|
United States42186 Posts
On June 18 2013 04:20 postmanana wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 18:27 KwarK wrote: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. Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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: Show nested quote +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.
Can you not read my post? I said no-one is being harmed because they're consenting adults and then I repeated that consent is relevant to which he said "so you're okay with rape". I brought up consent as being important in preventing harm over and over and he told me that because I fixated on the lack of harm and used consent as a tool to achieve then clearly I think it's okay to rape people. He can't read and said something really, really stupid and the only reason you can't see it is because apparently you can't read either. My post stressed consent as being necessary to prevent harm repeatedly and the fact that you bolded some words out of context and then ignored the rest of the sentence doesn't change that.
|
On June 18 2013 04:02 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 03:52 hypercube wrote: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.
IDK, people have said in this thread that since eating animals is worse than fucking them bestiality is fine. I don't think that argument works.
I do think it's mostly about animal cruelty, not consent. It depends on the species too, consent could be an issue for chimpanzees or bonobos who might be able to feel regret or shame. But for other cases it is about animal cruelty. I don't know if there's any other example where harm is assumed and the accused has to prove that there wasn't any, but that's the kind of thing I would prefer here.
|
United States42186 Posts
On June 18 2013 04:32 KoRDragoon wrote: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. 
The only flaw with the beastiality = pedophilia = homo thing is that one is an act, one is a description and one is a prefix. If someone were to say "zoophilia, pedophilia, homosexuality and heterosexuality are all forms of sexual attraction" then I'd be fine with that. Two of them can take place between consenting adults, one of them requires consenting adults and animals and one of them requires children too young to consent which means it must be prevented for their own wellbeing. They're not the same things but they're all sexual attractions. I have absolutely no problem with someone being sexually attracted to children as long as they understand that a child cannot consent to a relationship with them and choose to avoid engaging in one because they're not a rapist. Given social fixations with tiny waists and no body hair along with the enduring success of 'innocence destroyed' novels and barely legal pornography I'd argue that hebophilia and pedophilia are much more common than child molesting with the difference being made up by people who can understand that they need not act on their every desire.
|
On June 17 2013 21:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +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.
If we never introduced meat to our diet we would have never fully developed our pre frontal cortex, we would still be living in tribes, everyone having sex with everyone, cannibalism, incest, bestiality would all be commonplace, I cant possibly comprehend how you can ignore the fact that we only got where we are by eating animals.
Eating them made us smarter, it made us what we are today, thats why I said before that its part of what makes us human.
Having sex with them didnt contribute at all to our development as a race.
On June 18 2013 02:06 Cynry wrote:
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.
Thats not really the fault of the people eating the meat is it ? Its not like we are saying "will only eat if it has suffered due to heartless industrialization"
|
On June 18 2013 04:49 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 04:02 Reason wrote:On June 18 2013 03:52 hypercube wrote: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. IDK, people have said in this thread that since eating animals is worse than fucking them bestiality is fine. I don't think that argument works. I do think it's mostly about animal cruelty, not consent. It depends on the species too, consent could be an issue for chimpanzees or bonobos who might be able to feel regret or shame. But for other cases it is about animal cruelty. I don't know if there's any other example where harm is assumed and the accused has to prove that there wasn't any, but that's the kind of thing I would prefer here.
If it's about cruelty, then wouldn't it be more important to simply expand animal cruelty laws with why exactly animals having sex is cruel.
|
On June 18 2013 04:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 03:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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 . When you can legislate purely on dislike a lot of bad things start coming into being.
Yes, how and why is very important.
The rest of what you wrote is just emotionally charged partisan blather.
|
@D10 (sorry can't quote that much, writing from smartphone)
Well, who are you giving your money to when you buy meat ? I buy mine at a local shop which gets his meat from local producer. That's the best I can do righ now to still eat meat and not encourage the industry. If I were settled I'd raise, kill and prepare my own chicken, so that I'm sure it's done right (and yes, I have done it before).
So I guess it's not people's fault that it happens, but I'm pretty sure they have a choice and that where they put their money matters. If no one bought industrialized meat, there wouldn't be a meat industry.
|
On June 18 2013 04:52 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +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. If we never introduced meat to our diet we would have never fully developed our pre frontal cortex, we would still be living in tribes, everyone having sex with everyone, cannibalism, incest, bestiality would all be commonplace, I cant possibly comprehend how you can ignore the fact that we only got where we are by eating animals. Eating them made us smarter, it made us what we are today, thats why I said before that its part of what makes us human. Having sex with them didnt contribute at all to our development as a race. Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 02:06 Cynry wrote:
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. Thats not really the fault of the people eating the meat is it ? Its not like we are saying "will only eat if it has suffered due to heartless industrialization"
But we're talking about laws in order to "affect" the rights of animals.
If you're against cruelty to animals, then shouldn't you be against the cruelty to animals in all its forms.
Humanity existed long before industrialized meat plants. We don't need industrialized meat to survive as a species.
I know that we all grok why bestiality is bad--but what exactly about bestiality makes it worse than (Caution, NSFW)
+ Show Spoiler +
or
+ Show Spoiler +
It's easy to say that bestiality seems cruel to animals, I grok that too. But if we actually cared about cruelty to animals, bestiality should be much lower on the totem pole.
|
On June 18 2013 04:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 04:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 18 2013 03:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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 . When you can legislate purely on dislike a lot of bad things start coming into being. Yes, how and why is very important. The rest of what you wrote is just emotionally charged partisan blather.
I showed two examples.
First was an example of a law that was passed on assumed common emotions backfiring due to its disconnection from logic and argumentation.
The second example was of states passing laws based on morality instead of logic.
Both lead to bad things because they did not maintain the type of consistency that should be expected and wanted from laws.
|
On June 18 2013 04:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 04:49 hypercube wrote:On June 18 2013 04:02 Reason wrote:On June 18 2013 03:52 hypercube wrote: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:
[quote]
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. IDK, people have said in this thread that since eating animals is worse than fucking them bestiality is fine. I don't think that argument works. I do think it's mostly about animal cruelty, not consent. It depends on the species too, consent could be an issue for chimpanzees or bonobos who might be able to feel regret or shame. But for other cases it is about animal cruelty. I don't know if there's any other example where harm is assumed and the accused has to prove that there wasn't any, but that's the kind of thing I would prefer here. If it's about cruelty, then wouldn't it be more important to simply expand animal cruelty laws with why exactly animals having sex is cruel.
Well, as I said the default position for me that it is cruel. Or rather that it could be so people should stay away from it unless they are pretty sure they aren't hurting the animal. I wouldn't mind treating it as a special case of animal cruelty if it's treated as such by default.
|
On June 18 2013 04:20 postmanana wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 18:27 KwarK wrote: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. Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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: Show nested quote +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.
Rape is the absence of consent, between humans that absence indicates harm. You start by saying "no physical harm" which is not the issue here, harm is the issue.
|
On June 18 2013 05:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 04:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 18 2013 04:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 18 2013 03:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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 . When you can legislate purely on dislike a lot of bad things start coming into being. Yes, how and why is very important. The rest of what you wrote is just emotionally charged partisan blather. I showed two examples. First was an example of a law that was passed on assumed common emotions backfiring due to its disconnection from logic and argumentation. The second example was of states passing laws based on morality instead of logic. Both lead to bad things because they did not maintain the type of consistency that should be expected and wanted from laws.
Your examples were terrible. You gave no details or context on the anti-immigration law - just your own telling of the events.
Secondly you posted a link to mainly anti-abortion issues. There's no logic there, just "my morals are better than your morals".
|
On June 18 2013 05:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 05:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 18 2013 04:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 18 2013 04:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 18 2013 03:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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 . When you can legislate purely on dislike a lot of bad things start coming into being. Yes, how and why is very important. The rest of what you wrote is just emotionally charged partisan blather. I showed two examples. First was an example of a law that was passed on assumed common emotions backfiring due to its disconnection from logic and argumentation. The second example was of states passing laws based on morality instead of logic. Both lead to bad things because they did not maintain the type of consistency that should be expected and wanted from laws. Your examples were terrible. You gave no details or context on the anti-immigration law - just your own telling of the events. Secondly you posted a link to mainly anti-abortion issues. There's no logic there, just "my morals are better than your morals".
The anti-immigration law passed was reinforcement of already present laws. That it was illegal for police to not ask for papers and identification. The goal was to "round up illegals" but then business owners and non-mexicans started getting hit by it simply because police weren't allowed to "look the other way."
My 2nd example is literally a bunch of states passing moral laws that I disagree with simply because their reasons for passing them was that it seemed to make moral sense to do so.
Things seemingly moral does not mean it leads to good laws. And not sticking to specifics on laws has a tendency to backfire as well.
|
On June 18 2013 05:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 05:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 18 2013 05:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 18 2013 04:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 18 2013 04:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 18 2013 03:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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 . When you can legislate purely on dislike a lot of bad things start coming into being. Yes, how and why is very important. The rest of what you wrote is just emotionally charged partisan blather. I showed two examples. First was an example of a law that was passed on assumed common emotions backfiring due to its disconnection from logic and argumentation. The second example was of states passing laws based on morality instead of logic. Both lead to bad things because they did not maintain the type of consistency that should be expected and wanted from laws. Your examples were terrible. You gave no details or context on the anti-immigration law - just your own telling of the events. Secondly you posted a link to mainly anti-abortion issues. There's no logic there, just "my morals are better than your morals". The anti-immigration law passed was reinforcement of already present laws. That it was illegal for police to not ask for papers and identification. The goal was to "round up illegals" but then business owners and non-mexicans started getting hit by it simply because police weren't allowed to "look the other way." My 2nd example is literally a bunch of states passing moral laws that I disagree with simply because their reasons for passing them was that it seemed to make moral sense to do so. Things seemingly moral does not mean it leads to good laws. And not sticking to specifics on laws has a tendency to backfire as well.
You are absolutely correct that following moral norms doesn't always lead to good laws. But you can't ignore morality and emotion either. Society needs to find the right balance.
|
On June 18 2013 05:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 05:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 18 2013 05:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 18 2013 05:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 18 2013 04:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 18 2013 04:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 18 2013 03:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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 . When you can legislate purely on dislike a lot of bad things start coming into being. Yes, how and why is very important. The rest of what you wrote is just emotionally charged partisan blather. I showed two examples. First was an example of a law that was passed on assumed common emotions backfiring due to its disconnection from logic and argumentation. The second example was of states passing laws based on morality instead of logic. Both lead to bad things because they did not maintain the type of consistency that should be expected and wanted from laws. Your examples were terrible. You gave no details or context on the anti-immigration law - just your own telling of the events. Secondly you posted a link to mainly anti-abortion issues. There's no logic there, just "my morals are better than your morals". The anti-immigration law passed was reinforcement of already present laws. That it was illegal for police to not ask for papers and identification. The goal was to "round up illegals" but then business owners and non-mexicans started getting hit by it simply because police weren't allowed to "look the other way." My 2nd example is literally a bunch of states passing moral laws that I disagree with simply because their reasons for passing them was that it seemed to make moral sense to do so. Things seemingly moral does not mean it leads to good laws. And not sticking to specifics on laws has a tendency to backfire as well. You are absolutely correct that following moral norms doesn't always lead to good laws. But you can't ignore morality and emotion either. Society needs to find the right balance.
I'm not ignoring morality. I feel like caring about murder more than caring about possible non-consensual sex is me caring about morality a lot.
No, its not black and white, which is why I bring up murder a lot. If we actually cared about the well being of animals--then maybe we should actually care about their well being and not simply corner cases of their well being.
|
On June 18 2013 04:38 KwarK wrote:
Can you not read my post?
It seems as though you can't read your post.
I said no-one is being harmed because they're consenting adults and then I repeated that consent is relevant
How's that for taking things out of context? You said:
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.
I brought up consent as being important in preventing harm over and over
No, you said that consent indicated a lack of harm. You didn't say consent prevents harm. You said it isn't consent that makes gay sex fine, it's the lack of harm.
He can't read and said something really, really stupid and the only reason you can't see it is because apparently you can't read either. My post stressed consent as being necessary to prevent harm repeatedly and the fact that you bolded some words out of context and then ignored the rest of the sentence doesn't change that.
You wrote an example to describe your point and actually it wasn't reflective of your point at all and as the other guy said, suggested that as long as no one was harmed, any sexual act is fine. The aim of that example was to illustrate your point, so you can't credibly attack us for reading it that way. The only line of your example I left out of my quote was this one:
A man fucking a dog is fine for the exact same reason as gay sex, because no-one is getting harmed.
Hilarious! Don't have a go at me and that other guy because of the poor phrasing of your shoddy argument. Gay sex is fine exactly because it's two consenting adults. Whether harm (Noun Physical injury, esp. that which is deliberately inflicted. Verb Physically injure) is inflicted is much less important (5% of people in the UK have had to take time off work due to sex related injuries). Just admit you made a crap argument that isn't reflective of your stance and apologise to that guy for getting so defensive.
Here's your post in full so you can read what's on the page rather than what's in your head. By the way, we don't 'outrank' animals, we subjugate them.
+ Show Spoiler +On June 14 2013 18:00 KwarK wrote:
Murder of people is wrong, slaughter of animals is fine, the reason for this is that our system or morality puts value on sentience and we have it and they don't. We outrank them. No people are being harmed and this is in the bedroom between consenting adults and what we view legally as little more than biological machines for creating meat and other animal products, I'd much rather the law accepted that it simply had no place in the bedroom that going after things that the vast majority can hate on.
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. A man fucking a dog is fine for the exact same reason as gay sex, because no-one is getting harmed. The law has no place in the bedroom outside of protecting people and the previous laws already covered that. This is just picking a sexual niche and outlawing it for no reason, the previous law even covered the animal cruelty aspect, this law only criminalises no cruel beastiality.
|
United States42186 Posts
The fact you're trying to argue that being raped while unconscious doesn't harm the victim is incredibly personally offensive to me.
Consent is obviously a component of non harmful sex and my post indicated that repeatedly. My point was incredibly clear, that what matters is that no one is harmed and that we use consent to ensure that that is the case, someone who is raped has clearly been harmed. Saying "but focusing on harm and treating consent as just a means to avoid harm means you're fine with nonconsensual sex that doesn't cause harm" is contradictory, meaningless, ignorant and incredibly offensive. The focus on harm includes an intrinsic need for consent because the lack of consent is harmful but in case that wasn't clear to the reader I even wrote that. You didn't read my post, you didn't even misread a sentence, you took words selectively out of a sentence to jump to a conclusion that not only made no sense but also was explicitly denied by the other words in the same sentence and tried to turn it into a stick to beat me with. And for some reason you're still going on about it even though I have repeatedly clarified that no, I am not okay with rape. What exactly is your game plan here? Do you think if you keep failing to read my post for long enough I'm going to go "alright, I admit it, I'm fine with rape"? I'm not fine with rape, my post didn't say I'm fine with rape, no matter how many times you accuse me of saying that it won't be true and even you can cherry pick words from it until you think it did mean that I have subsequently made it very clear that I'm not fine with rape.
I'll explain it again. The reason we ask people before we have sex with them is not because the words "do you want to have sex?" when followed by the other person going "yes" invoke the spirit of the all father and sanctify the union bringing peace to all mankind, consent isn't some magic blessing on a union that we should all strive for. The reason we ask people before we have sex is because we don't want to rape them because raping someone is pretty harmful so we check we're not about to do that. It's that simple. Avoiding harm is what matters, consent is a tool we use to ensure that we avoid harm, it is not the end goal, it is merely a necessary component.
|
On June 18 2013 05:10 NTTemplar wrote:
Rape is the absence of consent, between humans that absence indicates harm. You start by saying "no physical harm" which is not the issue here, harm is the issue.
Sorry, could you please explain non-physical harm to me?
|
United States42186 Posts
On June 18 2013 05:56 postmanana wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 05:10 NTTemplar wrote:
Rape is the absence of consent, between humans that absence indicates harm. You start by saying "no physical harm" which is not the issue here, harm is the issue.
Sorry, could you please explain non-physical harm to me?
Why don't you go find some rape victims and explain to them how they weren't harmed by it and then maybe they can explain to you how much of an asshole you're being by insisting that raping someone while they're unconscious doesn't harm them.
|
wtf happened to my post?
eeh oh here it comes....
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.learnnc.org/lp/media/uploads/2009/12/impacts5_hi.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2011/10/factory20farmed20pigs20image-1.jpg)
