|
On June 18 2013 22:59 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 22:57 Thieving Magpie wrote: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 ^^
I actually interpreted this as less of a joke and more someone who is one of these people who hates the notion that women can either take precautions or put themselves at unnecessary risk when it comes to rape and is doing a really bad job of pushing his opinions in a separate discussion.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
... he said a horse, a HORSE, was inappropriately dressed. Unless given a really good reason to think otherwise, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt.
|
Dont know if its been posted yet and cant be arsed to look through all the pages, but the bestiality was legalized in Sweden along with homosexuality and other sexual orientations during a time of sexuell liberation.
Back then bestiality was also taboo as it is today, but in order to make homosexuallity legal they had to make all sexual orientations legal, besides pedophilia which is considered as rape.
These days homosexuallity is relativly accepted in Sweden, as so there is no reason to keep bestiality legal anymore.
|
fao: Thesidu
+ Show Spoiler +On June 18 2013 23:24 Thesidu wrote:
Dont know if its been posted yet and cant be arsed to look through all the pages, but the bestiality was legalized in Sweden along with homosexuality and other sexual orientations during a time of sexuell liberation.
Back then bestiality was also taboo as it is today, but in order to make homosexuallity legal they had to make all sexual orientations legal, besides pedophilia which is considered as rape.
These days homosexuallity is relativly accepted in Sweden, as so there is no reason to keep bestiality legal anymore. That bolded part right there is what earned somebody a ban in the last couple of hours but then again you wouldn't know that because you didn't bother reading the thread lool  In reference to your post, the historical legislation you refer to has already been brought up, the reasons why something was or was not legal or illegal in the past bear absolutely no relevance to the present day.
fao: marvellosity
+ Show Spoiler +On June 18 2013 23:24 marvellosity wrote:
... he said a horse, a HORSE, was inappropriately dressed. Unless given a really good reason to think otherwise, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Horses don't wear clothes. If you can't make the connection between if the horse was inappropiatly dressed in the first place then u can't really blame the guy and if the woman was inappropiatly dressed in the first place then u can't really blame the guy and understand why that's directly a rape joke and also referring to the whole victim blaming issue then perhaps you need to read between the lines a little bit more 
A couple of people have derailed the thread, yet again, with dumb posts so I'm just going to quote the last (imo) useful post and hope somebody actually comes up with a decent response to it....
On June 18 2013 08:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
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?
|
It's like in AD where it's morally wrong to go full retard.
On the other hand humans are animals and animals in nature do have inter species sex, ergo it's should be fine for humans too.
|
On June 19 2013 00:02 archonOOid wrote:
It's like in AD where it's morally wrong to go full retard.
On the other hand humans are animals and animals in nature do have inter species sex, ergo it's should be fine for humans too.
Using this logic, it should be fine for humans to kill, rape and eat each other, as animals exhibit these behaviors also. Just pointing out the flaws in this type of reasoning .
|
+ Show Spoiler +On June 18 2013 23:28 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 23:24 Thesidu wrote:
Dont know if its been posted yet and cant be arsed to look through all the pages, but the bestiality was legalized in Sweden along with homosexuality and other sexual orientations during a time of sexuell liberation.
Back then bestiality was also taboo as it is today, but in order to make homosexuallity legal they had to make all sexual orientations legal, besides pedophilia which is considered as rape.
These days homosexuallity is relativly accepted in Sweden, as so there is no reason to keep bestiality legal anymore. That bolded part right there is what earned somebody a ban in the last couple of hours but then again you wouldn't know that because you didn't bother reading the thread lool In reference to your post, the historical legislation you refer to has already been brought up, the reasons why something was or was not legal or illegal in the past bear absolutely no relevance to the present day. Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 23:24 marvellosity wrote:
... he said a horse, a HORSE, was inappropriately dressed. Unless given a really good reason to think otherwise, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Horses don't wear clothes. If you can't make the connection between if the horse was inappropiatly dressed in the first place then u can't really blame the guy and if the woman was inappropiatly dressed in the first place then u can't really blame the guy and understand why that's directly a rape joke and also referring to the whole victim blaming issue then perhaps you need to read between the lines a little bit more A couple of people have derailed the thread, yet again, with dumb posts so I'm just going to quote the last (imo) useful post and hope somebody actually comes up with a decent response to it. On June 18 2013 08:49 Thieving Magpie wrote: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?
Since I arguably took some part in the derailing, I might as well try contributing:
I am not at all convinced that (supposed) animal intentions and consent is taken completely out of the conversation when discussing animal rights. Sure, it is circumstantially true that we do not try to get the actual consent of an actual cow, but that is largely due to the fact that we do not think that the cow is able to make an informed decision - or so I would argue. Instead the advancement of animal rights, as I understand it, is in parts motivated by the assumption that animals, given the choice and being able to make informed decisions, would prefer "better" (as in more spacious, closer to their natural habitats, etc.) living conditions. Now if a cow would come forward and convincingly declare that it would really enjoy staying in a dirty 1.5*0.5 box and give milk 5 times a day, this would and should change our view on the ideal living conditions of said cow.
Since this is not likely to happen soon, we need to make those decisions for the cow in light of our best knowledge on a cow's state of being. We therefore do weigh the (supposed) interests of the cow against our interests albeit not very highly.
In my view the same holds and should hold in the case of bestiality. While it might be the case the human-cow intercourse could be pleasurable for the cow, it seems to me equally plausible that it harms the cow. Now deciding this on a case to case basis would be completely impractical since neither could be convincingly established (or so it seems to me).
But laws need to be practical and enforceable to a certain extent. I would thus prefer a legal system to err on the side of safety and rule out bestiality as a special type of animal abuse. I do not see any more inconsistency in that, than in advancing any other form of animal rights while still allowing the slaughter of animals. And I think an argument to defend the latter can be made (in another thread).
Edit: Way too huge quote spoilered on request of Reason. And who in his right mind would argue against reason anyway...
|
On June 18 2013 23:28 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 23:24 marvellosity wrote:
... he said a horse, a HORSE, was inappropriately dressed. Unless given a really good reason to think otherwise, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Horses don't wear clothes. If you can't make the connection between if the horse was inappropiatly dressed in the first place then u can't really blame the guy and if the woman was inappropiatly dressed in the first place then u can't really blame the guy and understand why that's directly a rape joke and also referring to the whole victim blaming issue then perhaps you need to read between the lines a little bit more
I think he understands the reference (you don't need to spell it out, it's obvious). He said ridiculous because it's a horse. You could argue it's as much satirising the victim blamers as it is inappropriate.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On June 19 2013 00:19 Subversive wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 23:28 Reason wrote:On June 18 2013 23:24 marvellosity wrote:
... he said a horse, a HORSE, was inappropriately dressed. Unless given a really good reason to think otherwise, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Horses don't wear clothes. If you can't make the connection between if the horse was inappropiatly dressed in the first place then u can't really blame the guy and if the woman was inappropiatly dressed in the first place then u can't really blame the guy and understand why that's directly a rape joke and also referring to the whole victim blaming issue then perhaps you need to read between the lines a little bit more I think he understands the reference (you don't need to spell it out, it's obvious). He said ridiculous because it's a horse. You could argue it's as much satirising the victim blamers as it is inappropriate. You don't need to crucify any one over this. Especially if your next breath is going to be about derailing threads.
Yes, thank you kind sir.
I think I need to start handing out lighthearted pills for people.
Edit: it's a fairly common construct for jokes to take a serious theme and put it in a ridiculous situation.
|
Edit : always turn your keyboard 7 times in your mouth before being an asshole.
|
On June 19 2013 00:23 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2013 00:19 Subversive wrote:On June 18 2013 23:28 Reason wrote:On June 18 2013 23:24 marvellosity wrote:
... he said a horse, a HORSE, was inappropriately dressed. Unless given a really good reason to think otherwise, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Horses don't wear clothes. If you can't make the connection between if the horse was inappropiatly dressed in the first place then u can't really blame the guy and if the woman was inappropiatly dressed in the first place then u can't really blame the guy and understand why that's directly a rape joke and also referring to the whole victim blaming issue then perhaps you need to read between the lines a little bit more I think he understands the reference (you don't need to spell it out, it's obvious). He said ridiculous because it's a horse. You could argue it's as much satirising the victim blamers as it is inappropriate. You don't need to crucify any one over this. Especially if your next breath is going to be about derailing threads. Yes, thank you kind sir. I think I need to start handing out lighthearted pills for people. Edit: it's a fairly common construct for jokes to take a serious theme and put it in a ridiculous situation.
You're welcome  . I laughed too, for the record.
Reason I get where you're coming from. I don't think any one here is a rape apologist though. But if you found the joke offensive I understand.
|
On June 19 2013 00:17 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 23:28 Reason wrote:On June 18 2013 23:24 Thesidu wrote:
Dont know if its been posted yet and cant be arsed to look through all the pages, but the bestiality was legalized in Sweden along with homosexuality and other sexual orientations during a time of sexuell liberation.
Back then bestiality was also taboo as it is today, but in order to make homosexuallity legal they had to make all sexual orientations legal, besides pedophilia which is considered as rape.
These days homosexuallity is relativly accepted in Sweden, as so there is no reason to keep bestiality legal anymore. That bolded part right there is what earned somebody a ban in the last couple of hours but then again you wouldn't know that because you didn't bother reading the thread lool In reference to your post, the historical legislation you refer to has already been brought up, the reasons why something was or was not legal or illegal in the past bear absolutely no relevance to the present day. On June 18 2013 23:24 marvellosity wrote:
... he said a horse, a HORSE, was inappropriately dressed. Unless given a really good reason to think otherwise, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Horses don't wear clothes. If you can't make the connection between if the horse was inappropiatly dressed in the first place then u can't really blame the guy and if the woman was inappropiatly dressed in the first place then u can't really blame the guy and understand why that's directly a rape joke and also referring to the whole victim blaming issue then perhaps you need to read between the lines a little bit more A couple of people have derailed the thread, yet again, with dumb posts so I'm just going to quote the last (imo) useful post and hope somebody actually comes up with a decent response to it. On June 18 2013 08:49 Thieving Magpie wrote: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? Since I arguably took some part in the derailing, I might as well try contributing: I am not at all convinced that (supposed) animal intentions and consent is taken completely out of the conversation when discussing animal rights. Sure, it is circumstantially true that we do not try to get the actual consent of an actual cow, but that is largely due to the fact that we do not think that the cow is able to make an informed decision - or so I would argue. Instead the advancement of animal rights, as I understand it, is in parts motivated by the assumption that animals, given the choice and being able to make informed decisions, would prefer "better" (as in more spacious, closer to their natural habitats, etc.) living conditions. Now if a cow would come forward and convincingly declare that it would really enjoy staying in a dirty 1.5*0.5 box and give milk 5 times a day, this would and should change our view on the ideal living conditions of said cow. Since this is not likely to happen soon, we need to make those decisions for the cow in light of our best knowledge on a cow's state of being. We therefore do weigh the (supposed) interests of the cow against our interests albeit not very highly. In my view the same holds and should hold in the case of bestiality. While it might be the case the human-cow intercourse could be pleasurable for the cow, it seems to me equally plausible that it harms the cow. Now deciding this on a case to case basis would be completely impractical since neither could be convincingly established (or so it seems to me). But laws need to be practical and enforceable to a certain extent. I would thus prefer a legal system to err on the side of safety and rule out bestiality as a special type of animal abuse. I do not see any more inconsistency in that, than in advancing any other form of animal rights while still allowing the slaughter of animals. And I think an argument to defend the latter can be made (in another thread).
Which is where the logic falters.
If you pass a law for the sake of the well being of an animal with the assumption that they are sentient enough to prefer being treated fairly, then why uphold current laws which slaughter them, forcibly breed them, and use them for experimentation? We would not want this to be done on humans because a human is a sentient being with feelings, thoughts, desires. If we treat animals as sentient enough to care about sex, then would they not be sentient enough to be protected from experimentation? Breeding farms? Mass slaughter? Caging? Chaining? Branding? Force feeding? etc...
That is the problem when the logic of imposing bestiality laws is based on the animal's well being.
|
At first I laugh then I saw the poll.... So, according to this poll, 20% answered that :
«I have done it and I see no problem doing it again»
Now, sorry for my ignorance, but how can a human be sexually attracted by an animal? I'm not offended or anything, I just find the issue strange... Is it really biologically possible to be attracted by animals, or it's some sort of psychological deviation ? Just want to understand really..
|
On June 19 2013 00:36 Xialos wrote:
At first I laugh then I saw the poll.... So, according to this poll, 20% answered that :
«I have done it and I see no problem doing it again»
Now, sorry for my ignorance, but how can a human be sexually attracted by an animal? I'm not offended or anything, I just find the issue strange... Is it really biologically possible to be attracted by animals, or it's some sort of psychological deviation ? Just want to understand really..
Fetishes don't make sense and it's better to not try to make sense of them.
There are people who like scat as well.
I personally try to not judge people based on what they fancy.
Edit: I'm not sure if bestiality falls into the category of fetish, but eh.
|
On June 19 2013 00:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2013 00:17 MiraMax wrote:On June 18 2013 23:28 Reason wrote:On June 18 2013 23:24 Thesidu wrote:
Dont know if its been posted yet and cant be arsed to look through all the pages, but the bestiality was legalized in Sweden along with homosexuality and other sexual orientations during a time of sexuell liberation.
Back then bestiality was also taboo as it is today, but in order to make homosexuallity legal they had to make all sexual orientations legal, besides pedophilia which is considered as rape.
These days homosexuallity is relativly accepted in Sweden, as so there is no reason to keep bestiality legal anymore. That bolded part right there is what earned somebody a ban in the last couple of hours but then again you wouldn't know that because you didn't bother reading the thread lool In reference to your post, the historical legislation you refer to has already been brought up, the reasons why something was or was not legal or illegal in the past bear absolutely no relevance to the present day. On June 18 2013 23:24 marvellosity wrote:
... he said a horse, a HORSE, was inappropriately dressed. Unless given a really good reason to think otherwise, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Horses don't wear clothes. If you can't make the connection between if the horse was inappropiatly dressed in the first place then u can't really blame the guy and if the woman was inappropiatly dressed in the first place then u can't really blame the guy and understand why that's directly a rape joke and also referring to the whole victim blaming issue then perhaps you need to read between the lines a little bit more A couple of people have derailed the thread, yet again, with dumb posts so I'm just going to quote the last (imo) useful post and hope somebody actually comes up with a decent response to it. On June 18 2013 08:49 Thieving Magpie wrote: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? Since I arguably took some part in the derailing, I might as well try contributing: I am not at all convinced that (supposed) animal intentions and consent is taken completely out of the conversation when discussing animal rights. Sure, it is circumstantially true that we do not try to get the actual consent of an actual cow, but that is largely due to the fact that we do not think that the cow is able to make an informed decision - or so I would argue. Instead the advancement of animal rights, as I understand it, is in parts motivated by the assumption that animals, given the choice and being able to make informed decisions, would prefer "better" (as in more spacious, closer to their natural habitats, etc.) living conditions. Now if a cow would come forward and convincingly declare that it would really enjoy staying in a dirty 1.5*0.5 box and give milk 5 times a day, this would and should change our view on the ideal living conditions of said cow. Since this is not likely to happen soon, we need to make those decisions for the cow in light of our best knowledge on a cow's state of being. We therefore do weigh the (supposed) interests of the cow against our interests albeit not very highly. In my view the same holds and should hold in the case of bestiality. While it might be the case the human-cow intercourse could be pleasurable for the cow, it seems to me equally plausible that it harms the cow. Now deciding this on a case to case basis would be completely impractical since neither could be convincingly established (or so it seems to me). But laws need to be practical and enforceable to a certain extent. I would thus prefer a legal system to err on the side of safety and rule out bestiality as a special type of animal abuse. I do not see any more inconsistency in that, than in advancing any other form of animal rights while still allowing the slaughter of animals. And I think an argument to defend the latter can be made (in another thread). Which is where the logic falters. If you pass a law for the sake of the well being of an animal with the assumption that they are sentient enough to prefer being treated fairly, then why uphold current laws which slaughter them, forcibly breed them, and use them for experimentation? We would not want this to be done on humans because a human is a sentient being with feelings, thoughts, desires. If we treat animals as sentient enough to care about sex, then would they not be sentient enough to be protected from experimentation? Breeding farms? Mass slaughter? Caging? Chaining? Branding? Force feeding? etc... That is the problem when the logic of imposing bestiality laws is based on the animal's well being.
Where exactly does "logic falter" here? Progress in rights is typically made step by step and not all at once. The language you use is further only for shock effect. I could talk about how infants in our day and age are incarcerated in small rooms and beds, often forcibly fed and dressed against their will, without any rights of appeal against their parents and just when they are barely old enough to talk coherently, they are sent to daily detention camps where they are brainwashed to think that it's all for their own good. Of course you would immediately recognize this text for the parody that it is.
Now, to be very clear. Animals are not treated like humans in our society and we routinely farm some of them for food. In this process we harm the animals in several ways and often put our convenience over their basic needs. It is not my aim to trivialize any of his suffering. But it's actually a classical logical fallacy to use these facts as an argument to reject progress on another issue (if it is established as such). So I am afraid it's your argument that does not get much ground here.
As an aside: Branding was recently forbidden in Germany as a form of animal cruelty. Go figure...
Edit: Spelling.
|
Off topic stuff about the inappropriately dressed horse (never thought I'd write that)+ Show Spoiler +On June 19 2013 00:19 Subversive wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 23:28 Reason wrote:On June 18 2013 23:24 marvellosity wrote:
... he said a horse, a HORSE, was inappropriately dressed. Unless given a really good reason to think otherwise, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Horses don't wear clothes. If you can't make the connection between if the horse was inappropiatly dressed in the first place then u can't really blame the guy and if the woman was inappropiatly dressed in the first place then u can't really blame the guy and understand why that's directly a rape joke and also referring to the whole victim blaming issue then perhaps you need to read between the lines a little bit more I think he understands the reference (you don't need to spell it out, it's obvious). He said ridiculous because it's a horse. You could argue it's as much satirising the victim blamers as it is inappropriate. On June 19 2013 00:23 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2013 00:19 Subversive wrote:On June 18 2013 23:28 Reason wrote:On June 18 2013 23:24 marvellosity wrote:
... he said a horse, a HORSE, was inappropriately dressed. Unless given a really good reason to think otherwise, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Horses don't wear clothes. If you can't make the connection between if the horse was inappropiatly dressed in the first place then u can't really blame the guy and if the woman was inappropiatly dressed in the first place then u can't really blame the guy and understand why that's directly a rape joke and also referring to the whole victim blaming issue then perhaps you need to read between the lines a little bit more I think he understands the reference (you don't need to spell it out, it's obvious). He said ridiculous because it's a horse. You could argue it's as much satirising the victim blamers as it is inappropriate. You don't need to crucify any one over this. Especially if your next breath is going to be about derailing threads. Yes, thank you kind sir. I think I need to start handing out lighthearted pills for people. Edit: it's a fairly common construct for jokes to take a serious theme and put it in a ridiculous situation. If he (you, yes YOU marvellosity  ) understood the reference then this post makes no sense: On June 18 2013 23:24 marvellosity wrote:
... he said a horse, a HORSE, was inappropriately dressed. Unless given a really good reason to think otherwise, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. On June 19 2013 00:34 Subversive wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2013 00:23 marvellosity wrote:On June 19 2013 00:19 Subversive wrote:On June 18 2013 23:28 Reason wrote:On June 18 2013 23:24 marvellosity wrote:
... he said a horse, a HORSE, was inappropriately dressed. Unless given a really good reason to think otherwise, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Horses don't wear clothes. If you can't make the connection between if the horse was inappropiatly dressed in the first place then u can't really blame the guy and if the woman was inappropiatly dressed in the first place then u can't really blame the guy and understand why that's directly a rape joke and also referring to the whole victim blaming issue then perhaps you need to read between the lines a little bit more I think he understands the reference (you don't need to spell it out, it's obvious). He said ridiculous because it's a horse. You could argue it's as much satirising the victim blamers as it is inappropriate. You don't need to crucify any one over this. Especially if your next breath is going to be about derailing threads. Yes, thank you kind sir. I think I need to start handing out lighthearted pills for people. Edit: it's a fairly common construct for jokes to take a serious theme and put it in a ridiculous situation. You're welcome . I laughed too, for the record. Reason I get where you're coming from. I don't think any one here is a rape apologist though. But if you found the joke offensive I understand. Noooooooooooooooo  Lol. I'm offended because whenever people mention that women can take sensible precautions or alternatively put themselves at a higher chance of rape people usually respond with OMG VICTIM BLAMER ITS NOT THEIR FAULT YOUR SICK, when in actual fact it's a very valid point and has nothing to do with blame. Hearing you refer to such people as rape apologists makes me want to tear my eyes out. Having somebody "satirise victim blamers" is what pisses me off! In case I didn't make this clear I'll quote you my post from the top of this page... On June 18 2013 23:22 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 22:59 marvellosity wrote:On June 18 2013 22:57 Thieving Magpie wrote: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 ^^ I actually interpreted this as less of a joke and more someone who is one of these people who hates the notion that women can either take precautions or put themselves at unnecessary risk when it comes to rape and is doing a really bad job of pushing his opinions in a separate discussion. So yeah On June 19 2013 00:24 Cynry wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 23:22 Reason wrote:On June 18 2013 22:59 marvellosity wrote:On June 18 2013 22:57 Thieving Magpie wrote: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 ^^ I actually interpreted this as less of a joke and more someone who is one of these people who hates the notion that women can either take precautions or put themselves at unnecessary risk when it comes to rape and is doing a really bad job of pushing his opinions in a separate discussion. Wow. You know about "dark" humor ? Better tell people doing these jokes that they are in fact rapist, racist, nazis, child molesters etc. I mean sure, they HAVE to be serious deep down inside when they...make.......a joke. As a famous french comedian (which would be a very bad person with your standards) once said, you can joke about anything, but not with everyone. I laughed by the way. Good one in my book. Yeah you obviously didn't understand what I said. He was satirising victim blamers and that pisses me off. I don't object to dark humour, personally.
MiraMax it seems to me you've tried to solely tackle the consent aspect, which has to be the weakest argument of the lot 
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On June 19 2013 01:10 Reason wrote:Off topic stuff about the inappropriately dressed horse (never thought I'd write that) + Show Spoiler +On June 19 2013 00:19 Subversive wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 23:28 Reason wrote:On June 18 2013 23:24 marvellosity wrote:
... he said a horse, a HORSE, was inappropriately dressed. Unless given a really good reason to think otherwise, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Horses don't wear clothes. If you can't make the connection between if the horse was inappropiatly dressed in the first place then u can't really blame the guy and if the woman was inappropiatly dressed in the first place then u can't really blame the guy and understand why that's directly a rape joke and also referring to the whole victim blaming issue then perhaps you need to read between the lines a little bit more I think he understands the reference (you don't need to spell it out, it's obvious). He said ridiculous because it's a horse. You could argue it's as much satirising the victim blamers as it is inappropriate. On June 19 2013 00:23 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2013 00:19 Subversive wrote:On June 18 2013 23:28 Reason wrote:On June 18 2013 23:24 marvellosity wrote:
... he said a horse, a HORSE, was inappropriately dressed. Unless given a really good reason to think otherwise, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Horses don't wear clothes. If you can't make the connection between if the horse was inappropiatly dressed in the first place then u can't really blame the guy and if the woman was inappropiatly dressed in the first place then u can't really blame the guy and understand why that's directly a rape joke and also referring to the whole victim blaming issue then perhaps you need to read between the lines a little bit more I think he understands the reference (you don't need to spell it out, it's obvious). He said ridiculous because it's a horse. You could argue it's as much satirising the victim blamers as it is inappropriate. You don't need to crucify any one over this. Especially if your next breath is going to be about derailing threads. Yes, thank you kind sir. I think I need to start handing out lighthearted pills for people. Edit: it's a fairly common construct for jokes to take a serious theme and put it in a ridiculous situation. If he (you, yes YOU marvellosity ) understood the reference then this post makes no sense: On June 18 2013 23:24 marvellosity wrote:
... he said a horse, a HORSE, was inappropriately dressed. Unless given a really good reason to think otherwise, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. On June 19 2013 00:34 Subversive wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2013 00:23 marvellosity wrote:On June 19 2013 00:19 Subversive wrote:On June 18 2013 23:28 Reason wrote:On June 18 2013 23:24 marvellosity wrote:
... he said a horse, a HORSE, was inappropriately dressed. Unless given a really good reason to think otherwise, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Horses don't wear clothes. If you can't make the connection between if the horse was inappropiatly dressed in the first place then u can't really blame the guy and if the woman was inappropiatly dressed in the first place then u can't really blame the guy and understand why that's directly a rape joke and also referring to the whole victim blaming issue then perhaps you need to read between the lines a little bit more I think he understands the reference (you don't need to spell it out, it's obvious). He said ridiculous because it's a horse. You could argue it's as much satirising the victim blamers as it is inappropriate. You don't need to crucify any one over this. Especially if your next breath is going to be about derailing threads. Yes, thank you kind sir. I think I need to start handing out lighthearted pills for people. Edit: it's a fairly common construct for jokes to take a serious theme and put it in a ridiculous situation. You're welcome . I laughed too, for the record. Reason I get where you're coming from. I don't think any one here is a rape apologist though. But if you found the joke offensive I understand. Noooooooooooooooo Lol. I'm offended because whenever people mention that women can take sensible precautions or alternatively put themselves at a higher chance of rape people usually respond with OMG VICTIM BLAMER ITS NOT THEIR FAULT YOUR SICK, when in actual fact it's a very valid point and has nothing to do with blame. Hearing you refer to such people as rape apologists makes me want to tear my eyes out. Having somebody "satirise victim blamers" is what pisses me off! In case I didn't make this clear I'll quote you my post from the top of this page... On June 18 2013 23:22 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 22:59 marvellosity wrote:On June 18 2013 22:57 Thieving Magpie wrote: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 ^^ I actually interpreted this as less of a joke and more someone who is one of these people who hates the notion that women can either take precautions or put themselves at unnecessary risk when it comes to rape and is doing a really bad job of pushing his opinions in a separate discussion. MiraMax I'll try to form a reply soon, please spoiler that quote of me if you can it's bigger than my monitor :O
+ Show Spoiler +
It makes perfect sense. Why wouldn't it? I was pointing out that it was ridiculous, it wouldn't be funny without the implied connection to a serious case... the 'benefit of the doubt' was that he was making a joke, not having a dig at whoever.
While we're in the spoiler, there's a difference between blaming the victim for being raped (bad) and it being a fact of life that women *could* lessen the risk (even though in a perfect world they shouldn't have to). Don't mix and match the two!
|
On June 19 2013 01:16 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2013 01:10 Reason wrote:Off topic stuff about the inappropriately dressed horse (never thought I'd write that) + Show Spoiler +On June 19 2013 00:19 Subversive wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 23:28 Reason wrote:On June 18 2013 23:24 marvellosity wrote:
... he said a horse, a HORSE, was inappropriately dressed. Unless given a really good reason to think otherwise, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Horses don't wear clothes. If you can't make the connection between if the horse was inappropiatly dressed in the first place then u can't really blame the guy and if the woman was inappropiatly dressed in the first place then u can't really blame the guy and understand why that's directly a rape joke and also referring to the whole victim blaming issue then perhaps you need to read between the lines a little bit more I think he understands the reference (you don't need to spell it out, it's obvious). He said ridiculous because it's a horse. You could argue it's as much satirising the victim blamers as it is inappropriate. On June 19 2013 00:23 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2013 00:19 Subversive wrote:On June 18 2013 23:28 Reason wrote:On June 18 2013 23:24 marvellosity wrote:
... he said a horse, a HORSE, was inappropriately dressed. Unless given a really good reason to think otherwise, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Horses don't wear clothes. If you can't make the connection between if the horse was inappropiatly dressed in the first place then u can't really blame the guy and if the woman was inappropiatly dressed in the first place then u can't really blame the guy and understand why that's directly a rape joke and also referring to the whole victim blaming issue then perhaps you need to read between the lines a little bit more I think he understands the reference (you don't need to spell it out, it's obvious). He said ridiculous because it's a horse. You could argue it's as much satirising the victim blamers as it is inappropriate. You don't need to crucify any one over this. Especially if your next breath is going to be about derailing threads. Yes, thank you kind sir. I think I need to start handing out lighthearted pills for people. Edit: it's a fairly common construct for jokes to take a serious theme and put it in a ridiculous situation. If he (you, yes YOU marvellosity ) understood the reference then this post makes no sense: On June 18 2013 23:24 marvellosity wrote:
... he said a horse, a HORSE, was inappropriately dressed. Unless given a really good reason to think otherwise, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. On June 19 2013 00:34 Subversive wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2013 00:23 marvellosity wrote:On June 19 2013 00:19 Subversive wrote:On June 18 2013 23:28 Reason wrote:On June 18 2013 23:24 marvellosity wrote:
... he said a horse, a HORSE, was inappropriately dressed. Unless given a really good reason to think otherwise, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Horses don't wear clothes. If you can't make the connection between if the horse was inappropiatly dressed in the first place then u can't really blame the guy and if the woman was inappropiatly dressed in the first place then u can't really blame the guy and understand why that's directly a rape joke and also referring to the whole victim blaming issue then perhaps you need to read between the lines a little bit more I think he understands the reference (you don't need to spell it out, it's obvious). He said ridiculous because it's a horse. You could argue it's as much satirising the victim blamers as it is inappropriate. You don't need to crucify any one over this. Especially if your next breath is going to be about derailing threads. Yes, thank you kind sir. I think I need to start handing out lighthearted pills for people. Edit: it's a fairly common construct for jokes to take a serious theme and put it in a ridiculous situation. You're welcome . I laughed too, for the record. Reason I get where you're coming from. I don't think any one here is a rape apologist though. But if you found the joke offensive I understand. Noooooooooooooooo Lol. I'm offended because whenever people mention that women can take sensible precautions or alternatively put themselves at a higher chance of rape people usually respond with OMG VICTIM BLAMER ITS NOT THEIR FAULT YOUR SICK, when in actual fact it's a very valid point and has nothing to do with blame. Hearing you refer to such people as rape apologists makes me want to tear my eyes out. Having somebody "satirise victim blamers" is what pisses me off! In case I didn't make this clear I'll quote you my post from the top of this page... On June 18 2013 23:22 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 22:59 marvellosity wrote:On June 18 2013 22:57 Thieving Magpie wrote: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 ^^ I actually interpreted this as less of a joke and more someone who is one of these people who hates the notion that women can either take precautions or put themselves at unnecessary risk when it comes to rape and is doing a really bad job of pushing his opinions in a separate discussion. MiraMax I'll try to form a reply soon, please spoiler that quote of me if you can it's bigger than my monitor :O + Show Spoiler +
It makes perfect sense. Why wouldn't it? I was pointing out that it was ridiculous, it wouldn't be funny without the implied connection to a serious case... the 'benefit of the doubt' was that he was making a joke, not having a dig at whoever.
While we're in the spoiler, there's a difference between blaming the victim for being raped (bad) and it being a fact of life that women *could* lessen the risk (even though in a perfect world they shouldn't have to). Don't mix and match the two!
mmmm okay I understand about the benefit of the doubt thing now.
What I'm saying though is that when people state this "fact of life" they are often referred to as "victim blamers", I'm not mixing and matching the two but this very kind of stupid joke satirising "victim blamers" does exactly that as far as I'm concerned.
|
On June 19 2013 01:09 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2013 00:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 19 2013 00:17 MiraMax wrote:On June 18 2013 23:28 Reason wrote:On June 18 2013 23:24 Thesidu wrote:
Dont know if its been posted yet and cant be arsed to look through all the pages, but the bestiality was legalized in Sweden along with homosexuality and other sexual orientations during a time of sexuell liberation.
Back then bestiality was also taboo as it is today, but in order to make homosexuallity legal they had to make all sexual orientations legal, besides pedophilia which is considered as rape.
These days homosexuallity is relativly accepted in Sweden, as so there is no reason to keep bestiality legal anymore. That bolded part right there is what earned somebody a ban in the last couple of hours but then again you wouldn't know that because you didn't bother reading the thread lool In reference to your post, the historical legislation you refer to has already been brought up, the reasons why something was or was not legal or illegal in the past bear absolutely no relevance to the present day. On June 18 2013 23:24 marvellosity wrote:
... he said a horse, a HORSE, was inappropriately dressed. Unless given a really good reason to think otherwise, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Horses don't wear clothes. If you can't make the connection between if the horse was inappropiatly dressed in the first place then u can't really blame the guy and if the woman was inappropiatly dressed in the first place then u can't really blame the guy and understand why that's directly a rape joke and also referring to the whole victim blaming issue then perhaps you need to read between the lines a little bit more A couple of people have derailed the thread, yet again, with dumb posts so I'm just going to quote the last (imo) useful post and hope somebody actually comes up with a decent response to it. On June 18 2013 08:49 Thieving Magpie wrote: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? Since I arguably took some part in the derailing, I might as well try contributing: I am not at all convinced that (supposed) animal intentions and consent is taken completely out of the conversation when discussing animal rights. Sure, it is circumstantially true that we do not try to get the actual consent of an actual cow, but that is largely due to the fact that we do not think that the cow is able to make an informed decision - or so I would argue. Instead the advancement of animal rights, as I understand it, is in parts motivated by the assumption that animals, given the choice and being able to make informed decisions, would prefer "better" (as in more spacious, closer to their natural habitats, etc.) living conditions. Now if a cow would come forward and convincingly declare that it would really enjoy staying in a dirty 1.5*0.5 box and give milk 5 times a day, this would and should change our view on the ideal living conditions of said cow. Since this is not likely to happen soon, we need to make those decisions for the cow in light of our best knowledge on a cow's state of being. We therefore do weigh the (supposed) interests of the cow against our interests albeit not very highly. In my view the same holds and should hold in the case of bestiality. While it might be the case the human-cow intercourse could be pleasurable for the cow, it seems to me equally plausible that it harms the cow. Now deciding this on a case to case basis would be completely impractical since neither could be convincingly established (or so it seems to me). But laws need to be practical and enforceable to a certain extent. I would thus prefer a legal system to err on the side of safety and rule out bestiality as a special type of animal abuse. I do not see any more inconsistency in that, than in advancing any other form of animal rights while still allowing the slaughter of animals. And I think an argument to defend the latter can be made (in another thread). Which is where the logic falters. If you pass a law for the sake of the well being of an animal with the assumption that they are sentient enough to prefer being treated fairly, then why uphold current laws which slaughter them, forcibly breed them, and use them for experimentation? We would not want this to be done on humans because a human is a sentient being with feelings, thoughts, desires. If we treat animals as sentient enough to care about sex, then would they not be sentient enough to be protected from experimentation? Breeding farms? Mass slaughter? Caging? Chaining? Branding? Force feeding? etc... That is the problem when the logic of imposing bestiality laws is based on the animal's well being. Where exactly does "logic falter" here? Progress in rights is typically made step by step and not all at once. The language you use is further only for shock effect. I could talk about how infants in our day and age are incarcerated in small rooms and beds, often forcibly fed and dressed against their will, without any rights of appeal against their parents and just when they are barely old enough to talk coherently, they are sent to daily detention camps where they are brainwashed to think that it's all for their own good. Of course you would immediately recognize this text for the parody that it is. Now, to be very clear. Animals are not treated like humans in our society and we routinely farm some of them for food. In this process we harm the animals in several ways and often put our convenience over their basic needs. It is not my aim to trivialize any of his suffering. But it's actually a classical logical fallacy to use these facts as an argument to reject progress on another issue (if it is established as such). So I am afraid it's your argument that does not get much ground here. As an aside: Branding was recently forbidden in Germany as a form of animal cruelty. Go figure... Edit: Spelling.
Which is why rights of a child are normally held by a guardian/parent until they either ask for it or it is automatically given to them when they "come of age" some countries 16, some 18, it's arbitrary.
Throughout the entire thing they are still given rights--and the right is still kept tracked. Which is also why some prefer homeschooling, breastfeed only, etc... some parents also feed a child whenever a child cries in order for them to only eat when they want to and not when they don't. etc...
The rights of a child are even continually argued pre-birth. Which is where most Pro-Life people adhere to. Pre-Birth children, to them, have all the same rights as post-birth children and hence have a right to life. So using children as an example is bad, not because its not a good parallel, but because the rights of children is a very very hot button issue that is still being argued today. A lot of conservatives in the States, for example, are working against the public school system wanting a more privatized industry that will allow parents greater and more defined controls on their children be it private school or home schooling. Specifically because they dislike "detention camps" as you wish to describe them.
I guess what I'm saying is, large swathes of the community are already upset with a lot of the ways hospitals, schools, and parents take care of children and are actively legislating to change it. A lot of them are successful in the midwest of the US. For example, some people are making it possibly to charge the death penalty for a miscarriage because (to them) the rights of a child is so important that a mother's life is fiat if those child's rights are hindered. + Show Spoiler +http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/02/miscarriage-death-penalty-georgia
I agree with you that it [Bestiality] is cruel, but the logic being used to defend it right now are the same arguments I hear here in the states for cutting women's rights, cutting gay rights, cutting immigrant rights, etc... I dislike the line of reasoning because it has lead to far too many bad laws in the country I'm currently in.
|
@Reason : Oh yeah seems I totally was the one offended for nothing here, understood your post completely the wrong way.
My bad !
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
