June 18 2013 02:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 18 2013 01:57 marvellosity wrote:On June 18 2013 01:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Well the argument is that they're hurting the animals and causing a small amount of emotional harm (disgust) across the rest of the population. I suggest you read the rest of the thread for a rather extensive rebuttal <3 There's no real facts here so it's just a bunch of different people saying they value different things differently for different reasons. The fact is that if we simply ban things that disgusts some group of people out in the world we'd end up banning absolutely everything. No, we can differentiate. Lots of things are banned because they disgust people. Yet not everything that disgusts people is banned. For example, you may want to ban a business in your neighborhood because it smells really bad.
Actually, in the US, the city council has strict social guidelines in order to maintain a geographic identity in order to maintain a certain level of immigration and emigration within city limits. You follow noise pollution, trash pollution, and traffic pollution laws as well as maintain safety and health regulation laws within a city.
Trash laws are such so that they not only maintain good health but it also happens that keeping trash clean for health also keeps it clean for smell.
However, what you're specifically pointing out is city council witch hunts where, through enough voting, a business is revoked the licenses it was given due to social pressure. I have rarely seen this follow through since, at least in America, you can't ban a supermarket for selling things that are smelly so long as they keep up with health code laws.
I'm assuming that business owners have similar enough rights outside of America to be able to have a store selling fish without fear that people who dislike fish could run them out of town.
|
I figure it will be better to argue from question than statement in here.
A lot of you seem to support a ban on bestiality on the basis that it is, or that you personally find it, or that the majority of society finds it, to be repulsive. If you consider this a meaningful argument, can you explain the following:
Should we at present legislate other forms of unnatural or abhorrent sexual behavior? I would guess that the popular opinion of eating each other's feces is about the same as on having intercourse with a dog. The example isn't the important part, I'm sure you can fill in something suitably repulsive to a sufficient portion of the populace.
If you do not support the argument from repulsiveness, then I assume you are working from an animal welfare perspective. In this case, please decide if it should be legal to raise livestock, kill them off for slaughter as per regulation, make a brief break to have sex with the dead animal, then proceed to process the animal into meat.
If you want to ban bestiality, but animal welfare and icky are non-factors, I cannot really imagine why, but do please explain your reasoning. Do note that argument from I can't explain it, I just know it's wrong is how homosexuality was banned, and apparently, people didn't just know it was wrong to keep slaves in the past.
|
On June 17 2013 21:25 AUFKLARUNG wrote:The poll is really... odd. Is it actually accurate? I have a few more questions if you don't mind. Can you please be honest in answering them? Can they also be added to the OP? For the second poll [Reasons for (possibly) having sex with animals], could you please specify the details in your post, like in what country if it is tradition, Poll: Having sex with animalsI have never had and will never do it (50) 72% I have done it and I see no problem doing it again (12) 17% I have never done it but I might/will (6) 9% I have done it but I will not do it again (1) 1% 69 total votes Your vote: Having sex with animals (Vote): I have never had and will never do it
(Vote): I have never done it but I might/will
(Vote): I have done it but I will not do it again
(Vote): I have done it and I see no problem doing it again
Poll: Reasons for (possibly) having sex with animalsI (may) have a thing for animals (11) 42% Curiosity (5) 19% No chance to do it with humans (2) (5) 19% I was forced into doing it (losing a bet, etc.) (4) 15% Tradition / local practice / belief (1) 4% Other reasons (please specify) (0) 0% 26 total votes Your vote: Reasons for (possibly) having sex with animals (Vote): Curiosity
(Vote): Tradition / local practice / belief
(Vote): I was forced into doing it (losing a bet, etc.)
(Vote): No chance to do it with humans (2)
(Vote): I (may) have a thing for animals
(Vote): Other reasons (please specify)
Got it.
|
On June 18 2013 03:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 02:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 18 2013 02:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 18 2013 02:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 18 2013 02:07 marvellosity wrote:On June 18 2013 02:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 18 2013 01:57 marvellosity wrote:On June 18 2013 01:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 18 2013 01:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 18 2013 01:41 either I or wrote:
[quote]
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. Well the argument is that they're hurting the animals and causing a small amount of emotional harm (disgust) across the rest of the population. I suggest you read the rest of the thread for a rather extensive rebuttal <3 There's no real facts here so it's just a bunch of different people saying they value different things differently for different reasons. The fact is that if we simply ban things that disgusts some group of people out in the world we'd end up banning absolutely everything. No, we can differentiate. Lots of things are banned because they disgust people. Yet not everything that disgusts people is banned. For example, you may want to ban a business in your neighborhood because it smells really bad. Actually, in the US, the city council has strict social guidelines in order to maintain a geographic identity in order to maintain a certain level of immigration and emigration within city limits. You follow noise pollution, trash pollution, and traffic pollution laws as well as maintain safety and health regulation laws within a city. Trash laws are such so that they not only maintain good health but it also happens that keeping trash clean for health also keeps it clean for smell. However, what you're specifically pointing out is city council witch hunts where, through enough voting, a business is revoked the licenses it was given due to social pressure. I have rarely seen this follow through since, at least in America, you can't ban a supermarket for selling things that are smelly so long as they keep up with health code laws. I'm assuming that business owners have similar enough rights outside of America to be able to have a store selling fish without fear that people who dislike fish could run them out of town.
I'm not pointing out city council witch hunts. I'm refuting the slippery slope argument that banning one thing that annoys or disgusts will result in all annoying and disgusting things being banned.
|
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.
I didn't say there wasn't a reasonable alternative, I said it required some amount of work to implement. Either way, whether it's easy or not is not central to my point. Which is that many people who do eat meat are concerned about how it's produced and may even disagree with some of the practices.
I suspect the people who say that animals have no rights whatsoever and as long as there's some benefit to humans everything's fair game are a tiny minority.
So, just because we are ignoring animal rights on one issue, doesn't mean that people think they don't exist. It just means that we are being inconsistent. Ignoring them on all issues would be more consistent but by most people's standards worse too.
|
On June 18 2013 03:52 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 23:43 KwarK wrote: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. I didn't say there wasn't a reasonable alternative, I said it required some amount of work to implement. Either way, whether it's easy or not is not central to my point. Which is that many people who do eat meat are concerned about how it's produced and may even disagree with some of the practices. I suspect the people who say that animals have no rights whatsoever and as long as there's some benefit to humans everything's fair game are a tiny minority. So, just because we are ignoring animal rights on one issue, doesn't mean that people think they don't exist. It just means that we are being inconsistent. Ignoring them on all issues would be more consistent but by most people's standards worse too.
That's not the argument though. People who kick the crap out of their animals probably get some enjoyment out of it but nobody cares, we don't allow cruelty to animals which is about harm.
We do however completely disregard anything to do with consent which is a completely different issue. There are no exceptions, we take photos of them naked, we dress them up in stupid costumes, we watch them do the toilet or have sex, we buy or sell them like property, provided we don't hurt them we basically do whatever the hell we want with them.
So, making bestiality illegal because of harm would be 100% consistent with the way we treat animals and doing it because of lack of consent would be 100% inconsistent. Ignoring animal rights on all issues would not be more consistent but yes obviously by most people's standards worse.
|
United States43136 Posts
On June 18 2013 02:01 docvoc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 23:43 KwarK wrote: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.
Pre-civilisation, sure. Once we settled down though we very quickly bred to the point that grazing land was turned to cereal production and remained that way until industrial food production, refrigeration, excessive wealth and globalisation.
|
On June 14 2013 18:27 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 18:26 NukeD wrote:
Kwark I would say that is no way for a mod to behave really. That was really imature. The other guy wasnt offensive at all but even if he was you went overboard. He accused me of being fine with raping a girl because I said that animals are outranked by people.
No, he didn't.
On June 14 2013 17:38 KwarK wrote:
I strongly disagree with this change, if no animal is being harmed then who gives a fuck, people outrank animals anyway and the law has no place in the bedroom.
On June 14 2013 18:00 KwarK wrote:
Take gay sex. It's not fine because it's two consenting adults, it's fine because no-one is getting harmed because they're two consenting adults. The fact that consenting adults are involved doesn't necessarily make something fine, rather it is the lack of harm that makes it fine and the consent is relevant because it indicates a lack of harm.
He accused you of being fine with rape where no physical harm is caused because you said whether harm is being caused is the determining factor in whether something should be legal.
Then you replied with this:
On June 14 2013 18:05 KwarK wrote:
Sorry, clearly you're confused by your colossal amount of idiocy... Hopefully that clears up my point for you so you can avoid making such incredibly, obscenely stupid straw men arguments in future.
A completely unwarranted personal attack. It wasn't a straw man argument, he directly responded to the monumentally ill-conceived argument you made.
|
This thread turned out really interesting. At thirst i though this was a nobrainer. That almost all people would say bestialiy was plain out unjustifiable and wrong. Just as people would argue against pedophilia for instance.
I guess it's due to a different degree of taboo, and also with the interesting aspect of our different views on what an animal is.
Many arguments here are more complex than they at first make out to be. Like the rape-murder parallel between humans and animals. It is not only about logical solutions as someone pointed out. Laws are not. Because society doesn't work like that. A lot of things about us humans are very illogical. (not justifying anything, just saying that we don't function by pure logic). I, for instance, love animals and overall feel that the human race are arrogant fucks viewing ourselves so much better than animals. But i still eat lots of meat (not human;). And this, I would argue, is how most people are.Not very logical.
Someone (I think KwarK) said he had seen the same arguments from some 50 years ago in anti-gay-movement that reminded him of arguments here. And that could be seen as an example of how this has to do with our values as a society. Some people view animals and humans as equal, some people might kill endangered animals for fun. Most people agree that being gay is not wrong at all. Most people agree that there is something wrong with bestiality. this is not really so hard to understand. If someone made this comparison: Bestiality=Pedophilia=Homo they would be seen as very stupid (rightfully). And it has to do with our values and our morality. To not talk about the possible moral obligations of humans is weird.
I think this law is pretty damn straight forward. Bestiality is by our society viewed as morally wrong. And thats how a democracy as Sweden works.
But then, we can still (and maybe should) continue to discuss the subject. 
|
On June 18 2013 03:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 03:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 18 2013 02:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 18 2013 02:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 18 2013 02:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 18 2013 02:07 marvellosity wrote:On June 18 2013 02:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 18 2013 01:57 marvellosity wrote:On June 18 2013 01:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 18 2013 01:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
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. Well the argument is that they're hurting the animals and causing a small amount of emotional harm (disgust) across the rest of the population. I suggest you read the rest of the thread for a rather extensive rebuttal <3 There's no real facts here so it's just a bunch of different people saying they value different things differently for different reasons. The fact is that if we simply ban things that disgusts some group of people out in the world we'd end up banning absolutely everything. No, we can differentiate. Lots of things are banned because they disgust people. Yet not everything that disgusts people is banned. For example, you may want to ban a business in your neighborhood because it smells really bad. Actually, in the US, the city council has strict social guidelines in order to maintain a geographic identity in order to maintain a certain level of immigration and emigration within city limits. You follow noise pollution, trash pollution, and traffic pollution laws as well as maintain safety and health regulation laws within a city. Trash laws are such so that they not only maintain good health but it also happens that keeping trash clean for health also keeps it clean for smell. However, what you're specifically pointing out is city council witch hunts where, through enough voting, a business is revoked the licenses it was given due to social pressure. I have rarely seen this follow through since, at least in America, you can't ban a supermarket for selling things that are smelly so long as they keep up with health code laws. I'm assuming that business owners have similar enough rights outside of America to be able to have a store selling fish without fear that people who dislike fish could run them out of town. I'm not pointing out city council witch hunts. I'm refuting the slippery slope argument that banning one thing that annoys or disgusts will result in all annoying and disgusting things being banned.
It depends purely on how or why the thing gets banned.
For example.
Arizona decided to increase its anti-immigrant policy several years ago.
Since they enacted law on emotion instead of logic, the first victim of the new laws was german immigrant business owner.
They then had to go back and "fix" the law because it turned out following it to the letter hurt people they wanted to protect instead of hurting people they wanted to chase away.
That is the problem with laws being enacted because they "make sense."
When you follow through with the language written a lot of things end up getting caught up in the paperwork.
I would love for there to be a law against bestiality on a personal level, but what language and what reasoning should be given that doesn't show either inconsistency, or a possible precedent to be abused at a later time.
I know I severely dislike it. But I also severely dislike hipsters. Republican politicians severely dislike women's rights + Show Spoiler +http://www.alternet.org/story/150526/10_states_with_the_most_shocking_anti-woman_legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
