|
On June 18 2013 04:50 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Yeah well you kind off got the point. English is not my native tongue :p But there's a difference between stating:
"zoophilia, pedophilia, homosexuality and heterosexuality are all forms of sexual attraction" (which by definition is true) and saying "zoophilia, pedophilia, homosexuality and heterosexuality are viewed the same way and equally ranked in society" which was more what i was getting at. That the law is sett by the society for the society. And to make comparisons between them (which is what is being done a lot in this thread) will nog get us very far in my opinion. There are other forces deciding these stuff. And also not always logical.
I personally think that on some level there is a problem with people being sexually attracted to children. And I believe it would be better if there was no sexual attraction to children. However impossible that might be, if they don't act out anything at all, good. Then probably, no one will be harmed. Our society though could be affected in a negative way by desires like this in the long run.
Yes, of course there's more people that have 'taboo desires' than people that act out said 'taboo desires'.
I'm interested in whether you think that society should discourage some sexual orientations or in what way people will get to learn that you should not for instance have sex with underaged, and if laws is a good way for indicating that or not?
|
United States42186 Posts
I think laws criminalising sexual orientations (rather than acts) are wrong for multiple reasons. They create thought crimes which is a massive infringement upon liberty in an unprecedented area, they turn people who would never harm another person (and therefore would not act upon their inclinations should that be harmful) into criminals which may cause more of the abuse, they criminalise something which even if it is not innate is certainly not something people choose to have and they impose massively upon liberty without preventing any harm.
You can criminalise an act, and indeed in the case of the sexual abuse of minors you absolutely should criminalise it, but you certainly cannot and should not criminalise an inclination.
|
On June 18 2013 06:19 KwarK wrote:
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.
If we're talking about harm maybe we should pause to consider my psychological health while I'm being repeatedly and cruelly emotionally bludgeoned in defense of your flawed argument. It's disheartening to see that you're fine with insulting and attacking people personally who have gone no further than critiquing your argument.
On June 18 2013 05:54 KwarK wrote:
The fact you're trying to argue that being raped while unconscious doesn't harm the victim is incredibly personally offensive to me.
I'm not saying that, I don't know the outcome of 100% of rapes.
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.
Your point wasn't incredibly clear because now you're saying that 'implicitly rape is harm'. Well, actually rape is very specifically sex without legal consent. Not being omniscient, I can't confidently assert that it's impossible to rape someone without causing harm.
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.
I read your post and explained that the person you attacked wasn't being unreasonable in light of the phrasing of your argument. I took a whole example scenario out and highlighted the parts he was responding to, demonstrating that he had a logical basis for his question.
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 already said that your example didn't properly explain what you were trying to say. I would even go so far as to say that I implicitly identified you as being against rape in my last post. I don't think the first person you insulted was accusing you of being on board with rape either so you can put your 'personally offended' back in your holster.
I'm fairly sure I've just said that your argument was poorly phrased, misleading and contradictory and that you should apologise to the guy you called stupid as all he was doing was approaching your argument logically and critically.
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.
I think that's much clearer and more entertaining although I completely disagree. I think consent is the end goal because people are entitled to the privacy/private ownership of their own body. If you're raped while unconscious and you never know about it, does it still 'harm' you? Legally it shouldn't matter: rape is wrong. If you're into S&M and you get 'harmed' during/as a result of sex does that then constitute rape? Not if it was consensual.
That's fairly irrelevant though, the topic is about bestiality.
|
How about we parse this out better. Let's start from the core of the problem:
What is the problem with Bestiality?
1.) Consent
2. ) Cruelty
3.) ______
Consent:
I have issues with this idea of making this whole consent thing with animals a legal issue because animals currently get raped by other animals as is, and we don't care about consent then. We also don't care about consent when it comes to testing, industry, transportation, breeding practices, etc... Why are we defining that the line drawn that requires consent be sex and not all the other things in which we ignore consent?
Cruelty:
If we are against cruelty to animals when it comes to sex why are we okay with cruelty to animals when it comes to their lives? Some people say food makes it okay--but killing and eating a sentient being seems completely counter to wanting to protect them from cruelty. Also, what if the animal does not resist? What if the animal enjoys it? Some people would reroute this to the whole "consent" deal but then, as I already brought up, consent seems to be unneeded when sex isn't involved, so what makes sex special?
Now, I do want it to be illegal, and no amount of rhetoric will ever convince me that someone who fucks animals is a respectable person. I just can't break that moral barrier. But what argument is there for banning bestiality that doesn't prove good evidence for banning a great many things we currently do to animals. "Because I say so" is a weak argument in my opinion and one that I never want to be all that is required to infringe a person's rights (even if the person is a sick zoophile).
Can someone please present an argument against it that doesn't change the laws we currently have on animals.
|
On June 18 2013 04:38 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 04:20 postmanana wrote: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. 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. 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.
I didn't know Kwark could be this emotional about something. Calm it down a bit Kwark
|
On June 18 2013 08:36 postmanana wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 18 2013 06:19 KwarK wrote:
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. If we're talking about harm maybe we should pause to consider my psychological health while I'm being repeatedly and cruelly emotionally bludgeoned in defense of your flawed argument. It's disheartening to see that you're fine with insulting and attacking people personally who have gone no further than critiquing your argument. On June 18 2013 05:54 KwarK wrote:
The fact you're trying to argue that being raped while unconscious doesn't harm the victim is incredibly personally offensive to me.
I'm not saying that, I don't know the outcome of 100% of rapes.
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.
Your point wasn't incredibly clear because now you're saying that 'implicitly rape is harm'. Well, actually rape is very specifically sex without legal consent. Not being omniscient, I can't confidently assert that it's impossible to rape someone without causing harm.
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.
I read your post and explained that the person you attacked wasn't being unreasonable in light of the phrasing of your argument. I took a whole example scenario out and highlighted the parts he was responding to, demonstrating that he had a logical basis for his question. 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 already said that your example didn't properly explain what you were trying to say. I would even go so far as to say that I implicitly identified you as being against rape in my last post. I don't think the first person you insulted was accusing you of being on board with rape either so you can put your 'personally offended' back in your holster. I'm fairly sure I've just said that your argument was poorly phrased, misleading and contradictory and that you should apologise to the guy you called stupid as all he was doing was approaching your argument logically and critically.
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.
I think that's much clearer and more entertaining although I completely disagree. I think consent is the end goal because people are entitled to the privacy/private ownership of their own body. If you're raped while unconscious and you never know about it, does it still 'harm' you? Legally it shouldn't matter: rape is wrong. If you're into S&M and you get 'harmed' during/as a result of sex does that then constitute rape? Not if it was consensual. That's fairly irrelevant though, the topic is about bestiality.
Euthanasia.
/rebuttal
edit: "lol so rape is okay" is not approaching anything logically or critically.
|
|
|
This thread convinced me that there should be no law against beastialy as long as there is a law against (serious) animal cruelty. Mind is blown.
|
On June 18 2013 19:39 Koshi wrote:
This thread convinced me that there should be no law against beastialy as long as there is a law against (serious) animal cruelty. Mind is blown.
Yeah, some people on here are pretty eloquent.
|
I'm from a country where bestiality is legal as long as the animal suffers no harm.
And my opinion is just that, i really don't care if someone wants to fuck a horse, let them, just don't cause any harm to the animal in question.
|
I haven't found anything incoherent or open to misunderstanding that KwarK has wrote. Trying to nit-pick his argument seems silly and pathetic.
Edit: Especially without advancing any of your own.
|
Couldn't read to all the 45 pages, just skimmed through some. But this is a pretty easy topic to discuss.
Fucking animals is animal cruelty. It is unnatural and no animal in their natural state would fuck another animal. Moreover it is rape since animals cannot give consent to being fucked.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
|
|
United Kingdom36158 Posts
On June 18 2013 21:18 aNGryaRchon wrote:
Couldn't read to all the 45 pages, just skimmed through some. But this is a pretty easy topic to discuss.
Fucking animals is animal cruelty. It is unnatural and no animal in their natural state would fuck another animal. Moreover it is rape since animals cannot give consent to being fucked.
Probably you should read the thread before posting. As for the bolded:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-species_sex#Cross_species_sex
In the wild, where observation is harder, genetic studies have shown a "large number" of inter-species hybrids, and other investigations describe productive and non-productive inter-species mating as a "natural occurrence".[64]
[64]^ Haeberle (1978) states that sexual intercourse is not so very unusual between animals of different species as it is between humans and animals. Kinsey et al. (1948, p. 668) states "When one examines the observed cases of such crosses, and especially the rather considerable number of instances in which primates, including man, have been involved, one begins to suspect that the rules about intraspecific mating are not so universal as tradition would have it". Kinsey et al. (1953) further point out that genetic studies have shown the existence of a "large number" of inter-specific hybrids, that have occurred in the wild, and investigations (e.g., Cauldwell, 1968; Ford & Beach, 1951; Harris, 1969; Masters, 1962; Ullerstam, 1966, etc) have found that interspecies mating is a "natural occurrence".' (Cited by Miletski, in her anthrozoological study of animal-human sexuality, 1999, p.51)
|
On June 18 2013 21:18 aNGryaRchon wrote:
Couldn't read to all the 45 pages, just skimmed through some. But this is a pretty easy topic to discuss.
Fucking animals is animal cruelty. It is unnatural and no animal in their natural state would fuck another animal. Moreover it is rape since animals cannot give consent to being fucked.
We already have laws against animal cruelty, if this was accepted as truth there would be no need to separately legislate against bestiality. Your personal opinion isn't fact.
Interspecies relations though uncommon do exist, regardless whether something is unnatural or not has no relevance to legislation whatsoever. Wrong again.
Animals don't consent to anything we do, that's not news to anybody and animal consent isn't recognised as important by society.
|
On June 18 2013 21:18 aNGryaRchon wrote:
Couldn't read to all the 45 pages, just skimmed through some. But this is a pretty easy topic to discuss.
Fucking animals is animal cruelty. It is unnatural and no animal in their natural state would fuck another animal. Moreover it is rape since animals cannot give consent to being fucked.
Ok, with this new insight the thread is finally done. No one has mentioned anything like this before. Thanks for enlightening us.
|
On June 18 2013 08:36 postmanana wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 06:19 KwarK wrote:
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. If we're talking about harm maybe we should pause to consider my psychological health while I'm being repeatedly and cruelly emotionally bludgeoned in defense of your flawed argument. It's disheartening to see that you're fine with insulting and attacking people personally who have gone no further than critiquing your argument.
Whoooaaaa there cowboy, sorry to interfere, but let's just quickly recap what happened so far in this exchange:
1) KwarK makes the point that while consent is relevant in determining whether sex is a-okay in a human - human intercourse, this alone is not sufficient to establish that consent is relevant in a human - nonhuman intercourse, since there could be relevant differences between humans and nonhumans (after all we all agree that it should be of no concern to the cops whatever it is that you do with your sock at night time, even though your sock is wholly unable to consent to or enjoy any of it)
2) Someone fails miserably with a reductio precisely because he choses a fictional scenario of two humans where no consent has been given.
3) KwarK is not amused and responds pretty harshly.
4) You jump in defending the reductio and criticizing KwarK's reaction, thereby getting entangled in an ugly "he-said-that-you-said-but-you-said-what-I-say-merry-go-round".
So I see no reason for you playing the martyr just yet. If your point is that mods should give good examples to the community and that his reaction was over the top, then all the more power to you - I'd sort of agree, but it's not on topic.
Or if you want to hammer KwarK for him implicitly denying the notion of consent for sentient animals - then right on, do it.
But you really need to understand his argument first before criticizing it and both the other poster and you (repeatedly) have failed to accurately represent it thus far methinks. Cheers!
|
if the horse was inappropiatly dressed in the first place then u can't really blame the guy
|
On June 18 2013 22:54 ihufa wrote:
if the horse was inappropiatly dressed in the first place then u can't really blame the guy
Rape jokes aren't funny.
|
United Kingdom36158 Posts
On June 18 2013 22:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 22:54 ihufa wrote:
if the horse was inappropiatly dressed in the first place then u can't really blame the guy Rape jokes aren't funny.
I must be a terrible person then, because I giggled. It's patently ridiculous because it's a horse, cmon man ^^
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
