Sweden will soon introduce a total ban on bestiality, which until now has only been illegal if cruelty to the animal in terms of physical and psychological suffering could be proven. From January 1, any sexual act with an animal will be punishable by a fine, a maximum prison sentence of two years, or both, even if the animal shows no sign of injury or suffering.
Horses are the species most often abused, the Swedish Animal Welfare Agency said in its report, which it handed to the government. A total of 209 cases of bestiality, of which 161 involved horses, have been documented since the 1970s, the agency said. It based its figures on responses to more than 1,600 questionnaires sent to veterinarians, animal welfare inspectors and police agencies across the country.
"It's very good that the law will be changed," said Johan Beck-Friis, a spokesman for the Swedish Federation of Veterinarians.
I don't know about Sweden, but in my part of Europe, and I am sure elsewhere, bestiality is normally just instinctively taboo, hence it does not even have to be legislated. Any swedes here care to provide further details?
Poll made by someone at page 29. Make it "weren't taboo/illegal" Edit: and 2 more polls
Poll: If it weren't taboo, would you fuck an animal (dog, horse, goat, etc.)
No (189)
83%
Yes (40)
17%
229 total votes
Your vote: If it weren't taboo, would you fuck an animal (dog, horse, goat, etc.)
I have done it and I see no problem doing it again (12)
17%
I have never done it but I might/will (6)
9%
I have done it but I will not do it again (1)
1%
69 total votes
Your vote: Having sex with animals
(Vote): I have never had and will never do it (Vote): I have never done it but I might/will (Vote): I have done it but I will not do it again (Vote): I have done it and I see no problem doing it again
Poll: Reasons for (possibly) having sex with animals
I (may) have a thing for animals (11)
42%
Curiosity (5)
19%
No chance to do it with humans (2) (5)
19%
I was forced into doing it (losing a bet, etc.) (4)
15%
Tradition / local practice / belief (1)
4%
Other reasons (please specify) (0)
0%
26 total votes
Your vote: Reasons for (possibly) having sex with animals
(Vote): Curiosity (Vote): Tradition / local practice / belief (Vote): I was forced into doing it (losing a bet, etc.) (Vote): No chance to do it with humans (2) (Vote): I (may) have a thing for animals (Vote): Other reasons (please specify)
Can't you just persecute the people for animal cruelty? If that is not "enough", then perhaps the animal cruelty laws do not go far enough. But I see no reason to create another extra law for that.
I feel it should be illegal, because technically an animal cannot give consent for sex, so when it occurs it's "rape" or "animal cruelty" depending on how you look at it.
Not sure why this is worthy of GD, btw. I am sure most people find this repulsive.
That awkward moment when you learn about your country in TL. Also so early in the morning. I remember there was news years ago about a debate in parliament on bestiality. One member literally shocked everyone when he argued it is difficult to differentiate sexuality between animals and people.
It's taboo in Sweden aswell, this is just to easier punish people commiting these acts i guess.
"Does not even have to legislated" - what countries are you talking about? It's illegal for in most countries as far as I know. The same article states:
"The ban will bring Sweden in line with a European Union directive.".
I'm surprised, I've always been under the impression that bestiality has always been illegal here. I mean honestly, how hard is it to make the case that it's animal cruelty?
We can own them, pet them, restrain them but god forbid someone tries something sexual with them. Stupid law but if i were to protest something it'd be something more important so W/E.
On June 14 2013 16:11 nttea wrote: We can own them, pet them, restrain them but god forbid someone tries something sexual with them. Stupid law but if i were to protest something it'd be something more important so W/E.
Are you implying you think sex with animals is ok?
"It's called 'Interspecies Erotica' you jackass" Nah but seriously, how isn't this illegal already? You can be thrown in jail for having sex with a 17 year old.. You would think this a no brainer.
On June 14 2013 16:11 nttea wrote: We can own them, pet them, restrain them but god forbid someone tries something sexual with them. Stupid law but if i were to protest something it'd be something more important so W/E.
Are you implying you think sex with animals is ok?
On June 14 2013 16:11 nttea wrote: We can own them, pet them, restrain them but god forbid someone tries something sexual with them. Stupid law but if i were to protest something it'd be something more important so W/E.
Are you implying you think sex with animals is ok?
Yeah, that's what wierded me out most. My instinct says to make a joke about how it's true, then, about girls and ponies, but somehow I get the feeling it's the other way around.
You'd think people would go for something more convenient in this day and age.
A total of 209 cases of bestiality, of which 161 involved horses, have been documented since the 1970s. wow that's shockingly low number. I came here thinking " maybe we Swedes are weird" but 200 cases in 43 years ? not even bothered.
On June 14 2013 16:56 DorF wrote: A total of 209 cases of bestiality, of which 161 involved horses, have been documented since the 1970s. wow that's shockingly low number. I came here thinking " maybe we Swedes are weird" but 200 cases in 43 years ? not even bothered.
Maybe those are only the documented cases.
On June 14 2013 16:55 furymonkey wrote: What if the animal are the first to engage, with no lure involves, doesn't that prove that animal aren't the one to suffer?
Tricky. Some perv would just coat his nuts with honey, get near a horse and let nature's instincts follow, if horses are on to that sort of thing, them BAM, perv wins vs. law.
EDIT:perv can claim honey is not intended as a lure, just he wants his nuts covered with it.
We Swedes were lazy. When we decriminalized homosexuality in the middle of the 20th century we also decriminalized bestiality - it was in the same paragraph in the law.
Seems over the top, some girl letting her dog lick her might bee disgusting but does she deserve jail time? Animal cruelty laws already covers every situation were the animal is hurt.
On June 14 2013 16:56 DorF wrote: A total of 209 cases of bestiality, of which 161 involved horses, have been documented since the 1970s. wow that's shockingly low number. I came here thinking " maybe we Swedes are weird" but 200 cases in 43 years ? not even bothered.
On June 14 2013 16:55 furymonkey wrote: What if the animal are the first to engage, with no lure involves, doesn't that prove that animal aren't the one to suffer?
Tricky. Some perv would just coat his nuts with honey, get near a horse and let nature's instincts follow, if horses are on to that sort of thing, them BAM, perv wins vs. law.
EDIT:perv can claim honey is not intended as a lure, just he wants his nuts covered with it.
He could probably say good-bye to his nuts..
I'm also surprised that it wasn't already illegal. Is attraction to animals considered a mental illness by the way?
On June 14 2013 16:56 DorF wrote: A total of 209 cases of bestiality, of which 161 involved horses, have been documented since the 1970s. wow that's shockingly low number. I came here thinking " maybe we Swedes are weird" but 200 cases in 43 years ? not even bothered.
Maybe those are only the documented cases.
On June 14 2013 16:55 furymonkey wrote: What if the animal are the first to engage, with no lure involves, doesn't that prove that animal aren't the one to suffer?
Tricky. Some perv would just coat his nuts with honey, get near a horse and let nature's instincts follow, if horses are on to that sort of thing, them BAM, perv wins vs. law.
EDIT:perv can claim honey is not intended as a lure, just he wants his nuts covered with it.
He could probably say good-bye to his nuts..
I'm also surprised that it wasn't already illegal. Is attraction to animals considered a mental illness by the way?
No it's not an illness any more than an irrational fear of buttons.
afaik phobias, fetishes and preferences are not considered illnesses.
On June 14 2013 16:56 DorF wrote: A total of 209 cases of bestiality, of which 161 involved horses, have been documented since the 1970s. wow that's shockingly low number. I came here thinking " maybe we Swedes are weird" but 200 cases in 43 years ? not even bothered.
Maybe those are only the documented cases.
On June 14 2013 16:55 furymonkey wrote: What if the animal are the first to engage, with no lure involves, doesn't that prove that animal aren't the one to suffer?
Tricky. Some perv would just coat his nuts with honey, get near a horse and let nature's instincts follow, if horses are on to that sort of thing, them BAM, perv wins vs. law.
EDIT:perv can claim honey is not intended as a lure, just he wants his nuts covered with it.
He could probably say good-bye to his nuts..
I'm also surprised that it wasn't already illegal. Is attraction to animals considered a mental illness by the way?
No it's not an illness any more than an irrational fear of buttons.
afaik phobias, fetishes and preferences are not considered illnesses.
That's always a tricky question. One could argue that pedophilia is also just a "preference". Basically almost anything that has no genetic or viral cause could be potentially categorized as a "preference".
This doesn't even deserve attention. Who the fuck cares? If a case of bestiality would actually hurt anyone, human or animal, other laws would be able to handle it from there. There are a million problems more pressing than this one.
Guys please read.. 209 cases since 1970... That's 209 cases in 40 years lol. Of course it's taboo as fuck. All this does is making it easier for police and prosecutors to actually get a conviction.
On June 14 2013 16:11 nttea wrote: We can own them, pet them, restrain them but god forbid someone tries something sexual with them. Stupid law but if i were to protest something it'd be something more important so W/E.
Are you implying you think sex with animals is ok?
I think he's implying he actually does it.
I think it's disgusting but as long as the animals don't get hurt i don't see why we should bother the police/courts with that stuff, they got more important things to do.
It used to not be illegal in the Netherlands. And we became almost the leading producer of bestiality porn in the world. It got banned a few years ago, but it hasn't changed anything because the network and logistics still exist.
I'm not sure what I think about this subject. I think it probably should be illegal for various reasons. But it's a strange world where you can kill an animal just for food even without anesthesia (if your religion demands it) but you can't "make love" to that same animal. Which would in any case hurt it a lot less.
On June 14 2013 16:56 DorF wrote: A total of 209 cases of bestiality, of which 161 involved horses, have been documented since the 1970s. wow that's shockingly low number. I came here thinking " maybe we Swedes are weird" but 200 cases in 43 years ? not even bothered.
Maybe those are only the documented cases.
On June 14 2013 16:55 furymonkey wrote: What if the animal are the first to engage, with no lure involves, doesn't that prove that animal aren't the one to suffer?
Tricky. Some perv would just coat his nuts with honey, get near a horse and let nature's instincts follow, if horses are on to that sort of thing, them BAM, perv wins vs. law.
EDIT:perv can claim honey is not intended as a lure, just he wants his nuts covered with it.
He could probably say good-bye to his nuts..
I'm also surprised that it wasn't already illegal. Is attraction to animals considered a mental illness by the way?
No it's not an illness any more than an irrational fear of buttons.
afaik phobias, fetishes and preferences are not considered illnesses.
That's always a tricky question. One could argue that pedophilia is also just a "preference". Basically almost anything that has no genetic or viral cause could be potentially categorized as a "preference".
you will see less attention is paid to actually classifying these things properly and more just to how they tie in with our laws and morals. Hebephilia, ephebophilia and pedophilia are just different types of chronophilia yet only pedophilia is actually recognised or viewed as a mental disorder, or is on the list of mental disorders, essentially because it contradicts our laws and morals to a greater extent than the others and people are anxious to label and classify things in an effort to understand them.
Really whether it's an illness, a fetish, a preference or whatever else seems more to be down to individual opinion and current psychological understanding or classifications rather than a cold, hard, factual answer.
On June 14 2013 17:15 wozzot wrote: Eh, as long as I can still eat meat. I don't think animals can consent to being eaten either but whatever
Yeah this is the really funny thing and nttea mentioned it earlier.
We can enslave and/or consume them but make love to them? You sick bastard!
Make love? LOL you're ridiculous!
lol it might sound funny but I watched a documentary on this sort of thing and I've seen videos on the internet that confirm some people do genuinely make love to animals, whether you can imagine yourself doing so or not is irrelevant, it happens.
Still legal in Denmark lol. I agree; this really shouldn't be an issue and surely there are more much more pressing matters - rapist getting away with 6 months jail comes to mind - but still; just illegalize it and get on with it - GG Sweden!
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 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.
o.O this doesn't sound like your typical overly-sarcastic post that says the complete opposite of what you believe in an effort to emphasise how stupid that line of thinking is.
Bolded section is only thing that makes me still think this is a joke but tone is hard to detect on the internet....
Reading the following post I can only assume this is how you really feel about the issue ???
It's totally fine to hold cows against their 'will', slaugther them and eat them. but god forbid you but your penis in them. because THAT would be animal cruelty... Chances are that the fucking cow or orse or pig doesn't even mind your little human dick. It's completely nonsensical and just a byproduct of an irrational culturous development. Everyone should be able to fuck their animals as long as it doesn't violate the animal cruelty laws.
Bestiality cases have basically fallen under animal cruelty before, but if the animal didn't suffer any physical injuries... well, how do you prove that its mental health was affected? That's the reasoning behind the new law, because it's too hard to prove something like that.
That it was made legal at the same time as homosexuality due to being in the same paragraph is almost amusing, though. Just how lazy were we?
animal cruelty laws were made by the people for what they think/assume/assessed animal cruelty means. now, if the laws were made by the animals in question, it would be an entire different/valid issue.
also, zoo keepers/water park amusement center(or whatever they're called)keepers/scientists/veterinarians and maybe a few others, jerk off animals to release them of stress/to take samples/and so on. obviously there is a thin grey line here. how would one prove one but not the other?.
On June 14 2013 17:15 wozzot wrote: Eh, as long as I can still eat meat. I don't think animals can consent to being eaten either but whatever
Yeah this is the really funny thing and nttea mentioned it earlier.
We can enslave and/or consume them but make love to them? You sick bastard!
Make love? LOL you're ridiculous!
lol it might sound funny but I watched a documentary on this sort of thing and I've seen videos on the internet that confirm some people do genuinely make love to animals, whether you can imagine yourself doing so or not is irrelevant, it happens.
I didn't think it was possible, but you just manage to be more ridiculous than your earlier post? Make love? Shall we go now and interview "couples" engaged in bestiality and ask how much they love each other to really feel the need to... make LOVE!!! lol how stupid is that!
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.
o.O this doesn't sound like your typical overly-sarcastic post that says the complete opposite of what you believe in an effort to emphasise how stupid that line of thinking is.
Bolded section is only thing that makes me still think this is a joke but tone is hard to detect on the internet....
Reading the following post I can only assume this is how you really feel about the issue ???
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.
On June 14 2013 15:57 Orangered wrote: I don't know about Sweden, but in my part of Europe, and I am sure elsewhere, bestiality is normally just instinctively taboo, hence it does not even have to be legislated. Any swedes here care to provide further details?
I don't know about your country, but in sweden rape and murder is instinctively taboo, and yet it's illegal here. Weird shit.
On June 14 2013 17:37 Calliopee wrote: Still legal in Denmark lol. I agree; this really shouldn't be an issue and surely there are more much more pressing matters - rapist getting away with 6 months jail comes to mind - but still; just illegalize it and get on with it - GG Sweden!
...yep, still legal in Denmark... And chances are it wont be changed here. And don't get me wrong I'm really against beastiality, however the law in Denmark clearly dictates the animal can not be harmed in any way during the sex or else it is animal cruelty... And honestly, as long as nobody is harmed I see no reason why you would feel it necessary to make laws against what people can and can not do sexually.
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.
Using the same logic, would It be cool if I tucked my penis inside a woman who's passed out? I mean she won't get harmed - I make gentle loving and Ill use protection and she won't remember a thing. Also, it's a well-known fact that men outrank women in our day and age - just look at any statitistics - they'll confirm that woman are infact inferior to men. Guess Ill be hitting town tonight!
Sorry, clearly you're confused by your colossal amount of idiocy. When I said I was fine with this because no animal was being harmed I wasn't suggesting that that was the only way of judging whether something was right or wrong. Rape is wrong, even though it doesn't involve any animals at all. I brought up harm of animals because it is eminently relevant to this issue but it's actually less relevant to other issues such as rape which doesn't involve any animals at all. There are things which make things bad and in this case harm of animals would be one of them but in other cases we might use other factors. Hopefully that clears up my point for you so you can avoid making such incredibly, obscenely stupid straw men arguments in future.
Basically we have two options here A) Government can make laws against what people do in the bedroom that doesn't hurt another person as long as it's something that you personally, along with a majority of others, aren't into. B) Government doesn't makes laws about what people can do in the bedroom.
I'd rather option B, it doesn't mean I want to fuck animals, it just means I don't want to use the law as a stick to fuck people I don't like with.
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.
Using the same logic, would It be cool if I tucked my penis inside a woman who's passed out? I mean she won't get harmed - I make gentle loving and Ill use protection and she won't remember a thing. Also, it's a well-known fact that men outrank women in our day and age - just look at any statitistics - they'll confirm that woman are infact inferior to men. Guess Ill be hitting town tonight!
Sorry, clearly you're confused by your colossal amount of idiocy. When I said I was fine with this because no animal was being harmed I wasn't suggesting that that was the only way of judging whether something was right or wrong. Rape is wrong, even though it doesn't involve any animals at all. I brought up harm of animals because it is eminently relevant to this issue but it's actually less relevant to other issues such as rape which doesn't involve any animals at all. There are things which make things bad and in this case harm of animals would be one of them but in other cases we might use other factors. Hopefully that clears up my point for you so you can avoid making such incredibly, obscenely stupid straw men arguments in future.
I dont mind having this discussion - not that thers much to discuss, we think different about the subject, but if you can't play nice I'll go and spend time in another thread...
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.
Using the same logic, would It be cool if I tucked my penis inside a woman who's passed out? I mean she won't get harmed - I make gentle loving and Ill use protection and she won't remember a thing. Also, it's a well-known fact that men outrank women in our day and age - just look at any statitistics - they'll confirm that woman are infact inferior to men. Guess Ill be hitting town tonight!
Sorry, clearly you're confused by your colossal amount of idiocy. When I said I was fine with this because no animal was being harmed I wasn't suggesting that that was the only way of judging whether something was right or wrong. Rape is wrong, even though it doesn't involve any animals at all. I brought up harm of animals because it is eminently relevant to this issue but it's actually less relevant to other issues such as rape which doesn't involve any animals at all. There are things which make things bad and in this case harm of animals would be one of them but in other cases we might use other factors. Hopefully that clears up my point for you so you can avoid making such incredibly, obscenely stupid straw men arguments in future.
I dont mind having this discussion - not that thers much to discuss, we think different about the subject, but if you can't play nice I'll go and spend time in another thread...
You think you were making an actual point but you didn't, instead what you did was brought up something that was not only an irrelevant straw man but also something that was incredibly personally offensive to me.
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.
o.O this doesn't sound like your typical overly-sarcastic post that says the complete opposite of what you believe in an effort to emphasise how stupid that line of thinking is.
Bolded section is only thing that makes me still think this is a joke but tone is hard to detect on the internet....
Reading the following post I can only assume this is how you really feel about the issue ???
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.
but a person can tell you if he likes it or not/if you harm him or not/, with animals you just assume; based on? ... you being (part) animal, science?. any reason you invoke, it'll still be a 2nd or 3rd party making the calls for animals.
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.
o.O this doesn't sound like your typical overly-sarcastic post that says the complete opposite of what you believe in an effort to emphasise how stupid that line of thinking is.
Bolded section is only thing that makes me still think this is a joke but tone is hard to detect on the internet....
Reading the following post I can only assume this is how you really feel about the issue ???
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.
but a person can tell you if he likes it or not/if you harm him or not/, with animals you just assume; based on? ... you being (part) animal, science?. any reason you invoke, it'll still be a 2nd or 3rd party making the calls for animals.
Getting a dog to mount someone they don't want to mount is hard work.
Also we don't care whether dogs like the taste of dog food or like herding sheep, they're a tool. If we're caring about this then we should care about it universally, caring about it when someone else wants to fuck them and suddenly not caring about it when you want to eat them is a massive hypocrisy, you don't really care about it, you just want your thing to be protected and their thing not to be.
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.
Using the same logic, would It be cool if I tucked my penis inside a woman who's passed out? I mean she won't get harmed - I make gentle loving and Ill use protection and she won't remember a thing. Also, it's a well-known fact that men outrank women in our day and age - just look at any statitistics - they'll confirm that woman are infact inferior to men. Guess Ill be hitting town tonight!
Sorry, clearly you're confused by your colossal amount of idiocy. When I said I was fine with this because no animal was being harmed I wasn't suggesting that that was the only way of judging whether something was right or wrong. Rape is wrong, even though it doesn't involve any animals at all. I brought up harm of animals because it is eminently relevant to this issue but it's actually less relevant to other issues such as rape which doesn't involve any animals at all. There are things which make things bad and in this case harm of animals would be one of them but in other cases we might use other factors. Hopefully that clears up my point for you so you can avoid making such incredibly, obscenely stupid straw men arguments in future.
I dont mind having this discussion - not that thers much to discuss, we think different about the subject, but if you can't play nice I'll go and spend time in another thread...
You think you were making an actual point but you didn't, instead what you did was brought up something that was not only an irrelevant straw man but also something that was incredibly personally offensive to me.
If I offended you with that post I'm sorry, but calling "X outranks Y and therefore X can do whatever it fucking likes" is in my eyes the worst kind of justification. And who are we to tell whos getting harmed in the process? Last time i checked animals (cept a few) didn't have intercourse for other reasons than reproduction. I agree with you; there are more aspects to it than that, but just because you can do something does in no way or form justify doing it.
On June 14 2013 17:15 wozzot wrote: Eh, as long as I can still eat meat. I don't think animals can consent to being eaten either but whatever
Yeah this is the really funny thing and nttea mentioned it earlier.
We can enslave and/or consume them but make love to them? You sick bastard!
Make love? LOL you're ridiculous!
lol it might sound funny but I watched a documentary on this sort of thing and I've seen videos on the internet that confirm some people do genuinely make love to animals, whether you can imagine yourself doing so or not is irrelevant, it happens.
I didn't think it was possible, but you just manage to be more ridiculous than your earlier post? Make love? Shall we go now and interview "couples" engaged in bestiality and ask how much they love each other to really feel the need to... make LOVE!!! lol how stupid is that!
You obviously know nothing about this topic so do us all a favour and stop posting asinine comments.
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.
o.O this doesn't sound like your typical overly-sarcastic post that says the complete opposite of what you believe in an effort to emphasise how stupid that line of thinking is.
Bolded section is only thing that makes me still think this is a joke but tone is hard to detect on the internet....
Reading the following post I can only assume this is how you really feel about the issue ???
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.
Okay, thanks for clearing that up!
I decided until we treat animals with the same respect we treat humans and we don't eat them, keep them as pets, use them for labour etc that there's no point in making a huge fuss over bestiality, especially considering how uncommon and harmless it is.
Nice to see I'm not the only one sharing such sentiment.
On June 14 2013 18:09 KwarK wrote: Basically we have two options here A) Government can make laws against what people do in the bedroom that doesn't hurt another person as long as it's something that you personally, along with a majority of others, aren't into. B) Government doesn't makes laws about what people can do in the bedroom.
I'd rather option A, it doesn't mean I want to fuck animals, it just means I don't want to use the law as a stick to fuck people I don't like with.
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.
Using the same logic, would It be cool if I tucked my penis inside a woman who's passed out? I mean she won't get harmed - I make gentle loving and Ill use protection and she won't remember a thing. Also, it's a well-known fact that men outrank women in our day and age - just look at any statitistics - they'll confirm that woman are infact inferior to men. Guess Ill be hitting town tonight!
Sorry, clearly you're confused by your colossal amount of idiocy. When I said I was fine with this because no animal was being harmed I wasn't suggesting that that was the only way of judging whether something was right or wrong. Rape is wrong, even though it doesn't involve any animals at all. I brought up harm of animals because it is eminently relevant to this issue but it's actually less relevant to other issues such as rape which doesn't involve any animals at all. There are things which make things bad and in this case harm of animals would be one of them but in other cases we might use other factors. Hopefully that clears up my point for you so you can avoid making such incredibly, obscenely stupid straw men arguments in future.
I dont mind having this discussion - not that thers much to discuss, we think different about the subject, but if you can't play nice I'll go and spend time in another thread...
You think you were making an actual point but you didn't, instead what you did was brought up something that was not only an irrelevant straw man but also something that was incredibly personally offensive to me.
If I offended you with that post I'm sorry, but calling "X outranks Y and therefore X can do whatever it fucking likes" is in my eyes the worst kind of justification. And who are we to tell whos getting harmed in the process? Last time i checked animals (cept a few) didn't have intercourse for other reasons than reproduction. I agree with you; there are more aspects to it than that, but just because you can do something does in no way or form justify doing it.
If you believe that humans don't outrank animals then I have some bad news for you about where food comes from.
On June 14 2013 18:05 Laserist wrote: This is the creepiest thread that I ever saw. Strange people, strange discussions.
I second that. Really freaking strange if people say that banging non-human animals is ok.
So fucking them without harming them (which is what this law outlaws) should be punished(and while you didn't say it, someone brought up that consent apparently matters here) But factory farming and then slaughtering them just for the pleasure of EATING THEIR FLESH is obviously ok? What the fuck you really have to start thinking about what guides your sense of morality.
I think I watched a documentary a while back about some where in south america (could be wrong) where teen (boy) would fuck goat. Since it was very catholic country boy would fuck the goat and it seem pretty much socially acceptable in that area of the country. It goes on to say that boy do it so they can become better lover and to lose their virginity. Didnt know sweden was bad enough to be legally banned.
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.
Using the same logic, would It be cool if I tucked my penis inside a woman who's passed out? I mean she won't get harmed - I make gentle loving and Ill use protection and she won't remember a thing. Also, it's a well-known fact that men outrank women in our day and age - just look at any statitistics - they'll confirm that woman are infact inferior to men. Guess Ill be hitting town tonight!
Sorry, clearly you're confused by your colossal amount of idiocy. When I said I was fine with this because no animal was being harmed I wasn't suggesting that that was the only way of judging whether something was right or wrong. Rape is wrong, even though it doesn't involve any animals at all. I brought up harm of animals because it is eminently relevant to this issue but it's actually less relevant to other issues such as rape which doesn't involve any animals at all. There are things which make things bad and in this case harm of animals would be one of them but in other cases we might use other factors. Hopefully that clears up my point for you so you can avoid making such incredibly, obscenely stupid straw men arguments in future.
I dont mind having this discussion - not that thers much to discuss, we think different about the subject, but if you can't play nice I'll go and spend time in another thread...
You think you were making an actual point but you didn't, instead what you did was brought up something that was not only an irrelevant straw man but also something that was incredibly personally offensive to me.
If I offended you with that post I'm sorry, but calling "X outranks Y and therefore X can do whatever it fucking likes" is in my eyes the worst kind of justification. And who are we to tell whos getting harmed in the process? Last time i checked animals (cept a few) didn't have intercourse for other reasons than reproduction. I agree with you; there are more aspects to it than that, but just because you can do something does in no way or form justify doing it.
If you believe that humans don't outrank animals then I have some bad news for you about where food comes from.
Well, that's called nature. The stronger survives. Eat, or be eaten. Fucking animals is just sick and wrong, i don't know why we're even discussing about how that's right or wrong.
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.
Using the same logic, would It be cool if I tucked my penis inside a woman who's passed out? I mean she won't get harmed - I make gentle loving and Ill use protection and she won't remember a thing. Also, it's a well-known fact that men outrank women in our day and age - just look at any statitistics - they'll confirm that woman are infact inferior to men. Guess Ill be hitting town tonight!
Sorry, clearly you're confused by your colossal amount of idiocy. When I said I was fine with this because no animal was being harmed I wasn't suggesting that that was the only way of judging whether something was right or wrong. Rape is wrong, even though it doesn't involve any animals at all. I brought up harm of animals because it is eminently relevant to this issue but it's actually less relevant to other issues such as rape which doesn't involve any animals at all. There are things which make things bad and in this case harm of animals would be one of them but in other cases we might use other factors. Hopefully that clears up my point for you so you can avoid making such incredibly, obscenely stupid straw men arguments in future.
I dont mind having this discussion - not that thers much to discuss, we think different about the subject, but if you can't play nice I'll go and spend time in another thread...
You think you were making an actual point but you didn't, instead what you did was brought up something that was not only an irrelevant straw man but also something that was incredibly personally offensive to me.
If I offended you with that post I'm sorry, but calling "X outranks Y and therefore X can do whatever it fucking likes" is in my eyes the worst kind of justification. And who are we to tell whos getting harmed in the process? Last time i checked animals (cept a few) didn't have intercourse for other reasons than reproduction. I agree with you; there are more aspects to it than that, but just because you can do something does in no way or form justify doing it.
If you believe that humans don't outrank animals then I have some bad news for you about where food comes from.
Well, that's called nature. The stronger survives. Eat, or be eaten. Fucking animals is just sick and wrong, i don't know why we're even discussing about how that's right or wrong.
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.
Using the same logic, would It be cool if I tucked my penis inside a woman who's passed out? I mean she won't get harmed - I make gentle loving and Ill use protection and she won't remember a thing. Also, it's a well-known fact that men outrank women in our day and age - just look at any statitistics - they'll confirm that woman are infact inferior to men. Guess Ill be hitting town tonight!
Sorry, clearly you're confused by your colossal amount of idiocy. When I said I was fine with this because no animal was being harmed I wasn't suggesting that that was the only way of judging whether something was right or wrong. Rape is wrong, even though it doesn't involve any animals at all. I brought up harm of animals because it is eminently relevant to this issue but it's actually less relevant to other issues such as rape which doesn't involve any animals at all. There are things which make things bad and in this case harm of animals would be one of them but in other cases we might use other factors. Hopefully that clears up my point for you so you can avoid making such incredibly, obscenely stupid straw men arguments in future.
I dont mind having this discussion - not that thers much to discuss, we think different about the subject, but if you can't play nice I'll go and spend time in another thread...
You think you were making an actual point but you didn't, instead what you did was brought up something that was not only an irrelevant straw man but also something that was incredibly personally offensive to me.
If I offended you with that post I'm sorry, but calling "X outranks Y and therefore X can do whatever it fucking likes" is in my eyes the worst kind of justification. And who are we to tell whos getting harmed in the process? Last time i checked animals (cept a few) didn't have intercourse for other reasons than reproduction. I agree with you; there are more aspects to it than that, but just because you can do something does in no way or form justify doing it.
If you believe that humans don't outrank animals then I have some bad news for you about where food comes from.
Well, that's called nature. The stronger survives. Eat, or be eaten. Fucking animals is just sick and wrong, i don't know why we're even discussing about how that's right or wrong.
On June 14 2013 18:05 Laserist wrote: This is the creepiest thread that I ever saw. Strange people, strange discussions.
I second that. Really freaking strange if people say that banging non-human animals is ok.
So fucking them without harming them (which is what this law outlaws) should be punished(and while you didn't say it, someone brought up that consent apparently matters here) But factory farming and then slaughtering them just for the pleasure of EATING THEIR FLESH is obviously ok? What the fuck you really have to start thinking about what guides your sense of morality.
You sir, are too obvious at trolling. Or mentally ill.
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.
Using the same logic, would It be cool if I tucked my penis inside a woman who's passed out? I mean she won't get harmed - I make gentle loving and Ill use protection and she won't remember a thing. Also, it's a well-known fact that men outrank women in our day and age - just look at any statitistics - they'll confirm that woman are infact inferior to men. Guess Ill be hitting town tonight!
Sorry, clearly you're confused by your colossal amount of idiocy. When I said I was fine with this because no animal was being harmed I wasn't suggesting that that was the only way of judging whether something was right or wrong. Rape is wrong, even though it doesn't involve any animals at all. I brought up harm of animals because it is eminently relevant to this issue but it's actually less relevant to other issues such as rape which doesn't involve any animals at all. There are things which make things bad and in this case harm of animals would be one of them but in other cases we might use other factors. Hopefully that clears up my point for you so you can avoid making such incredibly, obscenely stupid straw men arguments in future.
I dont mind having this discussion - not that thers much to discuss, we think different about the subject, but if you can't play nice I'll go and spend time in another thread...
You think you were making an actual point but you didn't, instead what you did was brought up something that was not only an irrelevant straw man but also something that was incredibly personally offensive to me.
If I offended you with that post I'm sorry, but calling "X outranks Y and therefore X can do whatever it fucking likes" is in my eyes the worst kind of justification. And who are we to tell whos getting harmed in the process? Last time i checked animals (cept a few) didn't have intercourse for other reasons than reproduction. I agree with you; there are more aspects to it than that, but just because you can do something does in no way or form justify doing it.
If you believe that humans don't outrank animals then I have some bad news for you about where food comes from.
Well, that's called nature. The stronger survives. Eat, or be eaten. Fucking animals is just sick and wrong, i don't know why we're even discussing about how that's right or wrong.
Nothing natural about the domestication of the chicken. It's an animal that is perfectly on its period that we eat. Drinking cow milk is pretty fucking weird too.
On June 14 2013 17:15 wozzot wrote: Eh, as long as I can still eat meat. I don't think animals can consent to being eaten either but whatever
Yeah this is the really funny thing and nttea mentioned it earlier.
We can enslave and/or consume them but make love to them? You sick bastard!
Make love? LOL you're ridiculous!
lol it might sound funny but I watched a documentary on this sort of thing and I've seen videos on the internet that confirm some people do genuinely make love to animals, whether you can imagine yourself doing so or not is irrelevant, it happens.
I didn't think it was possible, but you just manage to be more ridiculous than your earlier post? Make love? Shall we go now and interview "couples" engaged in bestiality and ask how much they love each other to really feel the need to... make LOVE!!! lol how stupid is that!
You obviously know nothing about this topic so do us all a favour and stop posting asinine comments.
The most failed attempt at recovering from a stupid claim that people and animals can in fact make love.
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.
Using the same logic, would It be cool if I tucked my penis inside a woman who's passed out? I mean she won't get harmed - I make gentle loving and Ill use protection and she won't remember a thing. Also, it's a well-known fact that men outrank women in our day and age - just look at any statitistics - they'll confirm that woman are infact inferior to men. Guess Ill be hitting town tonight!
Sorry, clearly you're confused by your colossal amount of idiocy. When I said I was fine with this because no animal was being harmed I wasn't suggesting that that was the only way of judging whether something was right or wrong. Rape is wrong, even though it doesn't involve any animals at all. I brought up harm of animals because it is eminently relevant to this issue but it's actually less relevant to other issues such as rape which doesn't involve any animals at all. There are things which make things bad and in this case harm of animals would be one of them but in other cases we might use other factors. Hopefully that clears up my point for you so you can avoid making such incredibly, obscenely stupid straw men arguments in future.
I dont mind having this discussion - not that thers much to discuss, we think different about the subject, but if you can't play nice I'll go and spend time in another thread...
You think you were making an actual point but you didn't, instead what you did was brought up something that was not only an irrelevant straw man but also something that was incredibly personally offensive to me.
If I offended you with that post I'm sorry, but calling "X outranks Y and therefore X can do whatever it fucking likes" is in my eyes the worst kind of justification. And who are we to tell whos getting harmed in the process? Last time i checked animals (cept a few) didn't have intercourse for other reasons than reproduction. I agree with you; there are more aspects to it than that, but just because you can do something does in no way or form justify doing it.
If you believe that humans don't outrank animals then I have some bad news for you about where food comes from.
Well, that's called nature. The stronger survives. Eat, or be eaten. Fucking animals is just sick and wrong, i don't know why we're even discussing about how that's right or wrong.
So responding to gastrointestinal impulses and self preservation instincts is nature, but acting out sexual desires is just sick and wrong?
It's all nature and that's never a justification for anything in the first place anyway....
You piss me off I'll break your skull open with a hammer, problem with that? ITS NATURE BRO
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.
o.O this doesn't sound like your typical overly-sarcastic post that says the complete opposite of what you believe in an effort to emphasise how stupid that line of thinking is.
Bolded section is only thing that makes me still think this is a joke but tone is hard to detect on the internet....
Reading the following post I can only assume this is how you really feel about the issue ???
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.
but a person can tell you if he likes it or not/if you harm him or not/, with animals you just assume; based on? ... you being (part) animal, science?. any reason you invoke, it'll still be a 2nd or 3rd party making the calls for animals.
Getting a dog to mount someone they don't want to mount is hard work.
Also we don't care whether dogs like the taste of dog food or like herding sheep, they're a tool. If we're caring about this then we should care about it universally, caring about it when someone else wants to fuck them and suddenly not caring about it when you want to eat them is a massive hypocrisy, you don't really care about it, you just want your thing to be protected and their thing not to be.
so you are fine with killing them as well as protecting/fucking them as long as we call ourselves hypocrites?. that's not really a point making any decision for animals it's hypocritical by default so again, what's your point?.
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.
Using the same logic, would It be cool if I tucked my penis inside a woman who's passed out? I mean she won't get harmed - I make gentle loving and Ill use protection and she won't remember a thing. Also, it's a well-known fact that men outrank women in our day and age - just look at any statitistics - they'll confirm that woman are infact inferior to men. Guess Ill be hitting town tonight!
Sorry, clearly you're confused by your colossal amount of idiocy. When I said I was fine with this because no animal was being harmed I wasn't suggesting that that was the only way of judging whether something was right or wrong. Rape is wrong, even though it doesn't involve any animals at all. I brought up harm of animals because it is eminently relevant to this issue but it's actually less relevant to other issues such as rape which doesn't involve any animals at all. There are things which make things bad and in this case harm of animals would be one of them but in other cases we might use other factors. Hopefully that clears up my point for you so you can avoid making such incredibly, obscenely stupid straw men arguments in future.
I dont mind having this discussion - not that thers much to discuss, we think different about the subject, but if you can't play nice I'll go and spend time in another thread...
You think you were making an actual point but you didn't, instead what you did was brought up something that was not only an irrelevant straw man but also something that was incredibly personally offensive to me.
If I offended you with that post I'm sorry, but calling "X outranks Y and therefore X can do whatever it fucking likes" is in my eyes the worst kind of justification. And who are we to tell whos getting harmed in the process? Last time i checked animals (cept a few) didn't have intercourse for other reasons than reproduction. I agree with you; there are more aspects to it than that, but just because you can do something does in no way or form justify doing it.
If you believe that humans don't outrank animals then I have some bad news for you about where food comes from.
Well, that's called nature. The stronger survives. Eat, or be eaten. Fucking animals is just sick and wrong, i don't know why we're even discussing about how that's right or wrong.
...you realize alot of people would say the same about same-sex marriage, right? Opinions vary - and yeah, it is important to question your standards every now and then
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.
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.
Using the same logic, would It be cool if I tucked my penis inside a woman who's passed out? I mean she won't get harmed - I make gentle loving and Ill use protection and she won't remember a thing. Also, it's a well-known fact that men outrank women in our day and age - just look at any statitistics - they'll confirm that woman are infact inferior to men. Guess Ill be hitting town tonight!
Sorry, clearly you're confused by your colossal amount of idiocy. When I said I was fine with this because no animal was being harmed I wasn't suggesting that that was the only way of judging whether something was right or wrong. Rape is wrong, even though it doesn't involve any animals at all. I brought up harm of animals because it is eminently relevant to this issue but it's actually less relevant to other issues such as rape which doesn't involve any animals at all. There are things which make things bad and in this case harm of animals would be one of them but in other cases we might use other factors. Hopefully that clears up my point for you so you can avoid making such incredibly, obscenely stupid straw men arguments in future.
I dont mind having this discussion - not that thers much to discuss, we think different about the subject, but if you can't play nice I'll go and spend time in another thread...
You think you were making an actual point but you didn't, instead what you did was brought up something that was not only an irrelevant straw man but also something that was incredibly personally offensive to me.
If I offended you with that post I'm sorry, but calling "X outranks Y and therefore X can do whatever it fucking likes" is in my eyes the worst kind of justification. And who are we to tell whos getting harmed in the process? Last time i checked animals (cept a few) didn't have intercourse for other reasons than reproduction. I agree with you; there are more aspects to it than that, but just because you can do something does in no way or form justify doing it.
If you believe that humans don't outrank animals then I have some bad news for you about where food comes from.
Well, that's called nature. The stronger survives. Eat, or be eaten. Fucking animals is just sick and wrong, i don't know why we're even discussing about how that's right or wrong.
Nothing natural about the domestication of the chicken. It's an animal that is perfectly on its period that we eat. Drinking cow milk is pretty fucking weird too.
While i agree that's not how nature worked before we got brains, that has atleast a reason. Chickens can lay eggs. Milk is needed for so many things. What's your reason for fucking animals?
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.
On June 14 2013 17:15 wozzot wrote: Eh, as long as I can still eat meat. I don't think animals can consent to being eaten either but whatever
Yeah this is the really funny thing and nttea mentioned it earlier.
We can enslave and/or consume them but make love to them? You sick bastard!
Make love? LOL you're ridiculous!
lol it might sound funny but I watched a documentary on this sort of thing and I've seen videos on the internet that confirm some people do genuinely make love to animals, whether you can imagine yourself doing so or not is irrelevant, it happens.
I didn't think it was possible, but you just manage to be more ridiculous than your earlier post? Make love? Shall we go now and interview "couples" engaged in bestiality and ask how much they love each other to really feel the need to... make LOVE!!! lol how stupid is that!
You obviously know nothing about this topic so do us all a favour and stop posting asinine comments.
The most failed attempt at recovering from a stupid claim that people and animals can in fact make love.
Good lord making love is an expression synonymous with having sex, but usually implies an emotional connection or meaning behind the action than simply having sex.
Do you accept some people love animals? Do you accept some people have sex with animals?
If the answer to both of those questions is yes then why is it so difficult for your infant mind to wrap itself around the concept that some people consider their intimate relations with an animal to be love making?
On June 14 2013 18:05 Laserist wrote: This is the creepiest thread that I ever saw. Strange people, strange discussions.
I second that. Really freaking strange if people say that banging non-human animals is ok.
So fucking them without harming them (which is what this law outlaws) should be punished(and while you didn't say it, someone brought up that consent apparently matters here) But factory farming and then slaughtering them just for the pleasure of EATING THEIR FLESH is obviously ok? What the fuck you really have to start thinking about what guides your sense of morality.
how can you justify bestiality by the fact that we breed them for food? you know that its just easier and more efficient to do that than to run around chasing them for hundreds of miles right. like somehow hunting them then eating them is more acceptable than breeding them then eating them.
maybe we should all hunt our own food from now on and people can fuck elephants in their free time, except that there wouldnt be any free time because we'd be running around chasing them.
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.
Using the same logic, would It be cool if I tucked my penis inside a woman who's passed out? I mean she won't get harmed - I make gentle loving and Ill use protection and she won't remember a thing. Also, it's a well-known fact that men outrank women in our day and age - just look at any statitistics - they'll confirm that woman are infact inferior to men. Guess Ill be hitting town tonight!
Sorry, clearly you're confused by your colossal amount of idiocy. When I said I was fine with this because no animal was being harmed I wasn't suggesting that that was the only way of judging whether something was right or wrong. Rape is wrong, even though it doesn't involve any animals at all. I brought up harm of animals because it is eminently relevant to this issue but it's actually less relevant to other issues such as rape which doesn't involve any animals at all. There are things which make things bad and in this case harm of animals would be one of them but in other cases we might use other factors. Hopefully that clears up my point for you so you can avoid making such incredibly, obscenely stupid straw men arguments in future.
I dont mind having this discussion - not that thers much to discuss, we think different about the subject, but if you can't play nice I'll go and spend time in another thread...
You think you were making an actual point but you didn't, instead what you did was brought up something that was not only an irrelevant straw man but also something that was incredibly personally offensive to me.
If I offended you with that post I'm sorry, but calling "X outranks Y and therefore X can do whatever it fucking likes" is in my eyes the worst kind of justification. And who are we to tell whos getting harmed in the process? Last time i checked animals (cept a few) didn't have intercourse for other reasons than reproduction. I agree with you; there are more aspects to it than that, but just because you can do something does in no way or form justify doing it.
If you believe that humans don't outrank animals then I have some bad news for you about where food comes from.
Well, that's called nature. The stronger survives. Eat, or be eaten. Fucking animals is just sick and wrong, i don't know why we're even discussing about how that's right or wrong.
Nothing natural about the domestication of the chicken. It's an animal that is perfectly on its period that we eat. Drinking cow milk is pretty fucking weird too.
While i agree that's not how nature worked before we got brains, that has atleast a reason. Chickens can lay eggs. Milk is needed for so many things. What's your reason for fucking animals?
Cows do not naturally produce milk for humans and chickens do not need to lay an egg a day for the survival of their species. This is human intervention.
On June 14 2013 17:44 Greenei wrote: It's totally fine to hold cows against their 'will', slaugther them and eat them. but god forbid you but your penis in them. because THAT would be animal cruelty... Chances are that the fucking cow or orse or pig doesn't even mind your little human dick. It's completely nonsensical and just a byproduct of an irrational culturous development. Everyone should be able to fuck their animals as long as it doesn't violate the animal cruelty laws.
Almost all legislation is affected by "culture", how is that a problem? Laws can't be created in a vacuum, they need to relate to reality, or else they end up going against the public perception of what's right and wrong.
Criminalizing this and still allowing the slaughter industry appear weird to some, but it really isn't. All animal protection laws are about not having the animals suffer more than is necessary. Considering our meat consumption we need to be able to kill them and eat them, and that pain involved is considered necessary. If you want to slaughter it in a special fashion for religious reasons, that has been judged acceptable as well (at least in sweden, but the rising xenophobia in europe might force a change in some countries). When it comes to satisfying your weird and taboo urges, that isn't reason enough to have the animals suffer. Unnecessary pain, and hence criminalization is justified.
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.
Using the same logic, would It be cool if I tucked my penis inside a woman who's passed out? I mean she won't get harmed - I make gentle loving and Ill use protection and she won't remember a thing. Also, it's a well-known fact that men outrank women in our day and age - just look at any statitistics - they'll confirm that woman are infact inferior to men. Guess Ill be hitting town tonight!
Sorry, clearly you're confused by your colossal amount of idiocy. When I said I was fine with this because no animal was being harmed I wasn't suggesting that that was the only way of judging whether something was right or wrong. Rape is wrong, even though it doesn't involve any animals at all. I brought up harm of animals because it is eminently relevant to this issue but it's actually less relevant to other issues such as rape which doesn't involve any animals at all. There are things which make things bad and in this case harm of animals would be one of them but in other cases we might use other factors. Hopefully that clears up my point for you so you can avoid making such incredibly, obscenely stupid straw men arguments in future.
I dont mind having this discussion - not that thers much to discuss, we think different about the subject, but if you can't play nice I'll go and spend time in another thread...
You think you were making an actual point but you didn't, instead what you did was brought up something that was not only an irrelevant straw man but also something that was incredibly personally offensive to me.
If I offended you with that post I'm sorry, but calling "X outranks Y and therefore X can do whatever it fucking likes" is in my eyes the worst kind of justification. And who are we to tell whos getting harmed in the process? Last time i checked animals (cept a few) didn't have intercourse for other reasons than reproduction. I agree with you; there are more aspects to it than that, but just because you can do something does in no way or form justify doing it.
If you believe that humans don't outrank animals then I have some bad news for you about where food comes from.
Well, that's called nature. The stronger survives. Eat, or be eaten. Fucking animals is just sick and wrong, i don't know why we're even discussing about how that's right or wrong.
...you realize alot of people would say the same about same-sex marriage, right? Opinions vary - and yeah, it is important to question your standards every now and then
Man, in this day and age you have to be like very very very open minded. same-sex marriage, fair enough. fucking animals, hmm, ok i guess ?. But what's next ? I heard of some political party dudes a couple years ago, cant remember what country, that were trying to get sex with minors(boys) legalized. So i wonder where does this open minded thing has it's borders?
The only reason why bestiality would be morally wrong is that the animal does not give conscent. But what if the animal clearly enjoys it? (lol) Besides the conscent it is basicly nothing different from anny other sexual fetish or orientation, some of wich are now widely accepted (like homosexuality) Annyway i dont realy care lol, its not weird they make a law for this despite it not beeing mainstream and a nobrainer. Terrorism in the usa is not mainstream (at least i hope so) yet there are countless verry restrictive laws based on the terrorism.
On June 14 2013 18:18 SheaR619 wrote: I think I watched a documentary a while back about some where in south america (could be wrong) where teen (boy) would fuck goat. Since it was very catholic country boy would fuck the goat and it seem pretty much socially acceptable in that area of the country. It goes on to say that boy do it so they can become better lover and to lose their virginity. Didnt know sweden was bad enough to be legally banned.
It was donkeys, and the country was Colombia. The documentary also seemed to say that it was very common in that rural area. Like when a bunch of kids are bored, they just go to the donkeys.
On June 14 2013 18:05 Laserist wrote: This is the creepiest thread that I ever saw. Strange people, strange discussions.
I second that. Really freaking strange if people say that banging non-human animals is ok.
So fucking them without harming them (which is what this law outlaws) should be punished(and while you didn't say it, someone brought up that consent apparently matters here) But factory farming and then slaughtering them just for the pleasure of EATING THEIR FLESH is obviously ok? What the fuck you really have to start thinking about what guides your sense of morality.
how can you justify bestiality by the fact that we breed them for food? you know that its just easier and more efficient to do that than to run around chasing them for hundreds of miles right. like somehow hunting them then eating them is more acceptable than breeding them then eating them.
maybe we should all hunt our own food from now on and people can fuck elephants in their free time, except that there wouldnt be any free time because we'd be running around chasing them.
*whooosh*
edit: I hate starting a sentence with because, so I won't, but you can justify it because it doesn't really make sense to completely disregard their "basic rights" and slaughter them to satisfy our physical hunger but not have sex with them to satisfy our sexual hunger, as if the reasoning behind it in any way changes the act itself.
"I had sex with a child" "That's disgusting, you should go to jail" "I didn't want to hurt them, I just really wanted to do it" "Oh, that's okay then"
"I had sex with an animal" "That's disgusting, you should go to jail" "I didn't want to hurt them, I just really wanted to do it" "Oh, that's okay then"
"I ate an animal" "That's disgusting, you should go to jail" "I didn't want to hurt them, I was just really hungry" "Oh, that's okay then"
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.
It's cool - I was trying to be clever by drawing an over the top comparison - my aplogies.
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.
Nah he wasnt, it was just a poor attempt at making a poor point.
well to be honest, in the more ancient years, farmers/their wives used to to do quite often and it wasn't regarded as super negative and f-ed up. I have read it is still fairly common in some rural China. In some area (I think it is Mongolia?) the family shares the women and there is some the whole family would make love together and it is probably deemed illegal in most of the other countries
I guess it's just the country wants to separate itself from these less cultural acceptable actions to illegalise it.
no biggie, swedish girls are far too hot for anyone to even think about sex with animals
On June 14 2013 17:15 wozzot wrote: Eh, as long as I can still eat meat. I don't think animals can consent to being eaten either but whatever
Yeah this is the really funny thing and nttea mentioned it earlier.
We can enslave and/or consume them but make love to them? You sick bastard!
Make love? LOL you're ridiculous!
lol it might sound funny but I watched a documentary on this sort of thing and I've seen videos on the internet that confirm some people do genuinely make love to animals, whether you can imagine yourself doing so or not is irrelevant, it happens.
I didn't think it was possible, but you just manage to be more ridiculous than your earlier post? Make love? Shall we go now and interview "couples" engaged in bestiality and ask how much they love each other to really feel the need to... make LOVE!!! lol how stupid is that!
You obviously know nothing about this topic so do us all a favour and stop posting asinine comments.
The most failed attempt at recovering from a stupid claim that people and animals can in fact make love.
Good lord making love is an expression synonymous with having sex, but usually implies an emotional connection or meaning behind the action than simply having sex.
Do you accept some people love animals? Do you accept some people have sex with animals?
If the answer to both of those questions is yes then why is it so difficult for your infant mind to wrap itself around the concept that some people consider their intimate relations with an animal to be love making?
Seriously, stop being a massive penis.
Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak.
I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise.
There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future.
This is an absolute bullshit, populist, toothless law.
The only POSSIBLE difference it would make, is if you catch someone in the act which NEVER happens. Otherwise you need the physical or psychological injury to the animal to prove it anyways.
OF COURSE having sex with animals is generally bad, as well as disgusting, but that is not a basis for any civilized juridical system.
Should it be illegal to assfuck your cat? hell yeah, and it already is. To get on all four and let your pony shag you? why the hell would it be? It's gross ass shit and more than a little crazy, but there is no victim and no government, or no majority, should EVER be allowed to pull that kind of shit off. It's absolutely 100% corrupt and immoral.
So, we're going to outlaw harmless stuff with the purpose of catching people doing harmful stuff that is already illegal, with the added kicker that it won't work. We will not catch any more horse rapists. Good job swedish jurisdiction, really.
(also, the people that want to fuck animals can just go to the finnish and danish bordello farms)
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.
Using the same logic, would It be cool if I tucked my penis inside a woman who's passed out? I mean she won't get harmed - I make gentle loving and Ill use protection and she won't remember a thing. Also, it's a well-known fact that men outrank women in our day and age - just look at any statitistics - they'll confirm that woman are infact inferior to men. Guess Ill be hitting town tonight!
Sorry, clearly you're confused by your colossal amount of idiocy. When I said I was fine with this because no animal was being harmed I wasn't suggesting that that was the only way of judging whether something was right or wrong. Rape is wrong, even though it doesn't involve any animals at all. I brought up harm of animals because it is eminently relevant to this issue but it's actually less relevant to other issues such as rape which doesn't involve any animals at all. There are things which make things bad and in this case harm of animals would be one of them but in other cases we might use other factors. Hopefully that clears up my point for you so you can avoid making such incredibly, obscenely stupid straw men arguments in future.
What if I told you you can deliver your message across better if you refrain from name calling and insults.
On June 14 2013 17:15 wozzot wrote: Eh, as long as I can still eat meat. I don't think animals can consent to being eaten either but whatever
Yeah this is the really funny thing and nttea mentioned it earlier.
We can enslave and/or consume them but make love to them? You sick bastard!
Make love? LOL you're ridiculous!
lol it might sound funny but I watched a documentary on this sort of thing and I've seen videos on the internet that confirm some people do genuinely make love to animals, whether you can imagine yourself doing so or not is irrelevant, it happens.
I didn't think it was possible, but you just manage to be more ridiculous than your earlier post? Make love? Shall we go now and interview "couples" engaged in bestiality and ask how much they love each other to really feel the need to... make LOVE!!! lol how stupid is that!
You obviously know nothing about this topic so do us all a favour and stop posting asinine comments.
The most failed attempt at recovering from a stupid claim that people and animals can in fact make love.
Good lord making love is an expression synonymous with having sex, but usually implies an emotional connection or meaning behind the action than simply having sex.
Do you accept some people love animals? Do you accept some people have sex with animals?
If the answer to both of those questions is yes then why is it so difficult for your infant mind to wrap itself around the concept that some people consider their intimate relations with an animal to be love making?
Seriously, stop being a massive penis.
Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak.
I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise.
There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future.
Massive Facepalm.
You are sure 99.99% of the time based on what evidence? 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise, based on what evidence?
I didn't declare that bestiality is an act of love.
You need to adjust your attitude very quickly and learn that your own ill-formed and baseless opinions are not universal truths and that if you want to have a discussion or post on this website you'll need to form and express your opinions with a little more humility and a little less pomposity.
You'll notice my original post was made in a jovial nature; enslave was used instead of domesticate, consume was used instead of eat and making love was used instead of having sex.
On June 14 2013 17:15 wozzot wrote: Eh, as long as I can still eat meat. I don't think animals can consent to being eaten either but whatever
Yeah this is the really funny thing and nttea mentioned it earlier.
We can enslave and/or consume them but make love to them? You sick bastard!
Make love? LOL you're ridiculous!
lol it might sound funny but I watched a documentary on this sort of thing and I've seen videos on the internet that confirm some people do genuinely make love to animals, whether you can imagine yourself doing so or not is irrelevant, it happens.
I didn't think it was possible, but you just manage to be more ridiculous than your earlier post? Make love? Shall we go now and interview "couples" engaged in bestiality and ask how much they love each other to really feel the need to... make LOVE!!! lol how stupid is that!
You obviously know nothing about this topic so do us all a favour and stop posting asinine comments.
The most failed attempt at recovering from a stupid claim that people and animals can in fact make love.
Good lord making love is an expression synonymous with having sex, but usually implies an emotional connection or meaning behind the action than simply having sex.
Do you accept some people love animals? Do you accept some people have sex with animals?
If the answer to both of those questions is yes then why is it so difficult for your infant mind to wrap itself around the concept that some people consider their intimate relations with an animal to be love making?
Seriously, stop being a massive penis.
Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak.
I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise.
There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future.
Massive Facepalm.
dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care.
edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something.
What if you intend to kill them anyway after (in order to eat them of course), is part of a ritual killing still illegal (it's part of my religion, honnest) ? What about killing them before (I wasn't cruel to the animal, it's a carcass) ? Should I be weary of what I do with roasted chicken when in Sweden ?
On June 14 2013 18:05 Laserist wrote: This is the creepiest thread that I ever saw. Strange people, strange discussions.
I second that. Really freaking strange if people say that banging non-human animals is ok.
So fucking them without harming them (which is what this law outlaws) should be punished(and while you didn't say it, someone brought up that consent apparently matters here) But factory farming and then slaughtering them just for the pleasure of EATING THEIR FLESH is obviously ok? What the fuck you really have to start thinking about what guides your sense of morality.
how can you justify bestiality by the fact that we breed them for food? you know that its just easier and more efficient to do that than to run around chasing them for hundreds of miles right. like somehow hunting them then eating them is more acceptable than breeding them then eating them.
maybe we should all hunt our own food from now on and people can fuck elephants in their free time, except that there wouldnt be any free time because we'd be running around chasing them.
*whooosh*
edit: I hate starting a sentence with because, so I won't, but you can justify it because it doesn't really make sense to completely disregard their "basic rights" and slaughter them to satisfy our physical hunger but not have sex with them to satisfy our sexual hunger, as if the reasoning behind it in any way changes the act itself.
"I had sex with a child" "That's disgusting, you should go to jail" "I didn't want to hurt them, I just really wanted to do it" "Oh, that's okay then"
"I had sex with an animal" "That's disgusting, you should go to jail" "I didn't want to hurt them, I just really wanted to do it" "Oh, that's okay then"
"I ate an animal" "That's disgusting, you should go to jail" "I didn't want to hurt them, I was just really hungry" "Oh, that's okay then"
what, that would mean a vegan who is against the killing of animals for food would be morally sound when they claim that bestiality is immoral.
On June 14 2013 17:15 wozzot wrote: Eh, as long as I can still eat meat. I don't think animals can consent to being eaten either but whatever
Yeah this is the really funny thing and nttea mentioned it earlier.
We can enslave and/or consume them but make love to them? You sick bastard!
Make love? LOL you're ridiculous!
lol it might sound funny but I watched a documentary on this sort of thing and I've seen videos on the internet that confirm some people do genuinely make love to animals, whether you can imagine yourself doing so or not is irrelevant, it happens.
I didn't think it was possible, but you just manage to be more ridiculous than your earlier post? Make love? Shall we go now and interview "couples" engaged in bestiality and ask how much they love each other to really feel the need to... make LOVE!!! lol how stupid is that!
You obviously know nothing about this topic so do us all a favour and stop posting asinine comments.
The most failed attempt at recovering from a stupid claim that people and animals can in fact make love.
Good lord making love is an expression synonymous with having sex, but usually implies an emotional connection or meaning behind the action than simply having sex.
Do you accept some people love animals? Do you accept some people have sex with animals?
If the answer to both of those questions is yes then why is it so difficult for your infant mind to wrap itself around the concept that some people consider their intimate relations with an animal to be love making?
Seriously, stop being a massive penis.
Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak.
I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise.
There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future.
Massive Facepalm.
lots of stats pulled out of your ass lol 99.99% of the cases? I am not too sure about that. How about doing something exciting and stimulating together? Is that not the emotional connection? If the animal truely doesn't care about sex, then what about all those humping legs action that dogs love to do and cats love to making mating sound and keep blocking my way. seriously, you are talking as if you can fuck a horse easily. A fucking kick would end your life if it doesn't want it.
looks like you are ending yourself with your own sword
On June 14 2013 16:00 JustPassingBy wrote: Can't you just persecute the people for animal cruelty? If that is not "enough", then perhaps the animal cruelty laws do not go far enough. But I see no reason to create another extra law for that.
On June 14 2013 17:15 wozzot wrote: Eh, as long as I can still eat meat. I don't think animals can consent to being eaten either but whatever
Yeah this is the really funny thing and nttea mentioned it earlier.
We can enslave and/or consume them but make love to them? You sick bastard!
Make love? LOL you're ridiculous!
lol it might sound funny but I watched a documentary on this sort of thing and I've seen videos on the internet that confirm some people do genuinely make love to animals, whether you can imagine yourself doing so or not is irrelevant, it happens.
I didn't think it was possible, but you just manage to be more ridiculous than your earlier post? Make love? Shall we go now and interview "couples" engaged in bestiality and ask how much they love each other to really feel the need to... make LOVE!!! lol how stupid is that!
You obviously know nothing about this topic so do us all a favour and stop posting asinine comments.
The most failed attempt at recovering from a stupid claim that people and animals can in fact make love.
Good lord making love is an expression synonymous with having sex, but usually implies an emotional connection or meaning behind the action than simply having sex.
Do you accept some people love animals? Do you accept some people have sex with animals?
If the answer to both of those questions is yes then why is it so difficult for your infant mind to wrap itself around the concept that some people consider their intimate relations with an animal to be love making?
Seriously, stop being a massive penis.
Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak.
I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise.
There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future.
Massive Facepalm.
You are sure 99.99% of the time based on what evidence? 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise, based on what evidence?
I didn't declare that bestiality is an act of love.
You need to adjust your attitude very quickly and learn that your own ill-formed and baseless opinions are not universal truths and that if you want to have a discussion or post on this website you'll need to form and express your opinions with a little more humility and a little less pomposity.
You'll notice my original post was made in a jovial nature; enslave was used instead of domesticate, consume was used instead of eat and making love was used instead of having sex.
Learn to appreciate context.
It's your own words and definition that killed you.
99.99999% because you know, other than porn stars where it is common, there is really that rare chance that that goat herder really wants to develop a deeper connection with his goat. 100% of the time because an animal does not fuck to develop emotional connection with humans.
On June 14 2013 18:54 Oshuy wrote: What if you intend to kill them anyway after (in order to eat them of course), is part of a ritual killing still illegal (it's part of my religion, honnest) ? What about killing them before (I wasn't cruel to the animal, it's a carcass) ? Should I be weary of what I do with roasted chicken when in Sweden ?
On June 14 2013 18:05 Laserist wrote: This is the creepiest thread that I ever saw. Strange people, strange discussions.
I second that. Really freaking strange if people say that banging non-human animals is ok.
So fucking them without harming them (which is what this law outlaws) should be punished(and while you didn't say it, someone brought up that consent apparently matters here) But factory farming and then slaughtering them just for the pleasure of EATING THEIR FLESH is obviously ok? What the fuck you really have to start thinking about what guides your sense of morality.
how can you justify bestiality by the fact that we breed them for food? you know that its just easier and more efficient to do that than to run around chasing them for hundreds of miles right. like somehow hunting them then eating them is more acceptable than breeding them then eating them.
maybe we should all hunt our own food from now on and people can fuck elephants in their free time, except that there wouldnt be any free time because we'd be running around chasing them.
*whooosh*
edit: I hate starting a sentence with because, so I won't, but you can justify it because it doesn't really make sense to completely disregard their "basic rights" and slaughter them to satisfy our physical hunger but not have sex with them to satisfy our sexual hunger, as if the reasoning behind it in any way changes the act itself.
"I had sex with a child" "That's disgusting, you should go to jail" "I didn't want to hurt them, I just really wanted to do it" "Oh, that's okay then"
"I had sex with an animal" "That's disgusting, you should go to jail" "I didn't want to hurt them, I just really wanted to do it" "Oh, that's okay then"
"I ate an animal" "That's disgusting, you should go to jail" "I didn't want to hurt them, I was just really hungry" "Oh, that's okay then"
what, that would mean a vegan who is against the killing of animals for food would be morally sound when they claim that bestiality is immoral.
If this vegan or more importantly any person views animals as having the same rights as humans in that they are living creatures that deserve to be treated with respect and not as possessions, then yes they would not be contradicting their own set of morals when declaring bestiality immoral.
Intersestingly, such a person may view bestiality as morally sound but still be against keeping them as pets or as eating them as food just like we can have sex with humans but not keep them as pets or eat them as food, and more importantly such views are not held by the majority and thus not expressed through secular law, the reason for this point being raised in the first place.
I love it when humans try to ban bestiality because of the cruelty on animals... Of course, we cannot just go and ban it because it's fucking sick (please do not say that is debatable).
And to those that will tell me that I find it sick, but others do not so who is to say whose perspective is correct?, Insane people who kill for no reason think murder is ok. Want to debate that too?
On June 14 2013 17:15 wozzot wrote: Eh, as long as I can still eat meat. I don't think animals can consent to being eaten either but whatever
Yeah this is the really funny thing and nttea mentioned it earlier.
We can enslave and/or consume them but make love to them? You sick bastard!
Make love? LOL you're ridiculous!
lol it might sound funny but I watched a documentary on this sort of thing and I've seen videos on the internet that confirm some people do genuinely make love to animals, whether you can imagine yourself doing so or not is irrelevant, it happens.
I didn't think it was possible, but you just manage to be more ridiculous than your earlier post? Make love? Shall we go now and interview "couples" engaged in bestiality and ask how much they love each other to really feel the need to... make LOVE!!! lol how stupid is that!
You obviously know nothing about this topic so do us all a favour and stop posting asinine comments.
The most failed attempt at recovering from a stupid claim that people and animals can in fact make love.
Good lord making love is an expression synonymous with having sex, but usually implies an emotional connection or meaning behind the action than simply having sex.
Do you accept some people love animals? Do you accept some people have sex with animals?
If the answer to both of those questions is yes then why is it so difficult for your infant mind to wrap itself around the concept that some people consider their intimate relations with an animal to be love making?
Seriously, stop being a massive penis.
Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak.
I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise.
There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future.
Massive Facepalm.
dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care.
edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something.
doesn`t care in the context of love, let me clarify as that is the argument here. as to the rest of your post, accepted.
On June 14 2013 19:03 ExKkaMaGui wrote: I love it when humans try to ban bestiality because of the cruelty on animals... Of course, we cannot just go and ban it because it's fucking sick (please do not say that is debatable).
And to those that will tell me that I find it sick, but others do not so who is to say whose perspective is correct?, Insane people who kill for no reason think murder is ok. Want to debate that too?
Well some people think group sex is sick,or even a threesome.If you go around and start banning stuff that's "sick" to some people you might end up in a awkward situation.
@KwarK I think you are arguing against strawman when you say that idea behind the law hypocritical. I think the law is still about protecting animals from unnecessary harm. It just somewhat shifts the burden of proof. Before you had to prove harm to convict and now they consider all of animal sex to be causing animals to suffer. And the few cases that it does not are considered "tough luck". It is pretty common practice in lawmaking. Some activity is judged to be unethical in general and the few exceptions that are ok are deemed not worthy of loosening the law as it would affect effectivity of the law. Instead judges have discretion to not punish/punish less such cases where it is clear it was one of the exceptions.
And it actually HAS relation to sex with minors. Why do we ban sex with minors, not just because they cannot give consent. They cannot give consent in general and yet we are allowing them to do many potentially dangerous things. It is because sex with minors is deemed (potentially) harmful and cases where it might not be are not deemed practical to account for as it would cause greater harm in practice to loosen the law.
I am not saying I agree with their assessment about bestiality being necessarily worthy of such ban, but they are not necessarily being hypocrites, they are just making the existing law stricter based on common practice. I actually think it is a mistake as the harm done is not as severe as to warrant this approach, plus they are depriving some people from legally releasing their sexual tensions, which might has some unintended bad consequences.
Also to reiterate I am not arguing with you about humans being in ethics higher than animals. The relation to sex with minors is just in the same procedure being used for judging it banworthy, not in the actual ethical aspects of those two cases.
On June 14 2013 17:15 wozzot wrote: Eh, as long as I can still eat meat. I don't think animals can consent to being eaten either but whatever
Yeah this is the really funny thing and nttea mentioned it earlier.
We can enslave and/or consume them but make love to them? You sick bastard!
Make love? LOL you're ridiculous!
lol it might sound funny but I watched a documentary on this sort of thing and I've seen videos on the internet that confirm some people do genuinely make love to animals, whether you can imagine yourself doing so or not is irrelevant, it happens.
I didn't think it was possible, but you just manage to be more ridiculous than your earlier post? Make love? Shall we go now and interview "couples" engaged in bestiality and ask how much they love each other to really feel the need to... make LOVE!!! lol how stupid is that!
You obviously know nothing about this topic so do us all a favour and stop posting asinine comments.
The most failed attempt at recovering from a stupid claim that people and animals can in fact make love.
Good lord making love is an expression synonymous with having sex, but usually implies an emotional connection or meaning behind the action than simply having sex.
Do you accept some people love animals? Do you accept some people have sex with animals?
If the answer to both of those questions is yes then why is it so difficult for your infant mind to wrap itself around the concept that some people consider their intimate relations with an animal to be love making?
Seriously, stop being a massive penis.
Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak.
I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise.
There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future.
Massive Facepalm.
dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care.
edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something.
Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on.
That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse.
On June 14 2013 17:16 Reason wrote: [quote] Yeah this is the really funny thing and nttea mentioned it earlier.
We can enslave and/or consume them but make love to them? You sick bastard!
Make love? LOL you're ridiculous!
lol it might sound funny but I watched a documentary on this sort of thing and I've seen videos on the internet that confirm some people do genuinely make love to animals, whether you can imagine yourself doing so or not is irrelevant, it happens.
I didn't think it was possible, but you just manage to be more ridiculous than your earlier post? Make love? Shall we go now and interview "couples" engaged in bestiality and ask how much they love each other to really feel the need to... make LOVE!!! lol how stupid is that!
You obviously know nothing about this topic so do us all a favour and stop posting asinine comments.
The most failed attempt at recovering from a stupid claim that people and animals can in fact make love.
Good lord making love is an expression synonymous with having sex, but usually implies an emotional connection or meaning behind the action than simply having sex.
Do you accept some people love animals? Do you accept some people have sex with animals?
If the answer to both of those questions is yes then why is it so difficult for your infant mind to wrap itself around the concept that some people consider their intimate relations with an animal to be love making?
Seriously, stop being a massive penis.
Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak.
I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise.
There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future.
Massive Facepalm.
You are sure 99.99% of the time based on what evidence? 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise, based on what evidence?
I didn't declare that bestiality is an act of love.
You need to adjust your attitude very quickly and learn that your own ill-formed and baseless opinions are not universal truths and that if you want to have a discussion or post on this website you'll need to form and express your opinions with a little more humility and a little less pomposity.
You'll notice my original post was made in a jovial nature; enslave was used instead of domesticate, consume was used instead of eat and making love was used instead of having sex.
Learn to appreciate context.
It's your own words and definition that killed you.
99.99999% because you know, other than porn stars where it is common, there is really that rare chance that that goat herder really wants to develop a deeper connection with his goat. 100% of the time because an animal does not fuck to develop emotional connection with humans.
What the fuck is wrong with you.
You don't respond to my questions, you repeat yourself despite being wrong, you display ignorance on the topic and you are way too aggressive towards me. I won't be responding to you in this thread again, if you want to consider that victory or proof that I am wrong then along with your many other misconceptions and ignorant behaviours you are entitled to do so, though entirely unjustified.
There is nothing wrong with me, except perhaps an acute lack of patience for you and others of your ilk.
On June 14 2013 19:03 ExKkaMaGui wrote: I love it when humans try to ban bestiality because of the cruelty on animals... Of course, we cannot just go and ban it because it's fucking sick (please do not say that is debatable).
And to those that will tell me that I find it sick, but others do not so who is to say whose perspective is correct?, Insane people who kill for no reason think murder is ok. Want to debate that too?
Well some people think group sex is sick,or even a threesome.If you go around and start banning stuff that's "sick" to some people you might end up in a awkward situation.
I get what you are saying, and on almost any topic, I'd agree with you. But we are talking about fucking an animal. By your logic, should child pornography be legal? In any scenario the answer should be no, but by your logic, it should be.
This thread is a lot of fun actually. Based on the arguments, maybe change the title to "Should bestiality be allowed or not?" and not just limit if to Sweden. Fun read,
On June 14 2013 17:31 aNGryaRchon wrote: [quote] Make love? LOL you're ridiculous!
lol it might sound funny but I watched a documentary on this sort of thing and I've seen videos on the internet that confirm some people do genuinely make love to animals, whether you can imagine yourself doing so or not is irrelevant, it happens.
I didn't think it was possible, but you just manage to be more ridiculous than your earlier post? Make love? Shall we go now and interview "couples" engaged in bestiality and ask how much they love each other to really feel the need to... make LOVE!!! lol how stupid is that!
You obviously know nothing about this topic so do us all a favour and stop posting asinine comments.
The most failed attempt at recovering from a stupid claim that people and animals can in fact make love.
Good lord making love is an expression synonymous with having sex, but usually implies an emotional connection or meaning behind the action than simply having sex.
Do you accept some people love animals? Do you accept some people have sex with animals?
If the answer to both of those questions is yes then why is it so difficult for your infant mind to wrap itself around the concept that some people consider their intimate relations with an animal to be love making?
Seriously, stop being a massive penis.
Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak.
I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise.
There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future.
Massive Facepalm.
You are sure 99.99% of the time based on what evidence? 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise, based on what evidence?
I didn't declare that bestiality is an act of love.
You need to adjust your attitude very quickly and learn that your own ill-formed and baseless opinions are not universal truths and that if you want to have a discussion or post on this website you'll need to form and express your opinions with a little more humility and a little less pomposity.
You'll notice my original post was made in a jovial nature; enslave was used instead of domesticate, consume was used instead of eat and making love was used instead of having sex.
Learn to appreciate context.
It's your own words and definition that killed you.
99.99999% because you know, other than porn stars where it is common, there is really that rare chance that that goat herder really wants to develop a deeper connection with his goat. 100% of the time because an animal does not fuck to develop emotional connection with humans.
What the fuck is wrong with you.
You don't respond to my questions, you repeat yourself despite being wrong, you display ignorance on the topic and you are way too aggressive towards me. I won't be responding to you in this thread again, if you want to consider that victory or proof that I am wrong then along with your many other misconceptions and ignorant behaviours you are entitled to do so, though entirely unjustified.
There is nothing wrong with me, except perhaps an acute lack of patience for you and others of your ilk.
On June 14 2013 19:03 ExKkaMaGui wrote: I love it when humans try to ban bestiality because of the cruelty on animals... Of course, we cannot just go and ban it because it's fucking sick (please do not say that is debatable).
And to those that will tell me that I find it sick, but others do not so who is to say whose perspective is correct?, Insane people who kill for no reason think murder is ok. Want to debate that too?
Well some people think group sex is sick,or even a threesome.If you go around and start banning stuff that's "sick" to some people you might end up in a awkward situation.
I get what you are saying, and on almost any topic, I'd agree with you. But we are talking about fucking an animal. By your logic, should child pornography be legal? In any scenario the answer should be no, but by your logic, it should be.
Production of child pornography hurts children who are people and should be protected.
On June 14 2013 19:14 S:klogW wrote: This thread is a lot of fun actually. Based on the arguments, maybe change the title to "Should bestiality be allowed or not?" and not just limit if to Sweden. Fun read,
What do you think? Should it? Also, I agree it should be changed to that lol
On June 14 2013 19:03 ExKkaMaGui wrote: I love it when humans try to ban bestiality because of the cruelty on animals... Of course, we cannot just go and ban it because it's fucking sick (please do not say that is debatable).
And to those that will tell me that I find it sick, but others do not so who is to say whose perspective is correct?, Insane people who kill for no reason think murder is ok. Want to debate that too?
Well some people think group sex is sick,or even a threesome.If you go around and start banning stuff that's "sick" to some people you might end up in a awkward situation.
I get what you are saying, and on almost any topic, I'd agree with you. But we are talking about fucking an animal. By your logic, should child pornography be legal? In any scenario the answer should be no, but by your logic, it should be.
I think you missed the post where Kwark talked about consenting adults. I suggest you go read the post.
On June 14 2013 19:03 ExKkaMaGui wrote: I love it when humans try to ban bestiality because of the cruelty on animals... Of course, we cannot just go and ban it because it's fucking sick (please do not say that is debatable).
And to those that will tell me that I find it sick, but others do not so who is to say whose perspective is correct?, Insane people who kill for no reason think murder is ok. Want to debate that too?
Well some people think group sex is sick,or even a threesome.If you go around and start banning stuff that's "sick" to some people you might end up in a awkward situation.
I get what you are saying, and on almost any topic, I'd agree with you. But we are talking about fucking an animal. By your logic, should child pornography be legal? In any scenario the answer should be no, but by your logic, it should be.
Production of child pornography hurts children who are people and should be protected.
Saying that has as much basis as me saying, "Bestiality is disgusting and does not provide any positive value to our society. Thus, should be banned." In the end, it all depends on where you decide to draw the line.
On June 14 2013 19:03 ExKkaMaGui wrote: I love it when humans try to ban bestiality because of the cruelty on animals... Of course, we cannot just go and ban it because it's fucking sick (please do not say that is debatable).
And to those that will tell me that I find it sick, but others do not so who is to say whose perspective is correct?, Insane people who kill for no reason think murder is ok. Want to debate that too?
Well some people think group sex is sick,or even a threesome.If you go around and start banning stuff that's "sick" to some people you might end up in a awkward situation.
I get what you are saying, and on almost any topic, I'd agree with you. But we are talking about fucking an animal. By your logic, should child pornography be legal? In any scenario the answer should be no, but by your logic, it should be.
Production of child pornography hurts children who are people and should be protected.
Saying that has as much basis as me saying, "Bestiality is disgusting and does not provide any positive value to our society. Thus, should be banned." In the end, it all depends on where you decide to draw the line.
Yes, as with everything. Choosing to draw the line in a stupid place doesn't add anything to discussion though.
edit: and/or choosing to draw the line in a place that's inconsistent with where we've drawn other lines, which may be more pertinent in this instance
On June 14 2013 15:57 Orangered wrote: Sweden will soon introduce a total ban on bestiality, which until now has only been illegal if cruelty to the animal in terms of physical and psychological suffering could be proven. From January 1, any sexual act with an animal will be punishable by a fine, a maximum prison sentence of two years, or both, even if the animal shows no sign of injury or suffering.
Past legislation seems fine to me, why change it?
Also, the "not consentual" argument is bollocks. Animals don't consent to be slaughtered or forced to work either.
On June 14 2013 19:20 ExKkaMaGui wrote: I actually want to know how many people believe it shouldn't be illegal. Am I the only one that think it should ABSOLUTELY be banned?
Have you provided solid reasoning based on how we already treat animals on why it should ABSOLUTELY be banned? Apologies if I've missed it.
On June 14 2013 17:31 aNGryaRchon wrote: [quote] Make love? LOL you're ridiculous!
lol it might sound funny but I watched a documentary on this sort of thing and I've seen videos on the internet that confirm some people do genuinely make love to animals, whether you can imagine yourself doing so or not is irrelevant, it happens.
I didn't think it was possible, but you just manage to be more ridiculous than your earlier post? Make love? Shall we go now and interview "couples" engaged in bestiality and ask how much they love each other to really feel the need to... make LOVE!!! lol how stupid is that!
You obviously know nothing about this topic so do us all a favour and stop posting asinine comments.
The most failed attempt at recovering from a stupid claim that people and animals can in fact make love.
Good lord making love is an expression synonymous with having sex, but usually implies an emotional connection or meaning behind the action than simply having sex.
Do you accept some people love animals? Do you accept some people have sex with animals?
If the answer to both of those questions is yes then why is it so difficult for your infant mind to wrap itself around the concept that some people consider their intimate relations with an animal to be love making?
Seriously, stop being a massive penis.
Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak.
I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise.
There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future.
Massive Facepalm.
You are sure 99.99% of the time based on what evidence? 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise, based on what evidence?
I didn't declare that bestiality is an act of love.
You need to adjust your attitude very quickly and learn that your own ill-formed and baseless opinions are not universal truths and that if you want to have a discussion or post on this website you'll need to form and express your opinions with a little more humility and a little less pomposity.
You'll notice my original post was made in a jovial nature; enslave was used instead of domesticate, consume was used instead of eat and making love was used instead of having sex.
Learn to appreciate context.
It's your own words and definition that killed you.
99.99999% because you know, other than porn stars where it is common, there is really that rare chance that that goat herder really wants to develop a deeper connection with his goat. 100% of the time because an animal does not fuck to develop emotional connection with humans.
What the fuck is wrong with you.
You don't respond to my questions, you repeat yourself despite being wrong, you display ignorance on the topic and you are way too aggressive towards me. I won't be responding to you in this thread again, if you want to consider that victory or proof that I am wrong then along with your many other misconceptions and ignorant behaviours you are entitled to do so, though entirely unjustified.
There is nothing wrong with me, except perhaps an acute lack of patience for you and others of your ilk.
Lol I get this PM:
What the fuck is wrong with you indeed. Stop stating baseless opinion as fact and being so overly aggressive. You just got off a ban.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation, Nyovne
I admit the 99.99% might be a little off, depending on how many pervs actually get fucked by animals to develop emotional connection. But I am quite sure that 100% of the animals DO NOT DO IT - FUCKING OTHER ANIMALS OR PEOPLE - FOR EMOTIONAL CONNECTION. Which is the argument here, since a certain troll named "Reason" lol, stated that it is about developing emotional connection.
On June 14 2013 19:20 ExKkaMaGui wrote: I actually want to know how many people believe it shouldn't be illegal. Am I the only one that think it should ABSOLUTELY be banned?
Have you provided solid reasoning based on how we already treat animals on why it should ABSOLUTELY be banned? Apologies if I've missed it.
What I was trying to point out was that animal cruelty shouldn't even be considered in this case. We should ban it just because it's disgusting. All it promotes is all these lunatics to do crazy things, which definitely is negative to society. What about necrophilia? Should that be legal? I mean the corpses are all dead so any damage to the corpse wouldn't really harm an already dead corpse.
On June 14 2013 17:36 Reason wrote: [quote] lol it might sound funny but I watched a documentary on this sort of thing and I've seen videos on the internet that confirm some people do genuinely make love to animals, whether you can imagine yourself doing so or not is irrelevant, it happens.
I didn't think it was possible, but you just manage to be more ridiculous than your earlier post? Make love? Shall we go now and interview "couples" engaged in bestiality and ask how much they love each other to really feel the need to... make LOVE!!! lol how stupid is that!
You obviously know nothing about this topic so do us all a favour and stop posting asinine comments.
The most failed attempt at recovering from a stupid claim that people and animals can in fact make love.
Good lord making love is an expression synonymous with having sex, but usually implies an emotional connection or meaning behind the action than simply having sex.
Do you accept some people love animals? Do you accept some people have sex with animals?
If the answer to both of those questions is yes then why is it so difficult for your infant mind to wrap itself around the concept that some people consider their intimate relations with an animal to be love making?
Seriously, stop being a massive penis.
Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak.
I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise.
There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future.
Massive Facepalm.
You are sure 99.99% of the time based on what evidence? 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise, based on what evidence?
I didn't declare that bestiality is an act of love.
You need to adjust your attitude very quickly and learn that your own ill-formed and baseless opinions are not universal truths and that if you want to have a discussion or post on this website you'll need to form and express your opinions with a little more humility and a little less pomposity.
You'll notice my original post was made in a jovial nature; enslave was used instead of domesticate, consume was used instead of eat and making love was used instead of having sex.
Learn to appreciate context.
It's your own words and definition that killed you.
99.99999% because you know, other than porn stars where it is common, there is really that rare chance that that goat herder really wants to develop a deeper connection with his goat. 100% of the time because an animal does not fuck to develop emotional connection with humans.
What the fuck is wrong with you.
You don't respond to my questions, you repeat yourself despite being wrong, you display ignorance on the topic and you are way too aggressive towards me. I won't be responding to you in this thread again, if you want to consider that victory or proof that I am wrong then along with your many other misconceptions and ignorant behaviours you are entitled to do so, though entirely unjustified.
There is nothing wrong with me, except perhaps an acute lack of patience for you and others of your ilk.
Lol I get this PM:
What the fuck is wrong with you indeed. Stop stating baseless opinion as fact and being so overly aggressive. You just got off a ban.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation, Nyovne
I admit the 99.99% might be a little off, depending on how many pervs actually get fucked by animals to develop emotional connection. But I am quite sure that 100% of the animals DO NOT DO IT - FUCKING OTHER ANIMALS OR PEOPLE - FOR EMOTIONAL CONNECTION. Which is the argument here, since a certain troll named "Reason" lol, stated that it is about developing emotional connection.
I rest my case.
Dude CALM. THE FUCK. DOWN. How old are you seriously? "Make love" is an idiomatic expression. Reason was wrong to elaborate on the emotional connection, but really there is no need to crucify him for that mistake. I would really have reported you but I thought both of you exchanging nonsense garbage that is totally not relevant to this thread is too damn funny.
On June 14 2013 19:03 ExKkaMaGui wrote: I love it when humans try to ban bestiality because of the cruelty on animals... Of course, we cannot just go and ban it because it's fucking sick (please do not say that is debatable).
And to those that will tell me that I find it sick, but others do not so who is to say whose perspective is correct?, Insane people who kill for no reason think murder is ok. Want to debate that too?
Well some people think group sex is sick,or even a threesome.If you go around and start banning stuff that's "sick" to some people you might end up in a awkward situation.
I get what you are saying, and on almost any topic, I'd agree with you. But we are talking about fucking an animal. By your logic, should child pornography be legal? In any scenario the answer should be no, but by your logic, it should be.
Production of child pornography hurts children who are people and should be protected.
Saying that has as much basis as me saying, "Bestiality is disgusting and does not provide any positive value to our society. Thus, should be banned." In the end, it all depends on where you decide to draw the line.
Picking your nose and eating it is disgusting and does not provide any positive value to our society. Is that really the standard we want to be using when determining whether an act should be legislated against?
I'm of the opinion that beastiality really belongs under the umbrella of cruelty to animals. Causing an animal to suffer unnecessarily shouldn't be legal, and how you interact with an animal shouldn't be legislated body part by body part, or by your physiological response to the interaction.
On June 14 2013 17:36 Reason wrote: [quote] lol it might sound funny but I watched a documentary on this sort of thing and I've seen videos on the internet that confirm some people do genuinely make love to animals, whether you can imagine yourself doing so or not is irrelevant, it happens.
I didn't think it was possible, but you just manage to be more ridiculous than your earlier post? Make love? Shall we go now and interview "couples" engaged in bestiality and ask how much they love each other to really feel the need to... make LOVE!!! lol how stupid is that!
You obviously know nothing about this topic so do us all a favour and stop posting asinine comments.
The most failed attempt at recovering from a stupid claim that people and animals can in fact make love.
Good lord making love is an expression synonymous with having sex, but usually implies an emotional connection or meaning behind the action than simply having sex.
Do you accept some people love animals? Do you accept some people have sex with animals?
If the answer to both of those questions is yes then why is it so difficult for your infant mind to wrap itself around the concept that some people consider their intimate relations with an animal to be love making?
Seriously, stop being a massive penis.
Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak.
I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise.
There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future.
Massive Facepalm.
You are sure 99.99% of the time based on what evidence? 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise, based on what evidence?
I didn't declare that bestiality is an act of love.
You need to adjust your attitude very quickly and learn that your own ill-formed and baseless opinions are not universal truths and that if you want to have a discussion or post on this website you'll need to form and express your opinions with a little more humility and a little less pomposity.
You'll notice my original post was made in a jovial nature; enslave was used instead of domesticate, consume was used instead of eat and making love was used instead of having sex.
Learn to appreciate context.
It's your own words and definition that killed you.
99.99999% because you know, other than porn stars where it is common, there is really that rare chance that that goat herder really wants to develop a deeper connection with his goat. 100% of the time because an animal does not fuck to develop emotional connection with humans.
What the fuck is wrong with you.
You don't respond to my questions, you repeat yourself despite being wrong, you display ignorance on the topic and you are way too aggressive towards me. I won't be responding to you in this thread again, if you want to consider that victory or proof that I am wrong then along with your many other misconceptions and ignorant behaviours you are entitled to do so, though entirely unjustified.
There is nothing wrong with me, except perhaps an acute lack of patience for you and others of your ilk.
I hope you respond to him again so I can laugh.
Okay fine, if you're getting some amusement from his self inflicted public humiliation then who am I to end the party?
aNGryaRchon hasn't done a good job of making his argument, but what he attempted to say is this: You can't make love to animals because they don't feel the same way towards you.
This argument of semantics is off topic but if you really want to get into it, there's no concrete definition of the expression so I can use it however I like.
To quote some random girl from yahoo answers:
"making love is when you have sex with someone you love and care about. Having sex is something you do just to do and with whoever. When me and my b/f started to have sex he would call it making sex cuz he didn't want to seem like a dork for saying making love. making sex is a great medium."
Based on her definition, which is the one I share, I'm justified in using that terminology. There is no stipulation that the held affection must be mutual, I could "make love" to a girl and she could just consider it to be "sex" with no emotional connection whatsoever, just because his personal interpretation of "making love" involves both parties feeling the same way doesn't mean that he's right or warrant his repeated attacks on me.
Based on his most recent post he is clearly confused about this.
On June 14 2013 16:00 JustPassingBy wrote: Can't you just persecute the people for animal cruelty? If that is not "enough", then perhaps the animal cruelty laws do not go far enough. But I see no reason to create another extra law for that.
this. Same happened in Germany just recently. It was (under circumstances) already forbidden under animal cruelty laws, but they created a new law anyways. Easy catch for politicians because no one would really object but a really useless law anyway.
On June 14 2013 17:36 Reason wrote: [quote] lol it might sound funny but I watched a documentary on this sort of thing and I've seen videos on the internet that confirm some people do genuinely make love to animals, whether you can imagine yourself doing so or not is irrelevant, it happens.
I didn't think it was possible, but you just manage to be more ridiculous than your earlier post? Make love? Shall we go now and interview "couples" engaged in bestiality and ask how much they love each other to really feel the need to... make LOVE!!! lol how stupid is that!
You obviously know nothing about this topic so do us all a favour and stop posting asinine comments.
The most failed attempt at recovering from a stupid claim that people and animals can in fact make love.
Good lord making love is an expression synonymous with having sex, but usually implies an emotional connection or meaning behind the action than simply having sex.
Do you accept some people love animals? Do you accept some people have sex with animals?
If the answer to both of those questions is yes then why is it so difficult for your infant mind to wrap itself around the concept that some people consider their intimate relations with an animal to be love making?
Seriously, stop being a massive penis.
Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak.
I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise.
There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future.
Massive Facepalm.
You are sure 99.99% of the time based on what evidence? 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise, based on what evidence?
I didn't declare that bestiality is an act of love.
You need to adjust your attitude very quickly and learn that your own ill-formed and baseless opinions are not universal truths and that if you want to have a discussion or post on this website you'll need to form and express your opinions with a little more humility and a little less pomposity.
You'll notice my original post was made in a jovial nature; enslave was used instead of domesticate, consume was used instead of eat and making love was used instead of having sex.
Learn to appreciate context.
It's your own words and definition that killed you.
99.99999% because you know, other than porn stars where it is common, there is really that rare chance that that goat herder really wants to develop a deeper connection with his goat. 100% of the time because an animal does not fuck to develop emotional connection with humans.
What the fuck is wrong with you.
You don't respond to my questions, you repeat yourself despite being wrong, you display ignorance on the topic and you are way too aggressive towards me. I won't be responding to you in this thread again, if you want to consider that victory or proof that I am wrong then along with your many other misconceptions and ignorant behaviours you are entitled to do so, though entirely unjustified.
There is nothing wrong with me, except perhaps an acute lack of patience for you and others of your ilk.
Lol I get this PM:
What the fuck is wrong with you indeed. Stop stating baseless opinion as fact and being so overly aggressive. You just got off a ban.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation, Nyovne
I admit the 99.99% might be a little off, depending on how many pervs actually get fucked by animals to develop emotional connection. But I am quite sure that 100% of the animals DO NOT DO IT - FUCKING OTHER ANIMALS OR PEOPLE - FOR EMOTIONAL CONNECTION. Which is the argument here, since a certain troll named "Reason" lol, stated that it is about developing emotional connection.
I rest my case.
I think this is the reason why discussion rarely go anywhere. People always have this mentality that a discussion is where you try to prove a point and that their claim is infallible (of course, the other guy thinks the same way). That's why it basically ends up with 2 people disagreeing in a heated debate. Even knowledgeable philosophers do this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittgenstein's_Poker
On June 14 2013 19:03 ExKkaMaGui wrote: I love it when humans try to ban bestiality because of the cruelty on animals... Of course, we cannot just go and ban it because it's fucking sick (please do not say that is debatable).
And to those that will tell me that I find it sick, but others do not so who is to say whose perspective is correct?, Insane people who kill for no reason think murder is ok. Want to debate that too?
Well some people think group sex is sick,or even a threesome.If you go around and start banning stuff that's "sick" to some people you might end up in a awkward situation.
I get what you are saying, and on almost any topic, I'd agree with you. But we are talking about fucking an animal. By your logic, should child pornography be legal? In any scenario the answer should be no, but by your logic, it should be.
Production of child pornography hurts children who are people and should be protected.
Saying that has as much basis as me saying, "Bestiality is disgusting and does not provide any positive value to our society. Thus, should be banned." In the end, it all depends on where you decide to draw the line.
Picking your nose and eating it is disgusting and does not provide any positive value to our society. Is that really the standard we want to be using when determining whether an act should be legislated against?
I'm of the opinion that beastiality really belongs under the umbrella of cruelty to animals. Causing an animal to suffer unnecessarily shouldn't be legal, and how you interact with an animal shouldn't be legislated body part by body part, or by your physiological response to the interaction.
Exactly, good point. So my question is, where would you draw the line? I personally feel that this kind of shit shouldnt even be up for question. If you think this is debatable, where would you personally draw the line? In the end, it's all opinion, and no one is truly right.
On June 14 2013 19:03 ExKkaMaGui wrote: I love it when humans try to ban bestiality because of the cruelty on animals... Of course, we cannot just go and ban it because it's fucking sick (please do not say that is debatable).
And to those that will tell me that I find it sick, but others do not so who is to say whose perspective is correct?, Insane people who kill for no reason think murder is ok. Want to debate that too?
Well some people think group sex is sick,or even a threesome.If you go around and start banning stuff that's "sick" to some people you might end up in a awkward situation.
I get what you are saying, and on almost any topic, I'd agree with you. But we are talking about fucking an animal. By your logic, should child pornography be legal? In any scenario the answer should be no, but by your logic, it should be.
Production of child pornography hurts children who are people and should be protected.
Saying that has as much basis as me saying, "Bestiality is disgusting and does not provide any positive value to our society. Thus, should be banned." In the end, it all depends on where you decide to draw the line.
Picking your nose and eating it is disgusting and does not provide any positive value to our society. Is that really the standard we want to be using when determining whether an act should be legislated against?
I'm of the opinion that beastiality really belongs under the umbrella of cruelty to animals. Causing an animal to suffer unnecessarily shouldn't be legal, and how you interact with an animal shouldn't be legislated body part by body part, or by your physiological response to the interaction.
This topic is really beyond my field of expertise, but what is the argument towards claiming that there is cruelty to animals in acts of bestiality? How do you define cruelty, or suffering? Honest question.
On June 14 2013 17:16 Reason wrote: [quote] Yeah this is the really funny thing and nttea mentioned it earlier.
We can enslave and/or consume them but make love to them? You sick bastard!
Make love? LOL you're ridiculous!
lol it might sound funny but I watched a documentary on this sort of thing and I've seen videos on the internet that confirm some people do genuinely make love to animals, whether you can imagine yourself doing so or not is irrelevant, it happens.
I didn't think it was possible, but you just manage to be more ridiculous than your earlier post? Make love? Shall we go now and interview "couples" engaged in bestiality and ask how much they love each other to really feel the need to... make LOVE!!! lol how stupid is that!
You obviously know nothing about this topic so do us all a favour and stop posting asinine comments.
The most failed attempt at recovering from a stupid claim that people and animals can in fact make love.
Good lord making love is an expression synonymous with having sex, but usually implies an emotional connection or meaning behind the action than simply having sex.
Do you accept some people love animals? Do you accept some people have sex with animals?
If the answer to both of those questions is yes then why is it so difficult for your infant mind to wrap itself around the concept that some people consider their intimate relations with an animal to be love making?
Seriously, stop being a massive penis.
Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak.
I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise.
There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future.
Massive Facepalm.
dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care.
edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something.
Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on.
That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse.
so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves.
On June 14 2013 19:03 ExKkaMaGui wrote: I love it when humans try to ban bestiality because of the cruelty on animals... Of course, we cannot just go and ban it because it's fucking sick (please do not say that is debatable).
And to those that will tell me that I find it sick, but others do not so who is to say whose perspective is correct?, Insane people who kill for no reason think murder is ok. Want to debate that too?
Well some people think group sex is sick,or even a threesome.If you go around and start banning stuff that's "sick" to some people you might end up in a awkward situation.
I get what you are saying, and on almost any topic, I'd agree with you. But we are talking about fucking an animal. By your logic, should child pornography be legal? In any scenario the answer should be no, but by your logic, it should be.
Production of child pornography hurts children who are people and should be protected.
Saying that has as much basis as me saying, "Bestiality is disgusting and does not provide any positive value to our society. Thus, should be banned." In the end, it all depends on where you decide to draw the line.
Picking your nose and eating it is disgusting and does not provide any positive value to our society. Is that really the standard we want to be using when determining whether an act should be legislated against?
I'm of the opinion that beastiality really belongs under the umbrella of cruelty to animals. Causing an animal to suffer unnecessarily shouldn't be legal, and how you interact with an animal shouldn't be legislated body part by body part, or by your physiological response to the interaction.
This topic is really beyond my field of expertise, but what is the argument towards claiming that there is cruelty to animals in acts of bestiality? How do you define cruelty, or suffering? Honest question.
I am guessing that the cruelty has to do with physical damage that results from the sex. Now, there could definitely be psychological damage, but that could never be proven right now. The animal might not even react negatively to it, but that doesn't mean it didn't suffer.
On June 14 2013 16:16 FoxShine wrote: "It's called 'Interspecies Erotica' you jackass" Nah but seriously, how isn't this illegal already? You can be thrown in jail for having sex with a 17 year old.. You would think this a no brainer.
On June 14 2013 17:58 aNGryaRchon wrote: [quote] I didn't think it was possible, but you just manage to be more ridiculous than your earlier post? Make love? Shall we go now and interview "couples" engaged in bestiality and ask how much they love each other to really feel the need to... make LOVE!!! lol how stupid is that!
You obviously know nothing about this topic so do us all a favour and stop posting asinine comments.
The most failed attempt at recovering from a stupid claim that people and animals can in fact make love.
Good lord making love is an expression synonymous with having sex, but usually implies an emotional connection or meaning behind the action than simply having sex.
Do you accept some people love animals? Do you accept some people have sex with animals?
If the answer to both of those questions is yes then why is it so difficult for your infant mind to wrap itself around the concept that some people consider their intimate relations with an animal to be love making?
Seriously, stop being a massive penis.
Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak.
I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise.
There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future.
Massive Facepalm.
You are sure 99.99% of the time based on what evidence? 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise, based on what evidence?
I didn't declare that bestiality is an act of love.
You need to adjust your attitude very quickly and learn that your own ill-formed and baseless opinions are not universal truths and that if you want to have a discussion or post on this website you'll need to form and express your opinions with a little more humility and a little less pomposity.
You'll notice my original post was made in a jovial nature; enslave was used instead of domesticate, consume was used instead of eat and making love was used instead of having sex.
Learn to appreciate context.
It's your own words and definition that killed you.
99.99999% because you know, other than porn stars where it is common, there is really that rare chance that that goat herder really wants to develop a deeper connection with his goat. 100% of the time because an animal does not fuck to develop emotional connection with humans.
What the fuck is wrong with you.
You don't respond to my questions, you repeat yourself despite being wrong, you display ignorance on the topic and you are way too aggressive towards me. I won't be responding to you in this thread again, if you want to consider that victory or proof that I am wrong then along with your many other misconceptions and ignorant behaviours you are entitled to do so, though entirely unjustified.
There is nothing wrong with me, except perhaps an acute lack of patience for you and others of your ilk.
Lol I get this PM:
What the fuck is wrong with you indeed. Stop stating baseless opinion as fact and being so overly aggressive. You just got off a ban.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation, Nyovne
I admit the 99.99% might be a little off, depending on how many pervs actually get fucked by animals to develop emotional connection. But I am quite sure that 100% of the animals DO NOT DO IT - FUCKING OTHER ANIMALS OR PEOPLE - FOR EMOTIONAL CONNECTION. Which is the argument here, since a certain troll named "Reason" lol, stated that it is about developing emotional connection.
I rest my case.
Dude CALM. THE FUCK. DOWN. How old are you seriously? "Make love" is an idiomatic expression. Reason was wrong to elaborate on the emotional connection, but really there is no need to crucify him for that mistake. I would really have reported you but I thought both of you exchanging nonsense garbage that is totally not relevant to this thread is too damn funny.
I wasn't wrong to elaborate on the emotional connection, despite my original post being in half jest, people do make love to animals.
It wasn't a mistake to say that and if his subsequent spewing of bullshit constitutes crucifixion then call me Jesus Christ.
On June 14 2013 17:16 Reason wrote: [quote] Yeah this is the really funny thing and nttea mentioned it earlier.
We can enslave and/or consume them but make love to them? You sick bastard!
Make love? LOL you're ridiculous!
lol it might sound funny but I watched a documentary on this sort of thing and I've seen videos on the internet that confirm some people do genuinely make love to animals, whether you can imagine yourself doing so or not is irrelevant, it happens.
I didn't think it was possible, but you just manage to be more ridiculous than your earlier post? Make love? Shall we go now and interview "couples" engaged in bestiality and ask how much they love each other to really feel the need to... make LOVE!!! lol how stupid is that!
You obviously know nothing about this topic so do us all a favour and stop posting asinine comments.
The most failed attempt at recovering from a stupid claim that people and animals can in fact make love.
Good lord making love is an expression synonymous with having sex, but usually implies an emotional connection or meaning behind the action than simply having sex.
Do you accept some people love animals? Do you accept some people have sex with animals?
If the answer to both of those questions is yes then why is it so difficult for your infant mind to wrap itself around the concept that some people consider their intimate relations with an animal to be love making?
Seriously, stop being a massive penis.
Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak.
I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise.
There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future.
Massive Facepalm.
dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care.
edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something.
doesn`t care in the context of love, let me clarify as that is the argument here. as to the rest of your post, accepted.
love is a human concept. also, universal morality would disagree with you.
On June 14 2013 18:16 Reason wrote: [quote] You obviously know nothing about this topic so do us all a favour and stop posting asinine comments.
The most failed attempt at recovering from a stupid claim that people and animals can in fact make love.
Good lord making love is an expression synonymous with having sex, but usually implies an emotional connection or meaning behind the action than simply having sex.
Do you accept some people love animals? Do you accept some people have sex with animals?
If the answer to both of those questions is yes then why is it so difficult for your infant mind to wrap itself around the concept that some people consider their intimate relations with an animal to be love making?
Seriously, stop being a massive penis.
Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak.
I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise.
There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future.
Massive Facepalm.
You are sure 99.99% of the time based on what evidence? 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise, based on what evidence?
I didn't declare that bestiality is an act of love.
You need to adjust your attitude very quickly and learn that your own ill-formed and baseless opinions are not universal truths and that if you want to have a discussion or post on this website you'll need to form and express your opinions with a little more humility and a little less pomposity.
You'll notice my original post was made in a jovial nature; enslave was used instead of domesticate, consume was used instead of eat and making love was used instead of having sex.
Learn to appreciate context.
It's your own words and definition that killed you.
99.99999% because you know, other than porn stars where it is common, there is really that rare chance that that goat herder really wants to develop a deeper connection with his goat. 100% of the time because an animal does not fuck to develop emotional connection with humans.
What the fuck is wrong with you.
You don't respond to my questions, you repeat yourself despite being wrong, you display ignorance on the topic and you are way too aggressive towards me. I won't be responding to you in this thread again, if you want to consider that victory or proof that I am wrong then along with your many other misconceptions and ignorant behaviours you are entitled to do so, though entirely unjustified.
There is nothing wrong with me, except perhaps an acute lack of patience for you and others of your ilk.
Lol I get this PM:
What the fuck is wrong with you indeed. Stop stating baseless opinion as fact and being so overly aggressive. You just got off a ban.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation, Nyovne
I admit the 99.99% might be a little off, depending on how many pervs actually get fucked by animals to develop emotional connection. But I am quite sure that 100% of the animals DO NOT DO IT - FUCKING OTHER ANIMALS OR PEOPLE - FOR EMOTIONAL CONNECTION. Which is the argument here, since a certain troll named "Reason" lol, stated that it is about developing emotional connection.
I rest my case.
Dude CALM. THE FUCK. DOWN. How old are you seriously? "Make love" is an idiomatic expression. Reason was wrong to elaborate on the emotional connection, but really there is no need to crucify him for that mistake. I would really have reported you but I thought both of you exchanging nonsense garbage that is totally not relevant to this thread is too damn funny.
I wasn't wrong to elaborate on the emotional connection, despite my original post being in half jest, people do make love to animals.
It wasn't a mistake to say that and if his subsequent spewing of bullshit constitutes crucifixion then call me Jesus Christ.
To be honest, I don't know for certain if people "make love" to animals, but I definitely think there's quite of few of them out there. I mean... we had a guy eat another guy's face. Don't think it is out of the question that someone would do that considering there's tons of crazier things.
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.
Using the same logic, would It be cool if I tucked my penis inside a woman who's passed out? I mean she won't get harmed - I make gentle loving and Ill use protection and she won't remember a thing. Also, it's a well-known fact that men outrank women in our day and age - just look at any statitistics - they'll confirm that woman are infact inferior to men. Guess Ill be hitting town tonight!
Sorry, clearly you're confused by your colossal amount of idiocy. When I said I was fine with this because no animal was being harmed I wasn't suggesting that that was the only way of judging whether something was right or wrong. Rape is wrong, even though it doesn't involve any animals at all. I brought up harm of animals because it is eminently relevant to this issue but it's actually less relevant to other issues such as rape which doesn't involve any animals at all. There are things which make things bad and in this case harm of animals would be one of them but in other cases we might use other factors. Hopefully that clears up my point for you so you can avoid making such incredibly, obscenely stupid straw men arguments in future.
I dont mind having this discussion - not that thers much to discuss, we think different about the subject, but if you can't play nice I'll go and spend time in another thread...
You think you were making an actual point but you didn't, instead what you did was brought up something that was not only an irrelevant straw man but also something that was incredibly personally offensive to me.
If I offended you with that post I'm sorry, but calling "X outranks Y and therefore X can do whatever it fucking likes" is in my eyes the worst kind of justification. And who are we to tell whos getting harmed in the process? Last time i checked animals (cept a few) didn't have intercourse for other reasons than reproduction. I agree with you; there are more aspects to it than that, but just because you can do something does in no way or form justify doing it.
If you believe that humans don't outrank animals then I have some bad news for you about where food comes from.
Well, that's called nature. The stronger survives. Eat, or be eaten. Fucking animals is just sick and wrong, i don't know why we're even discussing about how that's right or wrong.
Nothing natural about the domestication of the chicken. It's an animal that is perfectly on its period that we eat. Drinking cow milk is pretty fucking weird too.
wow....I'm speechless. OK I can't even believe there is a debate going on about humans and animals outranking each-other or whether or not the animal is getting hurt... or about eggs or milk or meat or anything.. Human's do not outrank animals. A beaver killed an old man a while back. A tiger or a bear will destroy you 1 on 1 or have it's bloody way with you. We as human's have a responsibility to the animals on this planet. We are part of the ecosystem and if we destroy it we destroy ourselves. Hell microbes can even kill us, or a virus. heh were talking the most minute form of life.
Lol I'm so drunk and i just watched Clerk's 2 last night..."inter-species erotica" So I'm going to take a minute and burn Kwark here or anything else making similar claims in this thread. I wouldn't expect a mod to take this issue so seriously. I understand playing devil's advocate for argument's sake but this is ridiculous.
This is how it is folks. If you are fucking an Animal it is because you cannot fuck a woman, or a man if you are a gay, it's probably because you are probably a hideous shut in.. If you are sexually attracted to an animal you have a psycho-sexual disorder, whether it is an intense perversion or a compulsion or just straight schizo. Something in your brain is not right. You can catch a disease and pass it to somebody else...It's unsanitary and dangerous and bad for our society.
You are abusing an animal, who has no sense. It's like abusing a child who doesn't know any better. It's morally abusive.. At least if the child is of the same species and has gone through puberty its biologically compatible. It is wrong, sick and retarded in either case because human beings should know better.
The most important factor is that - your a fucking weirdo if you do. Period. There is no arguing with this. There are no fallacies you are grossly deviating from socially accepted behavior. It is not normal or acceptable for a human being to fuck an animal, under any circumstances. It doesn't matter if an animal is in heat or you 'trained' it and its not being hurt. It's just idiotic, and perverted, not to mention dangerous. It's not about opinion it's about right and wrong. Sanitation is necessary for our survival and we have spent along time developing our society not to have it fucked up by some psycho-sexual retards. /end rant /burn
On June 14 2013 17:31 aNGryaRchon wrote: [quote] Make love? LOL you're ridiculous!
lol it might sound funny but I watched a documentary on this sort of thing and I've seen videos on the internet that confirm some people do genuinely make love to animals, whether you can imagine yourself doing so or not is irrelevant, it happens.
I didn't think it was possible, but you just manage to be more ridiculous than your earlier post? Make love? Shall we go now and interview "couples" engaged in bestiality and ask how much they love each other to really feel the need to... make LOVE!!! lol how stupid is that!
You obviously know nothing about this topic so do us all a favour and stop posting asinine comments.
The most failed attempt at recovering from a stupid claim that people and animals can in fact make love.
Good lord making love is an expression synonymous with having sex, but usually implies an emotional connection or meaning behind the action than simply having sex.
Do you accept some people love animals? Do you accept some people have sex with animals?
If the answer to both of those questions is yes then why is it so difficult for your infant mind to wrap itself around the concept that some people consider their intimate relations with an animal to be love making?
Seriously, stop being a massive penis.
Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak.
I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise.
There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future.
Massive Facepalm.
dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care.
edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something.
doesn`t care in the context of love, let me clarify as that is the argument here. as to the rest of your post, accepted.
love is a human concept. also, universal morality would disagree with you.
First time I read someone say something that makes sense to me.
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.
Using the same logic, would It be cool if I tucked my penis inside a woman who's passed out? I mean she won't get harmed - I make gentle loving and Ill use protection and she won't remember a thing. Also, it's a well-known fact that men outrank women in our day and age - just look at any statitistics - they'll confirm that woman are infact inferior to men. Guess Ill be hitting town tonight!
Sorry, clearly you're confused by your colossal amount of idiocy. When I said I was fine with this because no animal was being harmed I wasn't suggesting that that was the only way of judging whether something was right or wrong. Rape is wrong, even though it doesn't involve any animals at all. I brought up harm of animals because it is eminently relevant to this issue but it's actually less relevant to other issues such as rape which doesn't involve any animals at all. There are things which make things bad and in this case harm of animals would be one of them but in other cases we might use other factors. Hopefully that clears up my point for you so you can avoid making such incredibly, obscenely stupid straw men arguments in future.
I dont mind having this discussion - not that thers much to discuss, we think different about the subject, but if you can't play nice I'll go and spend time in another thread...
You think you were making an actual point but you didn't, instead what you did was brought up something that was not only an irrelevant straw man but also something that was incredibly personally offensive to me.
If I offended you with that post I'm sorry, but calling "X outranks Y and therefore X can do whatever it fucking likes" is in my eyes the worst kind of justification. And who are we to tell whos getting harmed in the process? Last time i checked animals (cept a few) didn't have intercourse for other reasons than reproduction. I agree with you; there are more aspects to it than that, but just because you can do something does in no way or form justify doing it.
If you believe that humans don't outrank animals then I have some bad news for you about where food comes from.
Well, that's called nature. The stronger survives. Eat, or be eaten. Fucking animals is just sick and wrong, i don't know why we're even discussing about how that's right or wrong.
Nothing natural about the domestication of the chicken. It's an animal that is perfectly on its period that we eat. Drinking cow milk is pretty fucking weird too.
wow....I'm speechless. OK I can't even believe there is a debate going on about humans and animals outranking each-other or whether or not the animal is getting hurt... or about eggs or milk or meat or anything.. Human's do not outrank animals. A beaver killed an old man a while back. A tiger or a bear will destroy you 1 on 1 or have it's bloody way with you. We as human's have a responsibility to the animals on this planet. We are part of the ecosystem and if we destroy it we destroy ourselves. Hell microbes can even kill us, or a virus. heh were talking the most minute form of life.
Lol I'm so drunk and i just watched Clerk's 2 last night..."inter-species erotica" So I'm going to take a minute and burn Kwark here or anything else making similar claims in this thread. I wouldn't expect a mod to take this issue so seriously. I understand playing devil's advocate for argument's sake but this is ridiculous.
This is how it is folks. If you are fucking an Animal it is because you cannot fuck a woman, or a man if you are a gay, it's probably because you are probably a hideous shut in.. If you are sexually attracted to an animal you have a psycho-sexual disorder, whether it is an intense perversion or a compulsion or just straight schizo. Something in your brain is not right. You can catch a disease and pass it to somebody else...It's unsanitary and dangerous and bad for our society.
You are abusing an animal, who has no sense. It's like abusing a child who doesn't know any better. It's morally abusive.. At least if the child is of the same species and has gone through puberty its biologically compatible. It is wrong, sick and retarded in either case because human beings should know better.
The most important factor is that - your a fucking weirdo if you do. Period. There is no arguing with this. There are no fallacies you are grossly deviating from socially accepted behavior. It is not normal or acceptable for a human being to fuck an animal, under any circumstances. It doesn't matter if an animal is in heat or you 'trained' it and its not being hurt. It's just idiotic, and perverted, not to mention dangerous. It's not about opinion it's about right and wrong. Sanitation is necessary for our survival and we have spent along time developing our society not to have it fucked up by some psycho-sexual retards. /end rant /burn
I didn't put it that way, but THANK GOD there's someone who feel the same way as me about this. BUT humans outrank animals in my eyes. I wouldn't abuse them, but we are far superior.
On June 14 2013 17:31 aNGryaRchon wrote: [quote] Make love? LOL you're ridiculous!
lol it might sound funny but I watched a documentary on this sort of thing and I've seen videos on the internet that confirm some people do genuinely make love to animals, whether you can imagine yourself doing so or not is irrelevant, it happens.
I didn't think it was possible, but you just manage to be more ridiculous than your earlier post? Make love? Shall we go now and interview "couples" engaged in bestiality and ask how much they love each other to really feel the need to... make LOVE!!! lol how stupid is that!
You obviously know nothing about this topic so do us all a favour and stop posting asinine comments.
The most failed attempt at recovering from a stupid claim that people and animals can in fact make love.
Good lord making love is an expression synonymous with having sex, but usually implies an emotional connection or meaning behind the action than simply having sex.
Do you accept some people love animals? Do you accept some people have sex with animals?
If the answer to both of those questions is yes then why is it so difficult for your infant mind to wrap itself around the concept that some people consider their intimate relations with an animal to be love making?
Seriously, stop being a massive penis.
Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak.
I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise.
There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future.
Massive Facepalm.
dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care.
edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something.
Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on.
That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse.
so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves.
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
On June 14 2013 17:36 Reason wrote: [quote] lol it might sound funny but I watched a documentary on this sort of thing and I've seen videos on the internet that confirm some people do genuinely make love to animals, whether you can imagine yourself doing so or not is irrelevant, it happens.
I didn't think it was possible, but you just manage to be more ridiculous than your earlier post? Make love? Shall we go now and interview "couples" engaged in bestiality and ask how much they love each other to really feel the need to... make LOVE!!! lol how stupid is that!
You obviously know nothing about this topic so do us all a favour and stop posting asinine comments.
The most failed attempt at recovering from a stupid claim that people and animals can in fact make love.
Good lord making love is an expression synonymous with having sex, but usually implies an emotional connection or meaning behind the action than simply having sex.
Do you accept some people love animals? Do you accept some people have sex with animals?
If the answer to both of those questions is yes then why is it so difficult for your infant mind to wrap itself around the concept that some people consider their intimate relations with an animal to be love making?
Seriously, stop being a massive penis.
Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak.
I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise.
There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future.
Massive Facepalm.
dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care.
edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something.
Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on.
That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse.
so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves.
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
I agree with you, but if I know that people in my community are fucking animals, to me, that's a harm because it bothers me that there are people out there that do that.
On June 14 2013 17:58 aNGryaRchon wrote: [quote] I didn't think it was possible, but you just manage to be more ridiculous than your earlier post? Make love? Shall we go now and interview "couples" engaged in bestiality and ask how much they love each other to really feel the need to... make LOVE!!! lol how stupid is that!
You obviously know nothing about this topic so do us all a favour and stop posting asinine comments.
The most failed attempt at recovering from a stupid claim that people and animals can in fact make love.
Good lord making love is an expression synonymous with having sex, but usually implies an emotional connection or meaning behind the action than simply having sex.
Do you accept some people love animals? Do you accept some people have sex with animals?
If the answer to both of those questions is yes then why is it so difficult for your infant mind to wrap itself around the concept that some people consider their intimate relations with an animal to be love making?
Seriously, stop being a massive penis.
Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak.
I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise.
There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future.
Massive Facepalm.
dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care.
edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something.
Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on.
That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse.
so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves.
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
I agree with you, but if I know that people in my community are fucking animals, to me, that's a harm because it bothers me that there are people out there that do that.
I think you don't know what the word harm means. I think that attitude is far more harmful to society than some guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home yet you don't see me sending you to jail for it.
On June 14 2013 18:16 Reason wrote: [quote] You obviously know nothing about this topic so do us all a favour and stop posting asinine comments.
The most failed attempt at recovering from a stupid claim that people and animals can in fact make love.
Good lord making love is an expression synonymous with having sex, but usually implies an emotional connection or meaning behind the action than simply having sex.
Do you accept some people love animals? Do you accept some people have sex with animals?
If the answer to both of those questions is yes then why is it so difficult for your infant mind to wrap itself around the concept that some people consider their intimate relations with an animal to be love making?
Seriously, stop being a massive penis.
Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak.
I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise.
There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future.
Massive Facepalm.
dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care.
edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something.
Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on.
That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse.
so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves.
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
I agree with you, but if I know that people in my community are fucking animals, to me, that's a harm because it bothers me that there are people out there that do that.
I think you don't know what the word harm means. I think that attitude is far more harmful to society than some guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home yet you don't see me sending you to jail for it.
Yeah. That's like pretty much the opposite of the definition of harm in this stage.
"offending your delicate sensibilities" is categorically not classed as harm in a discussion such as this. Or in law.
edit: not sure what I meant to type when I put "in this stage". Can't even think of what I meant to put.
On June 14 2013 19:03 ExKkaMaGui wrote: I love it when humans try to ban bestiality because of the cruelty on animals... Of course, we cannot just go and ban it because it's fucking sick (please do not say that is debatable).
And to those that will tell me that I find it sick, but others do not so who is to say whose perspective is correct?, Insane people who kill for no reason think murder is ok. Want to debate that too?
Well some people think group sex is sick,or even a threesome.If you go around and start banning stuff that's "sick" to some people you might end up in a awkward situation.
I get what you are saying, and on almost any topic, I'd agree with you. But we are talking about fucking an animal. By your logic, should child pornography be legal? In any scenario the answer should be no, but by your logic, it should be.
Production of child pornography hurts children who are people and should be protected.
Saying that has as much basis as me saying, "Bestiality is disgusting and does not provide any positive value to our society. Thus, should be banned." In the end, it all depends on where you decide to draw the line.
Picking your nose and eating it is disgusting and does not provide any positive value to our society. Is that really the standard we want to be using when determining whether an act should be legislated against?
I'm of the opinion that beastiality really belongs under the umbrella of cruelty to animals. Causing an animal to suffer unnecessarily shouldn't be legal, and how you interact with an animal shouldn't be legislated body part by body part, or by your physiological response to the interaction.
This topic is really beyond my field of expertise, but what is the argument towards claiming that there is cruelty to animals in acts of bestiality? How do you define cruelty, or suffering? Honest question.
I think defining cruelty or suffering is exactly the role that the courts should be playing in interpreting animal cruelty laws. To get into the nitty-gritty of the actual subject at hand, I think there's a fairly simple case to be made that vaginally or anally raping an animal is cruel, just based on the physical damage done. Demonstrating the psychological cruelty of the act would be somewhat more difficult, but I can't imagine it would be an insurmountable problem in a lot of cases. I don't see why causing an animal to experience unnecessary trauma due to the insertion of a penis into their body should be more or less illegal than causing the animal to unnecessary trauma through some other means.
There are other cases where I think the law just isn't necessary. I read of a case recently where a man was prosecuted for coaxing a young sheep or goat to fellate him, and the judge ruled that as bizzarre as the act was the prosecution couldn't demonstrate that any animal cruelty had actually taken place. The choice quote was something along the line that the animal was probably confused why no milk was coming out, since the dimensions of the object under consideration were similar to a teat. I think getting blowjobs from sheep is strange, but I agree with the judge in that case that I don't see what harm was actually done. Additionally, there are vastly worse things being done to farm animals that are more worthy of legislators' attentions and energies. Passing a law against it isn't going to drastically reduce the number of goatjobs being performed in any case, since the number of people with opportunity and motive to commit that particular crime is presumably pretty small, and if you're into that you're doing it in secret already anyhow due to the social taboo.
On June 14 2013 17:36 Reason wrote: [quote] lol it might sound funny but I watched a documentary on this sort of thing and I've seen videos on the internet that confirm some people do genuinely make love to animals, whether you can imagine yourself doing so or not is irrelevant, it happens.
I didn't think it was possible, but you just manage to be more ridiculous than your earlier post? Make love? Shall we go now and interview "couples" engaged in bestiality and ask how much they love each other to really feel the need to... make LOVE!!! lol how stupid is that!
You obviously know nothing about this topic so do us all a favour and stop posting asinine comments.
The most failed attempt at recovering from a stupid claim that people and animals can in fact make love.
Good lord making love is an expression synonymous with having sex, but usually implies an emotional connection or meaning behind the action than simply having sex.
Do you accept some people love animals? Do you accept some people have sex with animals?
If the answer to both of those questions is yes then why is it so difficult for your infant mind to wrap itself around the concept that some people consider their intimate relations with an animal to be love making?
Seriously, stop being a massive penis.
Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak.
I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise.
There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future.
Massive Facepalm.
dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care.
edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something.
Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on.
That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse.
so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves.
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed.
On June 14 2013 17:58 aNGryaRchon wrote: [quote] I didn't think it was possible, but you just manage to be more ridiculous than your earlier post? Make love? Shall we go now and interview "couples" engaged in bestiality and ask how much they love each other to really feel the need to... make LOVE!!! lol how stupid is that!
You obviously know nothing about this topic so do us all a favour and stop posting asinine comments.
The most failed attempt at recovering from a stupid claim that people and animals can in fact make love.
Good lord making love is an expression synonymous with having sex, but usually implies an emotional connection or meaning behind the action than simply having sex.
Do you accept some people love animals? Do you accept some people have sex with animals?
If the answer to both of those questions is yes then why is it so difficult for your infant mind to wrap itself around the concept that some people consider their intimate relations with an animal to be love making?
Seriously, stop being a massive penis.
Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak.
I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise.
There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future.
Massive Facepalm.
dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care.
edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something.
Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on.
That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse.
so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves.
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed.
Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand.
On June 14 2013 18:16 Reason wrote: [quote] You obviously know nothing about this topic so do us all a favour and stop posting asinine comments.
The most failed attempt at recovering from a stupid claim that people and animals can in fact make love.
Good lord making love is an expression synonymous with having sex, but usually implies an emotional connection or meaning behind the action than simply having sex.
Do you accept some people love animals? Do you accept some people have sex with animals?
If the answer to both of those questions is yes then why is it so difficult for your infant mind to wrap itself around the concept that some people consider their intimate relations with an animal to be love making?
Seriously, stop being a massive penis.
Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak.
I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise.
There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future.
Massive Facepalm.
dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care.
edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something.
Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on.
That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse.
so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves.
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
I agree with you, but if I know that people in my community are fucking animals, to me, that's a harm because it bothers me that there are people out there that do that.
I think you don't know what the word harm means. I think that attitude is far more harmful to society than some guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home yet you don't see me sending you to jail for it.
Actually, harm can be defined simply as "wrongdoing", it's a common definition.
On June 14 2013 18:24 aNGryaRchon wrote: [quote] The most failed attempt at recovering from a stupid claim that people and animals can in fact make love.
Good lord making love is an expression synonymous with having sex, but usually implies an emotional connection or meaning behind the action than simply having sex.
Do you accept some people love animals? Do you accept some people have sex with animals?
If the answer to both of those questions is yes then why is it so difficult for your infant mind to wrap itself around the concept that some people consider their intimate relations with an animal to be love making?
Seriously, stop being a massive penis.
Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak.
I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise.
There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future.
Massive Facepalm.
dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care.
edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something.
Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on.
That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse.
so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves.
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
I agree with you, but if I know that people in my community are fucking animals, to me, that's a harm because it bothers me that there are people out there that do that.
I think you don't know what the word harm means. I think that attitude is far more harmful to society than some guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home yet you don't see me sending you to jail for it.
Actually, harm can be defined simply as "wrongdoing", it's a common definition.
Could you use that in a common sentence for me with the implication that the person has done something morally wrong rather than hindered, blocked or physically intervened in a situation?
On June 14 2013 18:24 aNGryaRchon wrote: [quote] The most failed attempt at recovering from a stupid claim that people and animals can in fact make love.
Good lord making love is an expression synonymous with having sex, but usually implies an emotional connection or meaning behind the action than simply having sex.
Do you accept some people love animals? Do you accept some people have sex with animals?
If the answer to both of those questions is yes then why is it so difficult for your infant mind to wrap itself around the concept that some people consider their intimate relations with an animal to be love making?
Seriously, stop being a massive penis.
Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak.
I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise.
There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future.
Massive Facepalm.
dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care.
edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something.
Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on.
That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse.
so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves.
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
I agree with you, but if I know that people in my community are fucking animals, to me, that's a harm because it bothers me that there are people out there that do that.
I think you don't know what the word harm means. I think that attitude is far more harmful to society than some guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home yet you don't see me sending you to jail for it.
Yeah. That's like pretty much the opposite of the definition of harm in this stage.
"offending your delicate sensibilities" is categorically not classed as harm in a discussion such as this. Or in law.
edit: not sure what I meant to type when I put "in this stage". Can't even think of what I meant to put.
First, I never defined "offending your delicate sensibilities" as harm. Second, on what basis is that not categorically classed in this discussion? On your opinion...?
On June 14 2013 18:27 Reason wrote: [quote] Good lord making love is an expression synonymous with having sex, but usually implies an emotional connection or meaning behind the action than simply having sex.
Do you accept some people love animals? Do you accept some people have sex with animals?
If the answer to both of those questions is yes then why is it so difficult for your infant mind to wrap itself around the concept that some people consider their intimate relations with an animal to be love making?
Seriously, stop being a massive penis.
Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak.
I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise.
There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future.
Massive Facepalm.
dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care.
edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something.
Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on.
That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse.
so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves.
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
I agree with you, but if I know that people in my community are fucking animals, to me, that's a harm because it bothers me that there are people out there that do that.
I think you don't know what the word harm means. I think that attitude is far more harmful to society than some guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home yet you don't see me sending you to jail for it.
Actually, harm can be defined simply as "wrongdoing", it's a common definition.
Could you use that in a common sentence for me?
Having people who fuck animals in society is a wrongdoing. (common for this discussion)
On June 14 2013 17:36 Reason wrote: [quote] lol it might sound funny but I watched a documentary on this sort of thing and I've seen videos on the internet that confirm some people do genuinely make love to animals, whether you can imagine yourself doing so or not is irrelevant, it happens.
I didn't think it was possible, but you just manage to be more ridiculous than your earlier post? Make love? Shall we go now and interview "couples" engaged in bestiality and ask how much they love each other to really feel the need to... make LOVE!!! lol how stupid is that!
You obviously know nothing about this topic so do us all a favour and stop posting asinine comments.
The most failed attempt at recovering from a stupid claim that people and animals can in fact make love.
Good lord making love is an expression synonymous with having sex, but usually implies an emotional connection or meaning behind the action than simply having sex.
Do you accept some people love animals? Do you accept some people have sex with animals?
If the answer to both of those questions is yes then why is it so difficult for your infant mind to wrap itself around the concept that some people consider their intimate relations with an animal to be love making?
Seriously, stop being a massive penis.
Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak.
I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise.
There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future.
Massive Facepalm.
dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care.
edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something.
Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on.
That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse.
so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves.
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
On June 14 2013 17:02 narkissos wrote: Seems over the top, some girl letting her dog lick her might bee disgusting but does she deserve jail time? Animal cruelty laws already covers every situation were the animal is hurt.
I would agree with you here but the problem is, cruelty to the animals involed is given in more than 90% of the cases, but its hard to prove. (Imagin a horse testifying in court) Joke aside, a dog licking a girl is the rare exception, most of the times its farmers fixating animals with ropes to make them unmovable and then penetrating them.
Again the sexual part itself shouldn't be punishable by jailtime, but since cruelty is acutally involed in almost every case I can understand how the swedish government takes this step.
On June 14 2013 18:45 aNGryaRchon wrote: [quote] Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak.
I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise.
There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future.
Massive Facepalm.
dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care.
edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something.
Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on.
That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse.
so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves.
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
I agree with you, but if I know that people in my community are fucking animals, to me, that's a harm because it bothers me that there are people out there that do that.
I think you don't know what the word harm means. I think that attitude is far more harmful to society than some guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home yet you don't see me sending you to jail for it.
Actually, harm can be defined simply as "wrongdoing", it's a common definition.
Could you use that in a common sentence for me?
Having people who fuck animals in society is a wrongdoing.
This sentence didn't contain the word harm. Please use harm in a sentence to refer to an act that is morally wrong while not physically damaging an item or metaphorically damaging a cause.
On June 14 2013 18:45 aNGryaRchon wrote: [quote] Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak.
I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise.
There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future.
Massive Facepalm.
dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care.
edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something.
Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on.
That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse.
so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves.
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
I agree with you, but if I know that people in my community are fucking animals, to me, that's a harm because it bothers me that there are people out there that do that.
I think you don't know what the word harm means. I think that attitude is far more harmful to society than some guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home yet you don't see me sending you to jail for it.
Actually, harm can be defined simply as "wrongdoing", it's a common definition.
Could you use that in a common sentence for me?
Having people who fuck animals in society is a wrongdoing. (common for this discussion)
No, "wrongdoing" is a terrible, terrible description because it becomes completely subjective, which defeats the whole purpose of it.
The harm principle holds that the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals. John Stuart Mill articulated this principle in On Liberty, where he argued that, "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
On June 14 2013 17:02 narkissos wrote: Seems over the top, some girl letting her dog lick her might bee disgusting but does she deserve jail time? Animal cruelty laws already covers every situation were the animal is hurt.
I would agree with you here but the problem is, cruelty to the animals involed is given in more than 90% of the cases, but its hard to prove. (Imagin a horse testifying in court) Joke aside, a dog licking a girl is the rare exception, most of the times its farmers fixating animals with ropes to make them unmovable and then penetrating them.
Again the sexual part itself shouldn't be punishable by jailtime, but since cruelty is acutally involed in almost every case I can understand how the swedish government takes this step.
I also think jail time might be a bit too much. So would an excessive fine. But other than that, the only thing we can enforce the ban is by prevention, but we can't do that either.
On June 14 2013 19:03 ExKkaMaGui wrote: I love it when humans try to ban bestiality because of the cruelty on animals... Of course, we cannot just go and ban it because it's fucking sick (please do not say that is debatable).
And to those that will tell me that I find it sick, but others do not so who is to say whose perspective is correct?, Insane people who kill for no reason think murder is ok. Want to debate that too?
Well some people think group sex is sick,or even a threesome.If you go around and start banning stuff that's "sick" to some people you might end up in a awkward situation.
I get what you are saying, and on almost any topic, I'd agree with you. But we are talking about fucking an animal. By your logic, should child pornography be legal? In any scenario the answer should be no, but by your logic, it should be.
Production of child pornography hurts children who are people and should be protected.
Saying that has as much basis as me saying, "Bestiality is disgusting and does not provide any positive value to our society. Thus, should be banned." In the end, it all depends on where you decide to draw the line.
Picking your nose and eating it is disgusting and does not provide any positive value to our society. Is that really the standard we want to be using when determining whether an act should be legislated against?
I'm of the opinion that beastiality really belongs under the umbrella of cruelty to animals. Causing an animal to suffer unnecessarily shouldn't be legal, and how you interact with an animal shouldn't be legislated body part by body part, or by your physiological response to the interaction.
This topic is really beyond my field of expertise, but what is the argument towards claiming that there is cruelty to animals in acts of bestiality? How do you define cruelty, or suffering? Honest question.
I am guessing that the cruelty has to do with physical damage that results from the sex. Now, there could definitely be psychological damage, but that could never be proven right now. The animal might not even react negatively to it, but that doesn't mean it didn't suffer.
Physical damage? I think that's a weak argument? The same physical harm happens in human intercourse. It is only physical harm if, forgive the language, the penis is bigger than the vagina, say human and hen, but this fails badly between human and cow or even goat. This fails even more when you consider dogs or horses and human females.
On June 14 2013 18:16 Reason wrote: [quote] You obviously know nothing about this topic so do us all a favour and stop posting asinine comments.
The most failed attempt at recovering from a stupid claim that people and animals can in fact make love.
Good lord making love is an expression synonymous with having sex, but usually implies an emotional connection or meaning behind the action than simply having sex.
Do you accept some people love animals? Do you accept some people have sex with animals?
If the answer to both of those questions is yes then why is it so difficult for your infant mind to wrap itself around the concept that some people consider their intimate relations with an animal to be love making?
Seriously, stop being a massive penis.
Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak.
I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise.
There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future.
Massive Facepalm.
dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care.
edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something.
Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on.
That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse.
so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves.
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed.
Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand.
but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding human concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one
On June 14 2013 18:53 xM(Z wrote: [quote] dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care.
edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something.
Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on.
That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse.
so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves.
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
I agree with you, but if I know that people in my community are fucking animals, to me, that's a harm because it bothers me that there are people out there that do that.
I think you don't know what the word harm means. I think that attitude is far more harmful to society than some guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home yet you don't see me sending you to jail for it.
Actually, harm can be defined simply as "wrongdoing", it's a common definition.
Could you use that in a common sentence for me?
Having people who fuck animals in society is a wrongdoing. (common for this discussion)
No, "wrongdoing" is a terrible, terrible description because it becomes completely subjective, which defeats the whole purpose of it.
The harm principle holds that the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals. John Stuart Mill articulated this principle in On Liberty, where he argued that, "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
So out of all the people, you quote a philosopher. Kant said it is impossible to obtain direct, unbiased knowledge about an object or event. So yea, quote a person's biased definition and imply it's true because you agree with it. Don't try to say my opinion is wrong in a topic where no one can truly be wrong.
On June 14 2013 18:45 aNGryaRchon wrote: [quote] Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak.
I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise.
There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future.
Massive Facepalm.
dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care.
edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something.
Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on.
That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse.
so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves.
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
I agree with you, but if I know that people in my community are fucking animals, to me, that's a harm because it bothers me that there are people out there that do that.
I think you don't know what the word harm means. I think that attitude is far more harmful to society than some guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home yet you don't see me sending you to jail for it.
Actually, harm can be defined simply as "wrongdoing", it's a common definition.
Could you use that in a common sentence for me?
Having people who fuck animals in society is a wrongdoing. (common for this discussion)
Do you recognize that your argument is circular? Bestiality should be illegal because it's harmful, it's harmful because harm can mean wrongdoing, and bestiality is "a wrongdoing". Your argument basically boils down to "bestiality should be illegal because I think so." You're not actually defining how it's harmful above and beyond any harm actually done to the animal, except in the sense that you consider your mental anguish at having to live in a world in which something disgusting is happening to be harm.
On June 14 2013 19:03 ExKkaMaGui wrote: I love it when humans try to ban bestiality because of the cruelty on animals... Of course, we cannot just go and ban it because it's fucking sick (please do not say that is debatable).
And to those that will tell me that I find it sick, but others do not so who is to say whose perspective is correct?, Insane people who kill for no reason think murder is ok. Want to debate that too?
Well some people think group sex is sick,or even a threesome.If you go around and start banning stuff that's "sick" to some people you might end up in a awkward situation.
I get what you are saying, and on almost any topic, I'd agree with you. But we are talking about fucking an animal. By your logic, should child pornography be legal? In any scenario the answer should be no, but by your logic, it should be.
Production of child pornography hurts children who are people and should be protected.
Saying that has as much basis as me saying, "Bestiality is disgusting and does not provide any positive value to our society. Thus, should be banned." In the end, it all depends on where you decide to draw the line.
Picking your nose and eating it is disgusting and does not provide any positive value to our society. Is that really the standard we want to be using when determining whether an act should be legislated against?
I'm of the opinion that beastiality really belongs under the umbrella of cruelty to animals. Causing an animal to suffer unnecessarily shouldn't be legal, and how you interact with an animal shouldn't be legislated body part by body part, or by your physiological response to the interaction.
This topic is really beyond my field of expertise, but what is the argument towards claiming that there is cruelty to animals in acts of bestiality? How do you define cruelty, or suffering? Honest question.
I am guessing that the cruelty has to do with physical damage that results from the sex. Now, there could definitely be psychological damage, but that could never be proven right now. The animal might not even react negatively to it, but that doesn't mean it didn't suffer.
Physical damage? I think that's a weak argument? The same physical harm happens in human intercourse. It is only physical harm if, forgive the language, the penis is bigger than the vagina, say human and hen, but this fails badly between human and cow or even goat. This fails even more when you consider dogs or horses and human females.
Maybe you have to chain them or something because they will run away. Or the animal tries to run away, stumbles and falls, breaking a bone. I think they mean along those lines. But I definitely don't think they mean psychological damage.
On June 14 2013 18:24 aNGryaRchon wrote: [quote] The most failed attempt at recovering from a stupid claim that people and animals can in fact make love.
Good lord making love is an expression synonymous with having sex, but usually implies an emotional connection or meaning behind the action than simply having sex.
Do you accept some people love animals? Do you accept some people have sex with animals?
If the answer to both of those questions is yes then why is it so difficult for your infant mind to wrap itself around the concept that some people consider their intimate relations with an animal to be love making?
Seriously, stop being a massive penis.
Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak.
I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise.
There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future.
Massive Facepalm.
dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care.
edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something.
Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on.
That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse.
so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves.
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed.
Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand.
but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one
I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one.
If someone believes that eating animals is literally murder then good luck to them, their position is intellectually sound although I think somewhat silly.
Also I feel strongly about this because I think it's a litmus test for allowing sexual freedom based on principles of the government not being in the bedroom against just allowing what the majority think is fine. If we allow homosexuality and then ban beastiality based purely upon the distaste of the majority then we really haven't learned a thing.
On June 14 2013 18:53 xM(Z wrote: [quote] dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care.
edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something.
Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on.
That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse.
so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves.
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
I agree with you, but if I know that people in my community are fucking animals, to me, that's a harm because it bothers me that there are people out there that do that.
I think you don't know what the word harm means. I think that attitude is far more harmful to society than some guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home yet you don't see me sending you to jail for it.
Actually, harm can be defined simply as "wrongdoing", it's a common definition.
Could you use that in a common sentence for me?
Having people who fuck animals in society is a wrongdoing. (common for this discussion)
Do you recognize that your argument is circular? Bestiality should be illegal because it's harmful, it's harmful because harm can mean wrongdoing, and bestiality is "a wrongdoing". Your argument basically boils down to "bestiality should be illegal because I think so." You're not actually defining how it's harmful above and beyond any harm actually done to the animal, except in the sense that you consider your mental anguish at having to live in a world in which something disgusting is happening to be harm.
To be clear, I am not arguing anything because that would imply I am trying to win by proving my point, which I am not doing. If I was arguing something, the sentence wasn't to support my argument. I just used the word in a sentence. And yes, my "mental anguish" at having to live in a world in which people are fucking animals was what I was calling harm. I am not saying I can't sleep at night, but it does bother me. So a small harm.
On June 14 2013 19:09 KwarK wrote: [quote] Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on.
That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse.
so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves.
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
I agree with you, but if I know that people in my community are fucking animals, to me, that's a harm because it bothers me that there are people out there that do that.
I think you don't know what the word harm means. I think that attitude is far more harmful to society than some guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home yet you don't see me sending you to jail for it.
Actually, harm can be defined simply as "wrongdoing", it's a common definition.
Could you use that in a common sentence for me?
Having people who fuck animals in society is a wrongdoing. (common for this discussion)
No, "wrongdoing" is a terrible, terrible description because it becomes completely subjective, which defeats the whole purpose of it.
The harm principle holds that the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals. John Stuart Mill articulated this principle in On Liberty, where he argued that, "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
So out of all the people, you quote a philosopher. Kant said it is impossible to obtain direct, unbiased knowledge about an object or event. So yea, quote a person's biased definition and imply it's true because you agree with it. Don't try to say my opinion is wrong in a topic where no one can truly be wrong.
I quote the dude who originally/succinctly came up with a definition of harm, which we're using here. As Umlaut says, your whole argument is circular.
Try thinking this way then: if an individual partakes in an action, in private, that does not harm (even if you call it wrongdoing) anyone else, then what's the problem?
So a dude shagging a sheep in his bedroom. No-one else ever finds out. What's the harm to any other individual? Literally zero.
Compare to any basic illegality. Murder, rape, assault, fraud, burglery. These all have effects on another human being, even if, say, a dude burgled a house and no-one knew about it. Someone has had their property infringed and removed.
What harm to you, as a delicate flower, does a guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home do to you, if you don't know about it? Literally zero.
On June 14 2013 18:27 Reason wrote: [quote] Good lord making love is an expression synonymous with having sex, but usually implies an emotional connection or meaning behind the action than simply having sex.
Do you accept some people love animals? Do you accept some people have sex with animals?
If the answer to both of those questions is yes then why is it so difficult for your infant mind to wrap itself around the concept that some people consider their intimate relations with an animal to be love making?
Seriously, stop being a massive penis.
Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak.
I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise.
There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future.
Massive Facepalm.
dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care.
edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something.
Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on.
That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse.
so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves.
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed.
Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand.
but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one
I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one.
If someone believes that eating animals is literally murder then good luck to them, their position is intellectually sound although I think somewhat silly.
Also I feel strongly about this because I think it's a litmus test for allowing sexual freedom based on principles of the government not being in the bedroom against just allowing what the majority think is fine. If we allow homosexuality and then ban beastiality based purely upon the distaste of the majority then we really haven't learned a thing.
Could the harm then be that sex with other species might cause the transfer of disease to humans?
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.
o.O this doesn't sound like your typical overly-sarcastic post that says the complete opposite of what you believe in an effort to emphasise how stupid that line of thinking is.
Bolded section is only thing that makes me still think this is a joke but tone is hard to detect on the internet....
Reading the following post I can only assume this is how you really feel about the issue ???
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.
All right, here is a highly controversial question: by this logic, marriage between animals and humans should also be possible?
On June 14 2013 19:09 KwarK wrote: [quote] Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on.
That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse.
so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves.
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
I agree with you, but if I know that people in my community are fucking animals, to me, that's a harm because it bothers me that there are people out there that do that.
I think you don't know what the word harm means. I think that attitude is far more harmful to society than some guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home yet you don't see me sending you to jail for it.
Actually, harm can be defined simply as "wrongdoing", it's a common definition.
Could you use that in a common sentence for me?
Having people who fuck animals in society is a wrongdoing. (common for this discussion)
Do you recognize that your argument is circular? Bestiality should be illegal because it's harmful, it's harmful because harm can mean wrongdoing, and bestiality is "a wrongdoing". Your argument basically boils down to "bestiality should be illegal because I think so." You're not actually defining how it's harmful above and beyond any harm actually done to the animal, except in the sense that you consider your mental anguish at having to live in a world in which something disgusting is happening to be harm.
To be clear, I am not arguing anything because that would imply I am trying to win by proving my point, which I am not doing. If I was arguing something, the sentence wasn't to support my argument. I just used the word in a sentence. And yes, my "mental anguish" at having to live in a world in which people are fucking animals was what I was calling harm. I am not saying I can't sleep at night, but it does bother me. So a small harm.
To paraphrase gay rights activists, "some people are into beastiality, get over it". It's that simple. They are not causing you any harm by the definition used by everyone but you whereas your attitude, when turned into legislation, literally harms people who have done you no wrong. You are a hypocrite, a brute and you seek to use the government as a weapon against others.
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.
o.O this doesn't sound like your typical overly-sarcastic post that says the complete opposite of what you believe in an effort to emphasise how stupid that line of thinking is.
Bolded section is only thing that makes me still think this is a joke but tone is hard to detect on the internet....
Reading the following post I can only assume this is how you really feel about the issue ???
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.
All right, here is a highly controversial question: by this logic, marriage between animals and humans should also be possible?
Consent is part of marriage, so no.
edit: hmm, not sure that holds water actually.
further edit: contract, right. it does hold water. lol
On June 14 2013 19:09 KwarK wrote: [quote] Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on.
That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse.
so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves.
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
I agree with you, but if I know that people in my community are fucking animals, to me, that's a harm because it bothers me that there are people out there that do that.
I think you don't know what the word harm means. I think that attitude is far more harmful to society than some guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home yet you don't see me sending you to jail for it.
Actually, harm can be defined simply as "wrongdoing", it's a common definition.
Could you use that in a common sentence for me?
Having people who fuck animals in society is a wrongdoing. (common for this discussion)
Do you recognize that your argument is circular? Bestiality should be illegal because it's harmful, it's harmful because harm can mean wrongdoing, and bestiality is "a wrongdoing". Your argument basically boils down to "bestiality should be illegal because I think so." You're not actually defining how it's harmful above and beyond any harm actually done to the animal, except in the sense that you consider your mental anguish at having to live in a world in which something disgusting is happening to be harm.
To be clear, I am not arguing anything because that would imply I am trying to win by proving my point, which I am not doing. If I was arguing something, the sentence wasn't to support my argument. I just used the word in a sentence. And yes, my "mental anguish" at having to live in a world in which people are fucking animals was what I was calling harm. I am not saying I can't sleep at night, but it does bother me. So a small harm.
lol your mental anguish at having to live in a world in which people are fucking animals is what you refer to as harm?
The homophobe can make the exact same argument against homosexuality and would obviously be incredibly stupid in doing so, why do you think it's different here?
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.
o.O this doesn't sound like your typical overly-sarcastic post that says the complete opposite of what you believe in an effort to emphasise how stupid that line of thinking is.
Bolded section is only thing that makes me still think this is a joke but tone is hard to detect on the internet....
Reading the following post I can only assume this is how you really feel about the issue ???
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.
All right, here is a highly controversial question: by this logic, marriage between animals and humans should also be possible?
Marriage is a contract. Contracts require consent. Swing and a miss there I'm afraid. My argument was in fact that animals don't get consent. My argument pretty much rules out marriage to animals.
Don't get me wrong, if you want you can write their name on a marriage certificate and that won't be animal cruelty but that does not make it a legal marriage.
On June 14 2013 19:35 xM(Z wrote: [quote] so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves.
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
I agree with you, but if I know that people in my community are fucking animals, to me, that's a harm because it bothers me that there are people out there that do that.
I think you don't know what the word harm means. I think that attitude is far more harmful to society than some guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home yet you don't see me sending you to jail for it.
Actually, harm can be defined simply as "wrongdoing", it's a common definition.
Could you use that in a common sentence for me?
Having people who fuck animals in society is a wrongdoing. (common for this discussion)
No, "wrongdoing" is a terrible, terrible description because it becomes completely subjective, which defeats the whole purpose of it.
The harm principle holds that the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals. John Stuart Mill articulated this principle in On Liberty, where he argued that, "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
So out of all the people, you quote a philosopher. Kant said it is impossible to obtain direct, unbiased knowledge about an object or event. So yea, quote a person's biased definition and imply it's true because you agree with it. Don't try to say my opinion is wrong in a topic where no one can truly be wrong.
I quote the dude who originally/succinctly came up with a definition of harm, which we're using here. As Umlaut says, your whole argument is circular.
Try thinking this way then: if an individual partakes in an action, in private, that does not harm (even if you call it wrongdoing) anyone else, then what's the problem?
So a dude shagging a sheep in his bedroom. No-one else ever finds out. What's the harm to any other individual? Literally zero.
Compare to any basic illegality. Murder, rape, assault, fraud, burglery. These all have effects on another human being, even if, say, a dude burgled a house and no-one knew about it. Someone has had their property infringed and removed.
What harm to you, as a delicate flower, does a guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home do to you, if you don't know about it? Literally zero.
Ok, so say I went to the tropical rain forest, and discovered a new species of frogs (highly likely since we've only discovered about 3% of species). The frogs are some special rainbow colored frog. I kill them all. You never find out about it. No harm right? Because you didn't know and it doesn't affect humans. Also, you brought up that definition of harm. Then to claim that "we" are using that definition? Pure arrogance. The difference is, you are saying I am wrong and trying to argue that I am indeed wrong. But all I am doing is stating my opinion and asking questions to gain some insight to what others think.
On June 14 2013 18:45 aNGryaRchon wrote: [quote] Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak.
I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise.
There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future.
Massive Facepalm.
dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care.
edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something.
Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on.
That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse.
so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves.
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed.
Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand.
but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one
I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one.
If someone believes that eating animals is literally murder then good luck to them, their position is intellectually sound although I think somewhat silly.
Also I feel strongly about this because I think it's a litmus test for allowing sexual freedom based on principles of the government not being in the bedroom against just allowing what the majority think is fine. If we allow homosexuality and then ban beastiality based purely upon the distaste of the majority then we really haven't learned a thing.
Could the harm then be that sex with other species might cause the transfer of disease to humans?
Better outlaw all sex given that humans already have STDs then.
On June 14 2013 19:35 xM(Z wrote: [quote] so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves.
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
I agree with you, but if I know that people in my community are fucking animals, to me, that's a harm because it bothers me that there are people out there that do that.
I think you don't know what the word harm means. I think that attitude is far more harmful to society than some guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home yet you don't see me sending you to jail for it.
Actually, harm can be defined simply as "wrongdoing", it's a common definition.
Could you use that in a common sentence for me?
Having people who fuck animals in society is a wrongdoing. (common for this discussion)
Do you recognize that your argument is circular? Bestiality should be illegal because it's harmful, it's harmful because harm can mean wrongdoing, and bestiality is "a wrongdoing". Your argument basically boils down to "bestiality should be illegal because I think so." You're not actually defining how it's harmful above and beyond any harm actually done to the animal, except in the sense that you consider your mental anguish at having to live in a world in which something disgusting is happening to be harm.
To be clear, I am not arguing anything because that would imply I am trying to win by proving my point, which I am not doing. If I was arguing something, the sentence wasn't to support my argument. I just used the word in a sentence. And yes, my "mental anguish" at having to live in a world in which people are fucking animals was what I was calling harm. I am not saying I can't sleep at night, but it does bother me. So a small harm.
lol your mental anguish at having to live in a world in which people are fucking animals is what you refer to as harm?
The homophobe can make the exact same argument against homosexuality and would obviously be incredibly stupid in doing so, why do you think it's different here?
It also bothers me that too many people are way too self interested in our society. I never called it mental anguish. All I was saying was if something is bothersome, it can be considered a harm. The question is up to what degree.
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.
o.O this doesn't sound like your typical overly-sarcastic post that says the complete opposite of what you believe in an effort to emphasise how stupid that line of thinking is.
Bolded section is only thing that makes me still think this is a joke but tone is hard to detect on the internet....
Reading the following post I can only assume this is how you really feel about the issue ???
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.
All right, here is a highly controversial question: by this logic, marriage between animals and humans should also be possible?
No - he defines animals as meat machines. You can't marry a machine. The fact that animals are defined as such obviously is utterly ridiculous.
On June 14 2013 19:46 KwarK wrote: [quote] My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
I agree with you, but if I know that people in my community are fucking animals, to me, that's a harm because it bothers me that there are people out there that do that.
I think you don't know what the word harm means. I think that attitude is far more harmful to society than some guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home yet you don't see me sending you to jail for it.
Actually, harm can be defined simply as "wrongdoing", it's a common definition.
Could you use that in a common sentence for me?
Having people who fuck animals in society is a wrongdoing. (common for this discussion)
No, "wrongdoing" is a terrible, terrible description because it becomes completely subjective, which defeats the whole purpose of it.
The harm principle holds that the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals. John Stuart Mill articulated this principle in On Liberty, where he argued that, "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
So out of all the people, you quote a philosopher. Kant said it is impossible to obtain direct, unbiased knowledge about an object or event. So yea, quote a person's biased definition and imply it's true because you agree with it. Don't try to say my opinion is wrong in a topic where no one can truly be wrong.
I quote the dude who originally/succinctly came up with a definition of harm, which we're using here. As Umlaut says, your whole argument is circular.
Try thinking this way then: if an individual partakes in an action, in private, that does not harm (even if you call it wrongdoing) anyone else, then what's the problem?
So a dude shagging a sheep in his bedroom. No-one else ever finds out. What's the harm to any other individual? Literally zero.
Compare to any basic illegality. Murder, rape, assault, fraud, burglery. These all have effects on another human being, even if, say, a dude burgled a house and no-one knew about it. Someone has had their property infringed and removed.
What harm to you, as a delicate flower, does a guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home do to you, if you don't know about it? Literally zero.
Ok, so say I went to the tropical rain forest, and discovered a new species of frogs (highly likely since we've only discovered about 3% of species). The frogs are some special rainbow colored frog. I kill them all. You never find out about it. No harm right? Because you didn't know and it doesn't affect humans. Also, you brought up that definition of harm. Then to claim that "we" are using that definition? Pure arrogance. The difference is, you are saying I am wrong and trying to argue that I am indeed wrong. But all I am doing is stating my opinion and asking questions to gain some insight to what others think.
Everyone but you uses a different definition of harm that is pretty much the one that he uses when he says "we".
On June 14 2013 19:46 KwarK wrote: [quote] My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
I agree with you, but if I know that people in my community are fucking animals, to me, that's a harm because it bothers me that there are people out there that do that.
I think you don't know what the word harm means. I think that attitude is far more harmful to society than some guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home yet you don't see me sending you to jail for it.
Actually, harm can be defined simply as "wrongdoing", it's a common definition.
Could you use that in a common sentence for me?
Having people who fuck animals in society is a wrongdoing. (common for this discussion)
No, "wrongdoing" is a terrible, terrible description because it becomes completely subjective, which defeats the whole purpose of it.
The harm principle holds that the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals. John Stuart Mill articulated this principle in On Liberty, where he argued that, "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
So out of all the people, you quote a philosopher. Kant said it is impossible to obtain direct, unbiased knowledge about an object or event. So yea, quote a person's biased definition and imply it's true because you agree with it. Don't try to say my opinion is wrong in a topic where no one can truly be wrong.
I quote the dude who originally/succinctly came up with a definition of harm, which we're using here. As Umlaut says, your whole argument is circular.
Try thinking this way then: if an individual partakes in an action, in private, that does not harm (even if you call it wrongdoing) anyone else, then what's the problem?
So a dude shagging a sheep in his bedroom. No-one else ever finds out. What's the harm to any other individual? Literally zero.
Compare to any basic illegality. Murder, rape, assault, fraud, burglery. These all have effects on another human being, even if, say, a dude burgled a house and no-one knew about it. Someone has had their property infringed and removed.
What harm to you, as a delicate flower, does a guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home do to you, if you don't know about it? Literally zero.
Ok, so say I went to the tropical rain forest, and discovered a new species of frogs (highly likely since we've only discovered about 3% of species). The frogs are some special rainbow colored frog. I kill them all. You never find out about it. No harm right? Because you didn't know and it doesn't affect humans. Also, you brought up that definition of harm. Then to claim that "we" are using that definition? Pure arrogance. The difference is, you are saying I am wrong and trying to argue that I am indeed wrong. But all I am doing is stating my opinion and asking questions to gain some insight to what others think.
You're making an argument that you're being harmed when you're not. That's all there is to it really.
On June 14 2013 19:46 KwarK wrote: [quote] My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
I agree with you, but if I know that people in my community are fucking animals, to me, that's a harm because it bothers me that there are people out there that do that.
I think you don't know what the word harm means. I think that attitude is far more harmful to society than some guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home yet you don't see me sending you to jail for it.
Actually, harm can be defined simply as "wrongdoing", it's a common definition.
Could you use that in a common sentence for me?
Having people who fuck animals in society is a wrongdoing. (common for this discussion)
Do you recognize that your argument is circular? Bestiality should be illegal because it's harmful, it's harmful because harm can mean wrongdoing, and bestiality is "a wrongdoing". Your argument basically boils down to "bestiality should be illegal because I think so." You're not actually defining how it's harmful above and beyond any harm actually done to the animal, except in the sense that you consider your mental anguish at having to live in a world in which something disgusting is happening to be harm.
To be clear, I am not arguing anything because that would imply I am trying to win by proving my point, which I am not doing. If I was arguing something, the sentence wasn't to support my argument. I just used the word in a sentence. And yes, my "mental anguish" at having to live in a world in which people are fucking animals was what I was calling harm. I am not saying I can't sleep at night, but it does bother me. So a small harm.
lol your mental anguish at having to live in a world in which people are fucking animals is what you refer to as harm?
The homophobe can make the exact same argument against homosexuality and would obviously be incredibly stupid in doing so, why do you think it's different here?
It also bothers me that too many people are way too self interested in our society. I never called it mental anguish. All I was saying was if something is bothersome, it can be considered a harm. The question is up to what degree.
On June 14 2013 18:45 aNGryaRchon wrote: [quote] Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak.
I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise.
There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future.
Massive Facepalm.
dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care.
edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something.
Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on.
That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse.
so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves.
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed.
Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand.
but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one
I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one.
If someone believes that eating animals is literally murder then good luck to them, their position is intellectually sound although I think somewhat silly.
Also I feel strongly about this because I think it's a litmus test for allowing sexual freedom based on principles of the government not being in the bedroom against just allowing what the majority think is fine. If we allow homosexuality and then ban beastiality based purely upon the distaste of the majority then we really haven't learned a thing.
Could the harm then be that sex with other species might cause the transfer of disease to humans?
You know what, you raise a good question. They might be banning it to stop the spread of STDs. I cannot really say what they are going for here, but I think that might be it.
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.
o.O this doesn't sound like your typical overly-sarcastic post that says the complete opposite of what you believe in an effort to emphasise how stupid that line of thinking is.
Bolded section is only thing that makes me still think this is a joke but tone is hard to detect on the internet....
Reading the following post I can only assume this is how you really feel about the issue ???
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.
All right, here is a highly controversial question: by this logic, marriage between animals and humans should also be possible?
No - he defines animals as meat machines. You can't marry a machine. The fact that animals are defined as such obviously is utterly ridiculous.
Care to elaborate on this? That is, as far as I can see, the avenue to attack my stance on but I honestly can't see how you can go down that road and not end up at "meat is murder".
On June 14 2013 18:53 xM(Z wrote: [quote] dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care.
edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something.
Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on.
That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse.
so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves.
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed.
Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand.
but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one
I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one.
If someone believes that eating animals is literally murder then good luck to them, their position is intellectually sound although I think somewhat silly.
Also I feel strongly about this because I think it's a litmus test for allowing sexual freedom based on principles of the government not being in the bedroom against just allowing what the majority think is fine. If we allow homosexuality and then ban beastiality based purely upon the distaste of the majority then we really haven't learned a thing.
Could the harm then be that sex with other species might cause the transfer of disease to humans?
You know what, you raise a good question. They might be banning it to stop the spread of STDs. I cannot really say what they are going for here, but I think that might be it.
Kwark used the example already. What if you found gay sex 'bothersome'?
If the 90-95% of straight people in a country found gay sex 'bothersome', do you think it would be right to legislate against gay sex?
On June 14 2013 18:27 Reason wrote: [quote] Good lord making love is an expression synonymous with having sex, but usually implies an emotional connection or meaning behind the action than simply having sex.
Do you accept some people love animals? Do you accept some people have sex with animals?
If the answer to both of those questions is yes then why is it so difficult for your infant mind to wrap itself around the concept that some people consider their intimate relations with an animal to be love making?
Seriously, stop being a massive penis.
Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak.
I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise.
There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future.
Massive Facepalm.
dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care.
edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something.
Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on.
That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse.
so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves.
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed.
Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand.
but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one
I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one.
If someone believes that eating animals is literally murder then good luck to them, their position is intellectually sound although I think somewhat silly.
you are hiding behind well established semantics but semantics nonetheless. animal cruelty laws are hypocritical. you can not hide behind them and be a white knight for XYZ rights at the same time. you are using hypocritical concepts as a sound/valid premise for your argument and then, at the same time, you are judging people who dare to be hypocritical.
On June 14 2013 19:46 KwarK wrote: [quote] My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
I agree with you, but if I know that people in my community are fucking animals, to me, that's a harm because it bothers me that there are people out there that do that.
I think you don't know what the word harm means. I think that attitude is far more harmful to society than some guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home yet you don't see me sending you to jail for it.
Actually, harm can be defined simply as "wrongdoing", it's a common definition.
Could you use that in a common sentence for me?
Having people who fuck animals in society is a wrongdoing. (common for this discussion)
No, "wrongdoing" is a terrible, terrible description because it becomes completely subjective, which defeats the whole purpose of it.
The harm principle holds that the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals. John Stuart Mill articulated this principle in On Liberty, where he argued that, "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
So out of all the people, you quote a philosopher. Kant said it is impossible to obtain direct, unbiased knowledge about an object or event. So yea, quote a person's biased definition and imply it's true because you agree with it. Don't try to say my opinion is wrong in a topic where no one can truly be wrong.
I quote the dude who originally/succinctly came up with a definition of harm, which we're using here. As Umlaut says, your whole argument is circular.
Try thinking this way then: if an individual partakes in an action, in private, that does not harm (even if you call it wrongdoing) anyone else, then what's the problem?
So a dude shagging a sheep in his bedroom. No-one else ever finds out. What's the harm to any other individual? Literally zero.
Compare to any basic illegality. Murder, rape, assault, fraud, burglery. These all have effects on another human being, even if, say, a dude burgled a house and no-one knew about it. Someone has had their property infringed and removed.
What harm to you, as a delicate flower, does a guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home do to you, if you don't know about it? Literally zero.
Ok, so say I went to the tropical rain forest, and discovered a new species of frogs (highly likely since we've only discovered about 3% of species). The frogs are some special rainbow colored frog. I kill them all. You never find out about it. No harm right? Because you didn't know and it doesn't affect humans. Also, you brought up that definition of harm. Then to claim that "we" are using that definition? Pure arrogance. The difference is, you are saying I am wrong and trying to argue that I am indeed wrong. But all I am doing is stating my opinion and asking questions to gain some insight to what others think.
The difference is you have caused obvious harm to these frogs.
The "not finding out about it" is only relevant because you tried to say your problem with bestiality was essentially just the thought of it happening.
Nobody is saying just because it doesn't affect humans or just because nobody finds out about it that no harm is done.
The argument is that not all sex with animals causes harm to the animal. If it doesn't harm the animal or the person having sex with the animal and nobody finds out about it so can't have their sensibilities offended (which doesn't matter anyway, see homophobe, seperate tangent) then there has been no harm done.
I hope this clears that up for you and you don't feel the need to equate having sex with an animal and causing it no harm with covert extinction of entire species.
If you want to discuss whether it's possible to have sex with an animal and not cause it harm, fine then do so.
On June 14 2013 19:50 ExKkaMaGui wrote: [quote] I agree with you, but if I know that people in my community are fucking animals, to me, that's a harm because it bothers me that there are people out there that do that.
I think you don't know what the word harm means. I think that attitude is far more harmful to society than some guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home yet you don't see me sending you to jail for it.
Actually, harm can be defined simply as "wrongdoing", it's a common definition.
Could you use that in a common sentence for me?
Having people who fuck animals in society is a wrongdoing. (common for this discussion)
No, "wrongdoing" is a terrible, terrible description because it becomes completely subjective, which defeats the whole purpose of it.
The harm principle holds that the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals. John Stuart Mill articulated this principle in On Liberty, where he argued that, "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
So out of all the people, you quote a philosopher. Kant said it is impossible to obtain direct, unbiased knowledge about an object or event. So yea, quote a person's biased definition and imply it's true because you agree with it. Don't try to say my opinion is wrong in a topic where no one can truly be wrong.
I quote the dude who originally/succinctly came up with a definition of harm, which we're using here. As Umlaut says, your whole argument is circular.
Try thinking this way then: if an individual partakes in an action, in private, that does not harm (even if you call it wrongdoing) anyone else, then what's the problem?
So a dude shagging a sheep in his bedroom. No-one else ever finds out. What's the harm to any other individual? Literally zero.
Compare to any basic illegality. Murder, rape, assault, fraud, burglery. These all have effects on another human being, even if, say, a dude burgled a house and no-one knew about it. Someone has had their property infringed and removed.
What harm to you, as a delicate flower, does a guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home do to you, if you don't know about it? Literally zero.
Ok, so say I went to the tropical rain forest, and discovered a new species of frogs (highly likely since we've only discovered about 3% of species). The frogs are some special rainbow colored frog. I kill them all. You never find out about it. No harm right? Because you didn't know and it doesn't affect humans. Also, you brought up that definition of harm. Then to claim that "we" are using that definition? Pure arrogance. The difference is, you are saying I am wrong and trying to argue that I am indeed wrong. But all I am doing is stating my opinion and asking questions to gain some insight to what others think.
You're making an argument that you're being harmed when you're not. That's all there is to it really.
Yes, you decide what's the definition of harm is. You also decide what definition of harm we use in a discussion. You also decide if I am being harmed. "That's all there is to it really." so you also know what's true in reality. You claim to know so much.
On June 14 2013 18:53 xM(Z wrote: [quote] dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care.
edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something.
Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on.
That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse.
so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves.
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed.
Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand.
but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one
I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one.
If someone believes that eating animals is literally murder then good luck to them, their position is intellectually sound although I think somewhat silly.
Also I feel strongly about this because I think it's a litmus test for allowing sexual freedom based on principles of the government not being in the bedroom against just allowing what the majority think is fine. If we allow homosexuality and then ban beastiality based purely upon the distaste of the majority then we really haven't learned a thing.
Could the harm then be that sex with other species might cause the transfer of disease to humans?
You know what, you raise a good question. They might be banning it to stop the spread of STDs. I cannot really say what they are going for here, but I think that might be it.
No, it's just that they, like you, have the arrogance to have decided that if they don't like something then it shouldn't be allowed because God forbid people get to do what they want in their own homes if you personally disagree with it. They are doing it for the same selfish, hypocritical and oppressive reasons that you've voiced over and over in this topic.
On June 14 2013 19:51 KwarK wrote: [quote] I think you don't know what the word harm means. I think that attitude is far more harmful to society than some guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home yet you don't see me sending you to jail for it.
Actually, harm can be defined simply as "wrongdoing", it's a common definition.
Could you use that in a common sentence for me?
Having people who fuck animals in society is a wrongdoing. (common for this discussion)
No, "wrongdoing" is a terrible, terrible description because it becomes completely subjective, which defeats the whole purpose of it.
The harm principle holds that the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals. John Stuart Mill articulated this principle in On Liberty, where he argued that, "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
So out of all the people, you quote a philosopher. Kant said it is impossible to obtain direct, unbiased knowledge about an object or event. So yea, quote a person's biased definition and imply it's true because you agree with it. Don't try to say my opinion is wrong in a topic where no one can truly be wrong.
I quote the dude who originally/succinctly came up with a definition of harm, which we're using here. As Umlaut says, your whole argument is circular.
Try thinking this way then: if an individual partakes in an action, in private, that does not harm (even if you call it wrongdoing) anyone else, then what's the problem?
So a dude shagging a sheep in his bedroom. No-one else ever finds out. What's the harm to any other individual? Literally zero.
Compare to any basic illegality. Murder, rape, assault, fraud, burglery. These all have effects on another human being, even if, say, a dude burgled a house and no-one knew about it. Someone has had their property infringed and removed.
What harm to you, as a delicate flower, does a guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home do to you, if you don't know about it? Literally zero.
Ok, so say I went to the tropical rain forest, and discovered a new species of frogs (highly likely since we've only discovered about 3% of species). The frogs are some special rainbow colored frog. I kill them all. You never find out about it. No harm right? Because you didn't know and it doesn't affect humans. Also, you brought up that definition of harm. Then to claim that "we" are using that definition? Pure arrogance. The difference is, you are saying I am wrong and trying to argue that I am indeed wrong. But all I am doing is stating my opinion and asking questions to gain some insight to what others think.
You're making an argument that you're being harmed when you're not. That's all there is to it really.
Yes, you decide what's the definition of harm is. You also decide what definition of harm we use in a discussion. You also decide if I am being harmed. "That's all there is to it really." so you also know what's true in reality. You claim to know so much.
Yes, I also claim chair is "thing with legs you sit on" and not "big leafy thing". You can call a chair a big leafy thing all you like, but I'm gonna stick with things with legs you sit on.
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.
o.O this doesn't sound like your typical overly-sarcastic post that says the complete opposite of what you believe in an effort to emphasise how stupid that line of thinking is.
Bolded section is only thing that makes me still think this is a joke but tone is hard to detect on the internet....
Reading the following post I can only assume this is how you really feel about the issue ???
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.
All right, here is a highly controversial question: by this logic, marriage between animals and humans should also be possible?
Marriage is a contract. Contracts require consent. Swing and a miss there I'm afraid. My argument was in fact that animals don't get consent. My argument pretty much rules out marriage to animals.
On June 14 2013 19:09 KwarK wrote: [quote] Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on.
That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse.
so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves.
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed.
Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand.
but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one
I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one.
If someone believes that eating animals is literally murder then good luck to them, their position is intellectually sound although I think somewhat silly.
Also I feel strongly about this because I think it's a litmus test for allowing sexual freedom based on principles of the government not being in the bedroom against just allowing what the majority think is fine. If we allow homosexuality and then ban beastiality based purely upon the distaste of the majority then we really haven't learned a thing.
Could the harm then be that sex with other species might cause the transfer of disease to humans?
You know what, you raise a good question. They might be banning it to stop the spread of STDs. I cannot really say what they are going for here, but I think that might be it.
Kwark used the example already. What if you found gay sex 'bothersome'?
If the 90-95% of straight people in a country found gay sex 'bothersome', do you think it would be right to legislate against gay sex?
And you missed my post a couple of pages ago when I said it's all SUBJECTIVE. And that in the end, it's all a matter of opinion. I think gay marriages should be legal, but there's tons of people who are against it. Doesn't mean I am any more right than they are and vice versa.
The harm principle holds that the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals. John Stuart Mill articulated this principle in On Liberty, where he argued that, "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
So out of all the people, you quote a philosopher. Kant said it is impossible to obtain direct, unbiased knowledge about an object or event. So yea, quote a person's biased definition and imply it's true because you agree with it. Don't try to say my opinion is wrong in a topic where no one can truly be wrong.
I quote the dude who originally/succinctly came up with a definition of harm, which we're using here. As Umlaut says, your whole argument is circular.
Try thinking this way then: if an individual partakes in an action, in private, that does not harm (even if you call it wrongdoing) anyone else, then what's the problem?
So a dude shagging a sheep in his bedroom. No-one else ever finds out. What's the harm to any other individual? Literally zero.
Compare to any basic illegality. Murder, rape, assault, fraud, burglery. These all have effects on another human being, even if, say, a dude burgled a house and no-one knew about it. Someone has had their property infringed and removed.
What harm to you, as a delicate flower, does a guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home do to you, if you don't know about it? Literally zero.
Ok, so say I went to the tropical rain forest, and discovered a new species of frogs (highly likely since we've only discovered about 3% of species). The frogs are some special rainbow colored frog. I kill them all. You never find out about it. No harm right? Because you didn't know and it doesn't affect humans. Also, you brought up that definition of harm. Then to claim that "we" are using that definition? Pure arrogance. The difference is, you are saying I am wrong and trying to argue that I am indeed wrong. But all I am doing is stating my opinion and asking questions to gain some insight to what others think.
You're making an argument that you're being harmed when you're not. That's all there is to it really.
Yes, you decide what's the definition of harm is. You also decide what definition of harm we use in a discussion. You also decide if I am being harmed. "That's all there is to it really." so you also know what's true in reality. You claim to know so much.
Yes, I also claim chair is "thing with legs you sit on" and not "big leafy thing". You can call a chair a big leafy thing all you like, but I'm gonna stick with things with legs you sit on.
Actually, I quoted the dictionary and harm being defined as wrongdoing is nowhere near the extremity as defining chair as big leafy thing
On June 14 2013 19:35 xM(Z wrote: [quote] so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves.
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
I agree with you, but if I know that people in my community are fucking animals, to me, that's a harm because it bothers me that there are people out there that do that.
I think you don't know what the word harm means. I think that attitude is far more harmful to society than some guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home yet you don't see me sending you to jail for it.
Actually, harm can be defined simply as "wrongdoing", it's a common definition.
Could you use that in a common sentence for me?
Having people who fuck animals in society is a wrongdoing. (common for this discussion)
Do you recognize that your argument is circular? Bestiality should be illegal because it's harmful, it's harmful because harm can mean wrongdoing, and bestiality is "a wrongdoing". Your argument basically boils down to "bestiality should be illegal because I think so." You're not actually defining how it's harmful above and beyond any harm actually done to the animal, except in the sense that you consider your mental anguish at having to live in a world in which something disgusting is happening to be harm.
To be clear, I am not arguing anything because that would imply I am trying to win by proving my point, which I am not doing. If I was arguing something, the sentence wasn't to support my argument. I just used the word in a sentence. And yes, my "mental anguish" at having to live in a world in which people are fucking animals was what I was calling harm. I am not saying I can't sleep at night, but it does bother me. So a small harm.
To paraphrase gay rights activists, "some people are into beastiality, get over it". It's that simple. They are not causing you any harm by the definition used by everyone but you whereas your attitude, when turned into legislation, literally harms people who have done you no wrong. You are a hypocrite, a brute and you seek to use the government as a weapon against others.
1. It is entirely possible for cross species infections to result as a result of bestiality. AIDS was originally a disease amongst chimpanzees and got transferred to the human populace via blood infection through scratches. 2. It is impossible for an animal to give consent to have sex with a human. 3. It is immoral to take advantage of an animal in the same way it is immoral to take advantage of a child.
Cross species sex is not common but it is a natural phenomenon though not to anywhere near the same degree homosexuality is. More importantly it is almost always associated with dominant sexual behaviours and frequently results in offspring.
I am stunned to find there are people trying to compare beastality and human sexuality as if they are just subsets of the human sexual experience. One of them involves activity between consenting humans. The other involves the abuse of an animal - the equivalent of having sex with a child.
On June 14 2013 19:09 KwarK wrote: [quote] Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on.
That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse.
so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves.
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed.
Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand.
but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one
I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one.
If someone believes that eating animals is literally murder then good luck to them, their position is intellectually sound although I think somewhat silly.
Also I feel strongly about this because I think it's a litmus test for allowing sexual freedom based on principles of the government not being in the bedroom against just allowing what the majority think is fine. If we allow homosexuality and then ban beastiality based purely upon the distaste of the majority then we really haven't learned a thing.
Could the harm then be that sex with other species might cause the transfer of disease to humans?
You know what, you raise a good question. They might be banning it to stop the spread of STDs. I cannot really say what they are going for here, but I think that might be it.
No, it's just that they, like you, have the arrogance to have decided that if they don't like something then it shouldn't be allowed because God forbid people get to do what they want in their own homes if you personally disagree with it. They are doing it for the same selfish, hypocritical and oppressive reasons that you've voiced over and over in this topic.
What in the world are you talking about? When have I ever brought up oppression? And I clearly said I THINK it shouldn't be allowed. So I'm not allowed to think now? Difference is that you are claiming that what you believe SHOULD be the norm. All I said was what I believed and asked others what they believed.
On June 14 2013 18:53 xM(Z wrote: [quote] dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care.
edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something.
Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on.
That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse.
so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves.
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed.
Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand.
but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one
I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one.
If someone believes that eating animals is literally murder then good luck to them, their position is intellectually sound although I think somewhat silly.
Also I feel strongly about this because I think it's a litmus test for allowing sexual freedom based on principles of the government not being in the bedroom against just allowing what the majority think is fine. If we allow homosexuality and then ban beastiality based purely upon the distaste of the majority then we really haven't learned a thing.
Could the harm then be that sex with other species might cause the transfer of disease to humans?
Better outlaw all sex given that humans already have STDs then.
Ah correct, sorry I missed that. Kwark, I had a question, maybe you could answer, what is the argument supporting the illegalizing of bestiality? Also how do they qualify cruelty or physical harm? Thanks.
On June 14 2013 19:35 xM(Z wrote: [quote] so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves.
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed.
Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand.
but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one
I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one.
If someone believes that eating animals is literally murder then good luck to them, their position is intellectually sound although I think somewhat silly.
Also I feel strongly about this because I think it's a litmus test for allowing sexual freedom based on principles of the government not being in the bedroom against just allowing what the majority think is fine. If we allow homosexuality and then ban beastiality based purely upon the distaste of the majority then we really haven't learned a thing.
Could the harm then be that sex with other species might cause the transfer of disease to humans?
You know what, you raise a good question. They might be banning it to stop the spread of STDs. I cannot really say what they are going for here, but I think that might be it.
No, it's just that they, like you, have the arrogance to have decided that if they don't like something then it shouldn't be allowed because God forbid people get to do what they want in their own homes if you personally disagree with it. They are doing it for the same selfish, hypocritical and oppressive reasons that you've voiced over and over in this topic.
What in the world are you talking about? When have I ever brought up oppression? And I clearly said I THINK it shouldn't be allowed. So I'm not allowed to think now? Difference is that you are claiming that what you believe SHOULD be the norm. All I said was what I believed and asked others what they believed.
He believes if nobody is coming to any harm people should mind their own business, you believe if you don't like Justin Beiber you have the right to make it illegal for me to listen to him.
On June 14 2013 19:35 xM(Z wrote: [quote] so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves.
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed.
Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand.
but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one
I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one.
If someone believes that eating animals is literally murder then good luck to them, their position is intellectually sound although I think somewhat silly.
Also I feel strongly about this because I think it's a litmus test for allowing sexual freedom based on principles of the government not being in the bedroom against just allowing what the majority think is fine. If we allow homosexuality and then ban beastiality based purely upon the distaste of the majority then we really haven't learned a thing.
Could the harm then be that sex with other species might cause the transfer of disease to humans?
You know what, you raise a good question. They might be banning it to stop the spread of STDs. I cannot really say what they are going for here, but I think that might be it.
Kwark used the example already. What if you found gay sex 'bothersome'?
If the 90-95% of straight people in a country found gay sex 'bothersome', do you think it would be right to legislate against gay sex?
And you missed my post a couple of pages ago when I said it's all SUBJECTIVE. And that in the end, it's all a matter of opinion. I think gay marriages should be legal, but there's tons of people who are against it. Doesn't mean I am any more right than they are and vice versa.
You have repeatedly pointed out that all opinions are subjective and nobody is truly right or wrong, for what reason I'm not sure.
If I live in a community of people and the majority agree that stealing is wrong and punishable then if I say to you "stealing is wrong in my community" then I'm right. If you disagree, you're wrong.
There's a lot of stuff that doesn't get written because it goes without saying, if in every thread people had to write "according to the morals of the Western Society that we live in it's wrong to steal" instead of just that "it's wrong" then there'd be a whole lot of redundant text clogging up threads.
Similarly, reducing every single topic regardless of nature into objective morality, subjective morality and the greater questions of the universe really serves no purpose apart from derailing discussion, so I'd like to ask you:
On June 14 2013 19:46 KwarK wrote: [quote] My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed.
Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand.
but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one
I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one.
If someone believes that eating animals is literally murder then good luck to them, their position is intellectually sound although I think somewhat silly.
Also I feel strongly about this because I think it's a litmus test for allowing sexual freedom based on principles of the government not being in the bedroom against just allowing what the majority think is fine. If we allow homosexuality and then ban beastiality based purely upon the distaste of the majority then we really haven't learned a thing.
Could the harm then be that sex with other species might cause the transfer of disease to humans?
You know what, you raise a good question. They might be banning it to stop the spread of STDs. I cannot really say what they are going for here, but I think that might be it.
Kwark used the example already. What if you found gay sex 'bothersome'?
If the 90-95% of straight people in a country found gay sex 'bothersome', do you think it would be right to legislate against gay sex?
And you missed my post a couple of pages ago when I said it's all SUBJECTIVE. And that in the end, it's all a matter of opinion. I think gay marriages should be legal, but there's tons of people who are against it. Doesn't mean I am any more right than they are and vice versa.
You have repeatedly pointed out that all opinions are subjective and nobody is truly right or wrong, for what reason I'm not sure.
If I live in a community of people and the majority agree that stealing is wrong and punishable then if I say to you "stealing is wrong in my community" then I'm right. If you disagree, you're wrong.
There's a lot of stuff that doesn't get written because it goes without saying, if in every thread people had to write "according to the morals of the Western Society that we live in it's wrong to steal" instead of just that "it's wrong" then there'd be a whole lot of redundant text clogging up threads.
Similarly, reducing every single topic regardless of nature into objective morality, subjective morality and the greater questions of the universe really serves no purpose apart from derailing discussion, so I'd like to ask you:
Where are you going with this?
I say "all opinions are subjective." You say "for what reason I'm not sure." I think we're done here.
Wow.. Internet never ceases to amaze me. Who would have thought a thread about bestiality would go into heated arguments. It's a good thing they make this illegal since everyone I've met offline and ever mentioning this to find sex with animals as a horrific abuse.
On June 14 2013 19:46 KwarK wrote: [quote] My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
I agree with you, but if I know that people in my community are fucking animals, to me, that's a harm because it bothers me that there are people out there that do that.
I think you don't know what the word harm means. I think that attitude is far more harmful to society than some guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home yet you don't see me sending you to jail for it.
Actually, harm can be defined simply as "wrongdoing", it's a common definition.
Could you use that in a common sentence for me?
Having people who fuck animals in society is a wrongdoing. (common for this discussion)
Do you recognize that your argument is circular? Bestiality should be illegal because it's harmful, it's harmful because harm can mean wrongdoing, and bestiality is "a wrongdoing". Your argument basically boils down to "bestiality should be illegal because I think so." You're not actually defining how it's harmful above and beyond any harm actually done to the animal, except in the sense that you consider your mental anguish at having to live in a world in which something disgusting is happening to be harm.
To be clear, I am not arguing anything because that would imply I am trying to win by proving my point, which I am not doing. If I was arguing something, the sentence wasn't to support my argument. I just used the word in a sentence. And yes, my "mental anguish" at having to live in a world in which people are fucking animals was what I was calling harm. I am not saying I can't sleep at night, but it does bother me. So a small harm.
To paraphrase gay rights activists, "some people are into beastiality, get over it". It's that simple. They are not causing you any harm by the definition used by everyone but you whereas your attitude, when turned into legislation, literally harms people who have done you no wrong. You are a hypocrite, a brute and you seek to use the government as a weapon against others.
1. It is entirely possible for cross species infections to result as a result of bestiality. AIDS was originally a disease amongst chimpanzees and got transferred to the human populace via blood infection through scratches. 2. It is impossible for an animal to give consent to have sex with a human. 3. It is immoral to take advantage of an animal in the same way it is immoral to take advantage of a child.
Cross species sex is not common but it is a natural phenomenon though not to anywhere near the same degree homosexuality is. More importantly it is almost always associated with dominant sexual behaviours and frequently results in offspring.
I am stunned to find there are people trying to compare beastality and human sexuality as if they are just subsets of the human sexual experience. One of them involves activity between consenting humans. The other involves the abuse of an animal - the equivalent of having sex with a child.
Horrible thread.
If you think animals are the same as children I have some really bad news for you about where meat comes from.
What gets me about the animal rights aspect of this is that it is the most incredibly irrelevant part of breaching animal rights imaginable. There are 8.4 billion chickens killed each year and maybe thousands of cases of beastiality and that's the one people are going after? It's like banning anal sex as an environmentalist based on the CO2 produced by the trucks that move lube from lube factories to shops. It's an absolutely bizarre, irrelevant and nonsensical way to improve animal rights in a negligible way.
On June 14 2013 19:35 xM(Z wrote: [quote] so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves.
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed.
Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand.
but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one
I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one.
If someone believes that eating animals is literally murder then good luck to them, their position is intellectually sound although I think somewhat silly.
Also I feel strongly about this because I think it's a litmus test for allowing sexual freedom based on principles of the government not being in the bedroom against just allowing what the majority think is fine. If we allow homosexuality and then ban beastiality based purely upon the distaste of the majority then we really haven't learned a thing.
Could the harm then be that sex with other species might cause the transfer of disease to humans?
You know what, you raise a good question. They might be banning it to stop the spread of STDs. I cannot really say what they are going for here, but I think that might be it.
Kwark used the example already. What if you found gay sex 'bothersome'?
If the 90-95% of straight people in a country found gay sex 'bothersome', do you think it would be right to legislate against gay sex?
And you missed my post a couple of pages ago when I said it's all SUBJECTIVE. And that in the end, it's all a matter of opinion. I think gay marriages should be legal, but there's tons of people who are against it. Doesn't mean I am any more right than they are and vice versa.
You didn't answer my question. If a majority of people found gay sex 'bothersome' or it was 'wrongdoing', do you think it would be right to legislate against gay sex?
Oh, I should note that as the owner of two terriers, on a human scale of mental age I'd put their mental acuity at around the level of a six to twelve months. Smart for an animal, definitely.
Some things just aren't worth playing devils advocate for.
Also, @Reason, if you want to go into that kind of stuff, there's TONS of philosophy books and courses on it. Trust me, many philosophers more knowledgeable than me have this chain of thought.
If it has to be a law, and people disrespect themselves enough, or get off on the humiliation - I`d prefer a law that forces you to tell someone if you ever had sex with an animal before having sex with said person, because the widespread of some nasty zoonoses is the only problem I see for society. And if you fail to tell, just like people will fail to follow that new law, you can at least sue the guy / girl when your penis falls off or your ovaries rot and you can`t have kids anymoe.
On June 14 2013 19:52 xM(Z wrote: [quote] yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed.
Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand.
but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one
I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one.
If someone believes that eating animals is literally murder then good luck to them, their position is intellectually sound although I think somewhat silly.
Also I feel strongly about this because I think it's a litmus test for allowing sexual freedom based on principles of the government not being in the bedroom against just allowing what the majority think is fine. If we allow homosexuality and then ban beastiality based purely upon the distaste of the majority then we really haven't learned a thing.
Could the harm then be that sex with other species might cause the transfer of disease to humans?
You know what, you raise a good question. They might be banning it to stop the spread of STDs. I cannot really say what they are going for here, but I think that might be it.
Kwark used the example already. What if you found gay sex 'bothersome'?
If the 90-95% of straight people in a country found gay sex 'bothersome', do you think it would be right to legislate against gay sex?
And you missed my post a couple of pages ago when I said it's all SUBJECTIVE. And that in the end, it's all a matter of opinion. I think gay marriages should be legal, but there's tons of people who are against it. Doesn't mean I am any more right than they are and vice versa.
You have repeatedly pointed out that all opinions are subjective and nobody is truly right or wrong, for what reason I'm not sure.
If I live in a community of people and the majority agree that stealing is wrong and punishable then if I say to you "stealing is wrong in my community" then I'm right. If you disagree, you're wrong.
There's a lot of stuff that doesn't get written because it goes without saying, if in every thread people had to write "according to the morals of the Western Society that we live in it's wrong to steal" instead of just that "it's wrong" then there'd be a whole lot of redundant text clogging up threads.
Similarly, reducing every single topic regardless of nature into objective morality, subjective morality and the greater questions of the universe really serves no purpose apart from derailing discussion, so I'd like to ask you:
Where are you going with this?
I say "all opinions are subjective." You say "for what reason I'm not sure." I think we're done here.
Would you care to explain why?
You're not making any sense to me and people are really doing their best to accommodate you... try returning the favour and humour me with an actual response.
I'm asking you about the relevance of "all opinions are subjective", why exactly are you mentioning that here?
On June 14 2013 20:30 KasPra wrote: If there was a stupidest and most hilarious debate prize on TL I think this topic in general is a worthy candidate.
You're not the first person to post this type of comment today but honestly it's starting to piss me off when people come into threads and write shit like this.
LOL OMG PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY DISCUSSING THIS???
Yes, do you have anything to contribute? I didn't think so.
There's nothing stupid and hilarious about having a measured discussion on recently passed litigation.
On June 14 2013 20:29 Evangelist wrote: Oh, I should note that as the owner of two terriers, on a human scale of mental age I'd put their mental acuity at around the level of a six to twelve months. Smart for an animal, definitely.
Some things just aren't worth playing devils advocate for.
Does making it illegal actually change anything though?
Fair enough it makes it easier to legislate, but much with other things all that'll happen is people will still continue to do it, but just hide their acts more. Illegality very often doesn't change the amount things are done, just pushes them into hiding more, like sweeping them under a rug I guess.
On June 14 2013 19:54 KwarK wrote: [quote] Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand.
but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one
I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one.
If someone believes that eating animals is literally murder then good luck to them, their position is intellectually sound although I think somewhat silly.
Also I feel strongly about this because I think it's a litmus test for allowing sexual freedom based on principles of the government not being in the bedroom against just allowing what the majority think is fine. If we allow homosexuality and then ban beastiality based purely upon the distaste of the majority then we really haven't learned a thing.
Could the harm then be that sex with other species might cause the transfer of disease to humans?
You know what, you raise a good question. They might be banning it to stop the spread of STDs. I cannot really say what they are going for here, but I think that might be it.
Kwark used the example already. What if you found gay sex 'bothersome'?
If the 90-95% of straight people in a country found gay sex 'bothersome', do you think it would be right to legislate against gay sex?
And you missed my post a couple of pages ago when I said it's all SUBJECTIVE. And that in the end, it's all a matter of opinion. I think gay marriages should be legal, but there's tons of people who are against it. Doesn't mean I am any more right than they are and vice versa.
You have repeatedly pointed out that all opinions are subjective and nobody is truly right or wrong, for what reason I'm not sure.
If I live in a community of people and the majority agree that stealing is wrong and punishable then if I say to you "stealing is wrong in my community" then I'm right. If you disagree, you're wrong.
There's a lot of stuff that doesn't get written because it goes without saying, if in every thread people had to write "according to the morals of the Western Society that we live in it's wrong to steal" instead of just that "it's wrong" then there'd be a whole lot of redundant text clogging up threads.
Similarly, reducing every single topic regardless of nature into objective morality, subjective morality and the greater questions of the universe really serves no purpose apart from derailing discussion, so I'd like to ask you:
Where are you going with this?
I say "all opinions are subjective." You say "for what reason I'm not sure." I think we're done here.
Would you care to explain why?
You're not making any sense to me and people are really doing their best to accommodate you... try returning the favour and humour me with an actual response.
I'm asking you about the relevance of "all opinions are subjective", why exactly are you mentioning that here?
What does it have to do with the discussion?
Oh sorry, I misinterpreted what you said. I thought you were trying to say opinion isnt subjective. Ill sum up what I was trying to say so people can clearly comprehend it. 1. All opinions are subjective. Thus, no one can be 100% right or wrong. 2. I think the ban of bestiality shouldn't even be about animal abuse. It should be banned based on just the disgust factor alone. Of course, I do think it is abusive and should be banned for that reason as well. 3. Now, I ask the question. Do others think bestiality should be banned without question or is it arguable both ways?
Notice, I am not claiming anything or arguing anything. Just asking a question and stating my humble opinion. No idea why people are trying to prove things to me.
On June 14 2013 20:35 Qikz wrote: Does making it illegal actually change anything though?
Fair enough it makes it easier to legislate, but much with other things all that'll happen is people will still continue to do it, but just hide their acts more. Illegality very often doesn't change the amount things are done, just pushes them into hiding more, like sweeping them under a rug I guess.
Nope, wont do anything. I just wish there was a way to enforce it so people stop fucking animals. If only magic was real...
On June 14 2013 20:30 ExKkaMaGui wrote: Also, @Reason, if you want to go into that kind of stuff, there's TONS of philosophy books and courses on it. Trust me, many philosophers more knowledgeable than me have this chain of thought.
I'm not sure any philosophers are arguing that things done in the privacy of ones own home should be outlawed because they offend the sensibilities of an individual in no way involved precisely because of the homosexuality argument. Your exact argument has been used over and over in recent decades as a justification for banning homosexuality and has been thoroughly rejected by society at large. Care to link any of your philosophers?
On June 14 2013 20:36 ExKkaMaGui wrote: 2. I think the ban of bestiality shouldn't even be about animal abuse. It should be banned based on just the disgust factor alone.
This is not acceptable in our Western Society, nor should it be according to the values I personally hold which may or may not result from living in said society.
On June 14 2013 20:30 ExKkaMaGui wrote: Also, @Reason, if you want to go into that kind of stuff, there's TONS of philosophy books and courses on it. Trust me, many philosophers more knowledgeable than me have this chain of thought.
Oh my *god* I know that....ffs.... I'm asking why on Earth you feel the need to reduce the current discussion to some philosophical discussion about subjectivity and objectivity, not whether it's a valid discussion in and of itself.
In case you hadn't guessed, no I don't want to get into that kind of stuff in this thread and I'm asking why are you?
On June 14 2013 19:46 KwarK wrote: [quote] My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed.
Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand.
but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one
I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one.
If someone believes that eating animals is literally murder then good luck to them, their position is intellectually sound although I think somewhat silly.
Also I feel strongly about this because I think it's a litmus test for allowing sexual freedom based on principles of the government not being in the bedroom against just allowing what the majority think is fine. If we allow homosexuality and then ban beastiality based purely upon the distaste of the majority then we really haven't learned a thing.
Could the harm then be that sex with other species might cause the transfer of disease to humans?
You know what, you raise a good question. They might be banning it to stop the spread of STDs. I cannot really say what they are going for here, but I think that might be it.
Kwark used the example already. What if you found gay sex 'bothersome'?
If the 90-95% of straight people in a country found gay sex 'bothersome', do you think it would be right to legislate against gay sex?
And you missed my post a couple of pages ago when I said it's all SUBJECTIVE. And that in the end, it's all a matter of opinion. I think gay marriages should be legal, but there's tons of people who are against it. Doesn't mean I am any more right than they are and vice versa.
You didn't answer my question. If a majority of people found gay sex 'bothersome' or it was 'wrongdoing', do you think it would be right to legislate against gay sex?
On June 14 2013 20:28 Nausea wrote: Wow.. Internet never ceases to amaze me. Who would have thought a thread about bestiality would go into heated arguments. It's a good thing they make this illegal since everyone I've met offline and ever mentioning this to find sex with animals as a horrific abuse.
We shouldn't base our laws on feelings of disgust, but on more objective parameters. Doing otherwise has done a lot of harm in the past, and mankind should have learned from that. That's the point.
Bestiality is such a fringe phenomenon that I doubt any people in this thread care about it. That does not mean that we should give up on our principles in this case.
On June 14 2013 20:30 ExKkaMaGui wrote: Also, @Reason, if you want to go into that kind of stuff, there's TONS of philosophy books and courses on it. Trust me, many philosophers more knowledgeable than me have this chain of thought.
I'm not sure any philosophers are arguing that things done in the privacy of ones own home should be outlawed because they offend the sensibilities of an individual in no way involved precisely because of the homosexuality argument. Your exact argument has been used over and over in recent decades as a justification for banning homosexuality and has been thoroughly rejected by society at large. Care to link any of your philosophers?
You're misreading my post. What I said was that absolute truth does not exist in this world. Immanuel Kant whom I quoted earlier is one.
On June 14 2013 19:50 ExKkaMaGui wrote: [quote] I agree with you, but if I know that people in my community are fucking animals, to me, that's a harm because it bothers me that there are people out there that do that.
I think you don't know what the word harm means. I think that attitude is far more harmful to society than some guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home yet you don't see me sending you to jail for it.
Actually, harm can be defined simply as "wrongdoing", it's a common definition.
Could you use that in a common sentence for me?
Having people who fuck animals in society is a wrongdoing. (common for this discussion)
Do you recognize that your argument is circular? Bestiality should be illegal because it's harmful, it's harmful because harm can mean wrongdoing, and bestiality is "a wrongdoing". Your argument basically boils down to "bestiality should be illegal because I think so." You're not actually defining how it's harmful above and beyond any harm actually done to the animal, except in the sense that you consider your mental anguish at having to live in a world in which something disgusting is happening to be harm.
To be clear, I am not arguing anything because that would imply I am trying to win by proving my point, which I am not doing. If I was arguing something, the sentence wasn't to support my argument. I just used the word in a sentence. And yes, my "mental anguish" at having to live in a world in which people are fucking animals was what I was calling harm. I am not saying I can't sleep at night, but it does bother me. So a small harm.
To paraphrase gay rights activists, "some people are into beastiality, get over it". It's that simple. They are not causing you any harm by the definition used by everyone but you whereas your attitude, when turned into legislation, literally harms people who have done you no wrong. You are a hypocrite, a brute and you seek to use the government as a weapon against others.
1. It is entirely possible for cross species infections to result as a result of bestiality. AIDS was originally a disease amongst chimpanzees and got transferred to the human populace via blood infection through scratches. 2. It is impossible for an animal to give consent to have sex with a human. 3. It is immoral to take advantage of an animal in the same way it is immoral to take advantage of a child.
Cross species sex is not common but it is a natural phenomenon though not to anywhere near the same degree homosexuality is. More importantly it is almost always associated with dominant sexual behaviours and frequently results in offspring.
I am stunned to find there are people trying to compare beastality and human sexuality as if they are just subsets of the human sexual experience. One of them involves activity between consenting humans. The other involves the abuse of an animal - the equivalent of having sex with a child.
Horrible thread.
If you think animals are the same as children I have some really bad news for you about where meat comes from.
What gets me about the animal rights aspect of this is that it is the most incredibly irrelevant part of breaching animal rights imaginable. There are 8.4 billion chickens killed each year and maybe thousands of cases of beastiality and that's the one people are going after? It's banning anal sex as an environmentalist based on the CO2 produced by the trucks that move lube from lube factories to shops. It's an absolutely bizarre, irrelevant and nonsensical way to improve animal rights in a negligible way.
Okay.
1. The eating of plant and animal matter is the only known method of exchanging chemical energy between organisms that we know of. Until we develop a method of taking energy directly from the sun, I'm afraid we're stuck with it.
2. Large scale agriculture is the only method we know of which allows us to feed our population. In that sense, it's an us or them situation. The human body requires energy. Thus we breed it.
3. The culling system is designed to be as painless as possible and it is immoral to eat meat or vegetables that has been produced in an immoral way (kosher, halal). Stun the thing, put it out of its misery quickly and painlessly. It's a better end than a lot of humans have, thanks to religion.
4. Beastiality meets absolutely no human need. In the realm of sex, legally all that matters is consent. For the perspective of who is capable of consent, you compare intelligence, ableness to make self aware decisions, enticement, drug based inducements and so on.
In that sense, animals are much closer to children legally than they are to adults. In fact, they are closest to the human embryo in societies which recognise abortion rights. Furthermore while it is hard to prove "distress" in an animal, it is easy to prove consent. There isn't any.
That is all that is important. Killing never requires consent - it simply requires context. That is why killing soldiers in a war is legal, killing civilians is illegal. That is why juries will acquit desperation killings for abused housewives but will send cop killers down for life. That is why mass murdering an entire farm of cattle and leaving their corpses to rot is a criminal act, but sending them one by one to be processed for meat is not.
Please, though, don't let logic, due precedent, morality or any form of legal rights get in the way of your argument. Carry on. Explain to me how homosexuality (a fundamental property of the human psyche) and the resulting mutually consented sex is remotely comparable to buggering a child or a dog because you have an erection.
On June 14 2013 19:09 KwarK wrote: [quote] Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on.
That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse.
so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves.
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed.
Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand.
but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one
I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one.
If someone believes that eating animals is literally murder then good luck to them, their position is intellectually sound although I think somewhat silly.
Also I feel strongly about this because I think it's a litmus test for allowing sexual freedom based on principles of the government not being in the bedroom against just allowing what the majority think is fine. If we allow homosexuality and then ban beastiality based purely upon the distaste of the majority then we really haven't learned a thing.
Could the harm then be that sex with other species might cause the transfer of disease to humans?
Better outlaw all sex given that humans already have STDs then.
Ah correct, sorry I missed that. Kwark, I had a question, maybe you could answer, what is the argument supporting the illegalizing of bestiality? Also how do they qualify cruelty or physical harm? Thanks.
The argument I think comes down to "I don't like it so you shouldn't be able to do it". It's nothing more than oppression which is why I care, homosexuality didn't suddenly become okay when they were able to convince the majority to stop banning it, it was always okay and they were just oppressed.
On June 14 2013 20:30 ExKkaMaGui wrote: Also, @Reason, if you want to go into that kind of stuff, there's TONS of philosophy books and courses on it. Trust me, many philosophers more knowledgeable than me have this chain of thought.
Oh my *god* I know that....ffs.... I'm asking why on Earth you feel the need to reduce the current discussion to some philosophical discussion about subjectivity and objectivity, not whether it's a valid discussion in and of itself.
In case you hadn't guessed, no I don't want to get into that kind of stuff in this thread and I'm asking why are you?
Oh sorry, I misinterpreted what you said. I thought you were trying to say opinion isnt subjective. Ill sum up what I was trying to say so people can clearly comprehend it. 1. All opinions are subjective. Thus, no one can be 100% right or wrong. 2. I think the ban of bestiality shouldn't even be about animal abuse. It should be banned based on just the disgust factor alone. Of course, I do think it is abusive and should be banned for that reason as well. 3. Now, I ask the question. Do others think bestiality should be banned without question or is it arguable both ways?
Someone please answer me: What is the argument in favor of criminalizing/not allowing bestiality? If it is due to physical harm or cruelty, how do you qualify it? Thanks.
On June 14 2013 20:35 Qikz wrote: Does making it illegal actually change anything though?
Fair enough it makes it easier to legislate, but much with other things all that'll happen is people will still continue to do it, but just hide their acts more. Illegality very often doesn't change the amount things are done, just pushes them into hiding more, like sweeping them under a rug I guess.
it changes the commercialization of it on some extent; the abuse of it for money/gain. as far as those other private affairs go, i don't think it'll make a difference.
On June 14 2013 19:52 xM(Z wrote: [quote] yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed.
Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand.
but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one
I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one.
If someone believes that eating animals is literally murder then good luck to them, their position is intellectually sound although I think somewhat silly.
Also I feel strongly about this because I think it's a litmus test for allowing sexual freedom based on principles of the government not being in the bedroom against just allowing what the majority think is fine. If we allow homosexuality and then ban beastiality based purely upon the distaste of the majority then we really haven't learned a thing.
Could the harm then be that sex with other species might cause the transfer of disease to humans?
You know what, you raise a good question. They might be banning it to stop the spread of STDs. I cannot really say what they are going for here, but I think that might be it.
Kwark used the example already. What if you found gay sex 'bothersome'?
If the 90-95% of straight people in a country found gay sex 'bothersome', do you think it would be right to legislate against gay sex?
And you missed my post a couple of pages ago when I said it's all SUBJECTIVE. And that in the end, it's all a matter of opinion. I think gay marriages should be legal, but there's tons of people who are against it. Doesn't mean I am any more right than they are and vice versa.
You didn't answer my question. If a majority of people found gay sex 'bothersome' or it was 'wrongdoing', do you think it would be right to legislate against gay sex?
No, I don't think gay sex should be banned. But I am not saying anyone can determine that. All it boils down to is if people who can make that choice believe it should be, it will be. I dont have that power and you dont either. So all we can do is voice our opinion. Why do you speak with so much authority when it's just your opinion?
On June 14 2013 20:30 ExKkaMaGui wrote: Also, @Reason, if you want to go into that kind of stuff, there's TONS of philosophy books and courses on it. Trust me, many philosophers more knowledgeable than me have this chain of thought.
Oh my *god* I know that....ffs.... I'm asking why on Earth you feel the need to reduce the current discussion to some philosophical discussion about subjectivity and objectivity, not whether it's a valid discussion in and of itself.
In case you hadn't guessed, no I don't want to get into that kind of stuff in this thread and I'm asking why are you?
Oh sorry, I misinterpreted what you said. I thought you were trying to say opinion isnt subjective. Ill sum up what I was trying to say so people can clearly comprehend it. 1. All opinions are subjective. Thus, no one can be 100% right or wrong. 2. I think the ban of bestiality shouldn't even be about animal abuse. It should be banned based on just the disgust factor alone. Of course, I do think it is abusive and should be banned for that reason as well. 3. Now, I ask the question. Do others think bestiality should be banned without question or is it arguable both ways?
Reread my post
1. So what?
2. I find that morally reprehensible as does the majority of civilized society.
3. That's already been made obvious by 10+ pages of discussion.
On June 14 2013 20:40 S:klogW wrote: Someone please answer me: What is the argument in favor of criminalizing/not allowing bestiality? If it is due to physical harm or cruelty, how do you qualify it? Thanks.
Its about consent. It is the same reason we do not criminalize paedophilia but we criminalize the act of having sex with a minor.
There are plenty of other reasons but that is the only one worth discussing here.
On June 14 2013 16:00 TOCHMY wrote: I've not much experience with beastiality... But I don't see why it should not be illegal
The issue is why need to legislate at all? Is it that mainstream in your country?
It's been illegal a long time since you are trying to perform sex with something that cannot give your consent about the act, therefore it's illegal and you will get convicted as a rapist etc. So no... it's not very mainstream in Sweden
On June 14 2013 20:35 Qikz wrote: Does making it illegal actually change anything though?
Fair enough it makes it easier to legislate, but much with other things all that'll happen is people will still continue to do it, but just hide their acts more. Illegality very often doesn't change the amount things are done, just pushes them into hiding more, like sweeping them under a rug I guess.
it changes the commercialization of it on some extent; the abuse of it for money/gain. as far as those other private affairs go, i don't think it'll make a difference.
People actually make significant money off it? That's hardly believable.
On June 14 2013 19:35 xM(Z wrote: [quote] so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves.
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed.
Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand.
but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one
I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one.
If someone believes that eating animals is literally murder then good luck to them, their position is intellectually sound although I think somewhat silly.
Also I feel strongly about this because I think it's a litmus test for allowing sexual freedom based on principles of the government not being in the bedroom against just allowing what the majority think is fine. If we allow homosexuality and then ban beastiality based purely upon the distaste of the majority then we really haven't learned a thing.
Could the harm then be that sex with other species might cause the transfer of disease to humans?
Better outlaw all sex given that humans already have STDs then.
Ah correct, sorry I missed that. Kwark, I had a question, maybe you could answer, what is the argument supporting the illegalizing of bestiality? Also how do they qualify cruelty or physical harm? Thanks.
The argument I think comes down to "I don't like it so you shouldn't be able to do it". It's nothing more than oppression which is why I care, homosexuality didn't suddenly become okay when they were able to convince the majority to stop banning it, it was always okay and they were just oppressed.
His argument is that it was never okay, or not okay, because that's a matter of opinion and all opinions are subjective, therefore you don't have a point.
I'm really not well versed enough in debate to be able to handle that kind of view appropriately, I'd love to see you try ...
(or maybe I wouldn't because as I've mentioned already every single fucking thread is reduced to "morality is subjective" and then grinds to a halt) Bitterness aside I'd really love to see a concise rebuttal to that kind of pointless derailment so in future when people go "ah, but everything is subjective, therefore /thread" there's some way to neatly disregard such a fruitless way of thinking and discuss things in a more positive fashion
Groom them, bath them, tie them up, put them in a cage, slaughter them, and eat them, but for the love of god do not have fuck them! This is plain hypocrisy among humans! Go bestiality! Though personally not my kind of kink.
Personally, I think sex between 2 men is more disgusting than sex between a woman and a horse. I would also bet that STD's are more prevalent among gay men than bestiality people (or w/e you call them).
Apparently it's still legal in Denmark and Russia. Zoophilia activity also legal in some US states: AL, AS, DC, GU, HI, KY, MT, NV, NH, NJ, NM, MP, OH, TX, VT, VA, WV, WY ..and a lot of other countries. Source: wikipedia
On June 14 2013 19:46 KwarK wrote: [quote] My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed.
Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand.
but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one
I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one.
If someone believes that eating animals is literally murder then good luck to them, their position is intellectually sound although I think somewhat silly.
Also I feel strongly about this because I think it's a litmus test for allowing sexual freedom based on principles of the government not being in the bedroom against just allowing what the majority think is fine. If we allow homosexuality and then ban beastiality based purely upon the distaste of the majority then we really haven't learned a thing.
Could the harm then be that sex with other species might cause the transfer of disease to humans?
Better outlaw all sex given that humans already have STDs then.
Ah correct, sorry I missed that. Kwark, I had a question, maybe you could answer, what is the argument supporting the illegalizing of bestiality? Also how do they qualify cruelty or physical harm? Thanks.
The argument I think comes down to "I don't like it so you shouldn't be able to do it". It's nothing more than oppression which is why I care, homosexuality didn't suddenly become okay when they were able to convince the majority to stop banning it, it was always okay and they were just oppressed.
His argument is that it was never okay, or not okay, because that's a matter of opinion and all opinions are subjective, therefore you don't have a point.
I'm really not well versed enough in debate to be able to handle that kind of view appropriately, I'd love to see you try ...
You're not comprehending what I am saying. I WAS NOT trying to debating anything. All I was saying was let's share our opinions and why we think that way. So there was no argument from my end.
On June 14 2013 20:44 electronic voyeur wrote: Groom them, bath them, tie them up, put them in a cage, slaughter them, and eat them, but for the love of god do not have fuck them! This is plain hypocrisy among humans! Go bestiality! Though personally not my kind of kink.
Yep. Grooming you do to your kids. As does bathing them. You tie your kids to a chair for their own safety, put them in cots they can't escape. You can legally kill them up until the 24th week of their formulation. Oh and in many countries you can legally beat the living shit out of them or kill them if they marry the wrong person.
Definitely can't fuck them. Consent.
If you support bestiality then you similarly support paedophilia.
On June 14 2013 20:30 ExKkaMaGui wrote: Also, @Reason, if you want to go into that kind of stuff, there's TONS of philosophy books and courses on it. Trust me, many philosophers more knowledgeable than me have this chain of thought.
Oh my *god* I know that....ffs.... I'm asking why on Earth you feel the need to reduce the current discussion to some philosophical discussion about subjectivity and objectivity, not whether it's a valid discussion in and of itself.
In case you hadn't guessed, no I don't want to get into that kind of stuff in this thread and I'm asking why are you?
Oh sorry, I misinterpreted what you said. I thought you were trying to say opinion isnt subjective. Ill sum up what I was trying to say so people can clearly comprehend it. 1. All opinions are subjective. Thus, no one can be 100% right or wrong. 2. I think the ban of bestiality shouldn't even be about animal abuse. It should be banned based on just the disgust factor alone. Of course, I do think it is abusive and should be banned for that reason as well. 3. Now, I ask the question. Do others think bestiality should be banned without question or is it arguable both ways?
Reread my post
i don't think that anyone can really reply to that (yet/in this stage of the evolution) but i'd say that you'd have to accept the karma that comes with it. ps: i don't believe in karma but that is the best reply one could get imo
On June 14 2013 20:46 Crayfishy wrote: Personally, I think sex between 2 men is more disgusting than sex between a woman and a horse. I would also bet that STD's are more prevalent among gay men than bestiality people (or w/e you call them).
Apparently it's still legal in Denmark and Russia. Zoophilia activity also legal in some US states: AL, AS, DC, GU, HI, KY, MT, NV, NH, NJ, NM, MP, OH, TX, VT, VA, WV, WY ..and a lot of other countries. Source: wikipedia
That's really interesting. I find gay sex to be completely ok, but I view sex b/t a human and an animal to be completely disgusting.
On June 14 2013 20:46 Crayfishy wrote: Personally, I think sex between 2 men is more disgusting than sex between a woman and a horse. I would also bet that STD's are more prevalent among gay men than bestiality people (or w/e you call them).
Apparently it's still legal in Denmark and Russia. Zoophilia activity also legal in some US states: AL, AS, DC, GU, HI, KY, MT, NV, NH, NJ, NM, MP, OH, TX, VT, VA, WV, WY ..and a lot of other countries. Source: wikipedia
Yes well that's because you're a dumbarse but then we can't all be made perfect.
On June 14 2013 20:46 Crayfishy wrote: Personally, I think sex between 2 men is more disgusting than sex between a woman and a horse. I would also bet that STD's are more prevalent among gay men than bestiality people (or w/e you call them).
Apparently it's still legal in Denmark and Russia. Zoophilia activity also legal in some US states: AL, AS, DC, GU, HI, KY, MT, NV, NH, NJ, NM, MP, OH, TX, VT, VA, WV, WY ..and a lot of other countries. Source: wikipedia
Yes well that's because you're a dumbarse but then we can't all be made perfect.
haha afaik the practice of donkey fucking is pretty common in some regions of the world, don't really see a need for this law except water down the law with useless morality
On June 14 2013 20:46 Crayfishy wrote: Personally, I think sex between 2 men is more disgusting than sex between a woman and a horse. I would also bet that STD's are more prevalent among gay men than bestiality people (or w/e you call them).
Apparently it's still legal in Denmark and Russia. Zoophilia activity also legal in some US states: AL, AS, DC, GU, HI, KY, MT, NV, NH, NJ, NM, MP, OH, TX, VT, VA, WV, WY ..and a lot of other countries. Source: wikipedia
you realize aids probably comes from men having sex with monkeys right, but yeah keep furthering your homophopic agenda based on absolutely nothing
On June 14 2013 19:51 KwarK wrote: [quote] I think you don't know what the word harm means. I think that attitude is far more harmful to society than some guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home yet you don't see me sending you to jail for it.
Actually, harm can be defined simply as "wrongdoing", it's a common definition.
Could you use that in a common sentence for me?
Having people who fuck animals in society is a wrongdoing. (common for this discussion)
Do you recognize that your argument is circular? Bestiality should be illegal because it's harmful, it's harmful because harm can mean wrongdoing, and bestiality is "a wrongdoing". Your argument basically boils down to "bestiality should be illegal because I think so." You're not actually defining how it's harmful above and beyond any harm actually done to the animal, except in the sense that you consider your mental anguish at having to live in a world in which something disgusting is happening to be harm.
To be clear, I am not arguing anything because that would imply I am trying to win by proving my point, which I am not doing. If I was arguing something, the sentence wasn't to support my argument. I just used the word in a sentence. And yes, my "mental anguish" at having to live in a world in which people are fucking animals was what I was calling harm. I am not saying I can't sleep at night, but it does bother me. So a small harm.
To paraphrase gay rights activists, "some people are into beastiality, get over it". It's that simple. They are not causing you any harm by the definition used by everyone but you whereas your attitude, when turned into legislation, literally harms people who have done you no wrong. You are a hypocrite, a brute and you seek to use the government as a weapon against others.
1. It is entirely possible for cross species infections to result as a result of bestiality. AIDS was originally a disease amongst chimpanzees and got transferred to the human populace via blood infection through scratches. 2. It is impossible for an animal to give consent to have sex with a human. 3. It is immoral to take advantage of an animal in the same way it is immoral to take advantage of a child.
Cross species sex is not common but it is a natural phenomenon though not to anywhere near the same degree homosexuality is. More importantly it is almost always associated with dominant sexual behaviours and frequently results in offspring.
I am stunned to find there are people trying to compare beastality and human sexuality as if they are just subsets of the human sexual experience. One of them involves activity between consenting humans. The other involves the abuse of an animal - the equivalent of having sex with a child.
Horrible thread.
If you think animals are the same as children I have some really bad news for you about where meat comes from.
What gets me about the animal rights aspect of this is that it is the most incredibly irrelevant part of breaching animal rights imaginable. There are 8.4 billion chickens killed each year and maybe thousands of cases of beastiality and that's the one people are going after? It's banning anal sex as an environmentalist based on the CO2 produced by the trucks that move lube from lube factories to shops. It's an absolutely bizarre, irrelevant and nonsensical way to improve animal rights in a negligible way.
Okay.
1. The eating of plant and animal matter is the only known method of exchanging chemical energy between organisms that we know of. Until we develop a method of taking energy directly from the sun, I'm afraid we're stuck with it.
2. Large scale agriculture is the only method we know of which allows us to feed our population. In that sense, it's an us or them situation. The human body requires energy. Thus we breed it.
3. The culling system is designed to be as painless as possible and it is immoral to eat meat or vegetables that has been produced in an immoral way (kosher, halal). Stun the thing, put it out of its misery quickly and painlessly. It's a better end than a lot of humans have, thanks to religion.
4. Beastiality meets absolutely no human need. In the realm of sex, legally all that matters is consent. For the perspective of who is capable of consent, you compare intelligence, ableness to make self aware decisions, enticement, drug based inducements and so on.
In that sense, animals are much closer to children legally than they are to adults. In fact, they are closest to the human embryo in societies which recognise abortion rights. Furthermore while it is hard to prove "distress" in an animal, it is easy to prove consent. There isn't any.
That is all that is important. Killing never requires consent - it simply requires context. That is why killing soldiers in a war is legal, killing civilians is illegal. That is why juries will acquit desperation killings for abused housewives but will send cop killers down for life. That is why mass murdering an entire farm of cattle and leaving their corpses to rot is a criminal act, but sending them one by one to be processed for meat is not.
Please, though, don't let logic, due precedent, morality or any form of legal rights get in the way of your argument. Carry on. Explain to me how homosexuality (a fundamental property of the human psyche) and the resulting mutually consented sex is remotely comparable to buggering a child or a dog because you have an erection.
If you think that eating animals is the most efficient way to get energy from the sun into humans then I have some basic physics for you and if you think that it doesn't make a difference how you get the energy then I have some starving children in Africa for you.
If you think animals are slaughtered in humane ways then I have some PETA videos for you to watch.
The fact that homosexuality may have a genetic component is not what makes it okay. It is okay because there is no harm done. The default position is freedom to do anything unless it harms another, imposition upon that is oppression. Homosexuals were oppressed not because their nature was made illegal but because acts which they desired to do which were no-one else's business were outlawed. How is this any different from that? As for the bringing of a child into this, that's not worth responding to except "animals aren't humans, they're not adults, they're not babies, they're not anywhere in between, they're just not humans".
Your position is contradictory and ultimately comes down to "I was raised to think this type of action with an animal is fine but this different type is bad and wrong and I lack the critical thinking to ask why, also animals are children and beastiality is pedophilia". I would be making far more sense than you if I told you that your terriers are slaves, you may house them and feed them but they exist purely for your pleasure and will never get the opportunity to live a truly free life. I don't make that argument because they're dogs and the concept of slavery doesn't apply to them but the fact that you're fine with your slave dogs and not fine with other people's sex slave donkey is what reveals you as a hypocrite using a shitty animal rights argument to veil what is, at its core, pure prejudice.
On June 14 2013 20:37 ExKkaMaGui wrote: What was it, I missed it responding to another guy.
On June 14 2013 20:29 marvellosity wrote:
On June 14 2013 20:22 ExKkaMaGui wrote:
On June 14 2013 20:19 marvellosity wrote:
On June 14 2013 20:18 ExKkaMaGui wrote:
On June 14 2013 20:12 S:klogW wrote:
On June 14 2013 20:06 KwarK wrote:
On June 14 2013 20:02 xM(Z wrote:
On June 14 2013 19:54 KwarK wrote: [quote] Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand.
but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one
I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one.
If someone believes that eating animals is literally murder then good luck to them, their position is intellectually sound although I think somewhat silly.
Also I feel strongly about this because I think it's a litmus test for allowing sexual freedom based on principles of the government not being in the bedroom against just allowing what the majority think is fine. If we allow homosexuality and then ban beastiality based purely upon the distaste of the majority then we really haven't learned a thing.
Could the harm then be that sex with other species might cause the transfer of disease to humans?
You know what, you raise a good question. They might be banning it to stop the spread of STDs. I cannot really say what they are going for here, but I think that might be it.
Kwark used the example already. What if you found gay sex 'bothersome'?
If the 90-95% of straight people in a country found gay sex 'bothersome', do you think it would be right to legislate against gay sex?
And you missed my post a couple of pages ago when I said it's all SUBJECTIVE. And that in the end, it's all a matter of opinion. I think gay marriages should be legal, but there's tons of people who are against it. Doesn't mean I am any more right than they are and vice versa.
You didn't answer my question. If a majority of people found gay sex 'bothersome' or it was 'wrongdoing', do you think it would be right to legislate against gay sex?
No, I don't think gay sex should be banned. But I am not saying anyone can determine that. All it boils down to is if people who can make that choice believe it should be, it will be. I dont have that power and you dont either. So all we can do is voice our opinion. Why do you speak with so much authority when it's just your opinion?
Your argument boils down to the fact that if a majority of people find something distasteful, it's fine to make it illegal. That's how oppression of minorities happens.
I'm not arguing against your right to call bestiality right or wrong. You're free to have your own opinion. But when you actually LEGISLATE based on what you find icky, then you're going down a very dark path.
But you're not understanding the argument at all, so I'm going to leave it beyond this post.
On June 14 2013 20:44 electronic voyeur wrote: Groom them, bath them, tie them up, put them in a cage, slaughter them, and eat them, but for the love of god do not have fuck them! This is plain hypocrisy among humans! Go bestiality! Though personally not my kind of kink.
Yep. Grooming you do to your kids. As does bathing them. You tie your kids to a chair for their own safety, put them in cots they can't escape. You can legally kill them up until the 24th week of their formulation. Oh and in many countries you can legally beat the living shit out of them or kill them if they marry the wrong person.
Definitely can't fuck them. Consent.
If you support bestiality then you similarly support paedophilia.
Obvious false dichotomy.
If you support eating animals then you support eating children OMG!!!!!
On June 14 2013 19:35 xM(Z wrote: [quote] so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves.
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed.
Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand.
but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one
I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one.
If someone believes that eating animals is literally murder then good luck to them, their position is intellectually sound although I think somewhat silly.
Also I feel strongly about this because I think it's a litmus test for allowing sexual freedom based on principles of the government not being in the bedroom against just allowing what the majority think is fine. If we allow homosexuality and then ban beastiality based purely upon the distaste of the majority then we really haven't learned a thing.
Could the harm then be that sex with other species might cause the transfer of disease to humans?
Better outlaw all sex given that humans already have STDs then.
Ah correct, sorry I missed that. Kwark, I had a question, maybe you could answer, what is the argument supporting the illegalizing of bestiality? Also how do they qualify cruelty or physical harm? Thanks.
The argument I think comes down to "I don't like it so you shouldn't be able to do it". It's nothing more than oppression which is why I care, homosexuality didn't suddenly become okay when they were able to convince the majority to stop banning it, it was always okay and they were just oppressed.
Did you just compare raping an animal that is completely unable to express consent to homosexuality? That is the single most offensive thing I've ever seen you post, and can't for the life of me understand any kind of logical jump that allowed you to connect the two.
On June 14 2013 20:35 Qikz wrote: Does making it illegal actually change anything though?
Fair enough it makes it easier to legislate, but much with other things all that'll happen is people will still continue to do it, but just hide their acts more. Illegality very often doesn't change the amount things are done, just pushes them into hiding more, like sweeping them under a rug I guess.
it changes the commercialization of it on some extent; the abuse of it for money/gain. as far as those other private affairs go, i don't think it'll make a difference.
People actually make significant money off it? That's hardly believable.
brazil is the new the netherlands! it's porn. there are always money to be made in porn.
On June 14 2013 19:52 xM(Z wrote: [quote] yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed.
Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand.
but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one
I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one.
If someone believes that eating animals is literally murder then good luck to them, their position is intellectually sound although I think somewhat silly.
Also I feel strongly about this because I think it's a litmus test for allowing sexual freedom based on principles of the government not being in the bedroom against just allowing what the majority think is fine. If we allow homosexuality and then ban beastiality based purely upon the distaste of the majority then we really haven't learned a thing.
Could the harm then be that sex with other species might cause the transfer of disease to humans?
Better outlaw all sex given that humans already have STDs then.
Ah correct, sorry I missed that. Kwark, I had a question, maybe you could answer, what is the argument supporting the illegalizing of bestiality? Also how do they qualify cruelty or physical harm? Thanks.
The argument I think comes down to "I don't like it so you shouldn't be able to do it". It's nothing more than oppression which is why I care, homosexuality didn't suddenly become okay when they were able to convince the majority to stop banning it, it was always okay and they were just oppressed.
His argument is that it was never okay, or not okay, because that's a matter of opinion and all opinions are subjective, therefore you don't have a point.
I'm really not well versed enough in debate to be able to handle that kind of view appropriately, I'd love to see you try ...
You're not comprehending what I am saying. I WAS NOT trying to debating anything. All I was saying was let's share our opinions and why we think that way. So there was no argument from my end.
On June 14 2013 19:46 KwarK wrote: [quote] My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed.
Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand.
but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one
I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one.
If someone believes that eating animals is literally murder then good luck to them, their position is intellectually sound although I think somewhat silly.
Also I feel strongly about this because I think it's a litmus test for allowing sexual freedom based on principles of the government not being in the bedroom against just allowing what the majority think is fine. If we allow homosexuality and then ban beastiality based purely upon the distaste of the majority then we really haven't learned a thing.
Could the harm then be that sex with other species might cause the transfer of disease to humans?
Better outlaw all sex given that humans already have STDs then.
Ah correct, sorry I missed that. Kwark, I had a question, maybe you could answer, what is the argument supporting the illegalizing of bestiality? Also how do they qualify cruelty or physical harm? Thanks.
The argument I think comes down to "I don't like it so you shouldn't be able to do it". It's nothing more than oppression which is why I care, homosexuality didn't suddenly become okay when they were able to convince the majority to stop banning it, it was always okay and they were just oppressed.
Did you just compare raping an animal that is completely unable to express consent to homosexuality? That is the single most offensive thing I've ever seen you post, and can't for the life of me understand any kind of logical jump that allowed you to connect the two.
I said homosexuality is intrinsically okay because it doesn't harm anyone.
On June 14 2013 20:37 ExKkaMaGui wrote: What was it, I missed it responding to another guy.
On June 14 2013 20:29 marvellosity wrote:
On June 14 2013 20:22 ExKkaMaGui wrote:
On June 14 2013 20:19 marvellosity wrote:
On June 14 2013 20:18 ExKkaMaGui wrote:
On June 14 2013 20:12 S:klogW wrote:
On June 14 2013 20:06 KwarK wrote:
On June 14 2013 20:02 xM(Z wrote: [quote] but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one
I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one.
If someone believes that eating animals is literally murder then good luck to them, their position is intellectually sound although I think somewhat silly.
Also I feel strongly about this because I think it's a litmus test for allowing sexual freedom based on principles of the government not being in the bedroom against just allowing what the majority think is fine. If we allow homosexuality and then ban beastiality based purely upon the distaste of the majority then we really haven't learned a thing.
Could the harm then be that sex with other species might cause the transfer of disease to humans?
You know what, you raise a good question. They might be banning it to stop the spread of STDs. I cannot really say what they are going for here, but I think that might be it.
Kwark used the example already. What if you found gay sex 'bothersome'?
If the 90-95% of straight people in a country found gay sex 'bothersome', do you think it would be right to legislate against gay sex?
And you missed my post a couple of pages ago when I said it's all SUBJECTIVE. And that in the end, it's all a matter of opinion. I think gay marriages should be legal, but there's tons of people who are against it. Doesn't mean I am any more right than they are and vice versa.
You didn't answer my question. If a majority of people found gay sex 'bothersome' or it was 'wrongdoing', do you think it would be right to legislate against gay sex?
No, I don't think gay sex should be banned. But I am not saying anyone can determine that. All it boils down to is if people who can make that choice believe it should be, it will be. I dont have that power and you dont either. So all we can do is voice our opinion. Why do you speak with so much authority when it's just your opinion?
Your argument boils down to the fact that if a majority of people find something distasteful, it's fine to make it illegal. That's how oppression of minorities happens.
I'm not arguing against your right to call bestiality right or wrong. You're free to have your own opinion. But when you actually LEGISLATE based on what you find icky, then you're going down a very dark path.
But you're not understanding the argument at all, so I'm going to leave it beyond this post.
You need to read everything I've been posting because you're clearing missing main crucial points. I am not trying to argue anything. Also, I never legislated anything. When did you get that idea?
On June 14 2013 20:46 Crayfishy wrote: Personally, I think sex between 2 men is more disgusting than sex between a woman and a horse. I would also bet that STD's are more prevalent among gay men than bestiality people (or w/e you call them).
Apparently it's still legal in Denmark and Russia. Zoophilia activity also legal in some US states: AL, AS, DC, GU, HI, KY, MT, NV, NH, NJ, NM, MP, OH, TX, VT, VA, WV, WY ..and a lot of other countries. Source: wikipedia
That's really interesting. I find gay sex to be completely ok, but I view sex b/t a human and an animal to be completely disgusting.
We all have different preferences. So you're saying if you were forced to watch something, you'd rather watch two grandpas going at it rather than a Pamela Anderson (from 20 years) going at it with a horse. That's fine, but i'd rather watch (and be less disgusted by) the latter.
On June 14 2013 19:54 KwarK wrote: [quote] Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand.
but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one
I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one.
If someone believes that eating animals is literally murder then good luck to them, their position is intellectually sound although I think somewhat silly.
Also I feel strongly about this because I think it's a litmus test for allowing sexual freedom based on principles of the government not being in the bedroom against just allowing what the majority think is fine. If we allow homosexuality and then ban beastiality based purely upon the distaste of the majority then we really haven't learned a thing.
Could the harm then be that sex with other species might cause the transfer of disease to humans?
Better outlaw all sex given that humans already have STDs then.
Ah correct, sorry I missed that. Kwark, I had a question, maybe you could answer, what is the argument supporting the illegalizing of bestiality? Also how do they qualify cruelty or physical harm? Thanks.
The argument I think comes down to "I don't like it so you shouldn't be able to do it". It's nothing more than oppression which is why I care, homosexuality didn't suddenly become okay when they were able to convince the majority to stop banning it, it was always okay and they were just oppressed.
His argument is that it was never okay, or not okay, because that's a matter of opinion and all opinions are subjective, therefore you don't have a point.
I'm really not well versed enough in debate to be able to handle that kind of view appropriately, I'd love to see you try ...
You're not comprehending what I am saying. I WAS NOT trying to debating anything. All I was saying was let's share our opinions and why we think that way. So there was no argument from my end.
Stop contradicting yourself.
Whatever you say. Your name is really ironic though.
3. The culling system is designed to be as painless as possible and it is immoral to eat meat or vegetables that has been produced in an immoral way (kosher, halal). Stun the thing, put it out of its misery quickly and painlessly. It's a better end than a lot of humans have, thanks to religion.
I saw a documentary about the culling system and its anything but painless. Unless you think a death camp like system like what occured in ww2 was 'painless' to those experiencing it.
On June 14 2013 20:37 ExKkaMaGui wrote: What was it, I missed it responding to another guy.
On June 14 2013 20:29 marvellosity wrote:
On June 14 2013 20:22 ExKkaMaGui wrote:
On June 14 2013 20:19 marvellosity wrote:
On June 14 2013 20:18 ExKkaMaGui wrote:
On June 14 2013 20:12 S:klogW wrote:
On June 14 2013 20:06 KwarK wrote: [quote] I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one.
If someone believes that eating animals is literally murder then good luck to them, their position is intellectually sound although I think somewhat silly.
Also I feel strongly about this because I think it's a litmus test for allowing sexual freedom based on principles of the government not being in the bedroom against just allowing what the majority think is fine. If we allow homosexuality and then ban beastiality based purely upon the distaste of the majority then we really haven't learned a thing.
Could the harm then be that sex with other species might cause the transfer of disease to humans?
You know what, you raise a good question. They might be banning it to stop the spread of STDs. I cannot really say what they are going for here, but I think that might be it.
Kwark used the example already. What if you found gay sex 'bothersome'?
If the 90-95% of straight people in a country found gay sex 'bothersome', do you think it would be right to legislate against gay sex?
And you missed my post a couple of pages ago when I said it's all SUBJECTIVE. And that in the end, it's all a matter of opinion. I think gay marriages should be legal, but there's tons of people who are against it. Doesn't mean I am any more right than they are and vice versa.
You didn't answer my question. If a majority of people found gay sex 'bothersome' or it was 'wrongdoing', do you think it would be right to legislate against gay sex?
No, I don't think gay sex should be banned. But I am not saying anyone can determine that. All it boils down to is if people who can make that choice believe it should be, it will be. I dont have that power and you dont either. So all we can do is voice our opinion. Why do you speak with so much authority when it's just your opinion?
Your argument boils down to the fact that if a majority of people find something distasteful, it's fine to make it illegal. That's how oppression of minorities happens.
I'm not arguing against your right to call bestiality right or wrong. You're free to have your own opinion. But when you actually LEGISLATE based on what you find icky, then you're going down a very dark path.
But you're not understanding the argument at all, so I'm going to leave it beyond this post.
You need to read everything I've been posting because you're clearing missing main crucial points. I am not trying to argue anything. Also, I never legislated anything. When did you get that idea?
You made the argument that anything that you view as offensive is causing you literal harm and should be banned. You literally made that argument.
On June 14 2013 19:46 KwarK wrote: [quote] My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed.
Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand.
but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one
I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one.
If someone believes that eating animals is literally murder then good luck to them, their position is intellectually sound although I think somewhat silly.
Also I feel strongly about this because I think it's a litmus test for allowing sexual freedom based on principles of the government not being in the bedroom against just allowing what the majority think is fine. If we allow homosexuality and then ban beastiality based purely upon the distaste of the majority then we really haven't learned a thing.
Could the harm then be that sex with other species might cause the transfer of disease to humans?
Better outlaw all sex given that humans already have STDs then.
Ah correct, sorry I missed that. Kwark, I had a question, maybe you could answer, what is the argument supporting the illegalizing of bestiality? Also how do they qualify cruelty or physical harm? Thanks.
The argument I think comes down to "I don't like it so you shouldn't be able to do it". It's nothing more than oppression which is why I care, homosexuality didn't suddenly become okay when they were able to convince the majority to stop banning it, it was always okay and they were just oppressed.
Did you just compare raping an animal that is completely unable to express consent to homosexuality? That is the single most offensive thing I've ever seen you post, and can't for the life of me understand any kind of logical jump that allowed you to connect the two.
Allow me to enlighten you.
If an animal mounts a woman and has sex with her, did she just rape the animal?
Clearly, bestiality /= rape.
Therefore, in certain circumstances there is consensual sex taking place between animals and humans, and nobody is coming to any harm.
A law was just passed making sex with animals, regardless of harm being inflicted or not, illegal.
If it's not to do with harm, it's because people find it disgusting.
Homosexuality /= harm, but was illegal because people find it disgusting.
There is the incredibly well concealed connection. You're welcome.
On June 14 2013 20:02 xM(Z wrote: [quote] but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one
I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one.
If someone believes that eating animals is literally murder then good luck to them, their position is intellectually sound although I think somewhat silly.
Also I feel strongly about this because I think it's a litmus test for allowing sexual freedom based on principles of the government not being in the bedroom against just allowing what the majority think is fine. If we allow homosexuality and then ban beastiality based purely upon the distaste of the majority then we really haven't learned a thing.
Could the harm then be that sex with other species might cause the transfer of disease to humans?
Better outlaw all sex given that humans already have STDs then.
Ah correct, sorry I missed that. Kwark, I had a question, maybe you could answer, what is the argument supporting the illegalizing of bestiality? Also how do they qualify cruelty or physical harm? Thanks.
The argument I think comes down to "I don't like it so you shouldn't be able to do it". It's nothing more than oppression which is why I care, homosexuality didn't suddenly become okay when they were able to convince the majority to stop banning it, it was always okay and they were just oppressed.
His argument is that it was never okay, or not okay, because that's a matter of opinion and all opinions are subjective, therefore you don't have a point.
I'm really not well versed enough in debate to be able to handle that kind of view appropriately, I'd love to see you try ...
You're not comprehending what I am saying. I WAS NOT trying to debating anything. All I was saying was let's share our opinions and why we think that way. So there was no argument from my end.
Stop contradicting yourself.
Whatever you say. Your name is really ironic though.
You said opinions are subjective. I restated your opinion . You said I didn't comprehend what you said and that you hadn't said anything at all, when in fact you had. I said stop contradicting yourself. You tried to make some kind of witty comment about my username.
On June 14 2013 20:37 ExKkaMaGui wrote: What was it, I missed it responding to another guy.
On June 14 2013 20:29 marvellosity wrote:
On June 14 2013 20:22 ExKkaMaGui wrote:
On June 14 2013 20:19 marvellosity wrote:
On June 14 2013 20:18 ExKkaMaGui wrote:
On June 14 2013 20:12 S:klogW wrote: [quote] Could the harm then be that sex with other species might cause the transfer of disease to humans?
You know what, you raise a good question. They might be banning it to stop the spread of STDs. I cannot really say what they are going for here, but I think that might be it.
Kwark used the example already. What if you found gay sex 'bothersome'?
If the 90-95% of straight people in a country found gay sex 'bothersome', do you think it would be right to legislate against gay sex?
And you missed my post a couple of pages ago when I said it's all SUBJECTIVE. And that in the end, it's all a matter of opinion. I think gay marriages should be legal, but there's tons of people who are against it. Doesn't mean I am any more right than they are and vice versa.
You didn't answer my question. If a majority of people found gay sex 'bothersome' or it was 'wrongdoing', do you think it would be right to legislate against gay sex?
No, I don't think gay sex should be banned. But I am not saying anyone can determine that. All it boils down to is if people who can make that choice believe it should be, it will be. I dont have that power and you dont either. So all we can do is voice our opinion. Why do you speak with so much authority when it's just your opinion?
Your argument boils down to the fact that if a majority of people find something distasteful, it's fine to make it illegal. That's how oppression of minorities happens.
I'm not arguing against your right to call bestiality right or wrong. You're free to have your own opinion. But when you actually LEGISLATE based on what you find icky, then you're going down a very dark path.
But you're not understanding the argument at all, so I'm going to leave it beyond this post.
You need to read everything I've been posting because you're clearing missing main crucial points. I am not trying to argue anything. Also, I never legislated anything. When did you get that idea?
You made the argument that anything that you view as offensive is causing you literal harm and should be banned. You literally made that argument.
I never said that. Please quote me if I did. What I said was, if something was bothering me, it CAN be viewed as harm since one of harm's definition is "wrongdoing". I NEVER said if anything bothers me, it should be banned. So yea, misread my post and accuse me again.
On June 14 2013 20:44 electronic voyeur wrote: Groom them, bath them, tie them up, put them in a cage, slaughter them, and eat them, but for the love of god do not have fuck them! This is plain hypocrisy among humans! Go bestiality! Though personally not my kind of kink.
Yep. Grooming you do to your kids. As does bathing them. You tie your kids to a chair for their own safety, put them in cots they can't escape. You can legally kill them up until the 24th week of their formulation. Oh and in many countries you can legally beat the living shit out of them or kill them if they marry the wrong person.
Definitely can't fuck them. Consent.
If you support bestiality then you similarly support paedophilia.
Not really because in pedophilia, kids are people, That is where I draw the line.
On June 14 2013 20:44 electronic voyeur wrote: Groom them, bath them, tie them up, put them in a cage, slaughter them, and eat them, but for the love of god do not have fuck them! This is plain hypocrisy among humans! Go bestiality! Though personally not my kind of kink.
Yep. Grooming you do to your kids. As does bathing them. You tie your kids to a chair for their own safety, put them in cots they can't escape. You can legally kill them up until the 24th week of their formulation. Oh and in many countries you can legally beat the living shit out of them or kill them if they marry the wrong person.
Definitely can't fuck them. Consent.
If you support bestiality then you similarly support paedophilia.
Not really because in pedophilia, kids are people, That is where I draw the line.
Watch where you draw the line though because some people will tell you that you are wrong.
On June 14 2013 20:44 electronic voyeur wrote: Groom them, bath them, tie them up, put them in a cage, slaughter them, and eat them, but for the love of god do not have fuck them! This is plain hypocrisy among humans! Go bestiality! Though personally not my kind of kink.
Yep. Grooming you do to your kids. As does bathing them. You tie your kids to a chair for their own safety, put them in cots they can't escape. You can legally kill them up until the 24th week of their formulation. Oh and in many countries you can legally beat the living shit out of them or kill them if they marry the wrong person.
Definitely can't fuck them. Consent.
If you support bestiality then you similarly support paedophilia.
Not really because in pedophilia, kids are people, That is where I draw the line.
Watch where you draw the line though because some people will tell you that you are wrong.
The line between humans and non humans is actually pretty easy to draw given the current range of species. It might be harder if we still had neanderthals and other proto humans but we don't. We have homo sapiens who we call humans and the rest, none of which are homo sapiens. It's really not any kind of slippery slope. Imagine there were many shapes, some squares, some triangles, some circles and so forth and we said "the ones with three sides are called triangles". Sure you could go "but where do you draw the line, why can't the ones with four sides be triangles" but you'd be an idiot. The ones with three sides get to be triangles and the people who are humans get to be humans and the squares aren't triangles and the dogs aren't humans.
On June 14 2013 20:37 ExKkaMaGui wrote: What was it, I missed it responding to another guy.
On June 14 2013 20:29 marvellosity wrote:
On June 14 2013 20:22 ExKkaMaGui wrote:
On June 14 2013 20:19 marvellosity wrote:
On June 14 2013 20:18 ExKkaMaGui wrote: [quote]
You know what, you raise a good question. They might be banning it to stop the spread of STDs. I cannot really say what they are going for here, but I think that might be it.
Kwark used the example already. What if you found gay sex 'bothersome'?
If the 90-95% of straight people in a country found gay sex 'bothersome', do you think it would be right to legislate against gay sex?
And you missed my post a couple of pages ago when I said it's all SUBJECTIVE. And that in the end, it's all a matter of opinion. I think gay marriages should be legal, but there's tons of people who are against it. Doesn't mean I am any more right than they are and vice versa.
You didn't answer my question. If a majority of people found gay sex 'bothersome' or it was 'wrongdoing', do you think it would be right to legislate against gay sex?
No, I don't think gay sex should be banned. But I am not saying anyone can determine that. All it boils down to is if people who can make that choice believe it should be, it will be. I dont have that power and you dont either. So all we can do is voice our opinion. Why do you speak with so much authority when it's just your opinion?
Your argument boils down to the fact that if a majority of people find something distasteful, it's fine to make it illegal. That's how oppression of minorities happens.
I'm not arguing against your right to call bestiality right or wrong. You're free to have your own opinion. But when you actually LEGISLATE based on what you find icky, then you're going down a very dark path.
But you're not understanding the argument at all, so I'm going to leave it beyond this post.
You need to read everything I've been posting because you're clearing missing main crucial points. I am not trying to argue anything. Also, I never legislated anything. When did you get that idea?
You made the argument that anything that you view as offensive is causing you literal harm and should be banned. You literally made that argument.
I never said that. Please quote me if I did. What I said was, if something was bothering me, it CAN be viewed as harm since one of harm's definition is "wrongdoing". I NEVER said if anything bothers me, it should be banned. So yea, misread my post and accuse me again.
On June 14 2013 19:20 ExKkaMaGui wrote: I actually want to know how many people believe it shouldn't be illegal. Am I the only one that think it should ABSOLUTELY be banned?
There you go. And your reasoning that it should absolutely be banned is because you find it disgusting. It's exactly what you said.
On June 14 2013 19:56 ExKkaMaGui wrote: [quote] Actually, harm can be defined simply as "wrongdoing", it's a common definition.
Could you use that in a common sentence for me?
Having people who fuck animals in society is a wrongdoing. (common for this discussion)
Do you recognize that your argument is circular? Bestiality should be illegal because it's harmful, it's harmful because harm can mean wrongdoing, and bestiality is "a wrongdoing". Your argument basically boils down to "bestiality should be illegal because I think so." You're not actually defining how it's harmful above and beyond any harm actually done to the animal, except in the sense that you consider your mental anguish at having to live in a world in which something disgusting is happening to be harm.
To be clear, I am not arguing anything because that would imply I am trying to win by proving my point, which I am not doing. If I was arguing something, the sentence wasn't to support my argument. I just used the word in a sentence. And yes, my "mental anguish" at having to live in a world in which people are fucking animals was what I was calling harm. I am not saying I can't sleep at night, but it does bother me. So a small harm.
To paraphrase gay rights activists, "some people are into beastiality, get over it". It's that simple. They are not causing you any harm by the definition used by everyone but you whereas your attitude, when turned into legislation, literally harms people who have done you no wrong. You are a hypocrite, a brute and you seek to use the government as a weapon against others.
1. It is entirely possible for cross species infections to result as a result of bestiality. AIDS was originally a disease amongst chimpanzees and got transferred to the human populace via blood infection through scratches. 2. It is impossible for an animal to give consent to have sex with a human. 3. It is immoral to take advantage of an animal in the same way it is immoral to take advantage of a child.
Cross species sex is not common but it is a natural phenomenon though not to anywhere near the same degree homosexuality is. More importantly it is almost always associated with dominant sexual behaviours and frequently results in offspring.
I am stunned to find there are people trying to compare beastality and human sexuality as if they are just subsets of the human sexual experience. One of them involves activity between consenting humans. The other involves the abuse of an animal - the equivalent of having sex with a child.
Horrible thread.
If you think animals are the same as children I have some really bad news for you about where meat comes from.
What gets me about the animal rights aspect of this is that it is the most incredibly irrelevant part of breaching animal rights imaginable. There are 8.4 billion chickens killed each year and maybe thousands of cases of beastiality and that's the one people are going after? It's banning anal sex as an environmentalist based on the CO2 produced by the trucks that move lube from lube factories to shops. It's an absolutely bizarre, irrelevant and nonsensical way to improve animal rights in a negligible way.
Okay.
1. The eating of plant and animal matter is the only known method of exchanging chemical energy between organisms that we know of. Until we develop a method of taking energy directly from the sun, I'm afraid we're stuck with it.
2. Large scale agriculture is the only method we know of which allows us to feed our population. In that sense, it's an us or them situation. The human body requires energy. Thus we breed it.
3. The culling system is designed to be as painless as possible and it is immoral to eat meat or vegetables that has been produced in an immoral way (kosher, halal). Stun the thing, put it out of its misery quickly and painlessly. It's a better end than a lot of humans have, thanks to religion.
4. Beastiality meets absolutely no human need. In the realm of sex, legally all that matters is consent. For the perspective of who is capable of consent, you compare intelligence, ableness to make self aware decisions, enticement, drug based inducements and so on.
In that sense, animals are much closer to children legally than they are to adults. In fact, they are closest to the human embryo in societies which recognise abortion rights. Furthermore while it is hard to prove "distress" in an animal, it is easy to prove consent. There isn't any.
That is all that is important. Killing never requires consent - it simply requires context. That is why killing soldiers in a war is legal, killing civilians is illegal. That is why juries will acquit desperation killings for abused housewives but will send cop killers down for life. That is why mass murdering an entire farm of cattle and leaving their corpses to rot is a criminal act, but sending them one by one to be processed for meat is not.
Please, though, don't let logic, due precedent, morality or any form of legal rights get in the way of your argument. Carry on. Explain to me how homosexuality (a fundamental property of the human psyche) and the resulting mutually consented sex is remotely comparable to buggering a child or a dog because you have an erection.
If you think that eating animals is the most efficient way to get energy from the sun into humans then I have some basic physics for you and if you think that it doesn't make a difference how you get the energy then I have some starving children in Africa for you.
If you think animals are slaughtered in humane ways then I have some PETA videos for you to watch.
The fact that homosexuality may have a genetic component is not what makes it okay. It is okay because there is no harm done. The default position is freedom to do anything unless it harms another, imposition upon that is oppression. Homosexuals were oppressed not because their nature was made illegal but because acts which they desired to do which were no-one else's business were outlawed. How is this any different from that? As for the bringing of a child into this, that's not worth responding to except "animals aren't humans, they're not adults, they're not babies, they're not anywhere in between, they're just not humans".
Your position is contradictory and ultimately comes down to "I was raised to think this type of action with an animal is fine but this different type is bad and wrong and I lack the critical thinking to ask why, also animals are children and beastiality is pedophilia". I would be making far more sense than you if I told you that your terriers are slaves, you may house them and feed them but they exist purely for your pleasure and will never get the opportunity to live a truly free life. I don't make that argument because they're dogs and the concept of slavery doesn't apply to them but the fact that you're fine with your slave dogs and not fine with other people's sex slave donkey is what reveals you as a hypocrite using a shitty animal rights argument to veil what is, at its core, pure prejudice.
I am a professional physicist, cheers.
At what point do we stop killing? Is it acceptable to kill plants because they just grow? Do we stop at amoeba? Proteins? The truth of the matter is that we can't prove that we aren't harming every single living thing we kill. Ultimately we have to kill SOMETHING to live and if we do it, we have to be humane and ensure it does not suffer. A 50,000V shock or gassing with carbon dioxide essentially renders the animal/human insensate. It can't feel anything worth feeling. It is also infinitely preferably to being slowly gored by a lion or a fellow beast in a contest over mating, or dying of old age with an infected broken leg because it tripped over a rock.
We have to accept that we ultimately have to get energy from somewhere. Plenty of animals do not have this moral difficulty and we do so in a much more humane way than most animals think to do so.
The position in the law regarding sex is VERY clear. Consent is required. If you agree to beastality you also agree to paedophilia and rape. Do you understand what you are saying here? You are saying that for your personal pleasure, not out of any need to survive or out of any requirement of living, you should be able to have sex with anything you desire regardless of how it feels about it or not. I'm fairly certain that if I stuck my cock up my dog's arse he would be doing everything in his power to get the fuck away from me but then I'm thirty six times the size of my dog. What could he do?
Furthermore, my dog is not a slave. He is a member of my family. I don't work him. I don't use him. In fact I feed him, entertain him, buy things for him, do things that HE wants and he is part of the family unit. How dare you try and tell me that I am abusing my dog because you want to make a moral point that you should be able to fuck a donkey.
The law is incredibly clear on this and you will find that not only am I correct but you will also find that the law legislates in the same way. The protections of children and adults are fundamentally different based on the idea of an inability to consent under law. That is also true of animals - they cannot consent, therefore they are protected. Yes, we are allowed to eat them but we are not allowed to torture them or make them suffer.
Get your head out of your arse. You're talking absolute bullshit and you know it.
On June 14 2013 20:53 KwarK wrote: You made the argument that anything that you view as offensive is causing you literal harm and should be banned. You literally made that argument.
On June 14 2013 20:55 ExKkaMaGui wrote: I never said that. Please quote me if I did.
On June 14 2013 19:25 ExKkaMaGui wrote: What I was trying to point out was that animal cruelty shouldn't even be considered in this case. We should ban it just because it's disgusting.
There's your quote, now please stop contradicting yourself. Twice I've had to ask you that now and it's becoming tiresome <insert stupid joke about my username that doesn't make any sense because I've just quoted you contradicting yourself>
The likely assumptions are that at the very least every now and then an animal does not like this without being able to express itself. No clue why you would argue for it being legal. Just because we kill animals doesn't mean it is okay to give them a shitty life on the way. There are plenty of laws protecting animals even though we kill them for consumption. There are people breaking the law for just about every law we have. Even if animal rights laws aren't all lived up to that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.
On June 14 2013 21:06 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: The likely assumptions are that at the very least every now and then an animal does not like this without being able to express itself. No clue why you would argue for it being legal. Just because we kill animals doesn't mean it is okay to give them a shitty life on the way. There are plenty of laws protecting animals even though we kill them for consumption. There are people breaking the law for just about every law we have. Even if animal rights laws aren't all lived up to that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.
What if a dog starts humping a woman and the woman goes along with it?
On June 14 2013 21:06 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: The likely assumptions are that at the very least every now and then an animal does not like this without being able to express itself. No clue why you would argue for it being legal. Just because we kill animals doesn't mean it is okay to give them a shitty life on the way. There are plenty of laws protecting animals even though we kill them for consumption. There are people breaking the law for just about every law we have. Even if animal rights laws aren't all lived up to that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.
What if a dog starts humping a woman and the woman goes along with it?
Still no consent.
Come on, people. You've seen enough cases of 14 and 15 year olds banging their teachers and resulting in a criminal conviction to know how this works.
On June 14 2013 19:57 KwarK wrote: [quote] Could you use that in a common sentence for me?
Having people who fuck animals in society is a wrongdoing. (common for this discussion)
Do you recognize that your argument is circular? Bestiality should be illegal because it's harmful, it's harmful because harm can mean wrongdoing, and bestiality is "a wrongdoing". Your argument basically boils down to "bestiality should be illegal because I think so." You're not actually defining how it's harmful above and beyond any harm actually done to the animal, except in the sense that you consider your mental anguish at having to live in a world in which something disgusting is happening to be harm.
To be clear, I am not arguing anything because that would imply I am trying to win by proving my point, which I am not doing. If I was arguing something, the sentence wasn't to support my argument. I just used the word in a sentence. And yes, my "mental anguish" at having to live in a world in which people are fucking animals was what I was calling harm. I am not saying I can't sleep at night, but it does bother me. So a small harm.
To paraphrase gay rights activists, "some people are into beastiality, get over it". It's that simple. They are not causing you any harm by the definition used by everyone but you whereas your attitude, when turned into legislation, literally harms people who have done you no wrong. You are a hypocrite, a brute and you seek to use the government as a weapon against others.
1. It is entirely possible for cross species infections to result as a result of bestiality. AIDS was originally a disease amongst chimpanzees and got transferred to the human populace via blood infection through scratches. 2. It is impossible for an animal to give consent to have sex with a human. 3. It is immoral to take advantage of an animal in the same way it is immoral to take advantage of a child.
Cross species sex is not common but it is a natural phenomenon though not to anywhere near the same degree homosexuality is. More importantly it is almost always associated with dominant sexual behaviours and frequently results in offspring.
I am stunned to find there are people trying to compare beastality and human sexuality as if they are just subsets of the human sexual experience. One of them involves activity between consenting humans. The other involves the abuse of an animal - the equivalent of having sex with a child.
Horrible thread.
If you think animals are the same as children I have some really bad news for you about where meat comes from.
What gets me about the animal rights aspect of this is that it is the most incredibly irrelevant part of breaching animal rights imaginable. There are 8.4 billion chickens killed each year and maybe thousands of cases of beastiality and that's the one people are going after? It's banning anal sex as an environmentalist based on the CO2 produced by the trucks that move lube from lube factories to shops. It's an absolutely bizarre, irrelevant and nonsensical way to improve animal rights in a negligible way.
Okay.
1. The eating of plant and animal matter is the only known method of exchanging chemical energy between organisms that we know of. Until we develop a method of taking energy directly from the sun, I'm afraid we're stuck with it.
2. Large scale agriculture is the only method we know of which allows us to feed our population. In that sense, it's an us or them situation. The human body requires energy. Thus we breed it.
3. The culling system is designed to be as painless as possible and it is immoral to eat meat or vegetables that has been produced in an immoral way (kosher, halal). Stun the thing, put it out of its misery quickly and painlessly. It's a better end than a lot of humans have, thanks to religion.
4. Beastiality meets absolutely no human need. In the realm of sex, legally all that matters is consent. For the perspective of who is capable of consent, you compare intelligence, ableness to make self aware decisions, enticement, drug based inducements and so on.
In that sense, animals are much closer to children legally than they are to adults. In fact, they are closest to the human embryo in societies which recognise abortion rights. Furthermore while it is hard to prove "distress" in an animal, it is easy to prove consent. There isn't any.
That is all that is important. Killing never requires consent - it simply requires context. That is why killing soldiers in a war is legal, killing civilians is illegal. That is why juries will acquit desperation killings for abused housewives but will send cop killers down for life. That is why mass murdering an entire farm of cattle and leaving their corpses to rot is a criminal act, but sending them one by one to be processed for meat is not.
Please, though, don't let logic, due precedent, morality or any form of legal rights get in the way of your argument. Carry on. Explain to me how homosexuality (a fundamental property of the human psyche) and the resulting mutually consented sex is remotely comparable to buggering a child or a dog because you have an erection.
If you think that eating animals is the most efficient way to get energy from the sun into humans then I have some basic physics for you and if you think that it doesn't make a difference how you get the energy then I have some starving children in Africa for you.
If you think animals are slaughtered in humane ways then I have some PETA videos for you to watch.
The fact that homosexuality may have a genetic component is not what makes it okay. It is okay because there is no harm done. The default position is freedom to do anything unless it harms another, imposition upon that is oppression. Homosexuals were oppressed not because their nature was made illegal but because acts which they desired to do which were no-one else's business were outlawed. How is this any different from that? As for the bringing of a child into this, that's not worth responding to except "animals aren't humans, they're not adults, they're not babies, they're not anywhere in between, they're just not humans".
Your position is contradictory and ultimately comes down to "I was raised to think this type of action with an animal is fine but this different type is bad and wrong and I lack the critical thinking to ask why, also animals are children and beastiality is pedophilia". I would be making far more sense than you if I told you that your terriers are slaves, you may house them and feed them but they exist purely for your pleasure and will never get the opportunity to live a truly free life. I don't make that argument because they're dogs and the concept of slavery doesn't apply to them but the fact that you're fine with your slave dogs and not fine with other people's sex slave donkey is what reveals you as a hypocrite using a shitty animal rights argument to veil what is, at its core, pure prejudice.
I am a professional physicist, cheers.
At what point do we stop killing? Is it acceptable to kill plants because they just grow? Do we stop at amoeba? Proteins? The truth of the matter is that we can't prove that we aren't harming every single living thing we kill. Ultimately we have to kill SOMETHING to live and if we do it, we have to be humane and ensure it does not suffer. A 50,000V shock or gassing with carbon dioxide essentially renders the animal/human insensate. It can't feel anything worth feeling. It is also infinitely preferably to being slowly gored by a lion or a fellow beast in a contest over mating, or dying of old age with an infected broken leg because it tripped over a rock.
We have to accept that we ultimately have to get energy from somewhere. Plenty of animals do not have this moral difficulty and we do so in a much more humane way than most animals think to do so.
The position in the law regarding sex is VERY clear. Consent is required. If you agree to beastality you also agree to paedophilia and rape. Do you understand what you are saying here? You are saying that for your personal pleasure, not out of any need to survive or out of any requirement of living, you should be able to have sex with anything you desire regardless of how it feels about it or not. I'm fairly certain that if I stuck my cock up my dog's arse he would be doing everything in his power to get the fuck away from me but then I'm thirty six times the size of my dog. What could he do?
Furthermore, my dog is not a slave. He is a member of my family. I don't work him. I don't use him. In fact I feed him, entertain him, buy things for him, do things that HE wants and he is part of the family unit. How dare you try and tell me that I am abusing my dog because you want to make a moral point that you should be able to fuck a donkey.
The law is incredibly clear on this and you will find that not only am I correct but you will also find that the law legislates in the same way. The protections of children and adults are fundamentally different based on the idea of an inability to consent under law. That is also true of animals - they cannot consent, therefore they are protected. Yes, we are allowed to eat them but we are not allowed to torture them or make them suffer.
Get your head out of your arse. You're talking absolute bullshit and you know it.
Consent between humans is required because forcing a human is causing them harm and harm to humans matters. Consent isn't a magic spell needed to make things okay, the principle of consent is necessary to ensure that the other human is not forced and therefore harmed. A situation in which all the humans involved consent is fine, you've made sure no humans are being harmed, you don't need to get the consent of the non humans because their consent is utterly irrelevant.
Your dog is not a slave not because he is a member of your family, an utterly absurd concept, but because he is a fucking dog. When you took your dog you abducted him, when you leave him in the house you are imprisoning him, when you cuddle with him you are using him but that doesn't make him a slave because he is a biological machine with no rights that exists purely for your pleasure so you get to do these things to him.
I honestly do not understand why you keep confusing people and animals. It is precisely because I am able to make this distinction, one that you seem to be really struggling with, that I can be okay with beastiality and not okay with pedophilia or rape. Pedophilia and rape cause harm to a human, beastiality does not.
On June 14 2013 21:06 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: The likely assumptions are that at the very least every now and then an animal does not like this without being able to express itself. No clue why you would argue for it being legal. Just because we kill animals doesn't mean it is okay to give them a shitty life on the way. There are plenty of laws protecting animals even though we kill them for consumption. There are people breaking the law for just about every law we have. Even if animal rights laws aren't all lived up to that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.
What if a dog starts humping a woman and the woman goes along with it?
LOL. This is a good point though. There can be consent between an animal and a human. Just because it's disgusting to most does not mean it should be illegal (as others have already pointed out, comparing to the legality of gay sex).
On June 14 2013 21:06 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: The likely assumptions are that at the very least every now and then an animal does not like this without being able to express itself. No clue why you would argue for it being legal. Just because we kill animals doesn't mean it is okay to give them a shitty life on the way. There are plenty of laws protecting animals even though we kill them for consumption. There are people breaking the law for just about every law we have. Even if animal rights laws aren't all lived up to that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.
What if a dog starts humping a woman and the woman goes along with it?
Still no consent.
Come on, people. You've seen enough cases of 14 and 15 year olds banging their teachers and resulting in a criminal conviction to know how this works.
It's not a human, that's the argument. Nazgul's argument is "making the animal's life shitty". Well if the animal wants it, that's not a very good argument to make.
On June 14 2013 21:06 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: The likely assumptions are that at the very least every now and then an animal does not like this without being able to express itself. No clue why you would argue for it being legal. Just because we kill animals doesn't mean it is okay to give them a shitty life on the way. There are plenty of laws protecting animals even though we kill them for consumption. There are people breaking the law for just about every law we have. Even if animal rights laws aren't all lived up to that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.
What if a dog starts humping a woman and the woman goes along with it?
I think that is a great point to bring up, but still easily refuted. There are laws protecting children from having sex with adults. Yet plenty of times the sex between an adult and a child will be consensual. However these laws exist because we conclude that the majority of children aren't able to properly express themselves at times. By law you protect 99 kids who couldn't express themselves, by lumping in the one example where it was fine, with the rest. Sometimes the sex between an adult and a child isn't a problem at all (as in your example with the dog). However we conclude that we have to protect all children because the majority of them aren't able to express themselves properly.
Just because there exists consensual sex between an animal and an adult doesn't mean there shouldn't be a law protecting the majority of the cases. An animal cannot express itself and if it is at all a possibility that sex with animals is not consensual then I believe there should be a law against it. Because of the inability to express themselves you have to lump in the 1 example of consensual animal sex to protect 99 others.
On June 14 2013 21:06 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: The likely assumptions are that at the very least every now and then an animal does not like this without being able to express itself. No clue why you would argue for it being legal. Just because we kill animals doesn't mean it is okay to give them a shitty life on the way. There are plenty of laws protecting animals even though we kill them for consumption. There are people breaking the law for just about every law we have. Even if animal rights laws aren't all lived up to that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.
The old law covered things that actually harmed animals like a man fucking a chicken or something. This new law bans sex even if no harm is done to either the human or the animal. It can only be justified through personal distaste, the same justification that was used for banning homosexuality, or on the principle of animal consent which is a massive can of worms of which beastiality is the most irrelevant nonsensical part of. It is absurd that someone who genuinely strongly believed in animal consent would think that non harmful beastiality, a very rare occurrence, was a more pressing matter than industrialised food production, that argument is just a cover for the first.
On June 14 2013 21:06 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: The likely assumptions are that at the very least every now and then an animal does not like this without being able to express itself. No clue why you would argue for it being legal. Just because we kill animals doesn't mean it is okay to give them a shitty life on the way. There are plenty of laws protecting animals even though we kill them for consumption. There are people breaking the law for just about every law we have. Even if animal rights laws aren't all lived up to that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.
What if a dog starts humping a woman and the woman goes along with it?
I think that is a great point to bring up, but still easily refuted. There are laws protecting children from having sex with adults. Yet plenty of times the sex between an adult and a child will be consensual. However these laws exist because we conclude that the majority of children aren't able to properly express themselves at times. By law you protect 99 kids who couldn't express themselves, by lumping the one example where it was fine, with the rest. Sometimes the sex between an adult and a child isn't a problem at all (as in your example with the dog). However we conclude that we have to protect all children because the majority of them aren't able to express themselves properly.
Just because there exists consensual sex between an animal and an adult doesn't mean there shouldn't be a law protecting the majority of the cases. An animal cannot express itself and if it is at all a possibility that sex with animals is not consensual then I believe there should be a law against it. Because of the inability to express themselves you have to lump in the 1 example of consensual animal sex to protect 99 others.
The argument boils down to the fact that you're equating an animal's worth to a human's worth.
It's not easily refuted, because as Kwark brings up, we do all sorts of things to animals that we don't do to humans, namely killing them, eating them, breeding them for milk, eggs, and whatever.
A kid is not a dog, and in how we treat kids and animals, they are definitively not equal, so the comparison is false.
Arguing for better treatment of animals isn't at all the same as equating them to a human's worth. You can bring up that straw man argument for any law that protects animals.
Laws are mainstream forms of sociaty behaviour. Beeing cruel to animals or even humans lies at the core of each person. I see it very easy: if i want others to be good, first i ahve to give them a good example.
On June 14 2013 21:06 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: The likely assumptions are that at the very least every now and then an animal does not like this without being able to express itself. No clue why you would argue for it being legal. Just because we kill animals doesn't mean it is okay to give them a shitty life on the way. There are plenty of laws protecting animals even though we kill them for consumption. There are people breaking the law for just about every law we have. Even if animal rights laws aren't all lived up to that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.
What if a dog starts humping a woman and the woman goes along with it?
I think that is a great point to bring up, but still easily refuted. There are laws protecting children from having sex with adults. Yet plenty of times the sex between an adult and a child will be consensual. However these laws exist because we conclude that the majority of children aren't able to properly express themselves at times. By law you protect 99 kids who couldn't express themselves by lumping the one example where it was fine with the rest. Sometimes the sex between an adult and a child isn't a problem at all (as in your example with the dog). However we conclude that we have to protect all children because the majority of them aren't able to express themselves properly.
Just because there exists consensual sex between an animal and an adult doesn't mean there shouldn't be a law protecting the majority of the cases. An animal cannot express itself and if it is at all a possibility that sex with animals is not consensual then I believe there should be a law against it. Because of the inability to express themselves you have to lump in the 1 example of consensual animal sex to protect 99 others.
I disagree. The reason we do not allow a child and adult to have sex even when it is consensual is to protect the child's mind and his/her mental development. There are huge psychological implications for the child. When it comes to animals it shouldn't matter as long as it's consensual and no harm is done.
Meh, disagree with the notion that human rights should transpose directly into animal rights.
We single out consent as the key element for sex between humans because of human rights, but human rights itself is a legal construct, it's not something we're innately born with, it's just something that we as a society find necessary for a good life. It makes no sense to unquestioningly transpose them to animals.
If Sweden feels strongly enough against beastiality to outlaw it on the grounds of public policy, fair enough, but the idea that animals have rights under which humans have an obligation or duty against is ridiculous. "Animal-rights" are more a deal between humans to not make animal's lives miserable, it should not be seen as a similar paradigm to human rights.
On June 14 2013 21:17 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: Arguing for better treatment of animals isn't at all the same as equating them to a human's worth. You can bring up that straw man argument for any law that protects animals.
There are numerous people in this topic, such as Evangelist, who are arguing that beastiality is literally the same as rape, that the lack of consent in both cases is the exact same thing and also that his dog is a literal member of his family. It ought to be a straw man but it's really not, people are actually arguing it.
On June 14 2013 21:06 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: The likely assumptions are that at the very least every now and then an animal does not like this without being able to express itself. No clue why you would argue for it being legal. Just because we kill animals doesn't mean it is okay to give them a shitty life on the way. There are plenty of laws protecting animals even though we kill them for consumption. There are people breaking the law for just about every law we have. Even if animal rights laws aren't all lived up to that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.
What if a dog starts humping a woman and the woman goes along with it?
I think that is a great point to bring up, but still easily refuted. There are laws protecting children from having sex with adults. Yet plenty of times the sex between an adult and a child will be consensual. However these laws exist because we conclude that the majority of children aren't able to properly express themselves at times. By law you protect 99 kids who couldn't express themselves, by lumping in the one example where it was fine, with the rest. Sometimes the sex between an adult and a child isn't a problem at all (as in your example with the dog). However we conclude that we have to protect all children because the majority of them aren't able to express themselves properly.
Just because there exists consensual sex between an animal and an adult doesn't mean there shouldn't be a law protecting the majority of the cases. An animal cannot express itself and if it is at all a possibility that sex with animals is not consensual then I believe there should be a law against it. Because of the inability to express themselves you have to lump in the 1 example of consensual animal sex to protect 99 others.
Do animals consent to being imprisoned and eaten?
What does it say about us if we protect or simply disregard their rights as and when it suits us?
Animals can't be raped, silly. They're not people. Also unless there's a risk of my future children being non human I think I'll manage. You keep assuming that because I think animals don't get the same rights as people then I think that people don't get the same rights as people because you literally equate humans and animals as being the same thing. I do not, I am capable of distinguishing between the two and it is very likely that my children will be human.
On June 14 2013 21:21 KwarK wrote: Animals can't be raped, silly. They're not people.
You're fucking disgusting. Seriously if this is the kind of twat you think should moderate this place just ban me now because I want no further part of this community.
On June 14 2013 21:06 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: The likely assumptions are that at the very least every now and then an animal does not like this without being able to express itself. No clue why you would argue for it being legal. Just because we kill animals doesn't mean it is okay to give them a shitty life on the way. There are plenty of laws protecting animals even though we kill them for consumption. There are people breaking the law for just about every law we have. Even if animal rights laws aren't all lived up to that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.
What if a dog starts humping a woman and the woman goes along with it?
I think that is a great point to bring up, but still easily refuted. There are laws protecting children from having sex with adults. Yet plenty of times the sex between an adult and a child will be consensual. However these laws exist because we conclude that the majority of children aren't able to properly express themselves at times. By law you protect 99 kids who couldn't express themselves, by lumping in the one example where it was fine, with the rest. Sometimes the sex between an adult and a child isn't a problem at all (as in your example with the dog). However we conclude that we have to protect all children because the majority of them aren't able to express themselves properly.
Just because there exists consensual sex between an animal and an adult doesn't mean there shouldn't be a law protecting the majority of the cases. An animal cannot express itself and if it is at all a possibility that sex with animals is not consensual then I believe there should be a law against it. Because of the inability to express themselves you have to lump in the 1 example of consensual animal sex to protect 99 others.
Do animals consent to being imprisoned and eaten?
What does it say about us if we protect or simply disregard their rights as and when it suits us?
What you are advocating here is that just because we kill animals we should also condone animal abuse, and I simply don't share that idea. I believe that because we eat them we should treat them decently along the way. The reason for this law is the exact same as any other animal protection law that is in place despite us eating them.
On June 14 2013 21:06 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: The likely assumptions are that at the very least every now and then an animal does not like this without being able to express itself. No clue why you would argue for it being legal. Just because we kill animals doesn't mean it is okay to give them a shitty life on the way. There are plenty of laws protecting animals even though we kill them for consumption. There are people breaking the law for just about every law we have. Even if animal rights laws aren't all lived up to that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.
What if a dog starts humping a woman and the woman goes along with it?
I think that is a great point to bring up, but still easily refuted. There are laws protecting children from having sex with adults. Yet plenty of times the sex between an adult and a child will be consensual. However these laws exist because we conclude that the majority of children aren't able to properly express themselves at times. By law you protect 99 kids who couldn't express themselves, by lumping in the one example where it was fine, with the rest. Sometimes the sex between an adult and a child isn't a problem at all (as in your example with the dog). However we conclude that we have to protect all children because the majority of them aren't able to express themselves properly.
Just because there exists consensual sex between an animal and an adult doesn't mean there shouldn't be a law protecting the majority of the cases. An animal cannot express itself and if it is at all a possibility that sex with animals is not consensual then I believe there should be a law against it. Because of the inability to express themselves you have to lump in the 1 example of consensual animal sex to protect 99 others.
Do animals consent to being imprisoned and eaten?
What does it say about us if we protect or simply disregard their rights as and when it suits us?
What you are advocating here is that just because we kill animals we should also condone animal abuse, and I simply don't share that idea. I believe that because we eat them we should treat them decently along the way. The reason for this law is the exact same as any other animal protection law that is in place despite us eating them.
No, there is already a law covering cruelty to animals in Sweden.
This law is above and beyond the idea of cruelty to animals. The argument you're making is that the scenarios in which there isn't cruelty to animals (i.e. the dog initiating) should be legislated against, because cruelty to animals is ALREADY legislated against.
On June 14 2013 21:06 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: The likely assumptions are that at the very least every now and then an animal does not like this without being able to express itself. No clue why you would argue for it being legal. Just because we kill animals doesn't mean it is okay to give them a shitty life on the way. There are plenty of laws protecting animals even though we kill them for consumption. There are people breaking the law for just about every law we have. Even if animal rights laws aren't all lived up to that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.
What if a dog starts humping a woman and the woman goes along with it?
I think that is a great point to bring up, but still easily refuted. There are laws protecting children from having sex with adults. Yet plenty of times the sex between an adult and a child will be consensual. However these laws exist because we conclude that the majority of children aren't able to properly express themselves at times. By law you protect 99 kids who couldn't express themselves, by lumping in the one example where it was fine, with the rest. Sometimes the sex between an adult and a child isn't a problem at all (as in your example with the dog). However we conclude that we have to protect all children because the majority of them aren't able to express themselves properly.
Just because there exists consensual sex between an animal and an adult doesn't mean there shouldn't be a law protecting the majority of the cases. An animal cannot express itself and if it is at all a possibility that sex with animals is not consensual then I believe there should be a law against it. Because of the inability to express themselves you have to lump in the 1 example of consensual animal sex to protect 99 others.
Do animals consent to being imprisoned and eaten?
What does it say about us if we protect or simply disregard their rights as and when it suits us?
What you are advocating here is that just because we kill animals we should also condone animal abuse, and I simply don't share that idea. I believe that because we eat them we should treat them decently along the way. The reason for this law is the exact same as any other animal protection law that is in place despite us eating them.
Fair enough, but then that all boils down to one's conception of the law.
A more liberal person would argue that laws should be minimalist, to ensure autonomy, so it should be confined to what we can or cannot legally do. Others (usually the more paternalistic countries) would argue that law is about what we should do.
On June 14 2013 21:06 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: The likely assumptions are that at the very least every now and then an animal does not like this without being able to express itself. No clue why you would argue for it being legal. Just because we kill animals doesn't mean it is okay to give them a shitty life on the way. There are plenty of laws protecting animals even though we kill them for consumption. There are people breaking the law for just about every law we have. Even if animal rights laws aren't all lived up to that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.
What if a dog starts humping a woman and the woman goes along with it?
I think that is a great point to bring up, but still easily refuted. There are laws protecting children from having sex with adults. Yet plenty of times the sex between an adult and a child will be consensual. However these laws exist because we conclude that the majority of children aren't able to properly express themselves at times. By law you protect 99 kids who couldn't express themselves, by lumping in the one example where it was fine, with the rest. Sometimes the sex between an adult and a child isn't a problem at all (as in your example with the dog). However we conclude that we have to protect all children because the majority of them aren't able to express themselves properly.
Just because there exists consensual sex between an animal and an adult doesn't mean there shouldn't be a law protecting the majority of the cases. An animal cannot express itself and if it is at all a possibility that sex with animals is not consensual then I believe there should be a law against it. Because of the inability to express themselves you have to lump in the 1 example of consensual animal sex to protect 99 others.
Do animals consent to being imprisoned and eaten?
What does it say about us if we protect or simply disregard their rights as and when it suits us?
What you are advocating here is that just because we kill animals we should also condone animal abuse, and I simply don't share that idea. I believe that because we eat them we should treat them decently along the way. The reason for this law is the exact same as any other animal protection law that is in place despite us eating them.
No, there is already a law covering cruelty to animals in Sweden.
This law is above and beyond the idea of cruelty to animals. The argument you're making is that the scenarios in which there isn't cruelty to animals (i.e. the dog initiating) should be legislated against, because cruelty to animals is ALREADY legislated against.
Pretty much this. The old law already covered abuse, this new law can only be argued for on the grounds of animal consent or on the grounds of oppression of things we dislike being virtuous. Evangelist was leading the charge on animal consent with his views that animals are literally people, that beastiality is literally rape and that if someone was okay with it then they were literally a threat to children but he seems to have given up. ExKkaMaGui was leading the oppression viewpoint with his argument that distaste is literally harm and that if someone doesn't like someone else doing something then they are being harmed and should be able to ban it but he's given up too.
It seems to me that there are number of points in flux in this thread.
The difficulty arises when so many premises are not shared.
For example, Nazgul's recent premise is that saving the 99 from suffering is worth restricting the freedom of the 1. Even if the majority do find that premise acceptable, a large percentage of people don't.
Kwark believes that animals are not given equal rights to human beings and thus it is unreasonable to say that it is okay to eat them, slaughter them, and fondle them, but it's not okay to penetrate them. Another belief that Kwark has is that as long as it doesn't harm another person or (maybe animal), what a person does in their bedroom is not the governments business.
These are valuable philosophical and moral stances, so it makes me sad to see so many people in the thread saying things like, "EWW GROSS BEASTIALITY" without stopping to consider the actual law in the context of the previous laws.
On June 14 2013 21:06 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: The likely assumptions are that at the very least every now and then an animal does not like this without being able to express itself. No clue why you would argue for it being legal. Just because we kill animals doesn't mean it is okay to give them a shitty life on the way. There are plenty of laws protecting animals even though we kill them for consumption. There are people breaking the law for just about every law we have. Even if animal rights laws aren't all lived up to that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.
What if a dog starts humping a woman and the woman goes along with it?
I think that is a great point to bring up, but still easily refuted. There are laws protecting children from having sex with adults. Yet plenty of times the sex between an adult and a child will be consensual. However these laws exist because we conclude that the majority of children aren't able to properly express themselves at times. By law you protect 99 kids who couldn't express themselves, by lumping in the one example where it was fine, with the rest. Sometimes the sex between an adult and a child isn't a problem at all (as in your example with the dog). However we conclude that we have to protect all children because the majority of them aren't able to express themselves properly.
Just because there exists consensual sex between an animal and an adult doesn't mean there shouldn't be a law protecting the majority of the cases. An animal cannot express itself and if it is at all a possibility that sex with animals is not consensual then I believe there should be a law against it. Because of the inability to express themselves you have to lump in the 1 example of consensual animal sex to protect 99 others.
Do animals consent to being imprisoned and eaten?
What does it say about us if we protect or simply disregard their rights as and when it suits us?
What you are advocating here is that just because we kill animals we should also condone animal abuse, and I simply don't share that idea. I believe that because we eat them we should treat them decently along the way. The reason for this law is the exact same as any other animal protection law that is in place despite us eating them.
We've already decided they don't deserve to be treated like humans, because we eat them.
So... we're not going to treat animals like humans, we're going to own them and essentially do whatever we want with them, including consuming them, short of actually torturing them or causing them unnecessary harm.
So... what you have to do now to justify this law is prove that bestiality causes harm to animals, or that an animal could come to some sort of harm through an act of bestiality that isn't already covered by existing animal cruelty laws.
I don't think anyone can do that and until someone can I don't think this is something that should be legislated.
edit: To be more specific, we aren't allowed to cause harm to animals just for the sake of causing harm. If we're allowed to own them because we're lonely and murder them because we're hungry we should be allowed to have sex with them because we're horny; as long as the animal isn't injured.
On June 14 2013 21:06 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: The likely assumptions are that at the very least every now and then an animal does not like this without being able to express itself. No clue why you would argue for it being legal. Just because we kill animals doesn't mean it is okay to give them a shitty life on the way. There are plenty of laws protecting animals even though we kill them for consumption. There are people breaking the law for just about every law we have. Even if animal rights laws aren't all lived up to that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.
What if a dog starts humping a woman and the woman goes along with it?
I think that is a great point to bring up, but still easily refuted. There are laws protecting children from having sex with adults. Yet plenty of times the sex between an adult and a child will be consensual. However these laws exist because we conclude that the majority of children aren't able to properly express themselves at times. By law you protect 99 kids who couldn't express themselves, by lumping in the one example where it was fine, with the rest. Sometimes the sex between an adult and a child isn't a problem at all (as in your example with the dog). However we conclude that we have to protect all children because the majority of them aren't able to express themselves properly.
Just because there exists consensual sex between an animal and an adult doesn't mean there shouldn't be a law protecting the majority of the cases. An animal cannot express itself and if it is at all a possibility that sex with animals is not consensual then I believe there should be a law against it. Because of the inability to express themselves you have to lump in the 1 example of consensual animal sex to protect 99 others.
Do animals consent to being imprisoned and eaten?
What does it say about us if we protect or simply disregard their rights as and when it suits us?
What you are advocating here is that just because we kill animals we should also condone animal abuse, and I simply don't share that idea. I believe that because we eat them we should treat them decently along the way. The reason for this law is the exact same as any other animal protection law that is in place despite us eating them.
No, there is already a law covering cruelty to animals in Sweden.
This law is above and beyond the idea of cruelty to animals. The argument you're making is that the scenarios in which there isn't cruelty to animals (i.e. the dog initiating) should be legislated against, because cruelty to animals is ALREADY legislated against.
This law basically means that sex with animals can be considered animal cruelty. Animals can't speak up for themselves or point out whether it should be considered cruelty. The law forbids the action of having sex with an animal, in order to avoid situations where it should be considered animal cruelty. The problem is that in court it will be impossible to prove whether an animal gave consent or not. A woman can simply say "I said no". So because an animal can't speak up for itself and explain what happened this law is meant to protect them as a whole. If someone wants to have sex with an animal, and the animal likes it too, by all means I don't care about the action itself. The law is meant to protect animals because they cannot explain when it was consensual and when it wasn't.
It is a completely standard usage of the law to assume that even though occasionally it is fine, overall it is not a good thing. Same goes for laws against sex with children, people using drugs, traffic rules, and many more. There will be plenty of situations where sex with children, or using drugs, crossing a street, will not do any harm to anyone. The law however assumes that because there are too many situations where it does go wrong (and thus have a negative impact on society) and that it should be avoided in order not to damage people.
On June 14 2013 21:28 goldenwitch wrote: It seems to me that there are number of points in flux in this thread.
The difficulty arises when so many premises are not shared.
For example, Nazgul's recent premise is that saving the 99 from suffering is worth restricting the freedom of the 1. Even if the majority do find that premise acceptable, a large percentage of people don't.
Suffering of animals isn't under discussion here as this law does nothing to change that, animal abuse was already illegal.
On June 14 2013 21:06 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: The likely assumptions are that at the very least every now and then an animal does not like this without being able to express itself. No clue why you would argue for it being legal. Just because we kill animals doesn't mean it is okay to give them a shitty life on the way. There are plenty of laws protecting animals even though we kill them for consumption. There are people breaking the law for just about every law we have. Even if animal rights laws aren't all lived up to that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.
What if a dog starts humping a woman and the woman goes along with it?
I think that is a great point to bring up, but still easily refuted. There are laws protecting children from having sex with adults. Yet plenty of times the sex between an adult and a child will be consensual. However these laws exist because we conclude that the majority of children aren't able to properly express themselves at times. By law you protect 99 kids who couldn't express themselves, by lumping in the one example where it was fine, with the rest. Sometimes the sex between an adult and a child isn't a problem at all (as in your example with the dog). However we conclude that we have to protect all children because the majority of them aren't able to express themselves properly.
Just because there exists consensual sex between an animal and an adult doesn't mean there shouldn't be a law protecting the majority of the cases. An animal cannot express itself and if it is at all a possibility that sex with animals is not consensual then I believe there should be a law against it. Because of the inability to express themselves you have to lump in the 1 example of consensual animal sex to protect 99 others.
Do animals consent to being imprisoned and eaten?
What does it say about us if we protect or simply disregard their rights as and when it suits us?
What you are advocating here is that just because we kill animals we should also condone animal abuse, and I simply don't share that idea. I believe that because we eat them we should treat them decently along the way. The reason for this law is the exact same as any other animal protection law that is in place despite us eating them.
No, there is already a law covering cruelty to animals in Sweden.
This law is above and beyond the idea of cruelty to animals. The argument you're making is that the scenarios in which there isn't cruelty to animals (i.e. the dog initiating) should be legislated against, because cruelty to animals is ALREADY legislated against.
This law basically means that sex with animals can be considered animal cruelty. Animals can't speak up for themselves or point out whether it should be considered cruelty. The law forbids the action of having sex with an animal, in order to avoid situations where it should be considered animal cruelty. The problem is that in court it will be impossible to prove whether an animal gave consent or not. A woman can simply say "I said no". So because an animal can't speak up for itself and explain what happened this law is meant to protect them as a whole. If someone wants to have sex with an animal, and the animal likes it too, by all means I don't care about the action itself. The law is meant to protect animals because they cannot explain when it was consensual and when it wasn't.
Incorrect, it could already be considered animal cruelty if there was suffering.
Until now, bestiality was illegal in Sweden only if it could be proven that the animal had been subjected to suffering.
If you fuck a chicken then fairly obviously it has been subjected to suffering, so it's illegal. It already can be considered animal cruelty.
On June 14 2013 21:21 KwarK wrote: Animals can't be raped, silly. They're not people. Also unless there's a risk of my future children being non human I think I'll manage. You keep assuming that because I think animals don't get the same rights as people then I think that people don't get the same rights as people because you literally equate humans and animals as being the same thing. I do not, I am capable of distinguishing between the two and it is very likely that my children will be human.
If we're talking about nature and our need for sex.
We can't impregnate animals to my knowledge so there is no reason to have sex with animals. You can't share sexual love with animals, since they don't have sex for fun(not talking about monkeys). And as the master race we should respect other animals. I mean even if the animal wanted to have sex, it isn't because he likes you. It's because he is dominating you and trying to have babies.
Because we eat animals we should also be able to fuck them is the most stupid thing I've ever heard. They get bred to be eaten they don't know better, animals we bred don't get bred to be fucked. There are rules to make that as humane as possible, because no one follows those rules doesn't make us hypocrites.
On June 14 2013 21:06 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: The likely assumptions are that at the very least every now and then an animal does not like this without being able to express itself. No clue why you would argue for it being legal. Just because we kill animals doesn't mean it is okay to give them a shitty life on the way. There are plenty of laws protecting animals even though we kill them for consumption. There are people breaking the law for just about every law we have. Even if animal rights laws aren't all lived up to that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.
What if a dog starts humping a woman and the woman goes along with it?
I think that is a great point to bring up, but still easily refuted. There are laws protecting children from having sex with adults. Yet plenty of times the sex between an adult and a child will be consensual. However these laws exist because we conclude that the majority of children aren't able to properly express themselves at times. By law you protect 99 kids who couldn't express themselves, by lumping in the one example where it was fine, with the rest. Sometimes the sex between an adult and a child isn't a problem at all (as in your example with the dog). However we conclude that we have to protect all children because the majority of them aren't able to express themselves properly.
Just because there exists consensual sex between an animal and an adult doesn't mean there shouldn't be a law protecting the majority of the cases. An animal cannot express itself and if it is at all a possibility that sex with animals is not consensual then I believe there should be a law against it. Because of the inability to express themselves you have to lump in the 1 example of consensual animal sex to protect 99 others.
Do animals consent to being imprisoned and eaten?
What does it say about us if we protect or simply disregard their rights as and when it suits us?
What you are advocating here is that just because we kill animals we should also condone animal abuse, and I simply don't share that idea. I believe that because we eat them we should treat them decently along the way. The reason for this law is the exact same as any other animal protection law that is in place despite us eating them.
No, there is already a law covering cruelty to animals in Sweden.
This law is above and beyond the idea of cruelty to animals. The argument you're making is that the scenarios in which there isn't cruelty to animals (i.e. the dog initiating) should be legislated against, because cruelty to animals is ALREADY legislated against.
This law basically means that sex with animals can be considered animal cruelty. Animals can't speak up for themselves or point out whether it should be considered cruelty. The law forbids the action of having sex with an animal, in order to avoid situations where it should be considered animal cruelty. The problem is that in court it will be impossible to prove whether an animal gave consent or not. A woman can simply say "I said no". So because an animal can't speak up for itself and explain what happened this law is meant to protect them as a whole. If someone wants to have sex with an animal, and the animal likes it too, by all means I don't care about the action itself. The law is meant to protect animals because they cannot explain when it was consensual and when it wasn't.
Which is the problem people have with it. If the law makes the argument that lack of animal consent is cruelty then first the law has to accept that lack of animal consent is a meaningful concept with legal standing which has huge implications which go far beyond this. If animal consent actually mattered to any of the legislators behind this law then they're making a law about the most irrelevant aspect of the issue imaginable. If I lived in a society in which billions were legally murdered every year and thousands were legally raped you wouldn't see me writing laws banning rape because I'd be much more busy with the murder thing. You can't care about animal consent when it suits you and not at other times.
On June 14 2013 21:06 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: The likely assumptions are that at the very least every now and then an animal does not like this without being able to express itself. No clue why you would argue for it being legal. Just because we kill animals doesn't mean it is okay to give them a shitty life on the way. There are plenty of laws protecting animals even though we kill them for consumption. There are people breaking the law for just about every law we have. Even if animal rights laws aren't all lived up to that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.
What if a dog starts humping a woman and the woman goes along with it?
I think that is a great point to bring up, but still easily refuted. There are laws protecting children from having sex with adults. Yet plenty of times the sex between an adult and a child will be consensual. However these laws exist because we conclude that the majority of children aren't able to properly express themselves at times. By law you protect 99 kids who couldn't express themselves, by lumping in the one example where it was fine, with the rest. Sometimes the sex between an adult and a child isn't a problem at all (as in your example with the dog). However we conclude that we have to protect all children because the majority of them aren't able to express themselves properly.
Just because there exists consensual sex between an animal and an adult doesn't mean there shouldn't be a law protecting the majority of the cases. An animal cannot express itself and if it is at all a possibility that sex with animals is not consensual then I believe there should be a law against it. Because of the inability to express themselves you have to lump in the 1 example of consensual animal sex to protect 99 others.
Do animals consent to being imprisoned and eaten?
What does it say about us if we protect or simply disregard their rights as and when it suits us?
What you are advocating here is that just because we kill animals we should also condone animal abuse, and I simply don't share that idea. I believe that because we eat them we should treat them decently along the way. The reason for this law is the exact same as any other animal protection law that is in place despite us eating them.
No, there is already a law covering cruelty to animals in Sweden.
This law is above and beyond the idea of cruelty to animals. The argument you're making is that the scenarios in which there isn't cruelty to animals (i.e. the dog initiating) should be legislated against, because cruelty to animals is ALREADY legislated against.
This law basically means that sex with animals can be considered animal cruelty. Animals can't speak up for themselves or point out whether it should be considered cruelty. The law forbids the action of having sex with an animal, in order to avoid situations where it should be considered animal cruelty. The problem is that in court it will be impossible to prove whether an animal gave consent or not. A woman can simply say "I said no". So because an animal can't speak up for itself and explain what happened this law is meant to protect them as a whole. If someone wants to have sex with an animal, and the animal likes it too, by all means I don't care about the action itself. The law is meant to protect animals because they cannot explain when it was consensual and when it wasn't.
Incorrect, it could already be considered animal cruelty if there was suffering.
Until now, bestiality was illegal in Sweden only if it could be proven that the animal had been subjected to suffering.
If you fuck a chicken then fairly obviously it has been subjected to suffering, so it's illegal. It already can be considered animal cruelty.
The issue is that since an animal can't speak up for itself it becomes impossible to prove suffering, unless it is something physically absurd like a man fucking a chicken. This law protects other non physically absurd cases.
The problem is the starting point that animals need to be protected, and since they cannot express consent should be blanked banned, is an infringement of liberties of a human that cannot be justified a priori. The onus is therefore, on the proponent to justify it, which is the point of this whole discussion. It all boils down to "Do animals deserve a similar rights-based protection regime as humans?", which I don't see how anyone could argue in the affirmative unless they were advocates of legally enforced vegetarianism.
On June 14 2013 21:06 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: The likely assumptions are that at the very least every now and then an animal does not like this without being able to express itself. No clue why you would argue for it being legal. Just because we kill animals doesn't mean it is okay to give them a shitty life on the way. There are plenty of laws protecting animals even though we kill them for consumption. There are people breaking the law for just about every law we have. Even if animal rights laws aren't all lived up to that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.
What if a dog starts humping a woman and the woman goes along with it?
I think that is a great point to bring up, but still easily refuted. There are laws protecting children from having sex with adults. Yet plenty of times the sex between an adult and a child will be consensual. However these laws exist because we conclude that the majority of children aren't able to properly express themselves at times. By law you protect 99 kids who couldn't express themselves, by lumping in the one example where it was fine, with the rest. Sometimes the sex between an adult and a child isn't a problem at all (as in your example with the dog). However we conclude that we have to protect all children because the majority of them aren't able to express themselves properly.
Just because there exists consensual sex between an animal and an adult doesn't mean there shouldn't be a law protecting the majority of the cases. An animal cannot express itself and if it is at all a possibility that sex with animals is not consensual then I believe there should be a law against it. Because of the inability to express themselves you have to lump in the 1 example of consensual animal sex to protect 99 others.
Do animals consent to being imprisoned and eaten?
What does it say about us if we protect or simply disregard their rights as and when it suits us?
What you are advocating here is that just because we kill animals we should also condone animal abuse, and I simply don't share that idea. I believe that because we eat them we should treat them decently along the way. The reason for this law is the exact same as any other animal protection law that is in place despite us eating them.
No, there is already a law covering cruelty to animals in Sweden.
This law is above and beyond the idea of cruelty to animals. The argument you're making is that the scenarios in which there isn't cruelty to animals (i.e. the dog initiating) should be legislated against, because cruelty to animals is ALREADY legislated against.
This law basically means that sex with animals can be considered animal cruelty. Animals can't speak up for themselves or point out whether it should be considered cruelty. The law forbids the action of having sex with an animal, in order to avoid situations where it should be considered animal cruelty. The problem is that in court it will be impossible to prove whether an animal gave consent or not. A woman can simply say "I said no". So because an animal can't speak up for itself and explain what happened this law is meant to protect them as a whole. If someone wants to have sex with an animal, and the animal likes it too, by all means I don't care about the action itself. The law is meant to protect animals because they cannot explain when it was consensual and when it wasn't.
Incorrect, it could already be considered animal cruelty if there was suffering.
Until now, bestiality was illegal in Sweden only if it could be proven that the animal had been subjected to suffering.
If you fuck a chicken then fairly obviously it has been subjected to suffering, so it's illegal. It already can be considered animal cruelty.
The issue is that since an animal can't speak up for itself it becomes impossible to prove suffering, unless it is something physically absurd like a man fucking a chicken. This law protects other non physically absurd cases.
On June 14 2013 21:06 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: The likely assumptions are that at the very least every now and then an animal does not like this without being able to express itself. No clue why you would argue for it being legal. Just because we kill animals doesn't mean it is okay to give them a shitty life on the way. There are plenty of laws protecting animals even though we kill them for consumption. There are people breaking the law for just about every law we have. Even if animal rights laws aren't all lived up to that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.
What if a dog starts humping a woman and the woman goes along with it?
I think that is a great point to bring up, but still easily refuted. There are laws protecting children from having sex with adults. Yet plenty of times the sex between an adult and a child will be consensual. However these laws exist because we conclude that the majority of children aren't able to properly express themselves at times. By law you protect 99 kids who couldn't express themselves, by lumping in the one example where it was fine, with the rest. Sometimes the sex between an adult and a child isn't a problem at all (as in your example with the dog). However we conclude that we have to protect all children because the majority of them aren't able to express themselves properly.
Just because there exists consensual sex between an animal and an adult doesn't mean there shouldn't be a law protecting the majority of the cases. An animal cannot express itself and if it is at all a possibility that sex with animals is not consensual then I believe there should be a law against it. Because of the inability to express themselves you have to lump in the 1 example of consensual animal sex to protect 99 others.
Do animals consent to being imprisoned and eaten?
What does it say about us if we protect or simply disregard their rights as and when it suits us?
What you are advocating here is that just because we kill animals we should also condone animal abuse, and I simply don't share that idea. I believe that because we eat them we should treat them decently along the way. The reason for this law is the exact same as any other animal protection law that is in place despite us eating them.
No, there is already a law covering cruelty to animals in Sweden.
This law is above and beyond the idea of cruelty to animals. The argument you're making is that the scenarios in which there isn't cruelty to animals (i.e. the dog initiating) should be legislated against, because cruelty to animals is ALREADY legislated against.
This law basically means that sex with animals can be considered animal cruelty. Animals can't speak up for themselves or point out whether it should be considered cruelty. The law forbids the action of having sex with an animal, in order to avoid situations where it should be considered animal cruelty. The problem is that in court it will be impossible to prove whether an animal gave consent or not. A woman can simply say "I said no". So because an animal can't speak up for itself and explain what happened this law is meant to protect them as a whole. If someone wants to have sex with an animal, and the animal likes it too, by all means I don't care about the action itself. The law is meant to protect animals because they cannot explain when it was consensual and when it wasn't.
It is a completely standard usage of the law to assume that even though occasionally it is fine, overall it is not a good thing. Same goes for laws against sex with children, people using drugs, traffic rules, and many more. There will be plenty of situations where sex with children, or using drugs, crossing a street, will not do any harm to anyone. The law however assumes that because there are too many situations where it does go wrong (and thus have a negative impact on society) and that it should be avoided in order not to damage people.
This is a really weird debate I'll admit.
There seems to be two crucial points, consent and harm.
We've already completely disregarded consent in animals, we own them and eat them, there are no laws against doing things to an animal against it's consent.
The only thing we have deemed unacceptable is harming animals. (but it's okay to harm them 100% and kill them, but if you harm them and leave them alive it's not okay)
So the consent issue is a non-issue here. We don't respect animals in terms of consent, we get to decide what happens to them as long as we don't hurt them. If I can have sex with an animal without hurting it then I haven't broken that rule.
On June 14 2013 21:21 KwarK wrote: Animals can't be raped, silly. They're not people. Also unless there's a risk of my future children being non human I think I'll manage. You keep assuming that because I think animals don't get the same rights as people then I think that people don't get the same rights as people because you literally equate humans and animals as being the same thing. I do not, I am capable of distinguishing between the two and it is very likely that my children will be human.
Where's the report link?
Rape is a legal construct involving humans. What's to report?
On June 14 2013 21:36 Morthy wrote: If we're talking about nature and our need for sex.
We can't impregnate animals to my knowledge so there is no reason to have sex with animals. You can't share sexual love with animals, since they don't have sex for fun(not talking about monkeys). And as the master race we should respect other animals. I mean even if the animal wanted to have sex, it isn't because he likes you. It's because he is dominating you and trying to have babies.
Because we eat animals we should also be able to fuck them is the most stupid thing I've ever heard. They get bred to be eaten they don't know better, animals we bred don't get bred to be fucked. There are rules to make that as humane as possible, because no one follows those rules doesn't make us hypocrites.
They don't know better than to be eaten but they do know better than to be fucked? Really? Care to elaborate upon that? Do cows have a meaningful understanding of the implications of sexual abuse but are completely in the dark when it comes to murder?
They get bred to be eaten but not to be fucked? So it's okay if I breed an animal to be fucked? It's just not okay to use it for something other than what you bred it for?
What you wrote is so full of holes it's more hole than words.
On June 14 2013 21:06 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: The likely assumptions are that at the very least every now and then an animal does not like this without being able to express itself. No clue why you would argue for it being legal. Just because we kill animals doesn't mean it is okay to give them a shitty life on the way. There are plenty of laws protecting animals even though we kill them for consumption. There are people breaking the law for just about every law we have. Even if animal rights laws aren't all lived up to that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.
What if a dog starts humping a woman and the woman goes along with it?
I think that is a great point to bring up, but still easily refuted. There are laws protecting children from having sex with adults. Yet plenty of times the sex between an adult and a child will be consensual. However these laws exist because we conclude that the majority of children aren't able to properly express themselves at times. By law you protect 99 kids who couldn't express themselves, by lumping in the one example where it was fine, with the rest. Sometimes the sex between an adult and a child isn't a problem at all (as in your example with the dog). However we conclude that we have to protect all children because the majority of them aren't able to express themselves properly.
Just because there exists consensual sex between an animal and an adult doesn't mean there shouldn't be a law protecting the majority of the cases. An animal cannot express itself and if it is at all a possibility that sex with animals is not consensual then I believe there should be a law against it. Because of the inability to express themselves you have to lump in the 1 example of consensual animal sex to protect 99 others.
Do animals consent to being imprisoned and eaten?
What does it say about us if we protect or simply disregard their rights as and when it suits us?
What you are advocating here is that just because we kill animals we should also condone animal abuse, and I simply don't share that idea. I believe that because we eat them we should treat them decently along the way. The reason for this law is the exact same as any other animal protection law that is in place despite us eating them.
No, there is already a law covering cruelty to animals in Sweden.
This law is above and beyond the idea of cruelty to animals. The argument you're making is that the scenarios in which there isn't cruelty to animals (i.e. the dog initiating) should be legislated against, because cruelty to animals is ALREADY legislated against.
This law basically means that sex with animals can be considered animal cruelty. Animals can't speak up for themselves or point out whether it should be considered cruelty. The law forbids the action of having sex with an animal, in order to avoid situations where it should be considered animal cruelty. The problem is that in court it will be impossible to prove whether an animal gave consent or not. A woman can simply say "I said no". So because an animal can't speak up for itself and explain what happened this law is meant to protect them as a whole. If someone wants to have sex with an animal, and the animal likes it too, by all means I don't care about the action itself. The law is meant to protect animals because they cannot explain when it was consensual and when it wasn't.
Which is the problem people have with it. If the law makes the argument that lack of animal consent is cruelty then first the law has to accept that lack of animal consent is a meaningful concept with legal standing which has huge implications which go far beyond this. If animal consent actually mattered to any of the legislators behind this law then they're making a law about the most irrelevant aspect of the issue imaginable. If I lived in a society in which billions were legally murdered every year and thousands were legally raped you wouldn't see me writing laws banning rape because I'd be much more busy with the murder thing. You can't care about animal consent when it suits you and not at other times.
In society there are thousands upon thousands of issues to fix. Different people focus on different things that they care about. If every time someone was trying to improve something you point to some war that is going on we would get nowhere.
On June 14 2013 21:21 KwarK wrote: Animals can't be raped, silly. They're not people. Also unless there's a risk of my future children being non human I think I'll manage. You keep assuming that because I think animals don't get the same rights as people then I think that people don't get the same rights as people because you literally equate humans and animals as being the same thing. I do not, I am capable of distinguishing between the two and it is very likely that my children will be human.
Where's the report link? I don't want to watch vileness like this post getting spread.
Do you guys realize that if a human wants to sexually abuse animal he can do so whether it is illegal or legal without consequence because the animal cannot phone the police and report the crime. The only thing this law will do is force Swedish utorrent websites such as piratebay to delete the bestiality content and that's in my opinion a good thing.
On June 14 2013 21:42 edlover420 wrote: Do you guys realize that if a human wants to sexually abuse animal he can do so whether it is illegal or legal without consequence because the animal cannot phone the police and report the crime. The only thing this law will do is force Swedish utorrent websites such as piratebay to delete the bestiality content and that's in my opinion a good thing.
P.S. I would also like to report Kwark.
Animals can neighver report such baahrberous mooders.
On June 14 2013 21:21 KwarK wrote: Animals can't be raped, silly. They're not people. Also unless there's a risk of my future children being non human I think I'll manage. You keep assuming that because I think animals don't get the same rights as people then I think that people don't get the same rights as people because you literally equate humans and animals as being the same thing. I do not, I am capable of distinguishing between the two and it is very likely that my children will be human.
Where's the report link?
Rape is a legal construct involving humans. What's to report?
It's also a word that means unconsensual sex. Including it in the criminal code doesn't overwrite the original meaning of the word.
On June 14 2013 21:06 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: The likely assumptions are that at the very least every now and then an animal does not like this without being able to express itself. No clue why you would argue for it being legal. Just because we kill animals doesn't mean it is okay to give them a shitty life on the way. There are plenty of laws protecting animals even though we kill them for consumption. There are people breaking the law for just about every law we have. Even if animal rights laws aren't all lived up to that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.
What if a dog starts humping a woman and the woman goes along with it?
I think that is a great point to bring up, but still easily refuted. There are laws protecting children from having sex with adults. Yet plenty of times the sex between an adult and a child will be consensual. However these laws exist because we conclude that the majority of children aren't able to properly express themselves at times. By law you protect 99 kids who couldn't express themselves, by lumping in the one example where it was fine, with the rest. Sometimes the sex between an adult and a child isn't a problem at all (as in your example with the dog). However we conclude that we have to protect all children because the majority of them aren't able to express themselves properly.
Just because there exists consensual sex between an animal and an adult doesn't mean there shouldn't be a law protecting the majority of the cases. An animal cannot express itself and if it is at all a possibility that sex with animals is not consensual then I believe there should be a law against it. Because of the inability to express themselves you have to lump in the 1 example of consensual animal sex to protect 99 others.
Do animals consent to being imprisoned and eaten?
What does it say about us if we protect or simply disregard their rights as and when it suits us?
What you are advocating here is that just because we kill animals we should also condone animal abuse, and I simply don't share that idea. I believe that because we eat them we should treat them decently along the way. The reason for this law is the exact same as any other animal protection law that is in place despite us eating them.
No, there is already a law covering cruelty to animals in Sweden.
This law is above and beyond the idea of cruelty to animals. The argument you're making is that the scenarios in which there isn't cruelty to animals (i.e. the dog initiating) should be legislated against, because cruelty to animals is ALREADY legislated against.
This law basically means that sex with animals can be considered animal cruelty. Animals can't speak up for themselves or point out whether it should be considered cruelty. The law forbids the action of having sex with an animal, in order to avoid situations where it should be considered animal cruelty. The problem is that in court it will be impossible to prove whether an animal gave consent or not. A woman can simply say "I said no". So because an animal can't speak up for itself and explain what happened this law is meant to protect them as a whole. If someone wants to have sex with an animal, and the animal likes it too, by all means I don't care about the action itself. The law is meant to protect animals because they cannot explain when it was consensual and when it wasn't.
Incorrect, it could already be considered animal cruelty if there was suffering.
Until now, bestiality was illegal in Sweden only if it could be proven that the animal had been subjected to suffering.
If you fuck a chicken then fairly obviously it has been subjected to suffering, so it's illegal. It already can be considered animal cruelty.
The issue is that since an animal can't speak up for itself it becomes impossible to prove suffering, unless it is something physically absurd like a man fucking a chicken. This law protects other non physically absurd cases.
If an animal is capable of psychological harm from having sex with a human if there is no physical harm, which I don't believe to be true, then animals are suffering psychologically and unacceptably from being bred in captivity, slaughtered in front of each other, the monotony of the same routine and food everyday... etc
We don't attribute that level of sophistication to them at any other time, so why suddenly do it here?
On June 14 2013 21:42 edlover420 wrote: Do you guys realize that if a human wants to sexually abuse animal he can do so whether it is illegal or legal without consequence because the animal cannot phone the police and report the crime. The only thing this law will do is force Swedish utorrent websites such as piratebay to delete the bestiality content and that's in my opinion a good thing.
P.S. I would also like to report Kwark. ^
He said animals can't be raped, whether he's right or wrong that's not a reportable offense.
On June 14 2013 21:06 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: The likely assumptions are that at the very least every now and then an animal does not like this without being able to express itself. No clue why you would argue for it being legal. Just because we kill animals doesn't mean it is okay to give them a shitty life on the way. There are plenty of laws protecting animals even though we kill them for consumption. There are people breaking the law for just about every law we have. Even if animal rights laws aren't all lived up to that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.
What if a dog starts humping a woman and the woman goes along with it?
I think that is a great point to bring up, but still easily refuted. There are laws protecting children from having sex with adults. Yet plenty of times the sex between an adult and a child will be consensual. However these laws exist because we conclude that the majority of children aren't able to properly express themselves at times. By law you protect 99 kids who couldn't express themselves, by lumping in the one example where it was fine, with the rest. Sometimes the sex between an adult and a child isn't a problem at all (as in your example with the dog). However we conclude that we have to protect all children because the majority of them aren't able to express themselves properly.
Just because there exists consensual sex between an animal and an adult doesn't mean there shouldn't be a law protecting the majority of the cases. An animal cannot express itself and if it is at all a possibility that sex with animals is not consensual then I believe there should be a law against it. Because of the inability to express themselves you have to lump in the 1 example of consensual animal sex to protect 99 others.
Do animals consent to being imprisoned and eaten?
What does it say about us if we protect or simply disregard their rights as and when it suits us?
What you are advocating here is that just because we kill animals we should also condone animal abuse, and I simply don't share that idea. I believe that because we eat them we should treat them decently along the way. The reason for this law is the exact same as any other animal protection law that is in place despite us eating them.
No, there is already a law covering cruelty to animals in Sweden.
This law is above and beyond the idea of cruelty to animals. The argument you're making is that the scenarios in which there isn't cruelty to animals (i.e. the dog initiating) should be legislated against, because cruelty to animals is ALREADY legislated against.
This law basically means that sex with animals can be considered animal cruelty. Animals can't speak up for themselves or point out whether it should be considered cruelty. The law forbids the action of having sex with an animal, in order to avoid situations where it should be considered animal cruelty. The problem is that in court it will be impossible to prove whether an animal gave consent or not. A woman can simply say "I said no". So because an animal can't speak up for itself and explain what happened this law is meant to protect them as a whole. If someone wants to have sex with an animal, and the animal likes it too, by all means I don't care about the action itself. The law is meant to protect animals because they cannot explain when it was consensual and when it wasn't.
Incorrect, it could already be considered animal cruelty if there was suffering.
Until now, bestiality was illegal in Sweden only if it could be proven that the animal had been subjected to suffering.
If you fuck a chicken then fairly obviously it has been subjected to suffering, so it's illegal. It already can be considered animal cruelty.
The issue is that since an animal can't speak up for itself it becomes impossible to prove suffering, unless it is something physically absurd like a man fucking a chicken. This law protects other non physically absurd cases.
But why would the law protect the animal at the loss of the liberty of the human?
If I want to rear a cow, let it graze in my garden and then eat it then the law says that in that situation my desire for beef is more important than the cows continued existence but if I want to fuck it then the law says that my desire to fuck it is less important the cow's welfare.
This law restricts human freedom in the name of animal welfare and for that to be a noble cause it first must be shown that animal welfare is more important than human freedom. Now clearly we have socially decided that there is a line which is why you can't torture puppies for fun and so forth but this is really, really far on the "it's okay" side of that line. We still have battery farmed hens because people want the freedom to save a few pennies on eggs at the cost of immense animal suffering.
i dont get all this nitpicking about animal rights and morality in this thread, its completly minor and irrelevant u cant beat up ur pet, you can kill it. you cant fuck your pet, you can eat it. i dunno, kinda weird yo
On June 14 2013 21:21 KwarK wrote: Animals can't be raped, silly. They're not people. Also unless there's a risk of my future children being non human I think I'll manage. You keep assuming that because I think animals don't get the same rights as people then I think that people don't get the same rights as people because you literally equate humans and animals as being the same thing. I do not, I am capable of distinguishing between the two and it is very likely that my children will be human.
Where's the report link?
Rape is a legal construct involving humans. What's to report?
It's also a word that means unconsensual sex. Including it in the criminal code doesn't overwrite the original meaning of the word.
Just coz laymen butchered or diluted the meaning of a legal term, doesn't make the resultant definition the correct one.
On June 14 2013 21:06 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: The likely assumptions are that at the very least every now and then an animal does not like this without being able to express itself. No clue why you would argue for it being legal. Just because we kill animals doesn't mean it is okay to give them a shitty life on the way. There are plenty of laws protecting animals even though we kill them for consumption. There are people breaking the law for just about every law we have. Even if animal rights laws aren't all lived up to that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.
What if a dog starts humping a woman and the woman goes along with it?
I think that is a great point to bring up, but still easily refuted. There are laws protecting children from having sex with adults. Yet plenty of times the sex between an adult and a child will be consensual. However these laws exist because we conclude that the majority of children aren't able to properly express themselves at times. By law you protect 99 kids who couldn't express themselves, by lumping in the one example where it was fine, with the rest. Sometimes the sex between an adult and a child isn't a problem at all (as in your example with the dog). However we conclude that we have to protect all children because the majority of them aren't able to express themselves properly.
Just because there exists consensual sex between an animal and an adult doesn't mean there shouldn't be a law protecting the majority of the cases. An animal cannot express itself and if it is at all a possibility that sex with animals is not consensual then I believe there should be a law against it. Because of the inability to express themselves you have to lump in the 1 example of consensual animal sex to protect 99 others.
Do animals consent to being imprisoned and eaten?
What does it say about us if we protect or simply disregard their rights as and when it suits us?
What you are advocating here is that just because we kill animals we should also condone animal abuse, and I simply don't share that idea. I believe that because we eat them we should treat them decently along the way. The reason for this law is the exact same as any other animal protection law that is in place despite us eating them.
No, there is already a law covering cruelty to animals in Sweden.
This law is above and beyond the idea of cruelty to animals. The argument you're making is that the scenarios in which there isn't cruelty to animals (i.e. the dog initiating) should be legislated against, because cruelty to animals is ALREADY legislated against.
This law basically means that sex with animals can be considered animal cruelty. Animals can't speak up for themselves or point out whether it should be considered cruelty. The law forbids the action of having sex with an animal, in order to avoid situations where it should be considered animal cruelty. The problem is that in court it will be impossible to prove whether an animal gave consent or not. A woman can simply say "I said no". So because an animal can't speak up for itself and explain what happened this law is meant to protect them as a whole. If someone wants to have sex with an animal, and the animal likes it too, by all means I don't care about the action itself. The law is meant to protect animals because they cannot explain when it was consensual and when it wasn't.
Incorrect, it could already be considered animal cruelty if there was suffering.
Until now, bestiality was illegal in Sweden only if it could be proven that the animal had been subjected to suffering.
If you fuck a chicken then fairly obviously it has been subjected to suffering, so it's illegal. It already can be considered animal cruelty.
The issue is that since an animal can't speak up for itself it becomes impossible to prove suffering, unless it is something physically absurd like a man fucking a chicken. This law protects other non physically absurd cases.
But why would the law protect the animal at the loss of the liberty of the human?
If I want to rear a cow, let it graze in my garden and then eat it then the law says that in that situation my desire for beef is more important than the cows continued existence but if I want to fuck it then the law says that my desire to fuck it is less important the cow's welfare.
This law restricts human freedom in the name of animal welfare and for that to be a noble cause it first must be shown that animal welfare is more important than human freedom. Now clearly we have socially decided that there is a line which is why you can't torture puppies for fun and so forth but this is really, really far on the "it's okay" side of that line. We still have battery farmed hens because people want the freedom to save a few pennies on eggs at the cost of immense animal suffering.
Well let's face it, you need food. You don't need to fuck, and especially an animal you can't reproduce with.
On June 14 2013 21:21 KwarK wrote: Animals can't be raped, silly. They're not people. Also unless there's a risk of my future children being non human I think I'll manage. You keep assuming that because I think animals don't get the same rights as people then I think that people don't get the same rights as people because you literally equate humans and animals as being the same thing. I do not, I am capable of distinguishing between the two and it is very likely that my children will be human.
Where's the report link?
Rape is a legal construct involving humans. What's to report?
It's also a word that means unconsensual sex. Including it in the criminal code doesn't overwrite the original meaning of the word.
Again, consent is very much a human thing.
Murder is between human beings, because humans kill animals all the time. If Kwark said "you can't murder animals, silly" would you report him also? Because we do 'murder' animals in order to eat them. But it's not the same. Murder is a human killing a human.
I don't understand why people want to report Kwark for taking this position.
On June 14 2013 21:32 KwarK wrote: Suffering of animals isn't under discussion here as this law does nothing to change that, animal abuse was already illegal.
Then the arguments against this law ultimately come down to the question whether it's redundant, not whether it's justified.
As Nazgul puts it:
On June 14 2013 21:31 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: This law basically means that sex with animals can be considered animal cruelty.
I think there is merit to the idea that this law just serves the purpose of legal security in those cases where it formerly may (or may not?) have been possible to defend against accusations of animal abuse along the lines of "no donkeys were harmed in the production of this movie, only fucked". And this law spells out that sex with animals is one type of animal abuse... so what if the former law should have already covered that? Apparently, there was too much room for interpretation, and that's gone now... which is nice, and a benefit for which some redundancy can be tacitly accepted, imho.
On June 14 2013 21:36 Morthy wrote: If we're talking about nature and our need for sex.
We can't impregnate animals to my knowledge so there is no reason to have sex with animals. You can't share sexual love with animals, since they don't have sex for fun(not talking about monkeys). And as the master race we should respect other animals. I mean even if the animal wanted to have sex, it isn't because he likes you. It's because he is dominating you and trying to have babies.
Because we eat animals we should also be able to fuck them is the most stupid thing I've ever heard. They get bred to be eaten they don't know better, animals we bred don't get bred to be fucked. There are rules to make that as humane as possible, because no one follows those rules doesn't make us hypocrites.
They don't know better than to be eaten but they do know better than to be fucked? Really? Care to elaborate upon that? Do cows have a meaningful understanding of the implications of sexual abuse but are completely in the dark when it comes to murder?
They get bred to be eaten but not to be fucked? So it's okay if I breed an animal to be fucked? It's just not okay to use it for something other than what you bred it for?
What you wrote is so full of holes it's more hole than words.
Of course they don't know better in both ways, I never said such thing. I only said that animals don't share the same love we share with other humans, so implying that an animal WANTS to have sex with you for fun is stupid. He wants sex with you because it's his nature and it's programmed in it.
Even talking about what animals think is stupid. We don't even know what animals think so as long that's a grey place there needs to be a law for it.
Yes I would agree there. If you bred animals as sex pleasures, it wouldn't be that big of a problem. But try to do that.
On June 14 2013 21:06 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: The likely assumptions are that at the very least every now and then an animal does not like this without being able to express itself. No clue why you would argue for it being legal. Just because we kill animals doesn't mean it is okay to give them a shitty life on the way. There are plenty of laws protecting animals even though we kill them for consumption. There are people breaking the law for just about every law we have. Even if animal rights laws aren't all lived up to that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.
What if a dog starts humping a woman and the woman goes along with it?
I think that is a great point to bring up, but still easily refuted. There are laws protecting children from having sex with adults. Yet plenty of times the sex between an adult and a child will be consensual. However these laws exist because we conclude that the majority of children aren't able to properly express themselves at times. By law you protect 99 kids who couldn't express themselves, by lumping in the one example where it was fine, with the rest. Sometimes the sex between an adult and a child isn't a problem at all (as in your example with the dog). However we conclude that we have to protect all children because the majority of them aren't able to express themselves properly.
Just because there exists consensual sex between an animal and an adult doesn't mean there shouldn't be a law protecting the majority of the cases. An animal cannot express itself and if it is at all a possibility that sex with animals is not consensual then I believe there should be a law against it. Because of the inability to express themselves you have to lump in the 1 example of consensual animal sex to protect 99 others.
Do animals consent to being imprisoned and eaten?
What does it say about us if we protect or simply disregard their rights as and when it suits us?
What you are advocating here is that just because we kill animals we should also condone animal abuse, and I simply don't share that idea. I believe that because we eat them we should treat them decently along the way. The reason for this law is the exact same as any other animal protection law that is in place despite us eating them.
No, there is already a law covering cruelty to animals in Sweden.
This law is above and beyond the idea of cruelty to animals. The argument you're making is that the scenarios in which there isn't cruelty to animals (i.e. the dog initiating) should be legislated against, because cruelty to animals is ALREADY legislated against.
This law basically means that sex with animals can be considered animal cruelty. Animals can't speak up for themselves or point out whether it should be considered cruelty. The law forbids the action of having sex with an animal, in order to avoid situations where it should be considered animal cruelty. The problem is that in court it will be impossible to prove whether an animal gave consent or not. A woman can simply say "I said no". So because an animal can't speak up for itself and explain what happened this law is meant to protect them as a whole. If someone wants to have sex with an animal, and the animal likes it too, by all means I don't care about the action itself. The law is meant to protect animals because they cannot explain when it was consensual and when it wasn't.
Incorrect, it could already be considered animal cruelty if there was suffering.
Until now, bestiality was illegal in Sweden only if it could be proven that the animal had been subjected to suffering.
If you fuck a chicken then fairly obviously it has been subjected to suffering, so it's illegal. It already can be considered animal cruelty.
The issue is that since an animal can't speak up for itself it becomes impossible to prove suffering, unless it is something physically absurd like a man fucking a chicken. This law protects other non physically absurd cases.
But why would the law protect the animal at the loss of the liberty of the human?
If I want to rear a cow, let it graze in my garden and then eat it then the law says that in that situation my desire for beef is more important than the cows continued existence but if I want to fuck it then the law says that my desire to fuck it is less important the cow's welfare.
This law restricts human freedom in the name of animal welfare and for that to be a noble cause it first must be shown that animal welfare is more important than human freedom. Now clearly we have socially decided that there is a line which is why you can't torture puppies for fun and so forth but this is really, really far on the "it's okay" side of that line. We still have battery farmed hens because people want the freedom to save a few pennies on eggs at the cost of immense animal suffering.
Ironically the similar Kantian ideas which formed the basis of rape laws in the first place are the ones being violated with this anti-"rape" law. LOL.
On June 14 2013 21:06 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: The likely assumptions are that at the very least every now and then an animal does not like this without being able to express itself. No clue why you would argue for it being legal. Just because we kill animals doesn't mean it is okay to give them a shitty life on the way. There are plenty of laws protecting animals even though we kill them for consumption. There are people breaking the law for just about every law we have. Even if animal rights laws aren't all lived up to that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.
What if a dog starts humping a woman and the woman goes along with it?
I think that is a great point to bring up, but still easily refuted. There are laws protecting children from having sex with adults. Yet plenty of times the sex between an adult and a child will be consensual. However these laws exist because we conclude that the majority of children aren't able to properly express themselves at times. By law you protect 99 kids who couldn't express themselves, by lumping in the one example where it was fine, with the rest. Sometimes the sex between an adult and a child isn't a problem at all (as in your example with the dog). However we conclude that we have to protect all children because the majority of them aren't able to express themselves properly.
Just because there exists consensual sex between an animal and an adult doesn't mean there shouldn't be a law protecting the majority of the cases. An animal cannot express itself and if it is at all a possibility that sex with animals is not consensual then I believe there should be a law against it. Because of the inability to express themselves you have to lump in the 1 example of consensual animal sex to protect 99 others.
Do animals consent to being imprisoned and eaten?
What does it say about us if we protect or simply disregard their rights as and when it suits us?
What you are advocating here is that just because we kill animals we should also condone animal abuse, and I simply don't share that idea. I believe that because we eat them we should treat them decently along the way. The reason for this law is the exact same as any other animal protection law that is in place despite us eating them.
No, there is already a law covering cruelty to animals in Sweden.
This law is above and beyond the idea of cruelty to animals. The argument you're making is that the scenarios in which there isn't cruelty to animals (i.e. the dog initiating) should be legislated against, because cruelty to animals is ALREADY legislated against.
This law basically means that sex with animals can be considered animal cruelty. Animals can't speak up for themselves or point out whether it should be considered cruelty. The law forbids the action of having sex with an animal, in order to avoid situations where it should be considered animal cruelty. The problem is that in court it will be impossible to prove whether an animal gave consent or not. A woman can simply say "I said no". So because an animal can't speak up for itself and explain what happened this law is meant to protect them as a whole. If someone wants to have sex with an animal, and the animal likes it too, by all means I don't care about the action itself. The law is meant to protect animals because they cannot explain when it was consensual and when it wasn't.
Incorrect, it could already be considered animal cruelty if there was suffering.
Until now, bestiality was illegal in Sweden only if it could be proven that the animal had been subjected to suffering.
If you fuck a chicken then fairly obviously it has been subjected to suffering, so it's illegal. It already can be considered animal cruelty.
The issue is that since an animal can't speak up for itself it becomes impossible to prove suffering, unless it is something physically absurd like a man fucking a chicken. This law protects other non physically absurd cases.
If an animal is capable of psychological harm from having sex with a human if there is no physical harm, which I don't believe to be true, then animals are suffering psychologically and unacceptably from being bred in captivity, slaughtered in front of each other, the monotony of the same routine and food everyday... etc
We don't attribute that level of sophistication to them at any other time, so why suddenly do it here?
On June 14 2013 21:42 edlover420 wrote: Do you guys realize that if a human wants to sexually abuse animal he can do so whether it is illegal or legal without consequence because the animal cannot phone the police and report the crime. The only thing this law will do is force Swedish utorrent websites such as piratebay to delete the bestiality content and that's in my opinion a good thing.
P.S. I would also like to report Kwark. ^
He said animals can't be raped, whether he's right or wrong that's not a reportable offense.
Probably not the right place to have this discussion but he was wrong AND condescending. Not a good combination.
On June 14 2013 21:06 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: The likely assumptions are that at the very least every now and then an animal does not like this without being able to express itself. No clue why you would argue for it being legal. Just because we kill animals doesn't mean it is okay to give them a shitty life on the way. There are plenty of laws protecting animals even though we kill them for consumption. There are people breaking the law for just about every law we have. Even if animal rights laws aren't all lived up to that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.
What if a dog starts humping a woman and the woman goes along with it?
I think that is a great point to bring up, but still easily refuted. There are laws protecting children from having sex with adults. Yet plenty of times the sex between an adult and a child will be consensual. However these laws exist because we conclude that the majority of children aren't able to properly express themselves at times. By law you protect 99 kids who couldn't express themselves, by lumping in the one example where it was fine, with the rest. Sometimes the sex between an adult and a child isn't a problem at all (as in your example with the dog). However we conclude that we have to protect all children because the majority of them aren't able to express themselves properly.
Just because there exists consensual sex between an animal and an adult doesn't mean there shouldn't be a law protecting the majority of the cases. An animal cannot express itself and if it is at all a possibility that sex with animals is not consensual then I believe there should be a law against it. Because of the inability to express themselves you have to lump in the 1 example of consensual animal sex to protect 99 others.
Do animals consent to being imprisoned and eaten?
What does it say about us if we protect or simply disregard their rights as and when it suits us?
What you are advocating here is that just because we kill animals we should also condone animal abuse, and I simply don't share that idea. I believe that because we eat them we should treat them decently along the way. The reason for this law is the exact same as any other animal protection law that is in place despite us eating them.
No, there is already a law covering cruelty to animals in Sweden.
This law is above and beyond the idea of cruelty to animals. The argument you're making is that the scenarios in which there isn't cruelty to animals (i.e. the dog initiating) should be legislated against, because cruelty to animals is ALREADY legislated against.
This law basically means that sex with animals can be considered animal cruelty. Animals can't speak up for themselves or point out whether it should be considered cruelty. The law forbids the action of having sex with an animal, in order to avoid situations where it should be considered animal cruelty. The problem is that in court it will be impossible to prove whether an animal gave consent or not. A woman can simply say "I said no". So because an animal can't speak up for itself and explain what happened this law is meant to protect them as a whole. If someone wants to have sex with an animal, and the animal likes it too, by all means I don't care about the action itself. The law is meant to protect animals because they cannot explain when it was consensual and when it wasn't.
Which is the problem people have with it. If the law makes the argument that lack of animal consent is cruelty then first the law has to accept that lack of animal consent is a meaningful concept with legal standing which has huge implications which go far beyond this. If animal consent actually mattered to any of the legislators behind this law then they're making a law about the most irrelevant aspect of the issue imaginable. If I lived in a society in which billions were legally murdered every year and thousands were legally raped you wouldn't see me writing laws banning rape because I'd be much more busy with the murder thing. You can't care about animal consent when it suits you and not at other times.
In society there are thousands upon thousands of issues to fix. Different people focus on different things that they care about. If every time someone was trying to improve something you point to some war that is going on we would get nowhere.
True, the "if you really cared you'd ...." fallacy is absurd unless they really don't care about that other thing. But in this case people are trying to argue that they aren't the same thing, that violating animal consent to kill them is a completely different situation to violating animal consent to fuck them and that needs justifying. If I were to go "if you really cared about people you'd speak up against the human rights abuses in Syria" and the person disagreed with the human rights abuses in Syria but couldn't do anything about it then I'd be making that fallacy. However if the person thought that those human rights abuses were fine but other minor issues were really important then they'd be a hypocrite.
What if a dog starts humping a woman and the woman goes along with it?
I think that is a great point to bring up, but still easily refuted. There are laws protecting children from having sex with adults. Yet plenty of times the sex between an adult and a child will be consensual. However these laws exist because we conclude that the majority of children aren't able to properly express themselves at times. By law you protect 99 kids who couldn't express themselves, by lumping in the one example where it was fine, with the rest. Sometimes the sex between an adult and a child isn't a problem at all (as in your example with the dog). However we conclude that we have to protect all children because the majority of them aren't able to express themselves properly.
Just because there exists consensual sex between an animal and an adult doesn't mean there shouldn't be a law protecting the majority of the cases. An animal cannot express itself and if it is at all a possibility that sex with animals is not consensual then I believe there should be a law against it. Because of the inability to express themselves you have to lump in the 1 example of consensual animal sex to protect 99 others.
Do animals consent to being imprisoned and eaten?
What does it say about us if we protect or simply disregard their rights as and when it suits us?
What you are advocating here is that just because we kill animals we should also condone animal abuse, and I simply don't share that idea. I believe that because we eat them we should treat them decently along the way. The reason for this law is the exact same as any other animal protection law that is in place despite us eating them.
No, there is already a law covering cruelty to animals in Sweden.
This law is above and beyond the idea of cruelty to animals. The argument you're making is that the scenarios in which there isn't cruelty to animals (i.e. the dog initiating) should be legislated against, because cruelty to animals is ALREADY legislated against.
This law basically means that sex with animals can be considered animal cruelty. Animals can't speak up for themselves or point out whether it should be considered cruelty. The law forbids the action of having sex with an animal, in order to avoid situations where it should be considered animal cruelty. The problem is that in court it will be impossible to prove whether an animal gave consent or not. A woman can simply say "I said no". So because an animal can't speak up for itself and explain what happened this law is meant to protect them as a whole. If someone wants to have sex with an animal, and the animal likes it too, by all means I don't care about the action itself. The law is meant to protect animals because they cannot explain when it was consensual and when it wasn't.
Incorrect, it could already be considered animal cruelty if there was suffering.
Until now, bestiality was illegal in Sweden only if it could be proven that the animal had been subjected to suffering.
If you fuck a chicken then fairly obviously it has been subjected to suffering, so it's illegal. It already can be considered animal cruelty.
The issue is that since an animal can't speak up for itself it becomes impossible to prove suffering, unless it is something physically absurd like a man fucking a chicken. This law protects other non physically absurd cases.
But why would the law protect the animal at the loss of the liberty of the human?
If I want to rear a cow, let it graze in my garden and then eat it then the law says that in that situation my desire for beef is more important than the cows continued existence but if I want to fuck it then the law says that my desire to fuck it is less important the cow's welfare.
This law restricts human freedom in the name of animal welfare and for that to be a noble cause it first must be shown that animal welfare is more important than human freedom. Now clearly we have socially decided that there is a line which is why you can't torture puppies for fun and so forth but this is really, really far on the "it's okay" side of that line. We still have battery farmed hens because people want the freedom to save a few pennies on eggs at the cost of immense animal suffering.
Well let's face it, you need food. You don't need to fuck, and especially an animal you can't reproduce with.
Food =/= meat
Also the idea that sex is only for reproduction is archaic, by that reasoning you would also justify anti-gay sex legislation, which btw is still a thing where I come from.
On June 14 2013 21:36 Morthy wrote: If we're talking about nature and our need for sex.
We can't impregnate animals to my knowledge so there is no reason to have sex with animals. You can't share sexual love with animals, since they don't have sex for fun(not talking about monkeys). And as the master race we should respect other animals. I mean even if the animal wanted to have sex, it isn't because he likes you. It's because he is dominating you and trying to have babies.
Because we eat animals we should also be able to fuck them is the most stupid thing I've ever heard. They get bred to be eaten they don't know better, animals we bred don't get bred to be fucked. There are rules to make that as humane as possible, because no one follows those rules doesn't make us hypocrites.
They don't know better than to be eaten but they do know better than to be fucked? Really? Care to elaborate upon that? Do cows have a meaningful understanding of the implications of sexual abuse but are completely in the dark when it comes to murder?
They get bred to be eaten but not to be fucked? So it's okay if I breed an animal to be fucked? It's just not okay to use it for something other than what you bred it for?
What you wrote is so full of holes it's more hole than words.
Of course they don't know better in both ways, I never said such thing. I only said that animals don't share the same love we share with other humans, so implying that an animal WANTS to have sex with you for fun is stupid. He wants sex with you because it's his nature and it's programmed in it.
Even talking about what animals think is stupid. We don't even know what animals think so as long that's a grey place there needs to be a law for it.
Yes I would agree there. If you bred animals as sex pleasures, it wouldn't be that big of a problem. But try to do that.
That's called falling into a super-obvious-not-even-intended-to-be-a-trap trap and completely discrediting everything you've said.
What if a dog starts humping a woman and the woman goes along with it?
I think that is a great point to bring up, but still easily refuted. There are laws protecting children from having sex with adults. Yet plenty of times the sex between an adult and a child will be consensual. However these laws exist because we conclude that the majority of children aren't able to properly express themselves at times. By law you protect 99 kids who couldn't express themselves, by lumping in the one example where it was fine, with the rest. Sometimes the sex between an adult and a child isn't a problem at all (as in your example with the dog). However we conclude that we have to protect all children because the majority of them aren't able to express themselves properly.
Just because there exists consensual sex between an animal and an adult doesn't mean there shouldn't be a law protecting the majority of the cases. An animal cannot express itself and if it is at all a possibility that sex with animals is not consensual then I believe there should be a law against it. Because of the inability to express themselves you have to lump in the 1 example of consensual animal sex to protect 99 others.
Do animals consent to being imprisoned and eaten?
What does it say about us if we protect or simply disregard their rights as and when it suits us?
What you are advocating here is that just because we kill animals we should also condone animal abuse, and I simply don't share that idea. I believe that because we eat them we should treat them decently along the way. The reason for this law is the exact same as any other animal protection law that is in place despite us eating them.
No, there is already a law covering cruelty to animals in Sweden.
This law is above and beyond the idea of cruelty to animals. The argument you're making is that the scenarios in which there isn't cruelty to animals (i.e. the dog initiating) should be legislated against, because cruelty to animals is ALREADY legislated against.
This law basically means that sex with animals can be considered animal cruelty. Animals can't speak up for themselves or point out whether it should be considered cruelty. The law forbids the action of having sex with an animal, in order to avoid situations where it should be considered animal cruelty. The problem is that in court it will be impossible to prove whether an animal gave consent or not. A woman can simply say "I said no". So because an animal can't speak up for itself and explain what happened this law is meant to protect them as a whole. If someone wants to have sex with an animal, and the animal likes it too, by all means I don't care about the action itself. The law is meant to protect animals because they cannot explain when it was consensual and when it wasn't.
Incorrect, it could already be considered animal cruelty if there was suffering.
Until now, bestiality was illegal in Sweden only if it could be proven that the animal had been subjected to suffering.
If you fuck a chicken then fairly obviously it has been subjected to suffering, so it's illegal. It already can be considered animal cruelty.
The issue is that since an animal can't speak up for itself it becomes impossible to prove suffering, unless it is something physically absurd like a man fucking a chicken. This law protects other non physically absurd cases.
If an animal is capable of psychological harm from having sex with a human if there is no physical harm, which I don't believe to be true, then animals are suffering psychologically and unacceptably from being bred in captivity, slaughtered in front of each other, the monotony of the same routine and food everyday... etc
We don't attribute that level of sophistication to them at any other time, so why suddenly do it here?
On June 14 2013 21:42 edlover420 wrote: Do you guys realize that if a human wants to sexually abuse animal he can do so whether it is illegal or legal without consequence because the animal cannot phone the police and report the crime. The only thing this law will do is force Swedish utorrent websites such as piratebay to delete the bestiality content and that's in my opinion a good thing.
P.S. I would also like to report Kwark. ^
He said animals can't be raped, whether he's right or wrong that's not a reportable offense.
Probably not the right place to have this discussion but he was wrong AND condescending. Not a good combination.
PM me why you think he should be reported if that's what you really think, otherwise I'm confused.
What if a dog starts humping a woman and the woman goes along with it?
I think that is a great point to bring up, but still easily refuted. There are laws protecting children from having sex with adults. Yet plenty of times the sex between an adult and a child will be consensual. However these laws exist because we conclude that the majority of children aren't able to properly express themselves at times. By law you protect 99 kids who couldn't express themselves, by lumping in the one example where it was fine, with the rest. Sometimes the sex between an adult and a child isn't a problem at all (as in your example with the dog). However we conclude that we have to protect all children because the majority of them aren't able to express themselves properly.
Just because there exists consensual sex between an animal and an adult doesn't mean there shouldn't be a law protecting the majority of the cases. An animal cannot express itself and if it is at all a possibility that sex with animals is not consensual then I believe there should be a law against it. Because of the inability to express themselves you have to lump in the 1 example of consensual animal sex to protect 99 others.
Do animals consent to being imprisoned and eaten?
What does it say about us if we protect or simply disregard their rights as and when it suits us?
What you are advocating here is that just because we kill animals we should also condone animal abuse, and I simply don't share that idea. I believe that because we eat them we should treat them decently along the way. The reason for this law is the exact same as any other animal protection law that is in place despite us eating them.
No, there is already a law covering cruelty to animals in Sweden.
This law is above and beyond the idea of cruelty to animals. The argument you're making is that the scenarios in which there isn't cruelty to animals (i.e. the dog initiating) should be legislated against, because cruelty to animals is ALREADY legislated against.
This law basically means that sex with animals can be considered animal cruelty. Animals can't speak up for themselves or point out whether it should be considered cruelty. The law forbids the action of having sex with an animal, in order to avoid situations where it should be considered animal cruelty. The problem is that in court it will be impossible to prove whether an animal gave consent or not. A woman can simply say "I said no". So because an animal can't speak up for itself and explain what happened this law is meant to protect them as a whole. If someone wants to have sex with an animal, and the animal likes it too, by all means I don't care about the action itself. The law is meant to protect animals because they cannot explain when it was consensual and when it wasn't.
Incorrect, it could already be considered animal cruelty if there was suffering.
Until now, bestiality was illegal in Sweden only if it could be proven that the animal had been subjected to suffering.
If you fuck a chicken then fairly obviously it has been subjected to suffering, so it's illegal. It already can be considered animal cruelty.
The issue is that since an animal can't speak up for itself it becomes impossible to prove suffering, unless it is something physically absurd like a man fucking a chicken. This law protects other non physically absurd cases.
But why would the law protect the animal at the loss of the liberty of the human?
If I want to rear a cow, let it graze in my garden and then eat it then the law says that in that situation my desire for beef is more important than the cows continued existence but if I want to fuck it then the law says that my desire to fuck it is less important the cow's welfare.
This law restricts human freedom in the name of animal welfare and for that to be a noble cause it first must be shown that animal welfare is more important than human freedom. Now clearly we have socially decided that there is a line which is why you can't torture puppies for fun and so forth but this is really, really far on the "it's okay" side of that line. We still have battery farmed hens because people want the freedom to save a few pennies on eggs at the cost of immense animal suffering.
Well let's face it, you need food. You don't need to fuck, and especially an animal you can't reproduce with.
Food =/= meat
Also the idea that sex is only for reproduction is archaic, by that reasoning you would also justify anti-gay sex legislation, which btw is still a thing where I come from.
What if a dog starts humping a woman and the woman goes along with it?
I think that is a great point to bring up, but still easily refuted. There are laws protecting children from having sex with adults. Yet plenty of times the sex between an adult and a child will be consensual. However these laws exist because we conclude that the majority of children aren't able to properly express themselves at times. By law you protect 99 kids who couldn't express themselves, by lumping in the one example where it was fine, with the rest. Sometimes the sex between an adult and a child isn't a problem at all (as in your example with the dog). However we conclude that we have to protect all children because the majority of them aren't able to express themselves properly.
Just because there exists consensual sex between an animal and an adult doesn't mean there shouldn't be a law protecting the majority of the cases. An animal cannot express itself and if it is at all a possibility that sex with animals is not consensual then I believe there should be a law against it. Because of the inability to express themselves you have to lump in the 1 example of consensual animal sex to protect 99 others.
Do animals consent to being imprisoned and eaten?
What does it say about us if we protect or simply disregard their rights as and when it suits us?
What you are advocating here is that just because we kill animals we should also condone animal abuse, and I simply don't share that idea. I believe that because we eat them we should treat them decently along the way. The reason for this law is the exact same as any other animal protection law that is in place despite us eating them.
No, there is already a law covering cruelty to animals in Sweden.
This law is above and beyond the idea of cruelty to animals. The argument you're making is that the scenarios in which there isn't cruelty to animals (i.e. the dog initiating) should be legislated against, because cruelty to animals is ALREADY legislated against.
This law basically means that sex with animals can be considered animal cruelty. Animals can't speak up for themselves or point out whether it should be considered cruelty. The law forbids the action of having sex with an animal, in order to avoid situations where it should be considered animal cruelty. The problem is that in court it will be impossible to prove whether an animal gave consent or not. A woman can simply say "I said no". So because an animal can't speak up for itself and explain what happened this law is meant to protect them as a whole. If someone wants to have sex with an animal, and the animal likes it too, by all means I don't care about the action itself. The law is meant to protect animals because they cannot explain when it was consensual and when it wasn't.
Incorrect, it could already be considered animal cruelty if there was suffering.
Until now, bestiality was illegal in Sweden only if it could be proven that the animal had been subjected to suffering.
If you fuck a chicken then fairly obviously it has been subjected to suffering, so it's illegal. It already can be considered animal cruelty.
The issue is that since an animal can't speak up for itself it becomes impossible to prove suffering, unless it is something physically absurd like a man fucking a chicken. This law protects other non physically absurd cases.
But why would the law protect the animal at the loss of the liberty of the human?
If I want to rear a cow, let it graze in my garden and then eat it then the law says that in that situation my desire for beef is more important than the cows continued existence but if I want to fuck it then the law says that my desire to fuck it is less important the cow's welfare.
This law restricts human freedom in the name of animal welfare and for that to be a noble cause it first must be shown that animal welfare is more important than human freedom. Now clearly we have socially decided that there is a line which is why you can't torture puppies for fun and so forth but this is really, really far on the "it's okay" side of that line. We still have battery farmed hens because people want the freedom to save a few pennies on eggs at the cost of immense animal suffering.
Well let's face it, you need food. You don't need to fuck, and especially an animal you can't reproduce with.
Food =/= meat
Also the idea that sex is only for reproduction is archaic, by that reasoning you would also justify anti-gay sex legislation, which btw is still a thing where I come from.
Not really you can't compare humans with animals.
Which is precisely why the whole idea that animal's "consent" is necessary for them to be fucked, needs further justification. Hence, the current discussion.
On June 14 2013 21:12 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: [quote] I think that is a great point to bring up, but still easily refuted. There are laws protecting children from having sex with adults. Yet plenty of times the sex between an adult and a child will be consensual. However these laws exist because we conclude that the majority of children aren't able to properly express themselves at times. By law you protect 99 kids who couldn't express themselves, by lumping in the one example where it was fine, with the rest. Sometimes the sex between an adult and a child isn't a problem at all (as in your example with the dog). However we conclude that we have to protect all children because the majority of them aren't able to express themselves properly.
Just because there exists consensual sex between an animal and an adult doesn't mean there shouldn't be a law protecting the majority of the cases. An animal cannot express itself and if it is at all a possibility that sex with animals is not consensual then I believe there should be a law against it. Because of the inability to express themselves you have to lump in the 1 example of consensual animal sex to protect 99 others.
Do animals consent to being imprisoned and eaten?
What does it say about us if we protect or simply disregard their rights as and when it suits us?
What you are advocating here is that just because we kill animals we should also condone animal abuse, and I simply don't share that idea. I believe that because we eat them we should treat them decently along the way. The reason for this law is the exact same as any other animal protection law that is in place despite us eating them.
No, there is already a law covering cruelty to animals in Sweden.
This law is above and beyond the idea of cruelty to animals. The argument you're making is that the scenarios in which there isn't cruelty to animals (i.e. the dog initiating) should be legislated against, because cruelty to animals is ALREADY legislated against.
This law basically means that sex with animals can be considered animal cruelty. Animals can't speak up for themselves or point out whether it should be considered cruelty. The law forbids the action of having sex with an animal, in order to avoid situations where it should be considered animal cruelty. The problem is that in court it will be impossible to prove whether an animal gave consent or not. A woman can simply say "I said no". So because an animal can't speak up for itself and explain what happened this law is meant to protect them as a whole. If someone wants to have sex with an animal, and the animal likes it too, by all means I don't care about the action itself. The law is meant to protect animals because they cannot explain when it was consensual and when it wasn't.
Incorrect, it could already be considered animal cruelty if there was suffering.
Until now, bestiality was illegal in Sweden only if it could be proven that the animal had been subjected to suffering.
If you fuck a chicken then fairly obviously it has been subjected to suffering, so it's illegal. It already can be considered animal cruelty.
The issue is that since an animal can't speak up for itself it becomes impossible to prove suffering, unless it is something physically absurd like a man fucking a chicken. This law protects other non physically absurd cases.
But why would the law protect the animal at the loss of the liberty of the human?
If I want to rear a cow, let it graze in my garden and then eat it then the law says that in that situation my desire for beef is more important than the cows continued existence but if I want to fuck it then the law says that my desire to fuck it is less important the cow's welfare.
This law restricts human freedom in the name of animal welfare and for that to be a noble cause it first must be shown that animal welfare is more important than human freedom. Now clearly we have socially decided that there is a line which is why you can't torture puppies for fun and so forth but this is really, really far on the "it's okay" side of that line. We still have battery farmed hens because people want the freedom to save a few pennies on eggs at the cost of immense animal suffering.
Well let's face it, you need food. You don't need to fuck, and especially an animal you can't reproduce with.
Food =/= meat
Also the idea that sex is only for reproduction is archaic, by that reasoning you would also justify anti-gay sex legislation, which btw is still a thing where I come from.
Huh??? I just pointed out that eating an animal has far more reason than fucking it. Homosexuals can't reproduce with sex but at least both of them can say they want to have sex.
On June 14 2013 21:06 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: The likely assumptions are that at the very least every now and then an animal does not like this without being able to express itself. No clue why you would argue for it being legal. Just because we kill animals doesn't mean it is okay to give them a shitty life on the way. There are plenty of laws protecting animals even though we kill them for consumption. There are people breaking the law for just about every law we have. Even if animal rights laws aren't all lived up to that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.
What if a dog starts humping a woman and the woman goes along with it?
I think that is a great point to bring up, but still easily refuted. There are laws protecting children from having sex with adults. Yet plenty of times the sex between an adult and a child will be consensual. However these laws exist because we conclude that the majority of children aren't able to properly express themselves at times. By law you protect 99 kids who couldn't express themselves, by lumping in the one example where it was fine, with the rest. Sometimes the sex between an adult and a child isn't a problem at all (as in your example with the dog). However we conclude that we have to protect all children because the majority of them aren't able to express themselves properly.
Just because there exists consensual sex between an animal and an adult doesn't mean there shouldn't be a law protecting the majority of the cases. An animal cannot express itself and if it is at all a possibility that sex with animals is not consensual then I believe there should be a law against it. Because of the inability to express themselves you have to lump in the 1 example of consensual animal sex to protect 99 others.
Do animals consent to being imprisoned and eaten?
What does it say about us if we protect or simply disregard their rights as and when it suits us?
What you are advocating here is that just because we kill animals we should also condone animal abuse, and I simply don't share that idea. I believe that because we eat them we should treat them decently along the way. The reason for this law is the exact same as any other animal protection law that is in place despite us eating them.
No, there is already a law covering cruelty to animals in Sweden.
This law is above and beyond the idea of cruelty to animals. The argument you're making is that the scenarios in which there isn't cruelty to animals (i.e. the dog initiating) should be legislated against, because cruelty to animals is ALREADY legislated against.
This law basically means that sex with animals can be considered animal cruelty. Animals can't speak up for themselves or point out whether it should be considered cruelty. The law forbids the action of having sex with an animal, in order to avoid situations where it should be considered animal cruelty. The problem is that in court it will be impossible to prove whether an animal gave consent or not. A woman can simply say "I said no". So because an animal can't speak up for itself and explain what happened this law is meant to protect them as a whole. If someone wants to have sex with an animal, and the animal likes it too, by all means I don't care about the action itself. The law is meant to protect animals because they cannot explain when it was consensual and when it wasn't.
Incorrect, it could already be considered animal cruelty if there was suffering.
Until now, bestiality was illegal in Sweden only if it could be proven that the animal had been subjected to suffering.
If you fuck a chicken then fairly obviously it has been subjected to suffering, so it's illegal. It already can be considered animal cruelty.
The issue is that since an animal can't speak up for itself it becomes impossible to prove suffering, unless it is something physically absurd like a man fucking a chicken. This law protects other non physically absurd cases.
You are so totally missing the point. There have been ZERO cases of anyone fucking an animal and getting away with it because suffering could not be proven since the animal "couldn't speak for itself" (That idea in itself is highly questionable. Obviously "animals" can't communicate as well as people, and some, like the chicken in the example, pretty much can't at all and we can be pretty sure it would never appreciate a fucking).
The law is a pointless populist moralist hoax. Also, laws should not be theorycrafted by the uninformed. If they don't do anything, like this one, they're obviously crap.
On June 14 2013 16:00 JustPassingBy wrote: Can't you just persecute the people for animal cruelty? If that is not "enough", then perhaps the animal cruelty laws do not go far enough. But I see no reason to create another extra law for that.
My view exactly.
I do think it should be illegal, as animal welfare should be more important than the expression an extremely rare perversion, but I think it should fall under animal cruelty laws, so you don't essentially destroy a sick man's life because of his sickness.
On June 14 2013 21:19 Reason wrote: [quote] Do animals consent to being imprisoned and eaten?
What does it say about us if we protect or simply disregard their rights as and when it suits us?
What you are advocating here is that just because we kill animals we should also condone animal abuse, and I simply don't share that idea. I believe that because we eat them we should treat them decently along the way. The reason for this law is the exact same as any other animal protection law that is in place despite us eating them.
No, there is already a law covering cruelty to animals in Sweden.
This law is above and beyond the idea of cruelty to animals. The argument you're making is that the scenarios in which there isn't cruelty to animals (i.e. the dog initiating) should be legislated against, because cruelty to animals is ALREADY legislated against.
This law basically means that sex with animals can be considered animal cruelty. Animals can't speak up for themselves or point out whether it should be considered cruelty. The law forbids the action of having sex with an animal, in order to avoid situations where it should be considered animal cruelty. The problem is that in court it will be impossible to prove whether an animal gave consent or not. A woman can simply say "I said no". So because an animal can't speak up for itself and explain what happened this law is meant to protect them as a whole. If someone wants to have sex with an animal, and the animal likes it too, by all means I don't care about the action itself. The law is meant to protect animals because they cannot explain when it was consensual and when it wasn't.
Incorrect, it could already be considered animal cruelty if there was suffering.
Until now, bestiality was illegal in Sweden only if it could be proven that the animal had been subjected to suffering.
If you fuck a chicken then fairly obviously it has been subjected to suffering, so it's illegal. It already can be considered animal cruelty.
The issue is that since an animal can't speak up for itself it becomes impossible to prove suffering, unless it is something physically absurd like a man fucking a chicken. This law protects other non physically absurd cases.
But why would the law protect the animal at the loss of the liberty of the human?
If I want to rear a cow, let it graze in my garden and then eat it then the law says that in that situation my desire for beef is more important than the cows continued existence but if I want to fuck it then the law says that my desire to fuck it is less important the cow's welfare.
This law restricts human freedom in the name of animal welfare and for that to be a noble cause it first must be shown that animal welfare is more important than human freedom. Now clearly we have socially decided that there is a line which is why you can't torture puppies for fun and so forth but this is really, really far on the "it's okay" side of that line. We still have battery farmed hens because people want the freedom to save a few pennies on eggs at the cost of immense animal suffering.
Well let's face it, you need food. You don't need to fuck, and especially an animal you can't reproduce with.
Food =/= meat
Also the idea that sex is only for reproduction is archaic, by that reasoning you would also justify anti-gay sex legislation, which btw is still a thing where I come from.
Huh??? I just pointed out that eating an animal has far more reason than fucking it. Homosexuals can't reproduce with sex but at least both of them can say they want to have sex.
If two gay guys fuck then all the humans having sex have consented. If a guy and a cow fuck then all the humans having sex have still consented. Only if animal consent is given value and ignoring animal non consent is treated as an abuse does it become relevant and animal non consent to things is a massive can of worms of which beastiality is an inconceivably irrelevant aspect.
On June 14 2013 21:19 Reason wrote: [quote] Do animals consent to being imprisoned and eaten?
What does it say about us if we protect or simply disregard their rights as and when it suits us?
What you are advocating here is that just because we kill animals we should also condone animal abuse, and I simply don't share that idea. I believe that because we eat them we should treat them decently along the way. The reason for this law is the exact same as any other animal protection law that is in place despite us eating them.
No, there is already a law covering cruelty to animals in Sweden.
This law is above and beyond the idea of cruelty to animals. The argument you're making is that the scenarios in which there isn't cruelty to animals (i.e. the dog initiating) should be legislated against, because cruelty to animals is ALREADY legislated against.
This law basically means that sex with animals can be considered animal cruelty. Animals can't speak up for themselves or point out whether it should be considered cruelty. The law forbids the action of having sex with an animal, in order to avoid situations where it should be considered animal cruelty. The problem is that in court it will be impossible to prove whether an animal gave consent or not. A woman can simply say "I said no". So because an animal can't speak up for itself and explain what happened this law is meant to protect them as a whole. If someone wants to have sex with an animal, and the animal likes it too, by all means I don't care about the action itself. The law is meant to protect animals because they cannot explain when it was consensual and when it wasn't.
Incorrect, it could already be considered animal cruelty if there was suffering.
Until now, bestiality was illegal in Sweden only if it could be proven that the animal had been subjected to suffering.
If you fuck a chicken then fairly obviously it has been subjected to suffering, so it's illegal. It already can be considered animal cruelty.
The issue is that since an animal can't speak up for itself it becomes impossible to prove suffering, unless it is something physically absurd like a man fucking a chicken. This law protects other non physically absurd cases.
But why would the law protect the animal at the loss of the liberty of the human?
If I want to rear a cow, let it graze in my garden and then eat it then the law says that in that situation my desire for beef is more important than the cows continued existence but if I want to fuck it then the law says that my desire to fuck it is less important the cow's welfare.
This law restricts human freedom in the name of animal welfare and for that to be a noble cause it first must be shown that animal welfare is more important than human freedom. Now clearly we have socially decided that there is a line which is why you can't torture puppies for fun and so forth but this is really, really far on the "it's okay" side of that line. We still have battery farmed hens because people want the freedom to save a few pennies on eggs at the cost of immense animal suffering.
Well let's face it, you need food. You don't need to fuck, and especially an animal you can't reproduce with.
Food =/= meat
Also the idea that sex is only for reproduction is archaic, by that reasoning you would also justify anti-gay sex legislation, which btw is still a thing where I come from.
Huh??? I just pointed out that eating an animal has far more reason than fucking it. Homosexuals can't reproduce with sex but at least both of them can say they want to have sex.
The whole point of rape though, is that because we have the capacity to express ourselves and possess rationality, that we require something extra, consent, for sex. The underlying logic here is the protection of one's autonomy, that one should never be treated as merely a means but an end itself. (By one I mean human)
All of that does not apply at all to animals, which is why some people, myself included, are arguing that any legislation that is based upon such a flawed foundation, to the detriment of liberty of humans, is wrong.
On June 14 2013 21:06 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: The likely assumptions are that at the very least every now and then an animal does not like this without being able to express itself. No clue why you would argue for it being legal. Just because we kill animals doesn't mean it is okay to give them a shitty life on the way. There are plenty of laws protecting animals even though we kill them for consumption. There are people breaking the law for just about every law we have. Even if animal rights laws aren't all lived up to that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.
What if a dog starts humping a woman and the woman goes along with it?
I think that is a great point to bring up, but still easily refuted. There are laws protecting children from having sex with adults. Yet plenty of times the sex between an adult and a child will be consensual. However these laws exist because we conclude that the majority of children aren't able to properly express themselves at times. By law you protect 99 kids who couldn't express themselves, by lumping in the one example where it was fine, with the rest. Sometimes the sex between an adult and a child isn't a problem at all (as in your example with the dog). However we conclude that we have to protect all children because the majority of them aren't able to express themselves properly.
Just because there exists consensual sex between an animal and an adult doesn't mean there shouldn't be a law protecting the majority of the cases. An animal cannot express itself and if it is at all a possibility that sex with animals is not consensual then I believe there should be a law against it. Because of the inability to express themselves you have to lump in the 1 example of consensual animal sex to protect 99 others.
Do animals consent to being imprisoned and eaten?
What does it say about us if we protect or simply disregard their rights as and when it suits us?
What you are advocating here is that just because we kill animals we should also condone animal abuse, and I simply don't share that idea. I believe that because we eat them we should treat them decently along the way. The reason for this law is the exact same as any other animal protection law that is in place despite us eating them.
No, there is already a law covering cruelty to animals in Sweden.
This law is above and beyond the idea of cruelty to animals. The argument you're making is that the scenarios in which there isn't cruelty to animals (i.e. the dog initiating) should be legislated against, because cruelty to animals is ALREADY legislated against.
This law basically means that sex with animals can be considered animal cruelty. Animals can't speak up for themselves or point out whether it should be considered cruelty. The law forbids the action of having sex with an animal, in order to avoid situations where it should be considered animal cruelty. The problem is that in court it will be impossible to prove whether an animal gave consent or not. A woman can simply say "I said no". So because an animal can't speak up for itself and explain what happened this law is meant to protect them as a whole. If someone wants to have sex with an animal, and the animal likes it too, by all means I don't care about the action itself. The law is meant to protect animals because they cannot explain when it was consensual and when it wasn't.
Incorrect, it could already be considered animal cruelty if there was suffering.
Until now, bestiality was illegal in Sweden only if it could be proven that the animal had been subjected to suffering.
If you fuck a chicken then fairly obviously it has been subjected to suffering, so it's illegal. It already can be considered animal cruelty.
The issue is that since an animal can't speak up for itself it becomes impossible to prove suffering, unless it is something physically absurd like a man fucking a chicken. This law protects other non physically absurd cases.
But why would the law protect the animal at the loss of the liberty of the human?
This is just boiling down to a difference between how we view things. I most definitely support laws protecting animals at some small losses of liberty for humans. Basically any law that is about the treatment of animals (how much space they get, whether you can use electric shocks, etc) limits the liberty of humans in some way, and that is totally fine with me. My view on it is that just because humans outrank animals doesn't mean there are no limits to what we can do to them.
On June 14 2013 21:36 Morthy wrote: If we're talking about nature and our need for sex.
We can't impregnate animals to my knowledge so there is no reason to have sex with animals. You can't share sexual love with animals, since they don't have sex for fun(not talking about monkeys). And as the master race we should respect other animals. I mean even if the animal wanted to have sex, it isn't because he likes you. It's because he is dominating you and trying to have babies.
Because we eat animals we should also be able to fuck them is the most stupid thing I've ever heard. They get bred to be eaten they don't know better, animals we bred don't get bred to be fucked. There are rules to make that as humane as possible, because no one follows those rules doesn't make us hypocrites.
They don't know better than to be eaten but they do know better than to be fucked? Really? Care to elaborate upon that? Do cows have a meaningful understanding of the implications of sexual abuse but are completely in the dark when it comes to murder?
They get bred to be eaten but not to be fucked? So it's okay if I breed an animal to be fucked? It's just not okay to use it for something other than what you bred it for?
What you wrote is so full of holes it's more hole than words.
Of course they don't know better in both ways, I never said such thing. I only said that animals don't share the same love we share with other humans, so implying that an animal WANTS to have sex with you for fun is stupid. He wants sex with you because it's his nature and it's programmed in it.
Even talking about what animals think is stupid. We don't even know what animals think so as long that's a grey place there needs to be a law for it.
Yes I would agree there. If you bred animals as sex pleasures, it wouldn't be that big of a problem. But try to do that.
That's called falling into a super-obvious-not-even-intended-to-be-a-trap trap and completely discrediting everything you've said.
I agree that doesn't mean I am okay with it. I'm just saying if you can make a sex animal breeding farm then sure go for it I don't care. But as you will know that would never happen because it's not normal.
We do things for a reason. We breed animals to eat them.
Edit: Just to clarify. You can look at pets. They are bred as pleasure animals, they are bred for a reason and that's to have a companion, not slaves. Both have laws do protect them.
And I myself care less about animals that get bred to be killed then pets.
On June 14 2013 21:23 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: [quote] What you are advocating here is that just because we kill animals we should also condone animal abuse, and I simply don't share that idea. I believe that because we eat them we should treat them decently along the way. The reason for this law is the exact same as any other animal protection law that is in place despite us eating them.
No, there is already a law covering cruelty to animals in Sweden.
This law is above and beyond the idea of cruelty to animals. The argument you're making is that the scenarios in which there isn't cruelty to animals (i.e. the dog initiating) should be legislated against, because cruelty to animals is ALREADY legislated against.
This law basically means that sex with animals can be considered animal cruelty. Animals can't speak up for themselves or point out whether it should be considered cruelty. The law forbids the action of having sex with an animal, in order to avoid situations where it should be considered animal cruelty. The problem is that in court it will be impossible to prove whether an animal gave consent or not. A woman can simply say "I said no". So because an animal can't speak up for itself and explain what happened this law is meant to protect them as a whole. If someone wants to have sex with an animal, and the animal likes it too, by all means I don't care about the action itself. The law is meant to protect animals because they cannot explain when it was consensual and when it wasn't.
Incorrect, it could already be considered animal cruelty if there was suffering.
Until now, bestiality was illegal in Sweden only if it could be proven that the animal had been subjected to suffering.
If you fuck a chicken then fairly obviously it has been subjected to suffering, so it's illegal. It already can be considered animal cruelty.
The issue is that since an animal can't speak up for itself it becomes impossible to prove suffering, unless it is something physically absurd like a man fucking a chicken. This law protects other non physically absurd cases.
But why would the law protect the animal at the loss of the liberty of the human?
If I want to rear a cow, let it graze in my garden and then eat it then the law says that in that situation my desire for beef is more important than the cows continued existence but if I want to fuck it then the law says that my desire to fuck it is less important the cow's welfare.
This law restricts human freedom in the name of animal welfare and for that to be a noble cause it first must be shown that animal welfare is more important than human freedom. Now clearly we have socially decided that there is a line which is why you can't torture puppies for fun and so forth but this is really, really far on the "it's okay" side of that line. We still have battery farmed hens because people want the freedom to save a few pennies on eggs at the cost of immense animal suffering.
Well let's face it, you need food. You don't need to fuck, and especially an animal you can't reproduce with.
Food =/= meat
Also the idea that sex is only for reproduction is archaic, by that reasoning you would also justify anti-gay sex legislation, which btw is still a thing where I come from.
Huh??? I just pointed out that eating an animal has far more reason than fucking it. Homosexuals can't reproduce with sex but at least both of them can say they want to have sex.
If two gay guys fuck then all the humans having sex have consented. If a guy and a cow fuck then all the humans having sex have still consented. Only if animal consent is given value and ignoring animal non consent is treated as an abuse does it become relevant and animal non consent to things is a massive can of worms of which beastiality is an inconceivably irrelevant aspect.
So beastiality is irrelevant? Not in this thread since it's about a law passed against just that and nothing else.
about the chicken thing. a chicken lays eggs that are usually, in diameter/circumference, way above that of a normal sized penis. so if it can squeeze out an egg ... (and ye, it's the same hole)
What if a dog starts humping a woman and the woman goes along with it?
I think that is a great point to bring up, but still easily refuted. There are laws protecting children from having sex with adults. Yet plenty of times the sex between an adult and a child will be consensual. However these laws exist because we conclude that the majority of children aren't able to properly express themselves at times. By law you protect 99 kids who couldn't express themselves, by lumping in the one example where it was fine, with the rest. Sometimes the sex between an adult and a child isn't a problem at all (as in your example with the dog). However we conclude that we have to protect all children because the majority of them aren't able to express themselves properly.
Just because there exists consensual sex between an animal and an adult doesn't mean there shouldn't be a law protecting the majority of the cases. An animal cannot express itself and if it is at all a possibility that sex with animals is not consensual then I believe there should be a law against it. Because of the inability to express themselves you have to lump in the 1 example of consensual animal sex to protect 99 others.
Do animals consent to being imprisoned and eaten?
What does it say about us if we protect or simply disregard their rights as and when it suits us?
What you are advocating here is that just because we kill animals we should also condone animal abuse, and I simply don't share that idea. I believe that because we eat them we should treat them decently along the way. The reason for this law is the exact same as any other animal protection law that is in place despite us eating them.
No, there is already a law covering cruelty to animals in Sweden.
This law is above and beyond the idea of cruelty to animals. The argument you're making is that the scenarios in which there isn't cruelty to animals (i.e. the dog initiating) should be legislated against, because cruelty to animals is ALREADY legislated against.
This law basically means that sex with animals can be considered animal cruelty. Animals can't speak up for themselves or point out whether it should be considered cruelty. The law forbids the action of having sex with an animal, in order to avoid situations where it should be considered animal cruelty. The problem is that in court it will be impossible to prove whether an animal gave consent or not. A woman can simply say "I said no". So because an animal can't speak up for itself and explain what happened this law is meant to protect them as a whole. If someone wants to have sex with an animal, and the animal likes it too, by all means I don't care about the action itself. The law is meant to protect animals because they cannot explain when it was consensual and when it wasn't.
Incorrect, it could already be considered animal cruelty if there was suffering.
Until now, bestiality was illegal in Sweden only if it could be proven that the animal had been subjected to suffering.
If you fuck a chicken then fairly obviously it has been subjected to suffering, so it's illegal. It already can be considered animal cruelty.
The issue is that since an animal can't speak up for itself it becomes impossible to prove suffering, unless it is something physically absurd like a man fucking a chicken. This law protects other non physically absurd cases.
But why would the law protect the animal at the loss of the liberty of the human?
This is just boiling down to a difference between how we view things. I most definitely support laws protecting animals at some small losses of liberty for humans. Basically any law that is about the treatment of animals (how much space they get, whether you can use electric shocks, etc) limits the liberty of humans in some way, and that is totally fine with me. My view on it is that just because humans outrank animals doesn't mean there are no limits to what we can do to them.
I only buy free range chickens and eggs because given the choice I believe that is the ethical decision but I do not support legislating to force other people to financially support animal welfare over whatever they want to spend their money on because I place a higher value on liberty than I do on animal welfare. For me this law smacks of populism and hypocrisy overriding principles of liberty because of its negligible value to the tiny, tiny number of animals having non physically harmful sex with humans (physically harmful sex already being covered under animal abuse) at the cost of bringing the government back into the bedroom. I think if it were not for the "eww, gross" value it would never have passed and distaste is no reason for legislating sexual behaviour.
On June 14 2013 21:59 Nekovivie wrote: Surprised people are defending this. It's almost like they participate themselves.
Whether said creature enjoys it or not, it's by definition, unnatural. It's shocking and bad and wrong.
Laws need to be made for the right reasons.
Banning something just because it's "unnatural" or offends the feelings or tastes of the majority is how democracies descend into populism. The role of the law is to prevent tyranny of the majority.
Conflating the "legal" and the "moral" produces very dangerous consequences and are best kept apart. Don't get me wrong, if someone came up to me and told me he fucked cows, I'd be disgusted by the thought of it, I certainly would never become best buds with him, I just don't think he should be locked up or sanctioned for it.
No, there is already a law covering cruelty to animals in Sweden.
This law is above and beyond the idea of cruelty to animals. The argument you're making is that the scenarios in which there isn't cruelty to animals (i.e. the dog initiating) should be legislated against, because cruelty to animals is ALREADY legislated against.
This law basically means that sex with animals can be considered animal cruelty. Animals can't speak up for themselves or point out whether it should be considered cruelty. The law forbids the action of having sex with an animal, in order to avoid situations where it should be considered animal cruelty. The problem is that in court it will be impossible to prove whether an animal gave consent or not. A woman can simply say "I said no". So because an animal can't speak up for itself and explain what happened this law is meant to protect them as a whole. If someone wants to have sex with an animal, and the animal likes it too, by all means I don't care about the action itself. The law is meant to protect animals because they cannot explain when it was consensual and when it wasn't.
Incorrect, it could already be considered animal cruelty if there was suffering.
Until now, bestiality was illegal in Sweden only if it could be proven that the animal had been subjected to suffering.
If you fuck a chicken then fairly obviously it has been subjected to suffering, so it's illegal. It already can be considered animal cruelty.
The issue is that since an animal can't speak up for itself it becomes impossible to prove suffering, unless it is something physically absurd like a man fucking a chicken. This law protects other non physically absurd cases.
But why would the law protect the animal at the loss of the liberty of the human?
If I want to rear a cow, let it graze in my garden and then eat it then the law says that in that situation my desire for beef is more important than the cows continued existence but if I want to fuck it then the law says that my desire to fuck it is less important the cow's welfare.
This law restricts human freedom in the name of animal welfare and for that to be a noble cause it first must be shown that animal welfare is more important than human freedom. Now clearly we have socially decided that there is a line which is why you can't torture puppies for fun and so forth but this is really, really far on the "it's okay" side of that line. We still have battery farmed hens because people want the freedom to save a few pennies on eggs at the cost of immense animal suffering.
Well let's face it, you need food. You don't need to fuck, and especially an animal you can't reproduce with.
Food =/= meat
Also the idea that sex is only for reproduction is archaic, by that reasoning you would also justify anti-gay sex legislation, which btw is still a thing where I come from.
Huh??? I just pointed out that eating an animal has far more reason than fucking it. Homosexuals can't reproduce with sex but at least both of them can say they want to have sex.
If two gay guys fuck then all the humans having sex have consented. If a guy and a cow fuck then all the humans having sex have still consented. Only if animal consent is given value and ignoring animal non consent is treated as an abuse does it become relevant and animal non consent to things is a massive can of worms of which beastiality is an inconceivably irrelevant aspect.
So beastiality is irrelevant? Not in this thread since it's about a law passed against just that and nothing else.
Which is part of my issue with it. How many cases is this law going to be relevant to in Sweden annually? If you believe in animal consent then you are wasting your time trying to prosecute people having non harmful sex with animals because it's a tiny, tiny minority of people in a carnivorous country.
On June 14 2013 21:06 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: The likely assumptions are that at the very least every now and then an animal does not like this without being able to express itself. No clue why you would argue for it being legal. Just because we kill animals doesn't mean it is okay to give them a shitty life on the way. There are plenty of laws protecting animals even though we kill them for consumption. There are people breaking the law for just about every law we have. Even if animal rights laws aren't all lived up to that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.
What if a dog starts humping a woman and the woman goes along with it?
I think that is a great point to bring up, but still easily refuted. There are laws protecting children from having sex with adults. Yet plenty of times the sex between an adult and a child will be consensual. However these laws exist because we conclude that the majority of children aren't able to properly express themselves at times. By law you protect 99 kids who couldn't express themselves, by lumping in the one example where it was fine, with the rest. Sometimes the sex between an adult and a child isn't a problem at all (as in your example with the dog). However we conclude that we have to protect all children because the majority of them aren't able to express themselves properly.
Just because there exists consensual sex between an animal and an adult doesn't mean there shouldn't be a law protecting the majority of the cases. An animal cannot express itself and if it is at all a possibility that sex with animals is not consensual then I believe there should be a law against it. Because of the inability to express themselves you have to lump in the 1 example of consensual animal sex to protect 99 others.
Do animals consent to being imprisoned and eaten?
What does it say about us if we protect or simply disregard their rights as and when it suits us?
What you are advocating here is that just because we kill animals we should also condone animal abuse, and I simply don't share that idea. I believe that because we eat them we should treat them decently along the way. The reason for this law is the exact same as any other animal protection law that is in place despite us eating them.
No, there is already a law covering cruelty to animals in Sweden.
This law is above and beyond the idea of cruelty to animals. The argument you're making is that the scenarios in which there isn't cruelty to animals (i.e. the dog initiating) should be legislated against, because cruelty to animals is ALREADY legislated against.
This law basically means that sex with animals can be considered animal cruelty. Animals can't speak up for themselves or point out whether it should be considered cruelty. The law forbids the action of having sex with an animal, in order to avoid situations where it should be considered animal cruelty. The problem is that in court it will be impossible to prove whether an animal gave consent or not. A woman can simply say "I said no". So because an animal can't speak up for itself and explain what happened this law is meant to protect them as a whole. If someone wants to have sex with an animal, and the animal likes it too, by all means I don't care about the action itself. The law is meant to protect animals because they cannot explain when it was consensual and when it wasn't.
Incorrect, it could already be considered animal cruelty if there was suffering.
Until now, bestiality was illegal in Sweden only if it could be proven that the animal had been subjected to suffering.
If you fuck a chicken then fairly obviously it has been subjected to suffering, so it's illegal. It already can be considered animal cruelty.
The issue is that since an animal can't speak up for itself it becomes impossible to prove suffering, unless it is something physically absurd like a man fucking a chicken. This law protects other non physically absurd cases.
But why would the law protect the animal at the loss of the liberty of the human?
If I want to rear a cow, let it graze in my garden and then eat it then the law says that in that situation my desire for beef is more important than the cows continued existence but if I want to fuck it then the law says that my desire to fuck it is less important the cow's welfare.
This law restricts human freedom in the name of animal welfare and for that to be a noble cause it first must be shown that animal welfare is more important than human freedom. Now clearly we have socially decided that there is a line which is why you can't torture puppies for fun and so forth but this is really, really far on the "it's okay" side of that line. We still have battery farmed hens because people want the freedom to save a few pennies on eggs at the cost of immense animal suffering.
I'm now convinced you're trolling. There's no legitimate way you could compare bestiality, a sexual practice between a human and a necessarily non-consenting animal, to homosexuality, a sexual practice between two consenting humans. There's also no way you could sit here saying that the human's freedom to buttfuck a pig is more important than the pig's inherent and natural right not to have a farmer's dick shoved into its asshole.
Animals have no natural right not to be eaten by a species higher up in the food chain. I.e., a squirrel can't yell at a hawk to stop eating his friends, because the natural order is for the stronger to consume the weaker. It's therefore an extension of the natural food chain for us to breed pigs for meat and eat them.
However, our enlightened nature has made us aware of the suffering a pig could and most likely will experience if faced with an unclean (read: painful, unmerciful) death. So we have rules in place to stop such unnecessary suffering. The hawk could give a shit less if the squirrel it's eating is still alive when he starts to eat it, but we care about that pig.
And while we allow animals to be bred for food as a natural extension of the food chain, there is NO natural statute that excuses animals raping each other. Beyond dolphins raping women out in the ocean or chimps getting a bit too randy with their zookeepers I guess, but that has no inherent value beyond domination and orgasm, and is generally not exhibited by most of the natural world.
Eating other animals is a natural thing. Raping them for our own pleasure and then arguing that the law telling us to stop is misguided because we can eat them is not. It's a screwed perspective that is an odd, and slightly horrifying honestly, extension of libertarianism.
I'm now convinced you're trolling. There's no legitimate way you could compare bestiality, a sexual practice between a human and a necessarily non-consenting animal, to homosexuality, a sexual practice between two consenting humans. There's also no way you could sit here saying that the human's freedom to buttfuck a pig is more important than the pig's inherent and natural right not to have a farmer's dick shoved into its asshole.
Animals have no natural right not to be eaten by a species higher up in the food chain. I.e., a squirrel can't yell at a hawk to stop eating his friends, because the natural order is for the stronger to consume the weaker. It's therefore an extension of the natural food chain for us to breed pigs for meat and eat them.
However, our enlightened nature has made us aware of the suffering a pig could and most likely will experience if faced with an unclean (read: painful, unmerciful) death. So we have rules in place to stop such unnecessary suffering. The hawk could give a shit less if the squirrel it's eating is still alive when he starts to eat it, but we care about that pig.
And while we allow animals to be bred for food as a natural extension of the food chain, there is NO natural statute that excuses animals raping another species. Beyond dolphins raping women out in the ocean or chimps getting a bit too randy with their zookeepers I guess, but that has no inherent value beyond domination and orgasm, and is generally not exhibited by most of the natural world.
Eating other animals is a natural thing. Raping them for our own pleasure and then arguing that the law telling us to stop is misguided because we can eat them is not. It's a screwed perspective that is an odd, and slightly horrifying honestly, extension of libertarianism.
I, seriously, am flabbergasted.
EDIT: fucked up the BBcode. Sorry 'bout that. Post is in response to Kwark though, FYI
I tolerate bestiality and don't see any severe problems with it as long as the animal is not forced to do it. And current laws already cover such problematics. As already mentioned earlier in the thread, there are countless more severe matters that still get less attention.
However, I dislike the reasoning that humans can do whatever we want to animals because some of us actually believe we are superior beings.
What if a dog starts humping a woman and the woman goes along with it?
I think that is a great point to bring up, but still easily refuted. There are laws protecting children from having sex with adults. Yet plenty of times the sex between an adult and a child will be consensual. However these laws exist because we conclude that the majority of children aren't able to properly express themselves at times. By law you protect 99 kids who couldn't express themselves, by lumping in the one example where it was fine, with the rest. Sometimes the sex between an adult and a child isn't a problem at all (as in your example with the dog). However we conclude that we have to protect all children because the majority of them aren't able to express themselves properly.
Just because there exists consensual sex between an animal and an adult doesn't mean there shouldn't be a law protecting the majority of the cases. An animal cannot express itself and if it is at all a possibility that sex with animals is not consensual then I believe there should be a law against it. Because of the inability to express themselves you have to lump in the 1 example of consensual animal sex to protect 99 others.
Do animals consent to being imprisoned and eaten?
What does it say about us if we protect or simply disregard their rights as and when it suits us?
What you are advocating here is that just because we kill animals we should also condone animal abuse, and I simply don't share that idea. I believe that because we eat them we should treat them decently along the way. The reason for this law is the exact same as any other animal protection law that is in place despite us eating them.
No, there is already a law covering cruelty to animals in Sweden.
This law is above and beyond the idea of cruelty to animals. The argument you're making is that the scenarios in which there isn't cruelty to animals (i.e. the dog initiating) should be legislated against, because cruelty to animals is ALREADY legislated against.
This law basically means that sex with animals can be considered animal cruelty. Animals can't speak up for themselves or point out whether it should be considered cruelty. The law forbids the action of having sex with an animal, in order to avoid situations where it should be considered animal cruelty. The problem is that in court it will be impossible to prove whether an animal gave consent or not. A woman can simply say "I said no". So because an animal can't speak up for itself and explain what happened this law is meant to protect them as a whole. If someone wants to have sex with an animal, and the animal likes it too, by all means I don't care about the action itself. The law is meant to protect animals because they cannot explain when it was consensual and when it wasn't.
Incorrect, it could already be considered animal cruelty if there was suffering.
Until now, bestiality was illegal in Sweden only if it could be proven that the animal had been subjected to suffering.
If you fuck a chicken then fairly obviously it has been subjected to suffering, so it's illegal. It already can be considered animal cruelty.
The issue is that since an animal can't speak up for itself it becomes impossible to prove suffering, unless it is something physically absurd like a man fucking a chicken. This law protects other non physically absurd cases.
But why would the law protect the animal at the loss of the liberty of the human?
If I want to rear a cow, let it graze in my garden and then eat it then the law says that in that situation my desire for beef is more important than the cows continued existence but if I want to fuck it then the law says that my desire to fuck it is less important the cow's welfare.
This law restricts human freedom in the name of animal welfare and for that to be a noble cause it first must be shown that animal welfare is more important than human freedom. Now clearly we have socially decided that there is a line which is why you can't torture puppies for fun and so forth but this is really, really far on the "it's okay" side of that line. We still have battery farmed hens because people want the freedom to save a few pennies on eggs at the cost of immense animal suffering.
I'm now convinced you're trolling. There's no legitimate way you could compare bestiality, a sexual practice between a human and a necessarily non-consenting animal, to homosexuality, a sexual practice between two consenting humans. There's also no way you could sit here saying that the human's freedom to buttfuck a pig is more important than the pig's inherent and natural right not to have a farmer's dick shoved into its asshole.
Animals have no natural right not to be eaten by a species higher up in the food chain. I.e., a squirrel can't yell at a hawk to stop eating his friends, because the natural order is for the stronger to consume the weaker. It's therefore an extension of the natural food chain for us to breed pigs for meat and eat them.
However, our enlightened nature has made us aware of the suffering a pig could and most likely will experience if faced with an unclean (read: painful, unmerciful) death. So we have rules in place to stop such unnecessary suffering. The hawk could give a shit less if the squirrel it's eating is still alive when he starts to eat it, but we care about that pig.
And while we allow animals to be bred for food as a natural extension of the food chain, there is NO natural statute that excuses animals raping each other. Beyond dolphins raping women out in the ocean or chimps getting a bit too randy with their zookeepers I guess, but that has no inherent value beyond domination and orgasm, and is generally not exhibited by most of the natural world.
Eating other animals is a natural thing. Raping them for our own pleasure and then arguing that the law telling us to stop is misguided because we can eat them is not. It's a screwed perspective that is an odd, and slightly horrifying honestly, extension of libertarianism.
I, seriously, am flabbergasted.
You're assuming the existence of natural rights though.
Most people on the other side, I'm presuming would dispute that.
On June 14 2013 21:31 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: [quote] This law basically means that sex with animals can be considered animal cruelty. Animals can't speak up for themselves or point out whether it should be considered cruelty. The law forbids the action of having sex with an animal, in order to avoid situations where it should be considered animal cruelty. The problem is that in court it will be impossible to prove whether an animal gave consent or not. A woman can simply say "I said no". So because an animal can't speak up for itself and explain what happened this law is meant to protect them as a whole. If someone wants to have sex with an animal, and the animal likes it too, by all means I don't care about the action itself. The law is meant to protect animals because they cannot explain when it was consensual and when it wasn't.
Incorrect, it could already be considered animal cruelty if there was suffering.
Until now, bestiality was illegal in Sweden only if it could be proven that the animal had been subjected to suffering.
If you fuck a chicken then fairly obviously it has been subjected to suffering, so it's illegal. It already can be considered animal cruelty.
The issue is that since an animal can't speak up for itself it becomes impossible to prove suffering, unless it is something physically absurd like a man fucking a chicken. This law protects other non physically absurd cases.
But why would the law protect the animal at the loss of the liberty of the human?
If I want to rear a cow, let it graze in my garden and then eat it then the law says that in that situation my desire for beef is more important than the cows continued existence but if I want to fuck it then the law says that my desire to fuck it is less important the cow's welfare.
This law restricts human freedom in the name of animal welfare and for that to be a noble cause it first must be shown that animal welfare is more important than human freedom. Now clearly we have socially decided that there is a line which is why you can't torture puppies for fun and so forth but this is really, really far on the "it's okay" side of that line. We still have battery farmed hens because people want the freedom to save a few pennies on eggs at the cost of immense animal suffering.
Well let's face it, you need food. You don't need to fuck, and especially an animal you can't reproduce with.
Food =/= meat
Also the idea that sex is only for reproduction is archaic, by that reasoning you would also justify anti-gay sex legislation, which btw is still a thing where I come from.
Huh??? I just pointed out that eating an animal has far more reason than fucking it. Homosexuals can't reproduce with sex but at least both of them can say they want to have sex.
If two gay guys fuck then all the humans having sex have consented. If a guy and a cow fuck then all the humans having sex have still consented. Only if animal consent is given value and ignoring animal non consent is treated as an abuse does it become relevant and animal non consent to things is a massive can of worms of which beastiality is an inconceivably irrelevant aspect.
So beastiality is irrelevant? Not in this thread since it's about a law passed against just that and nothing else.
Which is part of my issue with it. How many cases is this law going to be relevant to in Sweden annually? If you believe in animal consent then you are wasting your time trying to prosecute people having non harmful sex with animals because it's a tiny, tiny minority of people in a carnivorous country.
What I find to be the important part of this law is that it will point out who's fucking animals so they can get some therapy.
On June 14 2013 21:12 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: [quote] I think that is a great point to bring up, but still easily refuted. There are laws protecting children from having sex with adults. Yet plenty of times the sex between an adult and a child will be consensual. However these laws exist because we conclude that the majority of children aren't able to properly express themselves at times. By law you protect 99 kids who couldn't express themselves, by lumping in the one example where it was fine, with the rest. Sometimes the sex between an adult and a child isn't a problem at all (as in your example with the dog). However we conclude that we have to protect all children because the majority of them aren't able to express themselves properly.
Just because there exists consensual sex between an animal and an adult doesn't mean there shouldn't be a law protecting the majority of the cases. An animal cannot express itself and if it is at all a possibility that sex with animals is not consensual then I believe there should be a law against it. Because of the inability to express themselves you have to lump in the 1 example of consensual animal sex to protect 99 others.
Do animals consent to being imprisoned and eaten?
What does it say about us if we protect or simply disregard their rights as and when it suits us?
What you are advocating here is that just because we kill animals we should also condone animal abuse, and I simply don't share that idea. I believe that because we eat them we should treat them decently along the way. The reason for this law is the exact same as any other animal protection law that is in place despite us eating them.
No, there is already a law covering cruelty to animals in Sweden.
This law is above and beyond the idea of cruelty to animals. The argument you're making is that the scenarios in which there isn't cruelty to animals (i.e. the dog initiating) should be legislated against, because cruelty to animals is ALREADY legislated against.
This law basically means that sex with animals can be considered animal cruelty. Animals can't speak up for themselves or point out whether it should be considered cruelty. The law forbids the action of having sex with an animal, in order to avoid situations where it should be considered animal cruelty. The problem is that in court it will be impossible to prove whether an animal gave consent or not. A woman can simply say "I said no". So because an animal can't speak up for itself and explain what happened this law is meant to protect them as a whole. If someone wants to have sex with an animal, and the animal likes it too, by all means I don't care about the action itself. The law is meant to protect animals because they cannot explain when it was consensual and when it wasn't.
Incorrect, it could already be considered animal cruelty if there was suffering.
Until now, bestiality was illegal in Sweden only if it could be proven that the animal had been subjected to suffering.
If you fuck a chicken then fairly obviously it has been subjected to suffering, so it's illegal. It already can be considered animal cruelty.
The issue is that since an animal can't speak up for itself it becomes impossible to prove suffering, unless it is something physically absurd like a man fucking a chicken. This law protects other non physically absurd cases.
But why would the law protect the animal at the loss of the liberty of the human?
This is just boiling down to a difference between how we view things. I most definitely support laws protecting animals at some small losses of liberty for humans. Basically any law that is about the treatment of animals (how much space they get, whether you can use electric shocks, etc) limits the liberty of humans in some way, and that is totally fine with me. My view on it is that just because humans outrank animals doesn't mean there are no limits to what we can do to them.
I only buy free range chickens and eggs because given the choice I believe that is the ethical decision but I do not support legislating to force other people to financially support animal welfare over whatever they want to spend their money on because I place a higher value on liberty than I do on animal welfare. For me this law smacks of populism and hypocrisy overriding principles of liberty because of its negligible value to the tiny, tiny number of animals having non physically harmful sex with humans (physically harmful sex already being covered under animal abuse) at the cost of bringing the government back into the bedroom. I think if it were not for the "eww, gross" value it would never have passed and distaste is no reason for legislating sexual behaviour.
*waits until a new AIDS-like virus gets passed to humans from chickens or whatever you have here, so Kwark could eat his words! still, why can't you see this as more of a precaution and less as a ban on liberties?
On June 14 2013 21:19 Reason wrote: [quote] Do animals consent to being imprisoned and eaten?
What does it say about us if we protect or simply disregard their rights as and when it suits us?
What you are advocating here is that just because we kill animals we should also condone animal abuse, and I simply don't share that idea. I believe that because we eat them we should treat them decently along the way. The reason for this law is the exact same as any other animal protection law that is in place despite us eating them.
No, there is already a law covering cruelty to animals in Sweden.
This law is above and beyond the idea of cruelty to animals. The argument you're making is that the scenarios in which there isn't cruelty to animals (i.e. the dog initiating) should be legislated against, because cruelty to animals is ALREADY legislated against.
This law basically means that sex with animals can be considered animal cruelty. Animals can't speak up for themselves or point out whether it should be considered cruelty. The law forbids the action of having sex with an animal, in order to avoid situations where it should be considered animal cruelty. The problem is that in court it will be impossible to prove whether an animal gave consent or not. A woman can simply say "I said no". So because an animal can't speak up for itself and explain what happened this law is meant to protect them as a whole. If someone wants to have sex with an animal, and the animal likes it too, by all means I don't care about the action itself. The law is meant to protect animals because they cannot explain when it was consensual and when it wasn't.
Incorrect, it could already be considered animal cruelty if there was suffering.
Until now, bestiality was illegal in Sweden only if it could be proven that the animal had been subjected to suffering.
If you fuck a chicken then fairly obviously it has been subjected to suffering, so it's illegal. It already can be considered animal cruelty.
The issue is that since an animal can't speak up for itself it becomes impossible to prove suffering, unless it is something physically absurd like a man fucking a chicken. This law protects other non physically absurd cases.
But why would the law protect the animal at the loss of the liberty of the human?
This is just boiling down to a difference between how we view things. I most definitely support laws protecting animals at some small losses of liberty for humans. Basically any law that is about the treatment of animals (how much space they get, whether you can use electric shocks, etc) limits the liberty of humans in some way, and that is totally fine with me. My view on it is that just because humans outrank animals doesn't mean there are no limits to what we can do to them.
I only buy free range chickens and eggs because given the choice I believe that is the ethical decision but I do not support legislating to force other people to financially support animal welfare over whatever they want to spend their money on because I place a higher value on liberty than I do on animal welfare. For me this law smacks of populism and hypocrisy overriding principles of liberty because of its negligible value to the tiny, tiny number of animals having non physically harmful sex with humans (physically harmful sex already being covered under animal abuse) at the cost of bringing the government back into the bedroom. I think if it were not for the "eww, gross" value it would never have passed and distaste is no reason for legislating sexual behaviour.
*waits until a new AIDS-like virus gets passed to humans from chickens or whatever you have here, so Kwark could eat his words! still, why can't you see this as more of a precaution and less as a ban on liberties?
Most needlessly paranoid precautionary measures, are opposed on the basis of liberties. E.g. 24/7 surveillance cameras on the grounds of privacy.
Legal systems need to be consistent, you can't just look at this as an isolated case. Such decisions will have implications on the philosophies behind a legal system and will affect future decisions on other matters as well. Like Kwark said before, you can't value an animal's consent in one aspect and completely disregard it on the grounds of "well we've got to eat".
On June 14 2013 21:19 Reason wrote: [quote] Do animals consent to being imprisoned and eaten?
What does it say about us if we protect or simply disregard their rights as and when it suits us?
What you are advocating here is that just because we kill animals we should also condone animal abuse, and I simply don't share that idea. I believe that because we eat them we should treat them decently along the way. The reason for this law is the exact same as any other animal protection law that is in place despite us eating them.
No, there is already a law covering cruelty to animals in Sweden.
This law is above and beyond the idea of cruelty to animals. The argument you're making is that the scenarios in which there isn't cruelty to animals (i.e. the dog initiating) should be legislated against, because cruelty to animals is ALREADY legislated against.
This law basically means that sex with animals can be considered animal cruelty. Animals can't speak up for themselves or point out whether it should be considered cruelty. The law forbids the action of having sex with an animal, in order to avoid situations where it should be considered animal cruelty. The problem is that in court it will be impossible to prove whether an animal gave consent or not. A woman can simply say "I said no". So because an animal can't speak up for itself and explain what happened this law is meant to protect them as a whole. If someone wants to have sex with an animal, and the animal likes it too, by all means I don't care about the action itself. The law is meant to protect animals because they cannot explain when it was consensual and when it wasn't.
Incorrect, it could already be considered animal cruelty if there was suffering.
Until now, bestiality was illegal in Sweden only if it could be proven that the animal had been subjected to suffering.
If you fuck a chicken then fairly obviously it has been subjected to suffering, so it's illegal. It already can be considered animal cruelty.
The issue is that since an animal can't speak up for itself it becomes impossible to prove suffering, unless it is something physically absurd like a man fucking a chicken. This law protects other non physically absurd cases.
But why would the law protect the animal at the loss of the liberty of the human?
This is just boiling down to a difference between how we view things. I most definitely support laws protecting animals at some small losses of liberty for humans. Basically any law that is about the treatment of animals (how much space they get, whether you can use electric shocks, etc) limits the liberty of humans in some way, and that is totally fine with me. My view on it is that just because humans outrank animals doesn't mean there are no limits to what we can do to them.
I only buy free range chickens and eggs because given the choice I believe that is the ethical decision but I do not support legislating to force other people to financially support animal welfare over whatever they want to spend their money on because I place a higher value on liberty than I do on animal welfare. For me this law smacks of populism and hypocrisy overriding principles of liberty because of its negligible value to the tiny, tiny number of animals having non physically harmful sex with humans (physically harmful sex already being covered under animal abuse) at the cost of bringing the government back into the bedroom. I think if it were not for the "eww, gross" value it would never have passed and distaste is no reason for legislating sexual behaviour.
*waits until a new AIDS-like virus gets passed to humans from chickens or whatever you have here, so Kwark could eat his words! still, why can't you see this as more of a precaution and less as a ban on liberties?
Incorrect, it could already be considered animal cruelty if there was suffering.
Until now, bestiality was illegal in Sweden only if it could be proven that the animal had been subjected to suffering.
If you fuck a chicken then fairly obviously it has been subjected to suffering, so it's illegal. It already can be considered animal cruelty.
The issue is that since an animal can't speak up for itself it becomes impossible to prove suffering, unless it is something physically absurd like a man fucking a chicken. This law protects other non physically absurd cases.
But why would the law protect the animal at the loss of the liberty of the human?
If I want to rear a cow, let it graze in my garden and then eat it then the law says that in that situation my desire for beef is more important than the cows continued existence but if I want to fuck it then the law says that my desire to fuck it is less important the cow's welfare.
This law restricts human freedom in the name of animal welfare and for that to be a noble cause it first must be shown that animal welfare is more important than human freedom. Now clearly we have socially decided that there is a line which is why you can't torture puppies for fun and so forth but this is really, really far on the "it's okay" side of that line. We still have battery farmed hens because people want the freedom to save a few pennies on eggs at the cost of immense animal suffering.
Well let's face it, you need food. You don't need to fuck, and especially an animal you can't reproduce with.
Food =/= meat
Also the idea that sex is only for reproduction is archaic, by that reasoning you would also justify anti-gay sex legislation, which btw is still a thing where I come from.
Huh??? I just pointed out that eating an animal has far more reason than fucking it. Homosexuals can't reproduce with sex but at least both of them can say they want to have sex.
If two gay guys fuck then all the humans having sex have consented. If a guy and a cow fuck then all the humans having sex have still consented. Only if animal consent is given value and ignoring animal non consent is treated as an abuse does it become relevant and animal non consent to things is a massive can of worms of which beastiality is an inconceivably irrelevant aspect.
So beastiality is irrelevant? Not in this thread since it's about a law passed against just that and nothing else.
Which is part of my issue with it. How many cases is this law going to be relevant to in Sweden annually? If you believe in animal consent then you are wasting your time trying to prosecute people having non harmful sex with animals because it's a tiny, tiny minority of people in a carnivorous country.
What I find to be the important part of this law is that it will point out who's fucking animals so they can get some therapy.
Why not just chemically castrate them like we did to Turing? Forcing people who aren't harming other people to go to therapy to better fit in with mainstream sexual morality is not useful, healthy or benevolent.
On June 14 2013 18:05 NeThZOR wrote: Makes me think of that Pamela Anderson video where the horse did her. Disgusting.
Haha, no way that happened.
No human woman could possibly survive that, those things are as large as my leg.
Besides, wasn't she a mainstream actress at some point? I don't think that you can sink that low when you acted in main-stream television.
I've seen many vids of women getting fucked by horses,, so it does work,, somehow.. You should check it out,, it out there,, on the web..
Mangas don't count. If someone wants to make beast-porn, it makes sense to make it manga. Not only is it much less effort, but the compliance-rate of the target-audience of that medium should be beyond 90%.
And no, I'm not even going to try googling that.
Best case: it's an obvious fake. Worst: it's not and I get nightmares.
On June 14 2013 22:04 Mauldo wrote: more important than the pig's inherent and natural right not to have a farmer's dick shoved into its asshole.
I simply don't recognise that as being a thing, I disagree with it and choose not to do it but I disagree with a great many things. I just don't want to use the law as a weapon to force those I disagree with not to do things that don't harm other people.
A swedish exchange student actually told me that some swedish adolescents go to a farmer and pay him for having sex with one of his animals if they can't find a horny girl in town. He said it was a general habit where he came from, but he didn't participate. But this was like 10 years ago, so maybe things have changed since then.
On June 14 2013 22:16 UglyBastard wrote: A swedish exchange student actually told me that some swedish adolescents go to a farmer and pay him for having sex with one of his animals if they can't find a horny girl in town. He said it was a general habit where he came from, but he didn't participate. But this was like 10 years ago, so maybe things have changed since then.
Just out of curiosity, did you ask him whether he asked his friends how it was like?
Coz I can see some people genuinely wanting to fuck animals instead of humans, hey if some people want to fuck cars, anything can happen. But using an animal as a substitute for a girl... I dunno how that would even work.
On June 14 2013 21:36 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: [quote] The issue is that since an animal can't speak up for itself it becomes impossible to prove suffering, unless it is something physically absurd like a man fucking a chicken. This law protects other non physically absurd cases.
But why would the law protect the animal at the loss of the liberty of the human?
If I want to rear a cow, let it graze in my garden and then eat it then the law says that in that situation my desire for beef is more important than the cows continued existence but if I want to fuck it then the law says that my desire to fuck it is less important the cow's welfare.
This law restricts human freedom in the name of animal welfare and for that to be a noble cause it first must be shown that animal welfare is more important than human freedom. Now clearly we have socially decided that there is a line which is why you can't torture puppies for fun and so forth but this is really, really far on the "it's okay" side of that line. We still have battery farmed hens because people want the freedom to save a few pennies on eggs at the cost of immense animal suffering.
Well let's face it, you need food. You don't need to fuck, and especially an animal you can't reproduce with.
Food =/= meat
Also the idea that sex is only for reproduction is archaic, by that reasoning you would also justify anti-gay sex legislation, which btw is still a thing where I come from.
Huh??? I just pointed out that eating an animal has far more reason than fucking it. Homosexuals can't reproduce with sex but at least both of them can say they want to have sex.
If two gay guys fuck then all the humans having sex have consented. If a guy and a cow fuck then all the humans having sex have still consented. Only if animal consent is given value and ignoring animal non consent is treated as an abuse does it become relevant and animal non consent to things is a massive can of worms of which beastiality is an inconceivably irrelevant aspect.
So beastiality is irrelevant? Not in this thread since it's about a law passed against just that and nothing else.
Which is part of my issue with it. How many cases is this law going to be relevant to in Sweden annually? If you believe in animal consent then you are wasting your time trying to prosecute people having non harmful sex with animals because it's a tiny, tiny minority of people in a carnivorous country.
What I find to be the important part of this law is that it will point out who's fucking animals so they can get some therapy.
Why not just chemically castrate them like we did to Turing? Forcing people who aren't harming other people to go to therapy to better fit in with mainstream sexual morality is not useful, healthy or benevolent.
and why not just stick everyone in a matrix style incubator so that no one can harm anyone.
On June 14 2013 22:16 UglyBastard wrote: A swedish exchange student actually told me that some swedish adolescents go to a farmer and pay him for having sex with one of his animals if they can't find a horny girl in town. He said it was a general habit where he came from, but he didn't participate. But this was like 10 years ago, so maybe things have changed since then.
The Kinsey reports found that rural America reported 40-50% of the population having engaged in some kind of beastiality although that was a few generations ago now.
On June 14 2013 22:16 UglyBastard wrote: A swedish exchange student actually told me that some swedish adolescents go to a farmer and pay him for having sex with one of his animals if they can't find a horny girl in town. He said it was a general habit where he came from, but he didn't participate. But this was like 10 years ago, so maybe things have changed since then.
This is some of these absurd urban myths that are older than the sun and always happen to "a friend of mine".
If I had a € for every time I heard the "sex has first anal sex with bf, her anus rips, she shits the bed, they blame the dog, father shoots the dog"-story from completely independent people all over Germany, I could buy a family-sized pizza and a coke.
On June 14 2013 21:44 KwarK wrote: [quote] But why would the law protect the animal at the loss of the liberty of the human?
If I want to rear a cow, let it graze in my garden and then eat it then the law says that in that situation my desire for beef is more important than the cows continued existence but if I want to fuck it then the law says that my desire to fuck it is less important the cow's welfare.
This law restricts human freedom in the name of animal welfare and for that to be a noble cause it first must be shown that animal welfare is more important than human freedom. Now clearly we have socially decided that there is a line which is why you can't torture puppies for fun and so forth but this is really, really far on the "it's okay" side of that line. We still have battery farmed hens because people want the freedom to save a few pennies on eggs at the cost of immense animal suffering.
Well let's face it, you need food. You don't need to fuck, and especially an animal you can't reproduce with.
Food =/= meat
Also the idea that sex is only for reproduction is archaic, by that reasoning you would also justify anti-gay sex legislation, which btw is still a thing where I come from.
Huh??? I just pointed out that eating an animal has far more reason than fucking it. Homosexuals can't reproduce with sex but at least both of them can say they want to have sex.
If two gay guys fuck then all the humans having sex have consented. If a guy and a cow fuck then all the humans having sex have still consented. Only if animal consent is given value and ignoring animal non consent is treated as an abuse does it become relevant and animal non consent to things is a massive can of worms of which beastiality is an inconceivably irrelevant aspect.
So beastiality is irrelevant? Not in this thread since it's about a law passed against just that and nothing else.
Which is part of my issue with it. How many cases is this law going to be relevant to in Sweden annually? If you believe in animal consent then you are wasting your time trying to prosecute people having non harmful sex with animals because it's a tiny, tiny minority of people in a carnivorous country.
What I find to be the important part of this law is that it will point out who's fucking animals so they can get some therapy.
Why not just chemically castrate them like we did to Turing? Forcing people who aren't harming other people to go to therapy to better fit in with mainstream sexual morality is not useful, healthy or benevolent.
and why not just stick everyone in a matrix style incubator so that no one can harm anyone.
I was using the Turing tragedy as an argument against forced therapy if that was unclear.
I don't personally agree, that bestiality = animal abuse. Quite likely, there are plenty of ways to have sex without causing the animal any major discomfort - perhaps some might even like it. As far as sexual fetishes go, this doesn't really seem like something particularly unreasonable to me. Sounds like a issue blown up by moralists / animal rights activists.
On June 14 2013 22:16 UglyBastard wrote: A swedish exchange student actually told me that some swedish adolescents go to a farmer and pay him for having sex with one of his animals if they can't find a horny girl in town. He said it was a general habit where he came from, but he didn't participate. But this was like 10 years ago, so maybe things have changed since then.
This is some of these absurd urban myths that are older than the sun and always happen to "a friend of mine".
If I had a € for every time I heard the "sex has first anal sex with bf, her anus rips, she shits the bed, they blame the dog, father shoots the dog"-story from completely independent people all over Germany, I could buy a family-sized pizza and a coke.
There have actually been people who have been caught red-handed fucking animals.
On June 14 2013 22:16 UglyBastard wrote: A swedish exchange student actually told me that some swedish adolescents go to a farmer and pay him for having sex with one of his animals if they can't find a horny girl in town. He said it was a general habit where he came from, but he didn't participate. But this was like 10 years ago, so maybe things have changed since then.
Just out of curiosity, did you ask him whether he asked his friends how it was like?
Coz I can see some people genuinely wanting to fuck animals instead of humans, hey if some people want to fuck cars, anything can happen. But using an animal as a substitute for a girl... I dunno how that would even work.
On June 14 2013 22:16 UglyBastard wrote: A swedish exchange student actually told me that some swedish adolescents go to a farmer and pay him for having sex with one of his animals if they can't find a horny girl in town. He said it was a general habit where he came from, but he didn't participate. But this was like 10 years ago, so maybe things have changed since then.
This is some of these absurd urban myths that are older than the sun and always happen to "a friend of mine".
If I had a € for every time I heard the "sex has first anal sex with bf, her anus rips, she shits the bed, they blame the dog, father shoots the dog"-story from completely independent people all over Germany, I could buy a family-sized pizza and a coke.
There have actually been people who have been caught red-handed fucking animals.
There's also the example that you can go to rural societies abroad and just talk to them about it.There was a documentary about donkey fucking in South America I recall being linked on tl years ago. It's a relatively recent taboo now we don't actually spend any time with animals but when your great grandparents were answering Kinsey's questions in the 40s they admitted they did it too.
On June 14 2013 22:04 Mauldo wrote: more important than the pig's inherent and natural right not to have a farmer's dick shoved into its asshole.
I simply don't recognise that as being a thing, I disagree with it and choose not to do it but I disagree with a great many things. I just don't want to use the law as a weapon to force those I disagree with not to do things that don't harm other people.
According to your personal concept of "harm to other people". Other people have different concept of "harm to other people" and theirs can easily support this ban while using the same logic that you use to oppose it.
Harm to other people is for example vague in terms how far do you go in the causal link of action and consequence. You seem to consider only very immediate harm, others might consider consequences further down the line, purely statistical consequences or consider consequences that are less likely.
On June 14 2013 22:04 Mauldo wrote: more important than the pig's inherent and natural right not to have a farmer's dick shoved into its asshole.
I simply don't recognise that as being a thing, I disagree with it and choose not to do it but I disagree with a great many things. I just don't want to use the law as a weapon to force those I disagree with not to do things that don't harm other people.
According to your personal concept of "harm to other people". Other people have different concept of "harm to other people" and theirs can easily support this ban while using the same logic that you use to oppose it.
Harm to other people is for example vague in terms how far do you go in the causal link of action and consequence. You seem to consider only very immediate harm, others might consider consequences further down the line, purely statistical consequences or consider consequences that are less likely.
Well we have the farmer and the pig. The farmer seems up for it because he's doing it and the pig isn't a person. How is my concept of harming other people flawed in this case because I honestly don't see any other people in a coupling between a farmer and a pig?
On June 14 2013 22:04 Mauldo wrote: more important than the pig's inherent and natural right not to have a farmer's dick shoved into its asshole.
I simply don't recognise that as being a thing, I disagree with it and choose not to do it but I disagree with a great many things. I just don't want to use the law as a weapon to force those I disagree with not to do things that don't harm other people.
According to your personal concept of "harm to other people". Other people have different concept of "harm to other people" and theirs can easily support this ban while using the same logic that you use to oppose it.
Harm to other people is for example vague in terms how far do you go in the causal link of action and consequence. You seem to consider only very immediate harm, others might consider consequences further down the line, purely statistical consequences or consider consequences that are less likely.
It's not his personal concept.
You really think any legal system could function without established conceptions of harm and tests of causation?
There's a reason only immediate harm is considered, because we need to justify sanctioning a human by depriving him of his liberty. Taking into account things like statistical harm is the kind of reasoning that leads to horribly disproportionate laws like the UK's imprisonment for public protection in 03.
Don't really see bestiality as animal abuse per se depending on the situation. Fucking animals can definitely be argued as a form of cruelty, but getting fucked by an animal is a different, so long as the animal itself doesn't get hurt in the process. And even if it does, you can always point out the fact that we kill thousands upon thousands of animals for no real reason other than to overconsume, so there's a bit of a double standard going on here.
Still doesn't make it any less of a fucking weird fetish though.
Whether it's legal or not doesn't matter to me. Though I think it would be dangerous to go around arresting people who are involved sexually with an animal and not physically harming it, no matter how disgusting it might be to the majority of people. To me that sounds similar to banning gay sex. There are differences of course, but still..
On June 14 2013 22:48 Thor.Rush wrote: Whether it's legal or not doesn't matter to me. Though I think it would be dangerous to go around arresting people who are involved sexually with an animal and not physically harming it, no matter how disgusting it might be to the majority of people. To me that sounds similar to banning gay sex. There are differences of course, but still..
I think one big difference is consent. And its really offensive to draw the comparison you just did :/
I was going to put the horse action on our women because I thought that there was no way that a man would risk placing his junk behind a horse. In fact you should not be behind a horse at all. Those motherfuckers can kick, I tell you. But then I saw that there are brave men in the world that does donkeys.
Just keep away from the rear of the hoof walkers, m'kay?
On June 14 2013 22:48 Thor.Rush wrote: Whether it's legal or not doesn't matter to me. Though I think it would be dangerous to go around arresting people who are involved sexually with an animal and not physically harming it, no matter how disgusting it might be to the majority of people. To me that sounds similar to banning gay sex. There are differences of course, but still..
I think one big difference is concent. And its really offensive to draw the comparison you just did :/
Homosexuality wasn't outlawed over a consent issue, it was outlawed because a majority of moralists felt they had the moral right to oppress a minority who weren't hurting anyone. The comparison being drawn here is that the same group are targeting others who are still socially acceptable to target, not that gay sex is the same as beastiality.
On June 14 2013 16:11 nttea wrote: We can own them, pet them, restrain them but god forbid someone tries something sexual with them. Stupid law but if i were to protest something it'd be something more important so W/E.
Are you implying you think sex with animals is ok?
Some people, seriously. How can they not see that this clearly breaks the Levitical code.
On June 14 2013 22:48 Thor.Rush wrote: Whether it's legal or not doesn't matter to me. Though I think it would be dangerous to go around arresting people who are involved sexually with an animal and not physically harming it, no matter how disgusting it might be to the majority of people. To me that sounds similar to banning gay sex. There are differences of course, but still..
I think one big difference is consent. And its really offensive to draw the comparison you just did :/
Sorry I didn't mean to. It just seems to me that this kind of law is made because sex between a human and animal is disgusting and taboo, and not made for the protection of animals.
"horses are the species most often involved in bestiality".... am I a chauvi if my first thought after reading this was "hmm, does this refer to men or to women doing it with the horse"? XD""
anyway, bestiality should be illegal. so its a step in the correct direction.
Tbh, i think this is more a statement from Sweden saying "hey look at us, we don't tollerate those sick barbaric activities anymore, we're civilized" than anything else.
If a farmer likes fucking his pig, this law obviously won't stop him doing that, and "sweden" knows that.
If the old law prevented animal sex in cases of obvious abuse, then I don't see a need to make the law more strict. It seems unnecessary to me.
Not that I have plans for animal sex, but I don't really care if an animal can consent to sex as long as it isn't being obviously hurt/abused. On the other hand if there are health problems with it (I have no idea) they should be addressed.
On June 14 2013 23:15 micronesia wrote: If the old law prevented animal sex in cases of obvious abuse, then I don't see a need to make the law more strict. It seems unnecessary to me.
Not that I have plans for animal sex, but I don't really care if an animal can consent to sex as long as it isn't being obviously hurt/abused. On the other hand if there are health problems with it (I have no idea) they should be addressed.
This is pretty much my opinion. I LOVE eating animals so I'm not exactly in a position to scream about animal rights or consent or whatnot. But I also think animals should be protected from abuse while they are alive so as long as they aren't being abused...go for it. I'm quite certain that if you stick your junk in a horse and it doesn't like it, a nice kick will let you know.
On June 14 2013 23:15 micronesia wrote: If the old law prevented animal sex in cases of obvious abuse, then I don't see a need to make the law more strict. It seems unnecessary to me.
Not that I have plans for animal sex, but I don't really care if an animal can consent to sex as long as it isn't being obviously hurt/abused. On the other hand if there are health problems with it (I have no idea) they should be addressed.
This is pretty much my opinion. I LOVE eating animals so I'm not exactly in a position to scream about animal rights or consent or whatnot. But I also think animals should be protected from abuse while they are alive so as long as they aren't being abused...go for it. I'm quite certain that if you stick your junk in a horse and it doesn't like it, a nice kick will let you know.
First of all, no sticking your junk in a horse will not necessarily make it kick lol. The reason the animal is being abused is because we aren't always talking about an animal that is as big as a horse here. We are talking about a cat or a dog or another animal sometimes that is smaller and can be pretty much raped by the human. Humans cannot communicate with the animal, therefore the animal cannot consent to us. The inter-species part is what makes the act unwholesome and unable to be justified, because not only can we not communicate with the animal, but we also (as humans don't have a mating season) cannot be sure as to when the animal is ready to mate in the mating season (if said animal has a season). There are too many things that can't be justified in beastiality to make it legal.
On June 14 2013 22:48 Thor.Rush wrote: Whether it's legal or not doesn't matter to me. Though I think it would be dangerous to go around arresting people who are involved sexually with an animal and not physically harming it, no matter how disgusting it might be to the majority of people. To me that sounds similar to banning gay sex. There are differences of course, but still..
I think one big difference is consent. And its really offensive to draw the comparison you just did :/
Sorry I didn't mean to. It just seems to me that this kind of law is made because sex between a human and animal is disgusting and taboo, and not made for the protection of animals.
Yeah thats cool, like Kwark said its the people that think its disgusting and taboo making laws to make themselves more comfortable at the expense of other people. Just like they did with gays. I don't think your government should be allowed to tell you not to bend over infront of a horse.
No harm to animals should be the goal, and I think they already had that in place. and while this might help with that, it comes with blanket outlawing something that maybe shouldn't be?
On June 14 2013 23:15 micronesia wrote: If the old law prevented animal sex in cases of obvious abuse, then I don't see a need to make the law more strict. It seems unnecessary to me.
Not that I have plans for animal sex, but I don't really care if an animal can consent to sex as long as it isn't being obviously hurt/abused. On the other hand if there are health problems with it (I have no idea) they should be addressed.
This is pretty much my opinion. I LOVE eating animals so I'm not exactly in a position to scream about animal rights or consent or whatnot. But I also think animals should be protected from abuse while they are alive so as long as they aren't being abused...go for it. I'm quite certain that if you stick your junk in a horse and it doesn't like it, a nice kick will let you know.
First of all, no sticking your junk in a horse will not necessarily make it kick lol. The reason the animal is being abused is because we aren't always talking about an animal that is as big as a horse here. We are talking about a cat or a dog or another animal sometimes that is smaller and can be pretty much raped by the human. Humans cannot communicate with the animal, therefore the animal cannot consent to us. The inter-species part is what makes the act unwholesome and unable to be justified, because not only can we not communicate with the animal, but we also (as humans don't have a mating season) cannot be sure as to when the animal is ready to mate in the mating season (if said animal has a season). There are too many things that can't be justified in beastiality to make it legal.
What on earth does "unwholesome" even mean? That's just a conservative buzzword to label something bad without any evidence other than "we think it's icky."
And fine, forget the horse, if you try to fuck a cat and it scratches, bites, runs away, then the cat has said it doesn't want to be fucked and you don't fuck the cat.
The "consent" argument doesn't work with animals because we own them without their consent and we kill and eat them without their consent. I can't exactly draw a line and say that with sex you suddenly need consent.
On June 14 2013 22:04 Mauldo wrote: more important than the pig's inherent and natural right not to have a farmer's dick shoved into its asshole.
I simply don't recognise that as being a thing, I disagree with it and choose not to do it but I disagree with a great many things. I just don't want to use the law as a weapon to force those I disagree with not to do things that don't harm other people.
According to your personal concept of "harm to other people". Other people have different concept of "harm to other people" and theirs can easily support this ban while using the same logic that you use to oppose it.
Harm to other people is for example vague in terms how far do you go in the causal link of action and consequence. You seem to consider only very immediate harm, others might consider consequences further down the line, purely statistical consequences or consider consequences that are less likely.
Well we have the farmer and the pig. The farmer seems up for it because he's doing it and the pig isn't a person. How is my concept of harming other people flawed in this case because I honestly don't see any other people in a coupling between a farmer and a pig?
Me neither I was more commenting on your justification of your opinion, not really on your opinion. My point being that the "no harm" principle can for some people include things like supporting ban on something because it statistically increases something considered harmful. For example (completely theoretical) if banning bestiality would decrease incidence of AIDS by 0.1% without any direct causal link, the ban could be justified by the "no-harm" rule. Basically the no-harm rule is quite subjective and is not a good guide for policy decisions alone.
Saw a docu on this once made in the netherlands, featured was a woman that had regular sex with her dog because she couldn't stand men or something, the dog was a run-of-the-mill golden retriever that I'm guessing didn't mind one bit and seemed like a pretty happy/sociable dog lol.
On June 14 2013 22:04 Mauldo wrote: more important than the pig's inherent and natural right not to have a farmer's dick shoved into its asshole.
I simply don't recognise that as being a thing, I disagree with it and choose not to do it but I disagree with a great many things. I just don't want to use the law as a weapon to force those I disagree with not to do things that don't harm other people.
According to your personal concept of "harm to other people". Other people have different concept of "harm to other people" and theirs can easily support this ban while using the same logic that you use to oppose it.
Harm to other people is for example vague in terms how far do you go in the causal link of action and consequence. You seem to consider only very immediate harm, others might consider consequences further down the line, purely statistical consequences or consider consequences that are less likely.
It's not his personal concept.
You really think any legal system could function without established conceptions of harm and tests of causation?
There's a reason only immediate harm is considered, because we need to justify sanctioning a human by depriving him of his liberty. Taking into account things like statistical harm is the kind of reasoning that leads to horribly disproportionate laws like the UK's imprisonment for public protection in 03.
Yes, legal systems have harm defined for specific purposes. But many legal systems are built with the long term/statistical harm in mind also and yet they do not produce any terrible oppressive societies. It is purely YOUR opinion that only immediate harm should be considered and it is only your opinion that accounting for statistical harm necessarily leads to horrible laws. And your opinion is about as valid as the competing ones. The only thing you can measure is results to which each approach leads and then judge it based on some ethical criteria. If you do not agree on those ethical criteria, then there is no consensus possible and neither opinion is more valid then the other.
On June 14 2013 23:15 micronesia wrote: If the old law prevented animal sex in cases of obvious abuse, then I don't see a need to make the law more strict. It seems unnecessary to me.
Not that I have plans for animal sex, but I don't really care if an animal can consent to sex as long as it isn't being obviously hurt/abused. On the other hand if there are health problems with it (I have no idea) they should be addressed.
In law, sometimes it's good to clarify things to prevent loopholes... The old law prosecuted only in some cases, the ones of "obvious abuse"... It can be assumed that "regular abuse" wasn't prosecuted. There's no reason not to make a law which doesn't "miss" as much.
Also the fact that you don't really care doesn't mean bestiality should be accepted. Your logic seems to be that in some cases, the animal is fine with it, so it's ok. Is it actually something that you want to protect?
Why is everyone saying that animals can't consent ? Sure, they can't say "yes", but I'm pretty sure most animals will go the fuck away if they don't like something done to them. So as long as they don't we can assume they are ok with it, or too dumb to care (this may be the greyest area imo). "What if one ties the animal ?". Well now that's abuse, and that was already covered by the law. All one has to do is prove it. Can't always be done, and injuries can be prevented I guess...
Shit, just convinced myself... Good thing none of this matters or will have any impact.
Child pornography is illegal despite the fact that unless the person paid for it they aren't actually harming anyone. Most people are okay with this because paedophiles are so repugnant and despicable it is acceptable to punish them just for being disgusting.
This is much the same reason for bestiality laws. Who cares if they are nor harming the animal or the animal likes it? It's revolting. People who do such things should be exposed, punished, and ostracized just for their disgusting acts, not because they have committed any harm.
On June 15 2013 00:00 Zaqwe wrote: Child pornography is illegal despite the fact that unless the person paid for it they aren't actually harming anyone. Most people are okay with this because paedophiles are so repugnant and despicable it is acceptable to punish them just for being disgusting.
This is much the same reason for bestiality laws. Who cares if they are nor harming the animal or the animal likes it? It's revolting. People who do such things should be exposed, punished, and ostracized just for their disgusting acts, not because they have committed any harm.
Actually the harm in child pornography and sex with minors is the possibility of psychological harm (among others). That is the point of the whole thing. So no, it is actually a ban based on harm.
On June 14 2013 23:59 Cynry wrote: Why is everyone saying that animals can't consent ? Sure, they can't say "yes", but I'm pretty sure most animals will go the fuck away if they don't like something done to them. So as long as they don't we can assume they are ok with it, or too dumb to care (this may be the greyest area imo). "What if one ties the animal ?". Well now that's abuse, and that was already covered by the law. All one has to do is prove it. Can't always be done, and injuries can be prevented I guess...
Shit, just convinced myself... Good thing none of this matters or will have any impact.
I hate to have to say that because it's creepy but I think it's easy enough to demonstrate that your argument uses a pretty loose definition of "consent"... And again I'm sorry for doing this but what if you applied the same argument to "children". It holds up, and shows that this "consent" you speak of is worthless when it comes to defining what actions are ethical.
And yes you can argue that there are additional problems when it comes down to human beings but the fact that it's worse doesn't mean bestiality ok just because animals can "consent". For one, sometimes what you actually see is "obedience".
On June 14 2013 23:07 jax1492 wrote: I think this is a good thing, animals are not consenting and i think that's the issue.
Animals can't consent, their consent or lack of has no legal standing.
so make one, make it legal for animals to have to give consent. oh wait ... you can't. well, why bother in the first place, it would ruin your cause anyway. using hypocrisy to combat hypocrisy is so mainstream now.
This issue is pretty simple. If the act is not intrinsically harmful to people and environment, no matter how disgusting it is, let it be. "Intrinsic" is the key here. Like there is nothing intrinsically wrong with being homosexual. But if one is homosexual and goes on to spread disease, then treat it as such, as a person spreading disease, and not attribute it to being homosexual. The same is true for bestiality. If it's what floats a persons boat, leave him or her be. Just address whatever complications arise accordingly and not blame it on bestiality, as long as it is not intrinsic to it.
So it's easy to demonstrate but you won't do it. Much better to draw a debatable parrallel with children. Right. Also, did you read my whole post ? I said it was harder for "dumb" animals, like sheeps or whatever. Again, pretty sure that a cat would make his lack of consent very very clear. But as it is not true for all, among other reasons, I understand why they would change the law. I don't agree or disagree with it because it doesn't concern me in the slightest (my goldfish is really happy with our relation), but I understand. And that's what I meant when I said I convinced myself, at first it seemed like a completely unecessary law to me.
On June 15 2013 00:10 yOngKIN wrote: This issue is pretty simple. If the act is not intrinsically harmful to people and environment, no matter how disgusting it is, let it be. "Intrinsic" is the key here. Like there is nothing intrinsically wrong with being homosexual. But if one is homosexual and goes on to spread disease, then treat it as such, as a person spreading disease, and not attribute it to being homosexual. The same is true for bestiality. If it's what floats a persons boat, leave him or her be. Just address whatever complications arise accordingly and not blame it on bestiality, as long as it is not intrinsic to it.
If I take that literally, it means I can do whatever I want to non-humans. So I can pick up a dog, tie it up and torture it in my basement for years, because it's not harmful to people or the environment.
On June 15 2013 00:14 Cynry wrote: So it's easy to demonstrate but you won't do it. Much better to draw a debatable parrallel with children. Right. Also, did you read my whole post ? I said it was harder for "dumb" animals, like sheeps or whatever. Again, pretty sure that a cat would make his lack of consent very very clear. But as it is not true for all, among other reasons, I understand why they would change. I don't agree or disagree with it because it doesn't concern me in the slightest (my goldfish is really happy with our relation), but I understand.
I did. Sorry you can't read... Did you miss the part where I said kids may not run but it doesn't mean that they consent AND it doesn't mean that it's morally right.
On June 15 2013 00:00 Zaqwe wrote: Child pornography is illegal despite the fact that unless the person paid for it they aren't actually harming anyone. Most people are okay with this because paedophiles are so repugnant and despicable it is acceptable to punish them just for being disgusting.
This is much the same reason for bestiality laws. Who cares if they are nor harming the animal or the animal likes it? It's revolting. People who do such things should be exposed, punished, and ostracized just for their disgusting acts, not because they have committed any harm.
Actually the harm in child pornography and sex with minors is the possibility of psychological harm (among others). That is the point of the whole thing. So no, it is actually a ban based on harm.
EDIT:clarification added
Viewing pornography is not the same as having sex.
Some people will try to make ridiculous arguments to claim that harm is done by someone viewing a video. For example claiming that the video being viewed is harming the victim all over again. Of course those arguments are preposterous on the face of them and we all know it. Nobody tries to ban viewing videos of assault.
The reality and simple truth is that child pornography is illegal simply because most people find it despicable and the people who view it are so repugnant that it is a social good to punish them, ostracize them, and ensure they can never live a normal life. Not because they harmed anyone at all, simply because they are disgusting. Many countries even have laws against drawn child pornography and other obscenities.
The same is true of bestiality. It's just so disgusting and beyond the pale that people who engage in it should be legally punished and ousted from society, not due to causing any harm but just for being awful people.
We use animals to benefit ourselves, and our justification for that is solely based on the fact that we value our own lives much more than an animal's life, so when a horse pulls a plough our gains outweigh the horse's suffering. Meanwhile we use laws to prevent any unnecessary harm/suffering towards the animals, where we don't gain anything. Fucking an animal is completely unnecessary, and likely to cause suffering that might very well go unnoticed (right now a swede could have sex with a horse and then lie to the court that the animal did not mind), so it is only logical to make it illegal. Bestiality doesn't give anything, it only might take.
On June 15 2013 00:25 duckmaster wrote: We use animals to benefit ourselves, and our justification for that is solely based on the fact that we value our own lives much more than an animal's life, so when a horse pulls a plough our gains outweigh the horse's suffering. Meanwhile we use laws to prevent any unnecessary harm/suffering towards the animals, where we don't gain anything. Fucking an animal is completely unnecessary, and likely to cause suffering that might very well go unnoticed (right now a swede could have sex with a horse and then lie to the court that the animal did not mind), so it is only logical to make it illegal. Bestiality doesn't give anything, it only might take.
To be realistic, a horse pulling a plough probably doesn't harm it at all. In fact that could be described as a symbiotic relationship, much as exists between an employer and employee. The horse receives food, shelter, medical care, and therefore survives much easier and healthier than it would in the wild.
On June 14 2013 23:59 Cynry wrote: Why is everyone saying that animals can't consent ? Sure, they can't say "yes", but I'm pretty sure most animals will go the fuck away if they don't like something done to them. So as long as they don't we can assume they are ok with it, or too dumb to care (this may be the greyest area imo). "What if one ties the animal ?". Well now that's abuse, and that was already covered by the law. All one has to do is prove it. Can't always be done, and injuries can be prevented I guess...
Shit, just convinced myself... Good thing none of this matters or will have any impact.
trying to fuck a house dog and trying to fuck a wild dog are 2 different things. you trained your house dog to get used to you, to take all kind of shit from you and that's a reason as to why he does/may submit to you, but that doesn't meant that's what he wants to do. dogs can and do what their owners/masters tell them until they die. is that consent?, nope. that's what we trained them to do. you raped them earlier in life so now they don't know better. first we fuck their freedom then we fuck them, literally. (pet)slaves can't consent. it's illegal for them to do so because they don't have the rights a free animal does.
go fuck a wild horse and see how it goes. you have my consent.
On June 15 2013 00:00 Zaqwe wrote: Child pornography is illegal despite the fact that unless the person paid for it they aren't actually harming anyone. Most people are okay with this because paedophiles are so repugnant and despicable it is acceptable to punish them just for being disgusting.
This is much the same reason for bestiality laws. Who cares if they are nor harming the animal or the animal likes it? It's revolting. People who do such things should be exposed, punished, and ostracized just for their disgusting acts, not because they have committed any harm.
Actually the harm in child pornography and sex with minors is the possibility of psychological harm (among others). That is the point of the whole thing. So no, it is actually a ban based on harm.
EDIT:clarification added
Viewing pornography is not the same as having sex.
Some people will try to make ridiculous arguments to claim that harm is done by someone viewing a video. For example claiming that the video being viewed is harming the victim all over again. Of course those arguments are preposterous on the face of them and we all know it. Nobody tries to ban viewing videos of assault.
The reality and simple truth is that child pornography is illegal simply because most people find it despicable and the people who view it are so repugnant that it is a social good to punish them, ostracize them, and ensure they can never live a normal life. Not because they harmed anyone at all, simply because they are disgusting. Many countries even have laws against drawn child pornography and other obscenities.
The same is true of bestiality. It's just so disgusting and beyond the pale that people who engage in it should be legally punished and ousted from society, not due to causing any harm but just for being awful people.
The reason why child pornography is bad is that there are people who pay money to get them produced and to distribute them. An individual viewed presumably doesn't matter but it creates a demand for them. As for bestiality, it doesn't seem to matter if you have no regard for the animal but just because you don't care doesn't mean that it doesn't matter.
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.
Using the same logic, would It be cool if I tucked my penis inside a woman who's passed out? I mean she won't get harmed - I make gentle loving and Ill use protection and she won't remember a thing. Also, it's a well-known fact that men outrank women in our day and age - just look at any statitistics - they'll confirm that woman are infact inferior to men. Guess Ill be hitting town tonight!
Sorry, clearly you're confused by your colossal amount of idiocy. When I said I was fine with this because no animal was being harmed I wasn't suggesting that that was the only way of judging whether something was right or wrong. Rape is wrong, even though it doesn't involve any animals at all. I brought up harm of animals because it is eminently relevant to this issue but it's actually less relevant to other issues such as rape which doesn't involve any animals at all. There are things which make things bad and in this case harm of animals would be one of them but in other cases we might use other factors. Hopefully that clears up my point for you so you can avoid making such incredibly, obscenely stupid straw men arguments in future.
One thing I learnt from this thread. It's fine to be rude and call others idiots if you are a mod, it's not fine if you aren't.
[B]On June 15 2013 00:15 Djzapz I did. Sorry you can't read... Did you miss the part where I said kids may not run but it doesn't mean that they consent AND it doesn't mean that it's morally right.
If you ask me to read between the lines, please at least do the same for what I try to write (english isn't my native). BECAUSE WE AGREE HERE. Consent, or lack of, can be formulated in some ways by some animals, but not all of them, not all the time. Thus a law that avoid this grey area by simply forbidding the act altogether makes sense.
To the other guy that answered my first post and all of those that will in the same way : Thank you for understanding only half of what I wrote and calling me a horse fucker. Very honest of you good sir. You can go fuck yourself and you don't need my consent for that, I'm sure. At least it's legal, heh.
On June 15 2013 00:00 Zaqwe wrote: Child pornography is illegal despite the fact that unless the person paid for it they aren't actually harming anyone. Most people are okay with this because paedophiles are so repugnant and despicable it is acceptable to punish them just for being disgusting.
This is much the same reason for bestiality laws. Who cares if they are nor harming the animal or the animal likes it? It's revolting. People who do such things should be exposed, punished, and ostracized just for their disgusting acts, not because they have committed any harm.
Actually the harm in child pornography and sex with minors is the possibility of psychological harm (among others). That is the point of the whole thing. So no, it is actually a ban based on harm.
EDIT:clarification added
Viewing pornography is not the same as having sex.
Some people will try to make ridiculous arguments to claim that harm is done by someone viewing a video. For example claiming that the video being viewed is harming the victim all over again. Of course those arguments are preposterous on the face of them and we all know it. Nobody tries to ban viewing videos of assault.
The reality and simple truth is that child pornography is illegal simply because most people find it despicable and the people who view it are so repugnant that it is a social good to punish them, ostracize them, and ensure they can never live a normal life. Not because they harmed anyone at all, simply because they are disgusting. Many countries even have laws against drawn child pornography and other obscenities.
The same is true of bestiality. It's just so disgusting and beyond the pale that people who engage in it should be legally punished and ousted from society, not due to causing any harm but just for being awful people.
The reason why child pornography is bad is that there are people who pay money to get them produced and to distribute them. An individual viewed presumably doesn't matter but it creates a demand for them. As for bestiality, it doesn't seem to matter if you have no regard for the animal but just because you don't care doesn't mean that it doesn't matter.
If someone pays for it they are as guilty as someone who pays for a hitman to kill someone.
However even in cases where someone doesn't financially support it, we punish them legally simply for viewing a video/photograph.
Trying to claim someone is causing harm by viewing a video is backwards logic. We already have decided paedophiles are so disgusting and evil they should be punished for their tastes, then we work backwards from our desire to punish them to dream up some way they could be linked to harm. Of course when applying the same logic to other crimes like assault or murder, nobody is so gung-ho on punishing viewers of fight videos on youtube, etc.
As I already mentioned, even drawings are illegal in many countries. These are logical extensions of the child porn laws, which are not designed to punish harm but rather punish people for socially unacceptable desires.
Bestiality laws are exactly the same. They punish people for socially unacceptable desires. Whether they harmed anyone/anything is irrelevant.
On June 15 2013 00:15 Djzapz I did. Sorry you can't read... Did you miss the part where I said kids may not run but it doesn't mean that they consent AND it doesn't mean that it's morally right.
If you ask me to read between the lines, please at least do the same for what I try to write (english isn't my native). BECAUSE WE AGREE HERE. Consent, or lack of, can be formulated in some ways by some animals, but not all of them, not all the time. Thus a law that avoid this grey area by simply forbidding the act altogether makes sense.
I'm sorry if I misunderstood, I was under the impression that you were saying, like many others, that it's fine if consent can be determined. I'm fine with a complete ban because no "freedoms" that matter are lost and it bans some animal abuse.
On June 15 2013 00:00 Zaqwe wrote: Child pornography is illegal despite the fact that unless the person paid for it they aren't actually harming anyone. Most people are okay with this because paedophiles are so repugnant and despicable it is acceptable to punish them just for being disgusting.
This is much the same reason for bestiality laws. Who cares if they are nor harming the animal or the animal likes it? It's revolting. People who do such things should be exposed, punished, and ostracized just for their disgusting acts, not because they have committed any harm.
Actually the harm in child pornography and sex with minors is the possibility of psychological harm (among others). That is the point of the whole thing. So no, it is actually a ban based on harm.
EDIT:clarification added
Viewing pornography is not the same as having sex.
Some people will try to make ridiculous arguments to claim that harm is done by someone viewing a video. For example claiming that the video being viewed is harming the victim all over again. Of course those arguments are preposterous on the face of them and we all know it. Nobody tries to ban viewing videos of assault.
The reality and simple truth is that child pornography is illegal simply because most people find it despicable and the people who view it are so repugnant that it is a social good to punish them, ostracize them, and ensure they can never live a normal life. Not because they harmed anyone at all, simply because they are disgusting. Many countries even have laws against drawn child pornography and other obscenities.
The same is true of bestiality. It's just so disgusting and beyond the pale that people who engage in it should be legally punished and ousted from society, not due to causing any harm but just for being awful people.
The reason why child pornography is bad is that there are people who pay money to get them produced and to distribute them. An individual viewed presumably doesn't matter but it creates a demand for them. As for bestiality, it doesn't seem to matter if you have no regard for the animal but just because you don't care doesn't mean that it doesn't matter.
If someone pays for it they are as guilty as someone who pays for a hitman to kill someone.
However even in cases where someone doesn't financially support it, we punish them legally simply for viewing a video/photograph.
Just because you don't pay doesn't mean that you're not supporting the back end.
On June 14 2013 23:45 Klondikebar wrote: The "consent" argument doesn't work with animals because we own them without their consent and we kill and eat them without their consent. I can't exactly draw a line and say that with sex you suddenly need consent.
So your argument is that if we kill something and that is ok, then we should be allowed to rape it.
EDIT: Even if the consent argument is unsatisfactory to you, and I'm not saying you are pro-bestiality or anything, there are other arguments in here that you might find better. I'm not going to argue the morality of bestiality, because I truly think that the fact is clear cut.
So far the discussion hovers on two key points: animal cruelty or harm, and aesthetics. I would like to focus on the latter with a shift on the argument not on the aesthetics but on the cultural development of society.
If anti-bestiality laws are to be argued on these grounds, it is simply to assume that human society has developed a sense of aesthetics that serve no functional purpose, at least directly, and contrarily offer no practical harm to humans, but are still strictly observe on the sheer weight of "culture". This is neither new nor novel, as human history is rife with examples of this. Laws on heritage and identity, and as soft examples,dress codes, and other expression of social decorum all fall under this category. What makes this possible is humanity being social in nature. As long as it is the expression of the many, or the powerful few, it becomes the norm, sometimes expressed in law. There may be a few outliers, but again, society and power.
On June 14 2013 16:56 DorF wrote: A total of 209 cases of bestiality, of which 161 involved horses, have been documented since the 1970s. wow that's shockingly low number. I came here thinking " maybe we Swedes are weird" but 200 cases in 43 years ? not even bothered.
What a wonderful way to spend government resources on something that happens up to 5 times a year? Don't we have slightly more important issues to worry about. Like say resession, immigration issue, riots in Stockholm etc....
On June 14 2013 23:45 Klondikebar wrote: The "consent" argument doesn't work with animals because we own them without their consent and we kill and eat them without their consent. I can't exactly draw a line and say that with sex you suddenly need consent.
So your argument is that if we kill something and that is ok, then we should be allowed to rape it.
Since you mentioned killing, necrophilia laws are another good example of laws made to punish socially unacceptable behaviour regardless of there being any actual victim or harm done.
Some people are just so depraved there should be legal punishment to make it clear they are not welcome in society.
On June 14 2013 16:56 DorF wrote: A total of 209 cases of bestiality, of which 161 involved horses, have been documented since the 1970s. wow that's shockingly low number. I came here thinking " maybe we Swedes are weird" but 200 cases in 43 years ? not even bothered.
What a wonderful way to spend government resources on something that happens up to 5 times a year? Don't we have slightly more important issues to worry about. Like say resession, immigration issue, riots in Stockholm etc....
Parliament spending more time on certain issues doesn't fix those issues faster
On June 14 2013 23:45 Klondikebar wrote: The "consent" argument doesn't work with animals because we own them without their consent and we kill and eat them without their consent. I can't exactly draw a line and say that with sex you suddenly need consent.
So your argument is that if we kill something and that is ok, then we should be allowed to rape it.
Since you mentioned killing, necrophilia laws are another good example of laws made to punish socially unacceptable behaviour regardless of there being any actual victim or harm done.
Some people are just so depraved there should be legal punishment to make it clear they are not welcome in society
I mean I don't think that's something worth fighting for but it's true... if the person consents before death that is. In this case it's different because nobody (sigh...) or nothing is harmed
On June 15 2013 00:00 Zaqwe wrote: Child pornography is illegal despite the fact that unless the person paid for it they aren't actually harming anyone. Most people are okay with this because paedophiles are so repugnant and despicable it is acceptable to punish them just for being disgusting.
This is much the same reason for bestiality laws. Who cares if they are nor harming the animal or the animal likes it? It's revolting. People who do such things should be exposed, punished, and ostracized just for their disgusting acts, not because they have committed any harm.
Actually the harm in child pornography and sex with minors is the possibility of psychological harm (among others). That is the point of the whole thing. So no, it is actually a ban based on harm.
EDIT:clarification added
Viewing pornography is not the same as having sex.
Some people will try to make ridiculous arguments to claim that harm is done by someone viewing a video. For example claiming that the video being viewed is harming the victim all over again. Of course those arguments are preposterous on the face of them and we all know it. Nobody tries to ban viewing videos of assault.
The reality and simple truth is that child pornography is illegal simply because most people find it despicable and the people who view it are so repugnant that it is a social good to punish them, ostracize them, and ensure they can never live a normal life. Not because they harmed anyone at all, simply because they are disgusting. Many countries even have laws against drawn child pornography and other obscenities.
The same is true of bestiality. It's just so disgusting and beyond the pale that people who engage in it should be legally punished and ousted from society, not due to causing any harm but just for being awful people.
Someone had to create that pornography, I was not talking about viewing it, but about creating it, you were not clear that you meant just viewing. Even viewing might be considered as harming someone indirectly and then we run into the whole problem I posted earlier.
Saying it is true of bestiality means that you probably did not watch the VICE video that was posted earlier. Seems not everyone is disgusted, maybe not even majority in some places.
Djzpaz, thank you ! The nuance is thin though, as my point at first was that it would be fine if consent COULD be determined, but as that can't be done for sure, the law makes sense. Hope I'm done with that ^^
On June 15 2013 00:43 Cynry wrote: Djzpaz, thank you ! The nuance is thin though, as my point at first was that it would be fine if consent COULD be determined, but as that can't be done for sure, the law makes sense. Hope I'm done with that ^^
Alright then ^_^ English is my second language also, so it happens
On June 15 2013 00:00 Zaqwe wrote: Child pornography is illegal despite the fact that unless the person paid for it they aren't actually harming anyone. Most people are okay with this because paedophiles are so repugnant and despicable it is acceptable to punish them just for being disgusting.
This is much the same reason for bestiality laws. Who cares if they are nor harming the animal or the animal likes it? It's revolting. People who do such things should be exposed, punished, and ostracized just for their disgusting acts, not because they have committed any harm.
I'm pretty sure that is not the argument you want to make, because it allows you to subjectively target whoever the fuck you want (interracial couples, gays, jews, islamists, LoL players, etc.)
For example, if a society finds homosexual men repulsive (a reach I know, but just pretend it happens somewhere in the world), then you can use your argument to justify exposing, punishing, and ostracizing them just for their disgusting acts, not because they committed any harm.
I really want to believe this is not what you meant.
On June 14 2013 22:12 Orek wrote: Thank you TL. I just learned a new English word "bestiality."
"Bestial" is a prominent Latin-rooted word found in many Latin-based language French, Spanish, German, Russian, English, and others. Where are you from? I'm guessing Chinese or Japanese. Srangely, "Orek" sounds European.
On June 15 2013 00:00 Zaqwe wrote: Child pornography is illegal despite the fact that unless the person paid for it they aren't actually harming anyone. Most people are okay with this because paedophiles are so repugnant and despicable it is acceptable to punish them just for being disgusting.
This is much the same reason for bestiality laws. Who cares if they are nor harming the animal or the animal likes it? It's revolting. People who do such things should be exposed, punished, and ostracized just for their disgusting acts, not because they have committed any harm.
I'm pretty sure that is not the argument you want to make, because it allows you to subjectively target whoever the fuck you want (interracial couples, gays, jews, islamists, LoL players, etc.)
For example, if a society finds homosexual men repulsive (a reach I know, but just pretend it happens somewhere in the world), then you can use your argument to justify exposing, punishing, and ostracizing them just for their disgusting acts, not because they committed any harm.
I really want to believe this is not what you meant.
On June 15 2013 00:00 Zaqwe wrote: Child pornography is illegal despite the fact that unless the person paid for it they aren't actually harming anyone. Most people are okay with this because paedophiles are so repugnant and despicable it is acceptable to punish them just for being disgusting.
This is much the same reason for bestiality laws. Who cares if they are nor harming the animal or the animal likes it? It's revolting. People who do such things should be exposed, punished, and ostracized just for their disgusting acts, not because they have committed any harm.
Actually the harm in child pornography and sex with minors is the possibility of psychological harm (among others). That is the point of the whole thing. So no, it is actually a ban based on harm.
EDIT:clarification added
Viewing pornography is not the same as having sex.
Some people will try to make ridiculous arguments to claim that harm is done by someone viewing a video. For example claiming that the video being viewed is harming the victim all over again. Of course those arguments are preposterous on the face of them and we all know it. Nobody tries to ban viewing videos of assault.
The reality and simple truth is that child pornography is illegal simply because most people find it despicable and the people who view it are so repugnant that it is a social good to punish them, ostracize them, and ensure they can never live a normal life. Not because they harmed anyone at all, simply because they are disgusting. Many countries even have laws against drawn child pornography and other obscenities.
The same is true of bestiality. It's just so disgusting and beyond the pale that people who engage in it should be legally punished and ousted from society, not due to causing any harm but just for being awful people.
Someone had to create that pornography, I was not talking about viewing it, but about creating it, you were not clear that you meant just viewing. Even viewing might be considered as harming someone indirectly and then we run into the whole problem I posted earlier.
Saying it is true of bestiality means that you probably did not watch the VICE video that was posted earlier. Seems not everyone is disgusted, maybe not even majority in some places.
My point exactly is that this sort of tortured logic is wrong on the face of it. Nobody wants to ban viewing videos of assault, because people who watch knockout or fighting videos are not considered socially repugnant. Any sort of logical justification that viewing a video of a crime causes harm can be equally applied to other crimes, where suddenly nobody seems to care about this imaginary "harm" caused by viewing a video. The reality is that we are using backwards logic. Everyone hates paedophiles, so we reach into our moral toolbox and try to justify punishing them without admitting it's simply a matter of their behaviour being socially unacceptable.
I think we should just drop the pretense. It's okay to punish paedophiles, zoophiles, necrophiles, et cetera, just for being disgusting people who aren't welcome in society.
I think the main reasons for this law are moral ones. If the animal would suffer physical injuries, then it would be a case of mistreating animals and no additional laws are needed. I do not have any knowledge or statistics about mental issues something like this can cause on animals so I can not argue for or against it on this grounds. Maybe someone can provide scientific source material on this issue to elaborate on.
The only reason for me to forbid this was if the animal would suffer mental damage from it. (physical damage is already protected by other laws I think). But isn't training a horse for riding also some sort of mental damage or influence on the horse ?
I think the only reason for this law is a moral one and this is a bad decision. Although I would not have sex with an animal or encourage anyone to have sex with one because I find it disgusting, I would not forbid it by law. The only reason to forbid it, is unnecessary harm to the animal and I do not know what the impacts on an animal are so I can't argue for or against it just state that we need more information on this topic in this thread.
And in my opinion: If someone is in the mental state of fucking or being fucked by a horse, or what ever, I do not think that a law would prevent him from doing so. Maybe it is to stop porn industry, because a quick google showed me that Sweden was/is one of the few countries where this was allowed.
-If you believe animals have a right to consent, then you must oppose eating, killing, caging, etc. as well, otherwise you are being incoherent/hypocritical.
-If you believe animals should not be harmed (more specifically, harmed beyond a certain level, or "unnecessarily"), you should prove that bestiality unequivocally results in harm to the animal, and you should also oppose much worse practices.
-If you believe that bestiality should be banned because the majority considers it a perverted act, then you should also oppose homosexuality and numerous other practices.
On June 15 2013 00:00 Zaqwe wrote: Child pornography is illegal despite the fact that unless the person paid for it they aren't actually harming anyone. Most people are okay with this because paedophiles are so repugnant and despicable it is acceptable to punish them just for being disgusting.
This is much the same reason for bestiality laws. Who cares if they are nor harming the animal or the animal likes it? It's revolting. People who do such things should be exposed, punished, and ostracized just for their disgusting acts, not because they have committed any harm.
Actually the harm in child pornography and sex with minors is the possibility of psychological harm (among others). That is the point of the whole thing. So no, it is actually a ban based on harm.
EDIT:clarification added
Viewing pornography is not the same as having sex.
Some people will try to make ridiculous arguments to claim that harm is done by someone viewing a video. For example claiming that the video being viewed is harming the victim all over again. Of course those arguments are preposterous on the face of them and we all know it. Nobody tries to ban viewing videos of assault.
The reality and simple truth is that child pornography is illegal simply because most people find it despicable and the people who view it are so repugnant that it is a social good to punish them, ostracize them, and ensure they can never live a normal life. Not because they harmed anyone at all, simply because they are disgusting. Many countries even have laws against drawn child pornography and other obscenities.
The same is true of bestiality. It's just so disgusting and beyond the pale that people who engage in it should be legally punished and ousted from society, not due to causing any harm but just for being awful people.
Someone had to create that pornography, I was not talking about viewing it, but about creating it, you were not clear that you meant just viewing. Even viewing might be considered as harming someone indirectly and then we run into the whole problem I posted earlier.
Saying it is true of bestiality means that you probably did not watch the VICE video that was posted earlier. Seems not everyone is disgusted, maybe not even majority in some places.
My point exactly is that this sort of tortured logic is wrong on the face of it. Nobody wants to ban viewing videos of assault, because people who watch knockout or fighting videos are not considered socially repugnant. Any sort of logical justification that viewing a video of a crime causes harm can be equally applied to other crimes, where suddenly nobody seems to care about this imaginary "harm" caused by viewing a video. The reality is that we are using backwards logic. Everyone hates paedophiles, so we reach into our moral toolbox and try to justify punishing them without admitting it's simply a matter of their behaviour being socially unacceptable.
I think we should just drop the pretense. It's okay to punish paedophiles, zoophiles, necrophiles, et cetera, just for being disgusting people who aren't welcome in society.
A lot of necrophiles do it on people who didn't consent, do you think this is fine? Just curious... we're not going to convince you anyway since you've apparently decided that the argument is a "pretense"
-If you believe animals have a right to consent, then you must oppose eating, killing, caging, etc. as well, otherwise you are being incoherent/hypocritical.
-If you believe animals should not be harmed (more specifically, harmed beyond a certain level, or "unnecessarily"), you should prove that bestiality unequivocally results in harm to the animal, and you should also oppose much worse practices.
-If you believe that bestiality should be banned because the majority considers it a perverted act, then you should also oppose homosexuality and numerous other practices.
1- I just think if we're going to breed them, may as well make it as painless to them. I don't oppose everything. 2- Why would I have to prove that it does harm the animal? Any reasonable person would say that the opposing party needs to prove that it doesn't harm the animal... I almost want to get angry because of how dumb that point was. 3- Not the case.
On June 15 2013 00:00 Zaqwe wrote: Child pornography is illegal despite the fact that unless the person paid for it they aren't actually harming anyone. Most people are okay with this because paedophiles are so repugnant and despicable it is acceptable to punish them just for being disgusting.
This is much the same reason for bestiality laws. Who cares if they are nor harming the animal or the animal likes it? It's revolting. People who do such things should be exposed, punished, and ostracized just for their disgusting acts, not because they have committed any harm.
I'm pretty sure that is not the argument you want to make, because it allows you to subjectively target whoever the fuck you want (interracial couples, gays, jews, islamists, LoL players, etc.)
For example, if a society finds homosexual men repulsive (a reach I know, but just pretend it happens somewhere in the world), then you can use your argument to justify exposing, punishing, and ostracizing them just for their disgusting acts, not because they committed any harm.
I really want to believe this is not what you meant.
He was saying it ironically I believe.
Ah, I must have missed the context then. My apologies!
-If you believe animals have a right to consent, then you must oppose eating, killing, caging, etc. as well, otherwise you are being incoherent/hypocritical.
-If you believe animals should not be harmed (more specifically, harmed beyond a certain level, or "unnecessarily"), you should prove that bestiality unequivocally results in harm to the animal, and you should also oppose much worse practices.
-If you believe that bestiality should be banned because the majority considers it a perverted act, then you should also oppose homosexuality and numerous other practices.
1- I just think if we're going to breed them, may as well make it as painless to them. I don't oppose everything. 2- Why would I have to prove that it does harm the animal? Any reasonable person would say that the opposing party needs to prove that it doesn't harm the animal... I almost want to get angry because of how dumb that point was. 3- Not the case.
2- Guilty until proven innocent then? Is that what you are arguing?
-If you believe animals have a right to consent, then you must oppose eating, killing, caging, etc. as well, otherwise you are being incoherent/hypocritical.
-If you believe animals should not be harmed (more specifically, harmed beyond a certain level, or "unnecessarily"), you should prove that bestiality unequivocally results in harm to the animal, and you should also oppose much worse practices.
-If you believe that bestiality should be banned because the majority considers it a perverted act, then you should also oppose homosexuality and numerous other practices.
1- I just think if we're going to breed them, may as well make it as painless to them. I don't oppose everything. 2- Why would I have to prove that it does harm the animal? Any reasonable person would say that the opposing party needs to prove that it doesn't harm the animal... I almost want to get angry because of how dumb that point was. 3- Not the case.
@point 2 Well Like I said this is a point that requires further studies. If it is as harmful to an animal as every other practice (killing it and eating it not counting) we do to them legally on a daily bases it should not be illegal on the logic side of things.
On June 15 2013 00:00 Zaqwe wrote: Child pornography is illegal despite the fact that unless the person paid for it they aren't actually harming anyone. Most people are okay with this because paedophiles are so repugnant and despicable it is acceptable to punish them just for being disgusting.
This is much the same reason for bestiality laws. Who cares if they are nor harming the animal or the animal likes it? It's revolting. People who do such things should be exposed, punished, and ostracized just for their disgusting acts, not because they have committed any harm.
Actually the harm in child pornography and sex with minors is the possibility of psychological harm (among others). That is the point of the whole thing. So no, it is actually a ban based on harm.
EDIT:clarification added
Viewing pornography is not the same as having sex.
Some people will try to make ridiculous arguments to claim that harm is done by someone viewing a video. For example claiming that the video being viewed is harming the victim all over again. Of course those arguments are preposterous on the face of them and we all know it. Nobody tries to ban viewing videos of assault.
The reality and simple truth is that child pornography is illegal simply because most people find it despicable and the people who view it are so repugnant that it is a social good to punish them, ostracize them, and ensure they can never live a normal life. Not because they harmed anyone at all, simply because they are disgusting. Many countries even have laws against drawn child pornography and other obscenities.
The same is true of bestiality. It's just so disgusting and beyond the pale that people who engage in it should be legally punished and ousted from society, not due to causing any harm but just for being awful people.
Someone had to create that pornography, I was not talking about viewing it, but about creating it, you were not clear that you meant just viewing. Even viewing might be considered as harming someone indirectly and then we run into the whole problem I posted earlier.
Saying it is true of bestiality means that you probably did not watch the VICE video that was posted earlier. Seems not everyone is disgusted, maybe not even majority in some places.
My point exactly is that this sort of tortured logic is wrong on the face of it. Nobody wants to ban viewing videos of assault, because people who watch knockout or fighting videos are not considered socially repugnant. Any sort of logical justification that viewing a video of a crime causes harm can be equally applied to other crimes, where suddenly nobody seems to care about this imaginary "harm" caused by viewing a video. The reality is that we are using backwards logic. Everyone hates paedophiles, so we reach into our moral toolbox and try to justify punishing them without admitting it's simply a matter of their behaviour being socially unacceptable.
I think we should just drop the pretense. It's okay to punish paedophiles, zoophiles, necrophiles, et cetera, just for being disgusting people who aren't welcome in society.
A lot of necrophiles do it on people who didn't consent, do you think this is fine? Just curious... we're not going to convince you anyway since you've apparently decided that the argument is a "pretense"
I think it's pretty difficult to harm someone who is already dead.
Do you disagree that these are moral laws, rather than logical ones motivated by preventing harm?
On June 14 2013 23:45 Klondikebar wrote: The "consent" argument doesn't work with animals because we own them without their consent and we kill and eat them without their consent. I can't exactly draw a line and say that with sex you suddenly need consent.
So your argument is that if we kill something and that is ok, then we should be allowed to rape it.
Since you mentioned killing, necrophilia laws are another good example of laws made to punish socially unacceptable behaviour regardless of there being any actual victim or harm done.
Some people are just so depraved there should be legal punishment to make it clear they are not welcome in society.
That is a significantly more succinct way of putting it, yeah that is what I mean, and that is the argument I'm trying to draw upon. Generally I think that when it comes to actions, the libertarian style of, "if it harms no one, why should I care?" is not always a good way to think of it at all, some actions should not be part of society whether or not they harm anyone. Of course, some would disagree with me on that.
i believe the less freedoms people have, the more evolved they are and the less people there are in a community, the more civilized they are (both of those within some boundaries). being deprived of something is like an environmental pressure to adapt further. under the rule of absolute freedom, instincts take over, societies crumble and soon humans will return to their animal selves.
so no, giving more alleged freedoms to people that don't know what to do with them, is worse then restricting said freedoms.
-If you believe animals have a right to consent, then you must oppose eating, killing, caging, etc. as well, otherwise you are being incoherent/hypocritical.
-If you believe animals should not be harmed (more specifically, harmed beyond a certain level, or "unnecessarily"), you should prove that bestiality unequivocally results in harm to the animal, and you should also oppose much worse practices.
-If you believe that bestiality should be banned because the majority considers it a perverted act, then you should also oppose homosexuality and numerous other practices.
1- I just think if we're going to breed them, may as well make it as painless to them. I don't oppose everything. 2- Why would I have to prove that it does harm the animal? Any reasonable person would say that the opposing party needs to prove that it doesn't harm the animal... I almost want to get angry because of how dumb that point was. 3- Not the case.
2- Guilty until proven innocent then? Is that what you are arguing?
No, I'm not talking about a specific case there, I'm talking about a general thing - it's fair to assume that screwing an animal can be harmful to the animal, there undoubtedly are cases of harmed animals... what reason do I have to believe that any given animal is unharmed by it, and why should I assume that the person didn't harm the animal if it's not externally obvious?
On June 15 2013 01:01 xM(Z wrote: i believe the less freedoms people have, the more evolved they are and the less people there are in a community, the more civilized they are (both of those within some boundaries). being deprived of something is like an environmental pressure to adapt further. under the rule of absolute freedom, instincts take over, societies crumble and soon humans will return to their animal selves.
so no, giving more alleged freedoms to people that don't know what to do with them, is worse then restricting said freedoms.
On June 15 2013 00:00 Zaqwe wrote: Child pornography is illegal despite the fact that unless the person paid for it they aren't actually harming anyone. Most people are okay with this because paedophiles are so repugnant and despicable it is acceptable to punish them just for being disgusting.
This is much the same reason for bestiality laws. Who cares if they are nor harming the animal or the animal likes it? It's revolting. People who do such things should be exposed, punished, and ostracized just for their disgusting acts, not because they have committed any harm.
Actually the harm in child pornography and sex with minors is the possibility of psychological harm (among others). That is the point of the whole thing. So no, it is actually a ban based on harm.
EDIT:clarification added
Viewing pornography is not the same as having sex.
Some people will try to make ridiculous arguments to claim that harm is done by someone viewing a video. For example claiming that the video being viewed is harming the victim all over again. Of course those arguments are preposterous on the face of them and we all know it. Nobody tries to ban viewing videos of assault.
The reality and simple truth is that child pornography is illegal simply because most people find it despicable and the people who view it are so repugnant that it is a social good to punish them, ostracize them, and ensure they can never live a normal life. Not because they harmed anyone at all, simply because they are disgusting. Many countries even have laws against drawn child pornography and other obscenities.
The same is true of bestiality. It's just so disgusting and beyond the pale that people who engage in it should be legally punished and ousted from society, not due to causing any harm but just for being awful people.
Someone had to create that pornography, I was not talking about viewing it, but about creating it, you were not clear that you meant just viewing. Even viewing might be considered as harming someone indirectly and then we run into the whole problem I posted earlier.
Saying it is true of bestiality means that you probably did not watch the VICE video that was posted earlier. Seems not everyone is disgusted, maybe not even majority in some places.
My point exactly is that this sort of tortured logic is wrong on the face of it. Nobody wants to ban viewing videos of assault, because people who watch knockout or fighting videos are not considered socially repugnant. Any sort of logical justification that viewing a video of a crime causes harm can be equally applied to other crimes, where suddenly nobody seems to care about this imaginary "harm" caused by viewing a video. The reality is that we are using backwards logic. Everyone hates paedophiles, so we reach into our moral toolbox and try to justify punishing them without admitting it's simply a matter of their behaviour being socially unacceptable.
I think we should just drop the pretense. It's okay to punish paedophiles, zoophiles, necrophiles, et cetera, just for being disgusting people who aren't welcome in society.
A lot of necrophiles do it on people who didn't consent, do you think this is fine? Just curious... we're not going to convince you anyway since you've apparently decided that the argument is a "pretense"
I think it's pretty difficult to harm someone who is already dead.
Do you disagree that these are moral laws, rather than logical ones motivated by preventing harm?
I agree that that one is a moral law which is why in a previous post I wouldn't technically be opposed to it being legal if consent was given before death... That said, if no consent is given, then the person's will should be worth something. No? I'm confused about where you stand tho.
On June 15 2013 00:00 Zaqwe wrote: Child pornography is illegal despite the fact that unless the person paid for it they aren't actually harming anyone. Most people are okay with this because paedophiles are so repugnant and despicable it is acceptable to punish them just for being disgusting.
This is much the same reason for bestiality laws. Who cares if they are nor harming the animal or the animal likes it? It's revolting. People who do such things should be exposed, punished, and ostracized just for their disgusting acts, not because they have committed any harm.
Actually the harm in child pornography and sex with minors is the possibility of psychological harm (among others). That is the point of the whole thing. So no, it is actually a ban based on harm.
EDIT:clarification added
Viewing pornography is not the same as having sex.
Some people will try to make ridiculous arguments to claim that harm is done by someone viewing a video. For example claiming that the video being viewed is harming the victim all over again. Of course those arguments are preposterous on the face of them and we all know it. Nobody tries to ban viewing videos of assault.
The reality and simple truth is that child pornography is illegal simply because most people find it despicable and the people who view it are so repugnant that it is a social good to punish them, ostracize them, and ensure they can never live a normal life. Not because they harmed anyone at all, simply because they are disgusting. Many countries even have laws against drawn child pornography and other obscenities.
The same is true of bestiality. It's just so disgusting and beyond the pale that people who engage in it should be legally punished and ousted from society, not due to causing any harm but just for being awful people.
Someone had to create that pornography, I was not talking about viewing it, but about creating it, you were not clear that you meant just viewing. Even viewing might be considered as harming someone indirectly and then we run into the whole problem I posted earlier.
Saying it is true of bestiality means that you probably did not watch the VICE video that was posted earlier. Seems not everyone is disgusted, maybe not even majority in some places.
My point exactly is that this sort of tortured logic is wrong on the face of it. Nobody wants to ban viewing videos of assault, because people who watch knockout or fighting videos are not considered socially repugnant. Any sort of logical justification that viewing a video of a crime causes harm can be equally applied to other crimes, where suddenly nobody seems to care about this imaginary "harm" caused by viewing a video. The reality is that we are using backwards logic. Everyone hates paedophiles, so we reach into our moral toolbox and try to justify punishing them without admitting it's simply a matter of their behaviour being socially unacceptable.
I think we should just drop the pretense. It's okay to punish paedophiles, zoophiles, necrophiles, et cetera, just for being disgusting people who aren't welcome in society.
A lot of necrophiles do it on people who didn't consent, do you think this is fine? Just curious... we're not going to convince you anyway since you've apparently decided that the argument is a "pretense"
I think it's pretty difficult to harm someone who is already dead.
Do you disagree that these are moral laws, rather than logical ones motivated by preventing harm?
One is a human the other is an animal. If you want to treat them the same way we would have major problems. I would also not having a problem if someone had sex with a corpse if he didnt kill it and if the corpse had no relatives friends or other people that take offense.
On June 15 2013 00:00 Zaqwe wrote: Child pornography is illegal despite the fact that unless the person paid for it they aren't actually harming anyone. Most people are okay with this because paedophiles are so repugnant and despicable it is acceptable to punish them just for being disgusting.
This is much the same reason for bestiality laws. Who cares if they are nor harming the animal or the animal likes it? It's revolting. People who do such things should be exposed, punished, and ostracized just for their disgusting acts, not because they have committed any harm.
Actually the harm in child pornography and sex with minors is the possibility of psychological harm (among others). That is the point of the whole thing. So no, it is actually a ban based on harm.
EDIT:clarification added
Viewing pornography is not the same as having sex.
Some people will try to make ridiculous arguments to claim that harm is done by someone viewing a video. For example claiming that the video being viewed is harming the victim all over again. Of course those arguments are preposterous on the face of them and we all know it. Nobody tries to ban viewing videos of assault.
The reality and simple truth is that child pornography is illegal simply because most people find it despicable and the people who view it are so repugnant that it is a social good to punish them, ostracize them, and ensure they can never live a normal life. Not because they harmed anyone at all, simply because they are disgusting. Many countries even have laws against drawn child pornography and other obscenities.
The same is true of bestiality. It's just so disgusting and beyond the pale that people who engage in it should be legally punished and ousted from society, not due to causing any harm but just for being awful people.
This is the silliest argument I've ever seen, it makes absolutely no sense.
The reason viewing child pornography is illegal is because:
1) It vastly reduces the "demand" for the stuff, which means there will be less "supply" of the stuff. I think the ACLU considers it evidence to a crime, thus not protected. 2) Simply viewing a minor in a sexually explicit way is illegal by itself (IRL/in porn/whatever), because they are not old enough to consent. 3) Whether you believe it being viewed "hurts" or not, the fact of the matter is that it DOES cause pain. No, you clicking on the link will not harm the victim, that much is true. But if the video/pictures/whatever are able to be plastered all over the internet on porn sites/whatever, it can definitely cause pain, etc.
You could go on and on with logical reasons it's illegal, just like you could with bestiality. But just saying "they're nasty xD" is an awful way to justify anything.
-If you believe animals have a right to consent, then you must oppose eating, killing, caging, etc. as well, otherwise you are being incoherent/hypocritical.
-If you believe animals should not be harmed (more specifically, harmed beyond a certain level, or "unnecessarily"), you should prove that bestiality unequivocally results in harm to the animal, and you should also oppose much worse practices.
-If you believe that bestiality should be banned because the majority considers it a perverted act, then you should also oppose homosexuality and numerous other practices.
1- I just think if we're going to breed them, may as well make it as painless to them. I don't oppose everything. 2- Why would I have to prove that it does harm the animal? Any reasonable person would say that the opposing party needs to prove that it doesn't harm the animal... I almost want to get angry because of how dumb that point was. 3- Not the case.
2- Guilty until proven innocent then? Is that what you are arguing?
No, I'm not talking about a specific case there, I'm talking about a general thing - it's fair to assume that screwing an animal can be harmful to the animal, there undoubtedly are cases of harmed animals... what reason do I have to believe that any given animal is unharmed by it, and why should I assume that the person didn't harm the animal if it's not externally obvious?
While there are clear cases (for example when the animal is too small), there is no reason to assume any kind of bestiality involving other animals, like horses and big dogs, certainly results in harm to the animal. Furthermore, all the clear cases were already accounted for with the previous legislation, so I'm arguing there is no need to completely ban something which is not certain, or almost certain, to result in harm.
On June 15 2013 00:00 Zaqwe wrote: Child pornography is illegal despite the fact that unless the person paid for it they aren't actually harming anyone. Most people are okay with this because paedophiles are so repugnant and despicable it is acceptable to punish them just for being disgusting.
This is much the same reason for bestiality laws. Who cares if they are nor harming the animal or the animal likes it? It's revolting. People who do such things should be exposed, punished, and ostracized just for their disgusting acts, not because they have committed any harm.
Actually the harm in child pornography and sex with minors is the possibility of psychological harm (among others). That is the point of the whole thing. So no, it is actually a ban based on harm.
EDIT:clarification added
Viewing pornography is not the same as having sex.
Some people will try to make ridiculous arguments to claim that harm is done by someone viewing a video. For example claiming that the video being viewed is harming the victim all over again. Of course those arguments are preposterous on the face of them and we all know it. Nobody tries to ban viewing videos of assault.
The reality and simple truth is that child pornography is illegal simply because most people find it despicable and the people who view it are so repugnant that it is a social good to punish them, ostracize them, and ensure they can never live a normal life. Not because they harmed anyone at all, simply because they are disgusting. Many countries even have laws against drawn child pornography and other obscenities.
The same is true of bestiality. It's just so disgusting and beyond the pale that people who engage in it should be legally punished and ousted from society, not due to causing any harm but just for being awful people.
Someone had to create that pornography, I was not talking about viewing it, but about creating it, you were not clear that you meant just viewing. Even viewing might be considered as harming someone indirectly and then we run into the whole problem I posted earlier.
Saying it is true of bestiality means that you probably did not watch the VICE video that was posted earlier. Seems not everyone is disgusted, maybe not even majority in some places.
My point exactly is that this sort of tortured logic is wrong on the face of it. Nobody wants to ban viewing videos of assault, because people who watch knockout or fighting videos are not considered socially repugnant. Any sort of logical justification that viewing a video of a crime causes harm can be equally applied to other crimes, where suddenly nobody seems to care about this imaginary "harm" caused by viewing a video. The reality is that we are using backwards logic. Everyone hates paedophiles, so we reach into our moral toolbox and try to justify punishing them without admitting it's simply a matter of their behaviour being socially unacceptable.
I think we should just drop the pretense. It's okay to punish paedophiles, zoophiles, necrophiles, et cetera, just for being disgusting people who aren't welcome in society.
Ok, so you are arguing how things are not how they should be. As I think it is NOT ok to punish those people just for being them and more and more people think it is not ok. I think that just viewing child pornography is ok if the act of viewing does not increase demand for those videos.
On June 15 2013 00:52 Vetro wrote: -If you believe that bestiality should be banned because the majority considers it a perverted act, then you should also oppose homosexuality and numerous other practices.
That is just you drawing your own personal moral lines.
If most people democratically agree that homophilia is socially acceptable behaviour but zoophilia is not, that is where the line for moral laws should be drawn, no?
If your morals conflict with the society you are living in, maybe you move somewhere that people's morals are more in line with yours.
On June 15 2013 00:00 Zaqwe wrote: Child pornography is illegal despite the fact that unless the person paid for it they aren't actually harming anyone. Most people are okay with this because paedophiles are so repugnant and despicable it is acceptable to punish them just for being disgusting.
This is much the same reason for bestiality laws. Who cares if they are nor harming the animal or the animal likes it? It's revolting. People who do such things should be exposed, punished, and ostracized just for their disgusting acts, not because they have committed any harm.
Actually the harm in child pornography and sex with minors is the possibility of psychological harm (among others). That is the point of the whole thing. So no, it is actually a ban based on harm.
EDIT:clarification added
Viewing pornography is not the same as having sex.
Some people will try to make ridiculous arguments to claim that harm is done by someone viewing a video. For example claiming that the video being viewed is harming the victim all over again. Of course those arguments are preposterous on the face of them and we all know it. Nobody tries to ban viewing videos of assault.
The reality and simple truth is that child pornography is illegal simply because most people find it despicable and the people who view it are so repugnant that it is a social good to punish them, ostracize them, and ensure they can never live a normal life. Not because they harmed anyone at all, simply because they are disgusting. Many countries even have laws against drawn child pornography and other obscenities.
The same is true of bestiality. It's just so disgusting and beyond the pale that people who engage in it should be legally punished and ousted from society, not due to causing any harm but just for being awful people.
Someone had to create that pornography, I was not talking about viewing it, but about creating it, you were not clear that you meant just viewing. Even viewing might be considered as harming someone indirectly and then we run into the whole problem I posted earlier.
Saying it is true of bestiality means that you probably did not watch the VICE video that was posted earlier. Seems not everyone is disgusted, maybe not even majority in some places.
My point exactly is that this sort of tortured logic is wrong on the face of it. Nobody wants to ban viewing videos of assault, because people who watch knockout or fighting videos are not considered socially repugnant. Any sort of logical justification that viewing a video of a crime causes harm can be equally applied to other crimes, where suddenly nobody seems to care about this imaginary "harm" caused by viewing a video. The reality is that we are using backwards logic. Everyone hates paedophiles, so we reach into our moral toolbox and try to justify punishing them without admitting it's simply a matter of their behaviour being socially unacceptable.
I think we should just drop the pretense. It's okay to punish paedophiles, zoophiles, necrophiles, et cetera, just for being disgusting people who aren't welcome in society.
A lot of necrophiles do it on people who didn't consent, do you think this is fine? Just curious... we're not going to convince you anyway since you've apparently decided that the argument is a "pretense"
I think it's pretty difficult to harm someone who is already dead.
Do you disagree that these are moral laws, rather than logical ones motivated by preventing harm?
They harm the relatives of the dead person. Otherwise I am perfectly ok with necrophiles fucking dead bodies.
On June 15 2013 00:00 Zaqwe wrote: Child pornography is illegal despite the fact that unless the person paid for it they aren't actually harming anyone. Most people are okay with this because paedophiles are so repugnant and despicable it is acceptable to punish them just for being disgusting.
This is much the same reason for bestiality laws. Who cares if they are nor harming the animal or the animal likes it? It's revolting. People who do such things should be exposed, punished, and ostracized just for their disgusting acts, not because they have committed any harm.
Actually the harm in child pornography and sex with minors is the possibility of psychological harm (among others). That is the point of the whole thing. So no, it is actually a ban based on harm.
EDIT:clarification added
Viewing pornography is not the same as having sex.
Some people will try to make ridiculous arguments to claim that harm is done by someone viewing a video. For example claiming that the video being viewed is harming the victim all over again. Of course those arguments are preposterous on the face of them and we all know it. Nobody tries to ban viewing videos of assault.
The reality and simple truth is that child pornography is illegal simply because most people find it despicable and the people who view it are so repugnant that it is a social good to punish them, ostracize them, and ensure they can never live a normal life. Not because they harmed anyone at all, simply because they are disgusting. Many countries even have laws against drawn child pornography and other obscenities.
The same is true of bestiality. It's just so disgusting and beyond the pale that people who engage in it should be legally punished and ousted from society, not due to causing any harm but just for being awful people.
This is the silliest argument I've ever seen, it makes absolutely no sense.
The reason viewing child pornography is illegal is because:
1) It vastly reduces the "demand" for the stuff, which means there will be less "supply" of the stuff. I think the ACLU considers it evidence to a crime, thus not protected. 2) Simply viewing a minor in a sexually explicit way is illegal by itself (IRL/in porn/whatever), because they are not old enough to consent. 3) Whether you believe it being viewed "hurts" or not, the fact of the matter is that it DOES cause pain. No, you clicking on the link will not harm the victim, that much is true. But if the video/pictures/whatever are able to be plastered all over the internet on porn sites/whatever, it can definitely cause pain, etc.
You could go on and on with logical reasons it's illegal, just like you could with bestiality. But just saying "they're nasty xD" is an awful way to justify anything.
Does viewing a knockout video on youtube create a "demand" for assault? Why then is it not a crime to view or possess knockout videos?
Let's examine a hypothetical situation: Someone is walking down the street and finds a flash drive on the ground. He takes it home and finds it contains child pornography. He then keeps it, views it regularly, and therefore violated child pornography laws.
Has he caused harm? If so, what harm? Who is his victim?
On June 15 2013 00:00 Zaqwe wrote: Child pornography is illegal despite the fact that unless the person paid for it they aren't actually harming anyone. Most people are okay with this because paedophiles are so repugnant and despicable it is acceptable to punish them just for being disgusting.
This is much the same reason for bestiality laws. Who cares if they are nor harming the animal or the animal likes it? It's revolting. People who do such things should be exposed, punished, and ostracized just for their disgusting acts, not because they have committed any harm.
Actually the harm in child pornography and sex with minors is the possibility of psychological harm (among others). That is the point of the whole thing. So no, it is actually a ban based on harm.
EDIT:clarification added
Viewing pornography is not the same as having sex.
Some people will try to make ridiculous arguments to claim that harm is done by someone viewing a video. For example claiming that the video being viewed is harming the victim all over again. Of course those arguments are preposterous on the face of them and we all know it. Nobody tries to ban viewing videos of assault.
The reality and simple truth is that child pornography is illegal simply because most people find it despicable and the people who view it are so repugnant that it is a social good to punish them, ostracize them, and ensure they can never live a normal life. Not because they harmed anyone at all, simply because they are disgusting. Many countries even have laws against drawn child pornography and other obscenities.
The same is true of bestiality. It's just so disgusting and beyond the pale that people who engage in it should be legally punished and ousted from society, not due to causing any harm but just for being awful people.
This is the silliest argument I've ever seen, it makes absolutely no sense.
The reason viewing child pornography is illegal is because:
1) It vastly reduces the "demand" for the stuff, which means there will be less "supply" of the stuff. I think the ACLU considers it evidence to a crime, thus not protected. 2) Simply viewing a minor in a sexually explicit way is illegal by itself (IRL/in porn/whatever), because they are not old enough to consent. 3) Whether you believe it being viewed "hurts" or not, the fact of the matter is that it DOES cause pain. No, you clicking on the link will not harm the victim, that much is true. But if the video/pictures/whatever are able to be plastered all over the internet on porn sites/whatever, it can definitely cause pain, etc.
You could go on and on with logical reasons it's illegal, just like you could with bestiality. But just saying "they're nasty xD" is an awful way to justify anything.
Does viewing a knockout video on youtube create a "demand" for assault? Why then is it not a crime to view or possess knockout videos?
Let's examine a hypothetical situation: Someone is walking down the street and finds a flash drive on the ground. He takes it home and finds it contains child pornography. He then keeps it, views it regularly, and therefore violated child pornography laws.
Has he caused harm? If so, what harm? Who is his victim?
Dude, this is pretty clear cut. If there is profit to be gained in child pornography, which there will be if it was legal, then more hild pronography will be made, and thus more children raped. This is extremely black and white.
On June 15 2013 00:00 Zaqwe wrote: Child pornography is illegal despite the fact that unless the person paid for it they aren't actually harming anyone. Most people are okay with this because paedophiles are so repugnant and despicable it is acceptable to punish them just for being disgusting.
This is much the same reason for bestiality laws. Who cares if they are nor harming the animal or the animal likes it? It's revolting. People who do such things should be exposed, punished, and ostracized just for their disgusting acts, not because they have committed any harm.
Actually the harm in child pornography and sex with minors is the possibility of psychological harm (among others). That is the point of the whole thing. So no, it is actually a ban based on harm.
EDIT:clarification added
Viewing pornography is not the same as having sex.
Some people will try to make ridiculous arguments to claim that harm is done by someone viewing a video. For example claiming that the video being viewed is harming the victim all over again. Of course those arguments are preposterous on the face of them and we all know it. Nobody tries to ban viewing videos of assault.
The reality and simple truth is that child pornography is illegal simply because most people find it despicable and the people who view it are so repugnant that it is a social good to punish them, ostracize them, and ensure they can never live a normal life. Not because they harmed anyone at all, simply because they are disgusting. Many countries even have laws against drawn child pornography and other obscenities.
The same is true of bestiality. It's just so disgusting and beyond the pale that people who engage in it should be legally punished and ousted from society, not due to causing any harm but just for being awful people.
This is the silliest argument I've ever seen, it makes absolutely no sense.
The reason viewing child pornography is illegal is because:
1) It vastly reduces the "demand" for the stuff, which means there will be less "supply" of the stuff. I think the ACLU considers it evidence to a crime, thus not protected. 2) Simply viewing a minor in a sexually explicit way is illegal by itself (IRL/in porn/whatever), because they are not old enough to consent. 3) Whether you believe it being viewed "hurts" or not, the fact of the matter is that it DOES cause pain. No, you clicking on the link will not harm the victim, that much is true. But if the video/pictures/whatever are able to be plastered all over the internet on porn sites/whatever, it can definitely cause pain, etc.
You could go on and on with logical reasons it's illegal, just like you could with bestiality. But just saying "they're nasty xD" is an awful way to justify anything.
Does viewing a knockout video on youtube create a "demand" for assault? Why then is it not a crime to view or possess knockout videos?
Let's examine a hypothetical situation: Someone is walking down the street and finds a flash drive on the ground. He takes it home and finds it contains child pornography. He then keeps it, views it regularly, and therefore violated child pornography laws.
Has he caused harm? If so, what harm? Who is his victim?
Dude, this is pretty clear cut. If there is profit to be gained in child pornography, which there will be if it was legal, then more hild pronography will be made, and thus more children raped. This is extremely black and white.
Yet you ignored my hypothetical situation, because it actually is not a black and white issue at all.
On June 15 2013 00:00 Zaqwe wrote: Child pornography is illegal despite the fact that unless the person paid for it they aren't actually harming anyone. Most people are okay with this because paedophiles are so repugnant and despicable it is acceptable to punish them just for being disgusting.
This is much the same reason for bestiality laws. Who cares if they are nor harming the animal or the animal likes it? It's revolting. People who do such things should be exposed, punished, and ostracized just for their disgusting acts, not because they have committed any harm.
Actually the harm in child pornography and sex with minors is the possibility of psychological harm (among others). That is the point of the whole thing. So no, it is actually a ban based on harm.
EDIT:clarification added
Viewing pornography is not the same as having sex.
Some people will try to make ridiculous arguments to claim that harm is done by someone viewing a video. For example claiming that the video being viewed is harming the victim all over again. Of course those arguments are preposterous on the face of them and we all know it. Nobody tries to ban viewing videos of assault.
The reality and simple truth is that child pornography is illegal simply because most people find it despicable and the people who view it are so repugnant that it is a social good to punish them, ostracize them, and ensure they can never live a normal life. Not because they harmed anyone at all, simply because they are disgusting. Many countries even have laws against drawn child pornography and other obscenities.
The same is true of bestiality. It's just so disgusting and beyond the pale that people who engage in it should be legally punished and ousted from society, not due to causing any harm but just for being awful people.
This is the silliest argument I've ever seen, it makes absolutely no sense.
The reason viewing child pornography is illegal is because:
1) It vastly reduces the "demand" for the stuff, which means there will be less "supply" of the stuff. I think the ACLU considers it evidence to a crime, thus not protected. 2) Simply viewing a minor in a sexually explicit way is illegal by itself (IRL/in porn/whatever), because they are not old enough to consent. 3) Whether you believe it being viewed "hurts" or not, the fact of the matter is that it DOES cause pain. No, you clicking on the link will not harm the victim, that much is true. But if the video/pictures/whatever are able to be plastered all over the internet on porn sites/whatever, it can definitely cause pain, etc.
You could go on and on with logical reasons it's illegal, just like you could with bestiality. But just saying "they're nasty xD" is an awful way to justify anything.
Does viewing a knockout video on youtube create a "demand" for assault? Why then is it not a crime to view or possess knockout videos?
Let's examine a hypothetical situation: Someone is walking down the street and finds a flash drive on the ground. He takes it home and finds it contains child pornography. He then keeps it, views it regularly, and therefore violated child pornography laws.
Has he caused harm? If so, what harm? Who is his victim?
Dude, this is pretty clear cut. If there is profit to be gained in child pornography, which there will be if it was legal, then more hild pronography will be made, and thus more children raped. This is extremely black and white.
You understand that the demand is there even if it is not legal and I doubt illegality is seriously decreasing said demand.
It is a good law, it is not only weird, could hurt the animal, but a danger to society.
One of the main theories on how AIDS started was when someone had sex with a monkey or came in contact with bodily fluids of an infected monkey and the virus mutated / started infecting humans. So ya it's not just cruel to the animal, it could really hurt society as a whole with the spread of diseases and such.
On June 15 2013 00:00 Zaqwe wrote: Child pornography is illegal despite the fact that unless the person paid for it they aren't actually harming anyone. Most people are okay with this because paedophiles are so repugnant and despicable it is acceptable to punish them just for being disgusting.
This is much the same reason for bestiality laws. Who cares if they are nor harming the animal or the animal likes it? It's revolting. People who do such things should be exposed, punished, and ostracized just for their disgusting acts, not because they have committed any harm.
Actually the harm in child pornography and sex with minors is the possibility of psychological harm (among others). That is the point of the whole thing. So no, it is actually a ban based on harm.
EDIT:clarification added
Viewing pornography is not the same as having sex.
Some people will try to make ridiculous arguments to claim that harm is done by someone viewing a video. For example claiming that the video being viewed is harming the victim all over again. Of course those arguments are preposterous on the face of them and we all know it. Nobody tries to ban viewing videos of assault.
The reality and simple truth is that child pornography is illegal simply because most people find it despicable and the people who view it are so repugnant that it is a social good to punish them, ostracize them, and ensure they can never live a normal life. Not because they harmed anyone at all, simply because they are disgusting. Many countries even have laws against drawn child pornography and other obscenities.
The same is true of bestiality. It's just so disgusting and beyond the pale that people who engage in it should be legally punished and ousted from society, not due to causing any harm but just for being awful people.
This is the silliest argument I've ever seen, it makes absolutely no sense.
The reason viewing child pornography is illegal is because:
1) It vastly reduces the "demand" for the stuff, which means there will be less "supply" of the stuff. I think the ACLU considers it evidence to a crime, thus not protected. 2) Simply viewing a minor in a sexually explicit way is illegal by itself (IRL/in porn/whatever), because they are not old enough to consent. 3) Whether you believe it being viewed "hurts" or not, the fact of the matter is that it DOES cause pain. No, you clicking on the link will not harm the victim, that much is true. But if the video/pictures/whatever are able to be plastered all over the internet on porn sites/whatever, it can definitely cause pain, etc.
You could go on and on with logical reasons it's illegal, just like you could with bestiality. But just saying "they're nasty xD" is an awful way to justify anything.
On June 15 2013 00:00 Zaqwe wrote: Child pornography is illegal despite the fact that unless the person paid for it they aren't actually harming anyone. Most people are okay with this because paedophiles are so repugnant and despicable it is acceptable to punish them just for being disgusting.
This is much the same reason for bestiality laws. Who cares if they are nor harming the animal or the animal likes it? It's revolting. People who do such things should be exposed, punished, and ostracized just for their disgusting acts, not because they have committed any harm.
Actually the harm in child pornography and sex with minors is the possibility of psychological harm (among others). That is the point of the whole thing. So no, it is actually a ban based on harm.
EDIT:clarification added
Viewing pornography is not the same as having sex.
Some people will try to make ridiculous arguments to claim that harm is done by someone viewing a video. For example claiming that the video being viewed is harming the victim all over again. Of course those arguments are preposterous on the face of them and we all know it. Nobody tries to ban viewing videos of assault.
The reality and simple truth is that child pornography is illegal simply because most people find it despicable and the people who view it are so repugnant that it is a social good to punish them, ostracize them, and ensure they can never live a normal life. Not because they harmed anyone at all, simply because they are disgusting. Many countries even have laws against drawn child pornography and other obscenities.
The same is true of bestiality. It's just so disgusting and beyond the pale that people who engage in it should be legally punished and ousted from society, not due to causing any harm but just for being awful people.
This is the silliest argument I've ever seen, it makes absolutely no sense.
The reason viewing child pornography is illegal is because:
1) It vastly reduces the "demand" for the stuff, which means there will be less "supply" of the stuff. I think the ACLU considers it evidence to a crime, thus not protected. 2) Simply viewing a minor in a sexually explicit way is illegal by itself (IRL/in porn/whatever), because they are not old enough to consent. 3) Whether you believe it being viewed "hurts" or not, the fact of the matter is that it DOES cause pain. No, you clicking on the link will not harm the victim, that much is true. But if the video/pictures/whatever are able to be plastered all over the internet on porn sites/whatever, it can definitely cause pain, etc.
You could go on and on with logical reasons it's illegal, just like you could with bestiality. But just saying "they're nasty xD" is an awful way to justify anything.
Does viewing a knockout video on youtube create a "demand" for assault? Why then is it not a crime to view or possess knockout videos?
Let's examine a hypothetical situation: Someone is walking down the street and finds a flash drive on the ground. He takes it home and finds it contains child pornography. He then keeps it, views it regularly, and therefore violated child pornography laws.
Has he caused harm? If so, what harm? Who is his victim?
Dude, this is pretty clear cut. If there is profit to be gained in child pornography, which there will be if it was legal, then more hild pronography will be made, and thus more children raped. This is extremely black and white.
Yet you ignored my hypothetical situation, because it actually is not a black and white issue at all.
Becuase you just ignored what I said. You don't need any hypoethical situations. If its legal, demand will increase. Its extremely easy. No "Well what happens if a plane crashes near my neightborhood, and there happens to be a laptop with child pornography on it?" situations. Its just stupid to try. You can't have a law that states "its legal only if there very rare situations.
On June 15 2013 00:52 Vetro wrote: -If you believe that bestiality should be banned because the majority considers it a perverted act, then you should also oppose homosexuality and numerous other practices.
That is just you drawing your own personal moral lines.
If most people democratically agree that homophilia is socially acceptable behaviour but zoophilia is not, that is where the line for moral laws should be drawn, no?
If your morals conflict with the society you are living in, maybe you move somewhere that people's morals are more in line with yours.
I believe that laws should be at least: democratically chosen, and have a logically sound reason to exist (there shouldn't be laws, or absence of laws, with contradicting reasons).
If you believe laws should be only democratically chosen, I can't argue against that, because we just hold different basic assumptions.
EDIT: Just to clarify, if 2 objects: A and B, both have property X, and i ban object A because of property X, then I should also ban object B.
On June 15 2013 00:00 Zaqwe wrote: Child pornography is illegal despite the fact that unless the person paid for it they aren't actually harming anyone. Most people are okay with this because paedophiles are so repugnant and despicable it is acceptable to punish them just for being disgusting.
This is much the same reason for bestiality laws. Who cares if they are nor harming the animal or the animal likes it? It's revolting. People who do such things should be exposed, punished, and ostracized just for their disgusting acts, not because they have committed any harm.
Actually the harm in child pornography and sex with minors is the possibility of psychological harm (among others). That is the point of the whole thing. So no, it is actually a ban based on harm.
EDIT:clarification added
Viewing pornography is not the same as having sex.
Some people will try to make ridiculous arguments to claim that harm is done by someone viewing a video. For example claiming that the video being viewed is harming the victim all over again. Of course those arguments are preposterous on the face of them and we all know it. Nobody tries to ban viewing videos of assault.
The reality and simple truth is that child pornography is illegal simply because most people find it despicable and the people who view it are so repugnant that it is a social good to punish them, ostracize them, and ensure they can never live a normal life. Not because they harmed anyone at all, simply because they are disgusting. Many countries even have laws against drawn child pornography and other obscenities.
The same is true of bestiality. It's just so disgusting and beyond the pale that people who engage in it should be legally punished and ousted from society, not due to causing any harm but just for being awful people.
This is the silliest argument I've ever seen, it makes absolutely no sense.
The reason viewing child pornography is illegal is because:
1) It vastly reduces the "demand" for the stuff, which means there will be less "supply" of the stuff. I think the ACLU considers it evidence to a crime, thus not protected. 2) Simply viewing a minor in a sexually explicit way is illegal by itself (IRL/in porn/whatever), because they are not old enough to consent. 3) Whether you believe it being viewed "hurts" or not, the fact of the matter is that it DOES cause pain. No, you clicking on the link will not harm the victim, that much is true. But if the video/pictures/whatever are able to be plastered all over the internet on porn sites/whatever, it can definitely cause pain, etc.
You could go on and on with logical reasons it's illegal, just like you could with bestiality. But just saying "they're nasty xD" is an awful way to justify anything.
Does viewing a knockout video on youtube create a "demand" for assault? Why then is it not a crime to view or possess knockout videos?
Let's examine a hypothetical situation: Someone is walking down the street and finds a flash drive on the ground. He takes it home and finds it contains child pornography. He then keeps it, views it regularly, and therefore violated child pornography laws.
Has he caused harm? If so, what harm? Who is his victim?
Dude, this is pretty clear cut. If there is profit to be gained in child pornography, which there will be if it was legal, then more hild pronography will be made, and thus more children raped. This is extremely black and white.
You understand that the demand is there even if it is not legal and I doubt illegality is seriously decreasing said demand.
Yes, because no amount of laws ever decrease demands for any product in ever. In fact, laws are kinda useless, no one follows them anyways.
On June 15 2013 00:00 Zaqwe wrote: Child pornography is illegal despite the fact that unless the person paid for it they aren't actually harming anyone. Most people are okay with this because paedophiles are so repugnant and despicable it is acceptable to punish them just for being disgusting.
This is much the same reason for bestiality laws. Who cares if they are nor harming the animal or the animal likes it? It's revolting. People who do such things should be exposed, punished, and ostracized just for their disgusting acts, not because they have committed any harm.
Actually the harm in child pornography and sex with minors is the possibility of psychological harm (among others). That is the point of the whole thing. So no, it is actually a ban based on harm.
EDIT:clarification added
Viewing pornography is not the same as having sex.
Some people will try to make ridiculous arguments to claim that harm is done by someone viewing a video. For example claiming that the video being viewed is harming the victim all over again. Of course those arguments are preposterous on the face of them and we all know it. Nobody tries to ban viewing videos of assault.
The reality and simple truth is that child pornography is illegal simply because most people find it despicable and the people who view it are so repugnant that it is a social good to punish them, ostracize them, and ensure they can never live a normal life. Not because they harmed anyone at all, simply because they are disgusting. Many countries even have laws against drawn child pornography and other obscenities.
The same is true of bestiality. It's just so disgusting and beyond the pale that people who engage in it should be legally punished and ousted from society, not due to causing any harm but just for being awful people.
This is the silliest argument I've ever seen, it makes absolutely no sense.
The reason viewing child pornography is illegal is because:
1) It vastly reduces the "demand" for the stuff, which means there will be less "supply" of the stuff. I think the ACLU considers it evidence to a crime, thus not protected. 2) Simply viewing a minor in a sexually explicit way is illegal by itself (IRL/in porn/whatever), because they are not old enough to consent. 3) Whether you believe it being viewed "hurts" or not, the fact of the matter is that it DOES cause pain. No, you clicking on the link will not harm the victim, that much is true. But if the video/pictures/whatever are able to be plastered all over the internet on porn sites/whatever, it can definitely cause pain, etc.
You could go on and on with logical reasons it's illegal, just like you could with bestiality. But just saying "they're nasty xD" is an awful way to justify anything.
Does viewing a knockout video on youtube create a "demand" for assault? Why then is it not a crime to view or possess knockout videos?
Let's examine a hypothetical situation: Someone is walking down the street and finds a flash drive on the ground. He takes it home and finds it contains child pornography. He then keeps it, views it regularly, and therefore violated child pornography laws.
Has he caused harm? If so, what harm? Who is his victim?
Dude, this is pretty clear cut. If there is profit to be gained in child pornography, which there will be if it was legal, then more hild pronography will be made, and thus more children raped. This is extremely black and white.
Yet you ignored my hypothetical situation, because it actually is not a black and white issue at all.
Becuase you just ignored what I said. You don't need any hypoethical situations. If its legal, demand will increase. Its extremely easy. No "Well what happens if a plane crashes near my neightborhood, and there happens to be a laptop with child pornography on it?" situations. Its just stupid to try. You can't have a law that states "its legal only if there very rare situations.
Is there a demand for knockout videos, caused by them being legal and shared on youtube? Is this demand fueling more assaults? By this logic it should be illegal to posses or view videos of any crime.
On June 14 2013 18:53 xM(Z wrote: [quote] dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care.
edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something.
Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on.
That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse.
so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves.
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed.
Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand.
but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one
I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one.
If someone believes that eating animals is literally murder then good luck to them, their position is intellectually sound although I think somewhat silly.
Also I feel strongly about this because I think it's a litmus test for allowing sexual freedom based on principles of the government not being in the bedroom against just allowing what the majority think is fine. If we allow homosexuality and then ban beastiality based purely upon the distaste of the majority then we really haven't learned a thing.
Could the harm then be that sex with other species might cause the transfer of disease to humans?
Better outlaw all sex given that humans already have STDs then.
Snip
Could have said: AIDS would not exist without beastiality, yes, but does that apply to all STDs? Of course not. So why ban beastiality based on that? Or just say what you said, it makes the same point faster and I ppl had problem will point that out and then you elaborate. So
This is probably the argument you were pretty much making. Edit: actually was cleared up a long time ago. Sorry.
Disclaimer: I state no opinions on this matter myself. I come from a religious standpoint yet believe in separation of church and state.
On June 15 2013 00:00 Zaqwe wrote: Child pornography is illegal despite the fact that unless the person paid for it they aren't actually harming anyone. Most people are okay with this because paedophiles are so repugnant and despicable it is acceptable to punish them just for being disgusting.
This is much the same reason for bestiality laws. Who cares if they are nor harming the animal or the animal likes it? It's revolting. People who do such things should be exposed, punished, and ostracized just for their disgusting acts, not because they have committed any harm.
Actually the harm in child pornography and sex with minors is the possibility of psychological harm (among others). That is the point of the whole thing. So no, it is actually a ban based on harm.
EDIT:clarification added
Viewing pornography is not the same as having sex.
Some people will try to make ridiculous arguments to claim that harm is done by someone viewing a video. For example claiming that the video being viewed is harming the victim all over again. Of course those arguments are preposterous on the face of them and we all know it. Nobody tries to ban viewing videos of assault.
The reality and simple truth is that child pornography is illegal simply because most people find it despicable and the people who view it are so repugnant that it is a social good to punish them, ostracize them, and ensure they can never live a normal life. Not because they harmed anyone at all, simply because they are disgusting. Many countries even have laws against drawn child pornography and other obscenities.
The same is true of bestiality. It's just so disgusting and beyond the pale that people who engage in it should be legally punished and ousted from society, not due to causing any harm but just for being awful people.
This is the silliest argument I've ever seen, it makes absolutely no sense.
The reason viewing child pornography is illegal is because:
1) It vastly reduces the "demand" for the stuff, which means there will be less "supply" of the stuff. I think the ACLU considers it evidence to a crime, thus not protected. 2) Simply viewing a minor in a sexually explicit way is illegal by itself (IRL/in porn/whatever), because they are not old enough to consent. 3) Whether you believe it being viewed "hurts" or not, the fact of the matter is that it DOES cause pain. No, you clicking on the link will not harm the victim, that much is true. But if the video/pictures/whatever are able to be plastered all over the internet on porn sites/whatever, it can definitely cause pain, etc.
You could go on and on with logical reasons it's illegal, just like you could with bestiality. But just saying "they're nasty xD" is an awful way to justify anything.
Your number two is a bloody thought crime.
As for point one and three, agreed.
His point 1 and 3 are wrong.
#1 is wrong because it is based on a false assumption, no evidence supports it, and it falls apart under scrutiny. Someone having or viewing a video does not create demand for those videos. A very clear example is provided in my hypothetical about a person finding a flash drive on the ground.
#3 is wrong because the victim has no way of knowing when the video is viewed or who has a copy of it. The harm in this case has been caused by the rapist and the person who video recorded the rape. Someone who owns a copy cannot conceivably be causing any additional harm.
I find it hilarious that such a thread would go to 25 pages with people arguing. My god we are talking about fucking animals being illegal. How is that not a given for everybody. Beats me
On June 15 2013 01:01 xM(Z wrote: i believe the less freedoms people have, the more evolved they are and the less people there are in a community, the more civilized they are (both of those within some boundaries). being deprived of something is like an environmental pressure to adapt further. under the rule of absolute freedom, instincts take over, societies crumble and soon humans will return to their animal selves.
so no, giving more alleged freedoms to people that don't know what to do with them, is worse then restricting said freedoms.
On June 15 2013 00:00 Zaqwe wrote: Child pornography is illegal despite the fact that unless the person paid for it they aren't actually harming anyone. Most people are okay with this because paedophiles are so repugnant and despicable it is acceptable to punish them just for being disgusting.
This is much the same reason for bestiality laws. Who cares if they are nor harming the animal or the animal likes it? It's revolting. People who do such things should be exposed, punished, and ostracized just for their disgusting acts, not because they have committed any harm.
Actually the harm in child pornography and sex with minors is the possibility of psychological harm (among others). That is the point of the whole thing. So no, it is actually a ban based on harm.
EDIT:clarification added
Viewing pornography is not the same as having sex.
Some people will try to make ridiculous arguments to claim that harm is done by someone viewing a video. For example claiming that the video being viewed is harming the victim all over again. Of course those arguments are preposterous on the face of them and we all know it. Nobody tries to ban viewing videos of assault.
The reality and simple truth is that child pornography is illegal simply because most people find it despicable and the people who view it are so repugnant that it is a social good to punish them, ostracize them, and ensure they can never live a normal life. Not because they harmed anyone at all, simply because they are disgusting. Many countries even have laws against drawn child pornography and other obscenities.
The same is true of bestiality. It's just so disgusting and beyond the pale that people who engage in it should be legally punished and ousted from society, not due to causing any harm but just for being awful people.
This is the silliest argument I've ever seen, it makes absolutely no sense.
The reason viewing child pornography is illegal is because:
1) It vastly reduces the "demand" for the stuff, which means there will be less "supply" of the stuff. I think the ACLU considers it evidence to a crime, thus not protected. 2) Simply viewing a minor in a sexually explicit way is illegal by itself (IRL/in porn/whatever), because they are not old enough to consent. 3) Whether you believe it being viewed "hurts" or not, the fact of the matter is that it DOES cause pain. No, you clicking on the link will not harm the victim, that much is true. But if the video/pictures/whatever are able to be plastered all over the internet on porn sites/whatever, it can definitely cause pain, etc.
You could go on and on with logical reasons it's illegal, just like you could with bestiality. But just saying "they're nasty xD" is an awful way to justify anything.
Does viewing a knockout video on youtube create a "demand" for assault? Why then is it not a crime to view or possess knockout videos?
Let's examine a hypothetical situation: Someone is walking down the street and finds a flash drive on the ground. He takes it home and finds it contains child pornography. He then keeps it, views it regularly, and therefore violated child pornography laws.
Has he caused harm? If so, what harm? Who is his victim?
Dude, this is pretty clear cut. If there is profit to be gained in child pornography, which there will be if it was legal, then more hild pronography will be made, and thus more children raped. This is extremely black and white.
Yet you ignored my hypothetical situation, because it actually is not a black and white issue at all.
Becuase you just ignored what I said. You don't need any hypoethical situations. If its legal, demand will increase. Its extremely easy. No "Well what happens if a plane crashes near my neightborhood, and there happens to be a laptop with child pornography on it?" situations. Its just stupid to try. You can't have a law that states "its legal only if there very rare situations.
Is there a demand for knockout videos, caused by them being legal and shared on youtube? Is this demand fueling more assaults? By this logic it should be illegal to posses or view videos of any crime.
Yes. Thats why I think it should be illegal to own a video of someone getting murdered as well (for real, not fake deaths, obviously). And for a fact, its already technically illegal if they can prove you have watched it without reporting it to the authorities (Its illegal to watch a murder without reporting it, but its not illegal to own a video with a murder in it). Its really grey area right now and I would like that to be a bit more clear cut as well.
The line should be clear depending on the severity of the crime. Assault, in most cases, isn't that severe of a crime. Child abuse is one of the worst crimes you can do on this planet, almost worse than murder in some cases.
On June 15 2013 01:01 xM(Z wrote: i believe the less freedoms people have, the more evolved they are and the less people there are in a community, the more civilized they are (both of those within some boundaries). being deprived of something is like an environmental pressure to adapt further. under the rule of absolute freedom, instincts take over, societies crumble and soon humans will return to their animal selves.
so no, giving more alleged freedoms to people that don't know what to do with them, is worse then restricting said freedoms.
On June 15 2013 00:00 Zaqwe wrote: Child pornography is illegal despite the fact that unless the person paid for it they aren't actually harming anyone. Most people are okay with this because paedophiles are so repugnant and despicable it is acceptable to punish them just for being disgusting.
This is much the same reason for bestiality laws. Who cares if they are nor harming the animal or the animal likes it? It's revolting. People who do such things should be exposed, punished, and ostracized just for their disgusting acts, not because they have committed any harm.
Actually the harm in child pornography and sex with minors is the possibility of psychological harm (among others). That is the point of the whole thing. So no, it is actually a ban based on harm.
EDIT:clarification added
Viewing pornography is not the same as having sex.
Some people will try to make ridiculous arguments to claim that harm is done by someone viewing a video. For example claiming that the video being viewed is harming the victim all over again. Of course those arguments are preposterous on the face of them and we all know it. Nobody tries to ban viewing videos of assault.
The reality and simple truth is that child pornography is illegal simply because most people find it despicable and the people who view it are so repugnant that it is a social good to punish them, ostracize them, and ensure they can never live a normal life. Not because they harmed anyone at all, simply because they are disgusting. Many countries even have laws against drawn child pornography and other obscenities.
The same is true of bestiality. It's just so disgusting and beyond the pale that people who engage in it should be legally punished and ousted from society, not due to causing any harm but just for being awful people.
This is the silliest argument I've ever seen, it makes absolutely no sense.
The reason viewing child pornography is illegal is because:
1) It vastly reduces the "demand" for the stuff, which means there will be less "supply" of the stuff. I think the ACLU considers it evidence to a crime, thus not protected. 2) Simply viewing a minor in a sexually explicit way is illegal by itself (IRL/in porn/whatever), because they are not old enough to consent. 3) Whether you believe it being viewed "hurts" or not, the fact of the matter is that it DOES cause pain. No, you clicking on the link will not harm the victim, that much is true. But if the video/pictures/whatever are able to be plastered all over the internet on porn sites/whatever, it can definitely cause pain, etc.
You could go on and on with logical reasons it's illegal, just like you could with bestiality. But just saying "they're nasty xD" is an awful way to justify anything.
Does viewing a knockout video on youtube create a "demand" for assault? Why then is it not a crime to view or possess knockout videos?
Let's examine a hypothetical situation: Someone is walking down the street and finds a flash drive on the ground. He takes it home and finds it contains child pornography. He then keeps it, views it regularly, and therefore violated child pornography laws.
Has he caused harm? If so, what harm? Who is his victim?
Dude, this is pretty clear cut. If there is profit to be gained in child pornography, which there will be if it was legal, then more hild pronography will be made, and thus more children raped. This is extremely black and white.
Yet you ignored my hypothetical situation, because it actually is not a black and white issue at all.
Becuase you just ignored what I said. You don't need any hypoethical situations. If its legal, demand will increase. Its extremely easy. No "Well what happens if a plane crashes near my neightborhood, and there happens to be a laptop with child pornography on it?" situations. Its just stupid to try. You can't have a law that states "its legal only if there very rare situations.
Is there a demand for knockout videos, caused by them being legal and shared on youtube? Is this demand fueling more assaults? By this logic it should be illegal to posses or view videos of any crime.
Yes. Thats why I think it should be illegal to own a video of someone getting murdered as well (for real, not fake deaths, obviously). And for a fact, its already technically illegal if they can prove you have watched it without reporting it to the authorities (Its illegal to watch a murder without reporting it, but its not illegal to own a video with a murder in it). Its really grey area right now and I would like that to be a bit more clear cut as well.
The line should be clear depending on the severity of the crime. Assault, in most cases, isn't that severe of a crime. Child abuse is one of the worst crimes you can do on this planet, almost worse than murder in some cases.
That's an interesting position to take, and one that could certainly be justified on moral grounds.
However I think your attempt to justify it on logical grounds can't pass muster. Apply my earlier hypothetical situation: A man finds a flash drive on the ground, and this time it contains gore/murder photos and videos. He decides to keep them and view them.
He hasn't paid for it, and he didn't view it on a gore website that makes ad revenue from his visit. In no way has he created demand that could result in more murders (or at least more murderers video taping their crimes).
Hopefully you can understand that owning or viewing something is not equivalent to creating demand. Only the method used to acquire something could possibly do that, and it is not a given that just because you acquired it somehow that acquisition created demand.
Wow. What an entertaining but interesting thread, after page 16 or so I started skimming as all the main points have already been raised and argued.
I guess its really about that psychological factor in animals, or perhaps the slight pain that occurs when a man violates an animal - as true pain and suffering is covered under animal cruelty laws as has been repeated many times earlier in the thread.
Is this worthy of protection? While it would be something good to the animal, I can't help but feel like it is less important than the liberty of the human being considering that these cases don't really harm the animal in any meaningful way.
So I guess Kwark convinced me. Although I think this is definitely a temporary statement; over time as we discover more about animals, and perhaps discover that their minds are more complex and aware than we previously realized - and that maybe some of these acts can be traumatic, then the laws should be revised again. But for the moment this doesn't seem to be the case...I don't think animals have the self-awareness and intelligence to really be harmed in such a way. Pretty good debate though, even the banning of Evangelizer, the "professional physicist"
On June 15 2013 01:53 radscorpion9 wrote: Wow. What an entertaining but interesting thread, after page 16 or so I started skimming as all the main points have already been raised and argued.
I guess its really about that psychological factor in animals, or perhaps the slight pain that occurs when a man violates an animal - as true pain and suffering is covered under animal cruelty laws as has been repeated many times earlier in the thread.
Is this worthy of protection? While it would be something good to the animal, I can't help but feel like it is less important than the liberty of the human being considering that these cases don't really harm the animal in any meaningful way.
So I guess Kwark convinced me. Although I think this is definitely a temporary statement; over time as we discover more about animals, and perhaps discover that their minds are more complex and aware than we previously realized - and that maybe some of these acts can be traumatic, then the laws should be revised again. But for the moment this doesn't seem to be the case...I don't think animals have the self-awareness and intelligence to really be harmed in such a way. Pretty good debate though, even the banning of Evangelizer, the "professional physicist"
On the flip side, what if we find that the animals actually enjoy it? Are we going to legalize it for consenting animals?
This law is a bit silly, isn't it? The old one was just fine. If you want to smear peanut butter on your junk and have a dock lick it off then who cares? The dog gets a tasty treat and doesn't feel any shame while you get your rocks off. Seems like a win win to me.
Now if a dog humps your leg then you have committed illegal bestiality and should be jailed and/or fined.
On June 15 2013 00:04 mcc wrote: [quote] Actually the harm in child pornography and sex with minors is the possibility of psychological harm (among others). That is the point of the whole thing. So no, it is actually a ban based on harm.
EDIT:clarification added
Viewing pornography is not the same as having sex.
Some people will try to make ridiculous arguments to claim that harm is done by someone viewing a video. For example claiming that the video being viewed is harming the victim all over again. Of course those arguments are preposterous on the face of them and we all know it. Nobody tries to ban viewing videos of assault.
The reality and simple truth is that child pornography is illegal simply because most people find it despicable and the people who view it are so repugnant that it is a social good to punish them, ostracize them, and ensure they can never live a normal life. Not because they harmed anyone at all, simply because they are disgusting. Many countries even have laws against drawn child pornography and other obscenities.
The same is true of bestiality. It's just so disgusting and beyond the pale that people who engage in it should be legally punished and ousted from society, not due to causing any harm but just for being awful people.
This is the silliest argument I've ever seen, it makes absolutely no sense.
The reason viewing child pornography is illegal is because:
1) It vastly reduces the "demand" for the stuff, which means there will be less "supply" of the stuff. I think the ACLU considers it evidence to a crime, thus not protected. 2) Simply viewing a minor in a sexually explicit way is illegal by itself (IRL/in porn/whatever), because they are not old enough to consent. 3) Whether you believe it being viewed "hurts" or not, the fact of the matter is that it DOES cause pain. No, you clicking on the link will not harm the victim, that much is true. But if the video/pictures/whatever are able to be plastered all over the internet on porn sites/whatever, it can definitely cause pain, etc.
You could go on and on with logical reasons it's illegal, just like you could with bestiality. But just saying "they're nasty xD" is an awful way to justify anything.
Does viewing a knockout video on youtube create a "demand" for assault? Why then is it not a crime to view or possess knockout videos?
Let's examine a hypothetical situation: Someone is walking down the street and finds a flash drive on the ground. He takes it home and finds it contains child pornography. He then keeps it, views it regularly, and therefore violated child pornography laws.
Has he caused harm? If so, what harm? Who is his victim?
Dude, this is pretty clear cut. If there is profit to be gained in child pornography, which there will be if it was legal, then more hild pronography will be made, and thus more children raped. This is extremely black and white.
Yet you ignored my hypothetical situation, because it actually is not a black and white issue at all.
Becuase you just ignored what I said. You don't need any hypoethical situations. If its legal, demand will increase. Its extremely easy. No "Well what happens if a plane crashes near my neightborhood, and there happens to be a laptop with child pornography on it?" situations. Its just stupid to try. You can't have a law that states "its legal only if there very rare situations.
Is there a demand for knockout videos, caused by them being legal and shared on youtube? Is this demand fueling more assaults? By this logic it should be illegal to posses or view videos of any crime.
Yes. Thats why I think it should be illegal to own a video of someone getting murdered as well (for real, not fake deaths, obviously). And for a fact, its already technically illegal if they can prove you have watched it without reporting it to the authorities (Its illegal to watch a murder without reporting it, but its not illegal to own a video with a murder in it). Its really grey area right now and I would like that to be a bit more clear cut as well.
The line should be clear depending on the severity of the crime. Assault, in most cases, isn't that severe of a crime. Child abuse is one of the worst crimes you can do on this planet, almost worse than murder in some cases.
That's an interesting position to take, and one that could certainly be justified on moral grounds.
However I think your attempt to justify it on logical grounds can't pass muster. Apply my earlier hypothetical situation: A man finds a flash drive on the ground, and this time it contains gore/murder photos and videos. He decides to keep them and view them.
He hasn't paid for it, and he didn't view it on a gore website that makes ad revenue from his visit. In no way has he created demand that could result in more murders (or at least more murderers video taping their crimes).
Hopefully you can understand that owning or viewing something is not equivalent to creating demand. Only the method used to acquire something could possibly do that, and it is not a given that just because you acquired it somehow that acquisition created demand.
The problem as I see it is that if its legal, you make it easier for people to make money off of it. What you watch and do with your life, I don't really care. So I don't care if you find a hdd with child porn on it (in fact, I once had child porn on my pc without knowing it. Probably like 10 years ago, I downloaded a video I didn't know what it was through cc++. Situations like that obviously doesn't harm anyone), but what I really don't want is to make it easy to set up a website anyone can visit, where you can pay to download child pronography. And naturally, its easier to just ban everything, especially as severe of a crime as child abuse is.
On June 15 2013 00:00 Zaqwe wrote: Child pornography is illegal despite the fact that unless the person paid for it they aren't actually harming anyone. Most people are okay with this because paedophiles are so repugnant and despicable it is acceptable to punish them just for being disgusting.
This is much the same reason for bestiality laws. Who cares if they are nor harming the animal or the animal likes it? It's revolting. People who do such things should be exposed, punished, and ostracized just for their disgusting acts, not because they have committed any harm.
Actually the harm in child pornography and sex with minors is the possibility of psychological harm (among others). That is the point of the whole thing. So no, it is actually a ban based on harm.
EDIT:clarification added
Viewing pornography is not the same as having sex.
Some people will try to make ridiculous arguments to claim that harm is done by someone viewing a video. For example claiming that the video being viewed is harming the victim all over again. Of course those arguments are preposterous on the face of them and we all know it. Nobody tries to ban viewing videos of assault.
The reality and simple truth is that child pornography is illegal simply because most people find it despicable and the people who view it are so repugnant that it is a social good to punish them, ostracize them, and ensure they can never live a normal life. Not because they harmed anyone at all, simply because they are disgusting. Many countries even have laws against drawn child pornography and other obscenities.
The same is true of bestiality. It's just so disgusting and beyond the pale that people who engage in it should be legally punished and ousted from society, not due to causing any harm but just for being awful people.
This is the silliest argument I've ever seen, it makes absolutely no sense.
The reason viewing child pornography is illegal is because:
1) It vastly reduces the "demand" for the stuff, which means there will be less "supply" of the stuff. I think the ACLU considers it evidence to a crime, thus not protected. 2) Simply viewing a minor in a sexually explicit way is illegal by itself (IRL/in porn/whatever), because they are not old enough to consent. 3) Whether you believe it being viewed "hurts" or not, the fact of the matter is that it DOES cause pain. No, you clicking on the link will not harm the victim, that much is true. But if the video/pictures/whatever are able to be plastered all over the internet on porn sites/whatever, it can definitely cause pain, etc.
You could go on and on with logical reasons it's illegal, just like you could with bestiality. But just saying "they're nasty xD" is an awful way to justify anything.
Does viewing a knockout video on youtube create a "demand" for assault? Why then is it not a crime to view or possess knockout videos?
Let's examine a hypothetical situation: Someone is walking down the street and finds a flash drive on the ground. He takes it home and finds it contains child pornography. He then keeps it, views it regularly, and therefore violated child pornography laws.
Has he caused harm? If so, what harm? Who is his victim?
Dude, this is pretty clear cut. If there is profit to be gained in child pornography, which there will be if it was legal, then more hild pronography will be made, and thus more children raped. This is extremely black and white.
You understand that the demand is there even if it is not legal and I doubt illegality is seriously decreasing said demand.
Yes, because no amount of laws ever decrease demands for any product in ever. In fact, laws are kinda useless, no one follows them anyways.
Sometimes they do sometimes they do not. Nice of you to offer useless generalizations even though my post implied specifics of this particular scenario. Considering that attraction is pretty much given biologically and people watching child pornography are probably attracted to children so they will be most of the market. Considering that laws governing sexual behaviour have low compliance as they go against one of the most powerful instincts and they are not extremely well enforced. Thus my conclusion. Unless you have hard empirical data, which part of my argument is problematic to you ?
Anyway I am not disputing that there is some decrease, but not significant. And thus the question arises, is it worth it ? Making people that otherwise would never hurt anyone into criminals. It is problematic question.
On June 15 2013 00:00 Zaqwe wrote: Child pornography is illegal despite the fact that unless the person paid for it they aren't actually harming anyone. Most people are okay with this because paedophiles are so repugnant and despicable it is acceptable to punish them just for being disgusting.
This is much the same reason for bestiality laws. Who cares if they are nor harming the animal or the animal likes it? It's revolting. People who do such things should be exposed, punished, and ostracized just for their disgusting acts, not because they have committed any harm.
Actually the harm in child pornography and sex with minors is the possibility of psychological harm (among others). That is the point of the whole thing. So no, it is actually a ban based on harm.
EDIT:clarification added
Viewing pornography is not the same as having sex.
Some people will try to make ridiculous arguments to claim that harm is done by someone viewing a video. For example claiming that the video being viewed is harming the victim all over again. Of course those arguments are preposterous on the face of them and we all know it. Nobody tries to ban viewing videos of assault.
The reality and simple truth is that child pornography is illegal simply because most people find it despicable and the people who view it are so repugnant that it is a social good to punish them, ostracize them, and ensure they can never live a normal life. Not because they harmed anyone at all, simply because they are disgusting. Many countries even have laws against drawn child pornography and other obscenities.
The same is true of bestiality. It's just so disgusting and beyond the pale that people who engage in it should be legally punished and ousted from society, not due to causing any harm but just for being awful people.
This is the silliest argument I've ever seen, it makes absolutely no sense.
The reason viewing child pornography is illegal is because:
1) It vastly reduces the "demand" for the stuff, which means there will be less "supply" of the stuff. I think the ACLU considers it evidence to a crime, thus not protected. 2) Simply viewing a minor in a sexually explicit way is illegal by itself (IRL/in porn/whatever), because they are not old enough to consent. 3) Whether you believe it being viewed "hurts" or not, the fact of the matter is that it DOES cause pain. No, you clicking on the link will not harm the victim, that much is true. But if the video/pictures/whatever are able to be plastered all over the internet on porn sites/whatever, it can definitely cause pain, etc.
You could go on and on with logical reasons it's illegal, just like you could with bestiality. But just saying "they're nasty xD" is an awful way to justify anything.
Does viewing a knockout video on youtube create a "demand" for assault? Why then is it not a crime to view or possess knockout videos?
Let's examine a hypothetical situation: Someone is walking down the street and finds a flash drive on the ground. He takes it home and finds it contains child pornography. He then keeps it, views it regularly, and therefore violated child pornography laws.
Has he caused harm? If so, what harm? Who is his victim?
Dude, this is pretty clear cut. If there is profit to be gained in child pornography, which there will be if it was legal, then more hild pronography will be made, and thus more children raped. This is extremely black and white.
You understand that the demand is there even if it is not legal and I doubt illegality is seriously decreasing said demand.
Yes, because no amount of laws ever decrease demands for any product in ever. In fact, laws are kinda useless, no one follows them anyways.
Sometimes they do sometimes they do not. Nice of you to offer useless generalizations even though my post implied specifics of this particular scenario. Considering that attraction is pretty much given biologically and people watching child pornography are probably attracted to children so they will be most of the market. Considering that laws governing sexual behaviour have low compliance as they go against one of the most powerful instincts and they are not extremely well enforced. Thus my conclusion. Unless you have hard empirical data, which part of my argument is problematic to you ?
Anyway I am not disputing that there is some decrease, but not significant. And thus the question arises, is it worth it ? Making people that otherwise would never hurt anyone into criminals. It is problematic question.
I've made 3 more posts since that one where I explain my stance a bit more in depth. I don't feel like repeating them.
On June 15 2013 00:00 Zaqwe wrote: Child pornography is illegal despite the fact that unless the person paid for it they aren't actually harming anyone. Most people are okay with this because paedophiles are so repugnant and despicable it is acceptable to punish them just for being disgusting.
This is much the same reason for bestiality laws. Who cares if they are nor harming the animal or the animal likes it? It's revolting. People who do such things should be exposed, punished, and ostracized just for their disgusting acts, not because they have committed any harm.
Actually the harm in child pornography and sex with minors is the possibility of psychological harm (among others). That is the point of the whole thing. So no, it is actually a ban based on harm.
EDIT:clarification added
Viewing pornography is not the same as having sex.
Some people will try to make ridiculous arguments to claim that harm is done by someone viewing a video. For example claiming that the video being viewed is harming the victim all over again. Of course those arguments are preposterous on the face of them and we all know it. Nobody tries to ban viewing videos of assault.
The reality and simple truth is that child pornography is illegal simply because most people find it despicable and the people who view it are so repugnant that it is a social good to punish them, ostracize them, and ensure they can never live a normal life. Not because they harmed anyone at all, simply because they are disgusting. Many countries even have laws against drawn child pornography and other obscenities.
The same is true of bestiality. It's just so disgusting and beyond the pale that people who engage in it should be legally punished and ousted from society, not due to causing any harm but just for being awful people.
This is the silliest argument I've ever seen, it makes absolutely no sense.
The reason viewing child pornography is illegal is because:
1) It vastly reduces the "demand" for the stuff, which means there will be less "supply" of the stuff. I think the ACLU considers it evidence to a crime, thus not protected. 2) Simply viewing a minor in a sexually explicit way is illegal by itself (IRL/in porn/whatever), because they are not old enough to consent. 3) Whether you believe it being viewed "hurts" or not, the fact of the matter is that it DOES cause pain. No, you clicking on the link will not harm the victim, that much is true. But if the video/pictures/whatever are able to be plastered all over the internet on porn sites/whatever, it can definitely cause pain, etc.
You could go on and on with logical reasons it's illegal, just like you could with bestiality. But just saying "they're nasty xD" is an awful way to justify anything.
Does viewing a knockout video on youtube create a "demand" for assault? Why then is it not a crime to view or possess knockout videos?
Let's examine a hypothetical situation: Someone is walking down the street and finds a flash drive on the ground. He takes it home and finds it contains child pornography. He then keeps it, views it regularly, and therefore violated child pornography laws.
Has he caused harm? If so, what harm? Who is his victim?
Dude, this is pretty clear cut. If there is profit to be gained in child pornography, which there will be if it was legal, then more hild pronography will be made, and thus more children raped. This is extremely black and white.
You understand that the demand is there even if it is not legal and I doubt illegality is seriously decreasing said demand.
Yes, because no amount of laws ever decrease demands for any product in ever. In fact, laws are kinda useless, no one follows them anyways.
Sometimes they do sometimes they do not. Nice of you to offer useless generalizations even though my post implied specifics of this particular scenario. Considering that attraction is pretty much given biologically and people watching child pornography are probably attracted to children so they will be most of the market. Considering that laws governing sexual behaviour have low compliance as they go against one of the most powerful instincts and they are not extremely well enforced. Thus my conclusion. Unless you have hard empirical data, which part of my argument is problematic to you ?
Anyway I am not disputing that there is some decrease, but not significant. And thus the question arises, is it worth it ? Making people that otherwise would never hurt anyone into criminals. It is problematic question.
I've made 3 more posts since that one where I explain my stance a bit more in depth. I don't feel like repeating them.
As far as I can tell you said nothing in them regarding your claim that banning it significantly reduces demand.
On June 14 2013 18:27 Reason wrote: [quote] Good lord making love is an expression synonymous with having sex, but usually implies an emotional connection or meaning behind the action than simply having sex.
Do you accept some people love animals? Do you accept some people have sex with animals?
If the answer to both of those questions is yes then why is it so difficult for your infant mind to wrap itself around the concept that some people consider their intimate relations with an animal to be love making?
Seriously, stop being a massive penis.
Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak.
I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise.
There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future.
Massive Facepalm.
dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care.
edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something.
Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on.
That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse.
so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves.
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed.
Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand.
but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one
I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one.
On June 15 2013 00:04 mcc wrote: [quote] Actually the harm in child pornography and sex with minors is the possibility of psychological harm (among others). That is the point of the whole thing. So no, it is actually a ban based on harm.
EDIT:clarification added
Viewing pornography is not the same as having sex.
Some people will try to make ridiculous arguments to claim that harm is done by someone viewing a video. For example claiming that the video being viewed is harming the victim all over again. Of course those arguments are preposterous on the face of them and we all know it. Nobody tries to ban viewing videos of assault.
The reality and simple truth is that child pornography is illegal simply because most people find it despicable and the people who view it are so repugnant that it is a social good to punish them, ostracize them, and ensure they can never live a normal life. Not because they harmed anyone at all, simply because they are disgusting. Many countries even have laws against drawn child pornography and other obscenities.
The same is true of bestiality. It's just so disgusting and beyond the pale that people who engage in it should be legally punished and ousted from society, not due to causing any harm but just for being awful people.
This is the silliest argument I've ever seen, it makes absolutely no sense.
The reason viewing child pornography is illegal is because:
1) It vastly reduces the "demand" for the stuff, which means there will be less "supply" of the stuff. I think the ACLU considers it evidence to a crime, thus not protected. 2) Simply viewing a minor in a sexually explicit way is illegal by itself (IRL/in porn/whatever), because they are not old enough to consent. 3) Whether you believe it being viewed "hurts" or not, the fact of the matter is that it DOES cause pain. No, you clicking on the link will not harm the victim, that much is true. But if the video/pictures/whatever are able to be plastered all over the internet on porn sites/whatever, it can definitely cause pain, etc.
You could go on and on with logical reasons it's illegal, just like you could with bestiality. But just saying "they're nasty xD" is an awful way to justify anything.
Does viewing a knockout video on youtube create a "demand" for assault? Why then is it not a crime to view or possess knockout videos?
Let's examine a hypothetical situation: Someone is walking down the street and finds a flash drive on the ground. He takes it home and finds it contains child pornography. He then keeps it, views it regularly, and therefore violated child pornography laws.
Has he caused harm? If so, what harm? Who is his victim?
Dude, this is pretty clear cut. If there is profit to be gained in child pornography, which there will be if it was legal, then more hild pronography will be made, and thus more children raped. This is extremely black and white.
You understand that the demand is there even if it is not legal and I doubt illegality is seriously decreasing said demand.
Yes, because no amount of laws ever decrease demands for any product in ever. In fact, laws are kinda useless, no one follows them anyways.
Sometimes they do sometimes they do not. Nice of you to offer useless generalizations even though my post implied specifics of this particular scenario. Considering that attraction is pretty much given biologically and people watching child pornography are probably attracted to children so they will be most of the market. Considering that laws governing sexual behaviour have low compliance as they go against one of the most powerful instincts and they are not extremely well enforced. Thus my conclusion. Unless you have hard empirical data, which part of my argument is problematic to you ?
Anyway I am not disputing that there is some decrease, but not significant. And thus the question arises, is it worth it ? Making people that otherwise would never hurt anyone into criminals. It is problematic question.
I've made 3 more posts since that one where I explain my stance a bit more in depth. I don't feel like repeating them.
As far as I can tell you said nothing in them regarding your claim that banning it significantly reduces demand.
It makes it easier for people to put up a website anyone could visit and pay money to download child porn from. I really, really, don't want to make it easier for people to film Child pornography and sell it. Think of this scenario: what if there is actually a lot of people who enjoy child porn, and someone ends up earning a ton of cash through his new website "ChildTube".
On June 14 2013 18:45 aNGryaRchon wrote: [quote] Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak.
I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise.
There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future.
Massive Facepalm.
dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care.
edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something.
Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on.
That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse.
so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves.
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed.
Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand.
but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one
I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one.
^this should have stopped all discussion
Unless of course people argue also on basis other than consent. And surprisingly they do, gasp.
On June 15 2013 00:23 Zaqwe wrote: [quote] Viewing pornography is not the same as having sex.
Some people will try to make ridiculous arguments to claim that harm is done by someone viewing a video. For example claiming that the video being viewed is harming the victim all over again. Of course those arguments are preposterous on the face of them and we all know it. Nobody tries to ban viewing videos of assault.
The reality and simple truth is that child pornography is illegal simply because most people find it despicable and the people who view it are so repugnant that it is a social good to punish them, ostracize them, and ensure they can never live a normal life. Not because they harmed anyone at all, simply because they are disgusting. Many countries even have laws against drawn child pornography and other obscenities.
The same is true of bestiality. It's just so disgusting and beyond the pale that people who engage in it should be legally punished and ousted from society, not due to causing any harm but just for being awful people.
This is the silliest argument I've ever seen, it makes absolutely no sense.
The reason viewing child pornography is illegal is because:
1) It vastly reduces the "demand" for the stuff, which means there will be less "supply" of the stuff. I think the ACLU considers it evidence to a crime, thus not protected. 2) Simply viewing a minor in a sexually explicit way is illegal by itself (IRL/in porn/whatever), because they are not old enough to consent. 3) Whether you believe it being viewed "hurts" or not, the fact of the matter is that it DOES cause pain. No, you clicking on the link will not harm the victim, that much is true. But if the video/pictures/whatever are able to be plastered all over the internet on porn sites/whatever, it can definitely cause pain, etc.
You could go on and on with logical reasons it's illegal, just like you could with bestiality. But just saying "they're nasty xD" is an awful way to justify anything.
Does viewing a knockout video on youtube create a "demand" for assault? Why then is it not a crime to view or possess knockout videos?
Let's examine a hypothetical situation: Someone is walking down the street and finds a flash drive on the ground. He takes it home and finds it contains child pornography. He then keeps it, views it regularly, and therefore violated child pornography laws.
Has he caused harm? If so, what harm? Who is his victim?
Dude, this is pretty clear cut. If there is profit to be gained in child pornography, which there will be if it was legal, then more hild pronography will be made, and thus more children raped. This is extremely black and white.
You understand that the demand is there even if it is not legal and I doubt illegality is seriously decreasing said demand.
Yes, because no amount of laws ever decrease demands for any product in ever. In fact, laws are kinda useless, no one follows them anyways.
Sometimes they do sometimes they do not. Nice of you to offer useless generalizations even though my post implied specifics of this particular scenario. Considering that attraction is pretty much given biologically and people watching child pornography are probably attracted to children so they will be most of the market. Considering that laws governing sexual behaviour have low compliance as they go against one of the most powerful instincts and they are not extremely well enforced. Thus my conclusion. Unless you have hard empirical data, which part of my argument is problematic to you ?
Anyway I am not disputing that there is some decrease, but not significant. And thus the question arises, is it worth it ? Making people that otherwise would never hurt anyone into criminals. It is problematic question.
I've made 3 more posts since that one where I explain my stance a bit more in depth. I don't feel like repeating them.
As far as I can tell you said nothing in them regarding your claim that banning it significantly reduces demand.
It makes it easier for people to put up a website anyone could visit and pay money to download child porn from. I really, really, don't want to make it easier for people to film Child pornography and sell it. Think of this scenario: what if there is actually a lot of people who enjoy child porn, and someone ends up earning a ton of cash through his new website "ChildTube".
Lets just keep it illegal, shal we?
How does it make it easier to setup a website. Setting up such a site would still be illegal. The only thing that would be legal would be viewing, commercial usage would still be illegal. And that is where my question comes in. Making viewing illegal makes sense only if it actually increases demand. If it does not, making viewing legal would be a better course of action.
On June 14 2013 17:44 Greenei wrote: It's totally fine to hold cows against their 'will', slaugther them and eat them. but god forbid you but your penis in them. because THAT would be animal cruelty... Chances are that the fucking cow or orse or pig doesn't even mind your little human dick. It's completely nonsensical and just a byproduct of an irrational culturous development. Everyone should be able to fuck their animals as long as it doesn't violate the animal cruelty laws.
Almost all legislation is affected by "culture", how is that a problem? Laws can't be created in a vacuum, they need to relate to reality, or else they end up going against the public perception of what's right and wrong.
Criminalizing this and still allowing the slaughter industry appear weird to some, but it really isn't. All animal protection laws are about not having the animals suffer more than is necessary. Considering our meat consumption we need to be able to kill them and eat them, and that pain involved is considered necessary. If you want to slaughter it in a special fashion for religious reasons, that has been judged acceptable as well (at least in sweden, but the rising xenophobia in europe might force a change in some countries). When it comes to satisfying your weird and taboo urges, that isn't reason enough to have the animals suffer. Unnecessary pain, and hence criminalization is justified.
The point is that there is no suffering involved for cows or horses. Eating meat is just as unnecessary as fucking cows. Both is for pleasure purposes. The reason why beastiality is looked down upon more then eating meat is completly irrational. If someone rapes their cat or dog it falls under animal cruelty law and that's fine but raping a cow? That makes little sense.
On June 14 2013 16:02 Sufficiency wrote: I feel it should be illegal, because technically an animal cannot give consent for sex, so when it occurs it's "rape" or "animal cruelty" depending on how you look at it.
Not sure why this is worthy of GD, btw. I am sure most people find this repulsive.
Given that you legally own them, I'm pretty sure you're the one who decides if they give consent or not.
This is the silliest argument I've ever seen, it makes absolutely no sense.
The reason viewing child pornography is illegal is because:
1) It vastly reduces the "demand" for the stuff, which means there will be less "supply" of the stuff. I think the ACLU considers it evidence to a crime, thus not protected. 2) Simply viewing a minor in a sexually explicit way is illegal by itself (IRL/in porn/whatever), because they are not old enough to consent. 3) Whether you believe it being viewed "hurts" or not, the fact of the matter is that it DOES cause pain. No, you clicking on the link will not harm the victim, that much is true. But if the video/pictures/whatever are able to be plastered all over the internet on porn sites/whatever, it can definitely cause pain, etc.
You could go on and on with logical reasons it's illegal, just like you could with bestiality. But just saying "they're nasty xD" is an awful way to justify anything.
Does viewing a knockout video on youtube create a "demand" for assault? Why then is it not a crime to view or possess knockout videos?
Let's examine a hypothetical situation: Someone is walking down the street and finds a flash drive on the ground. He takes it home and finds it contains child pornography. He then keeps it, views it regularly, and therefore violated child pornography laws.
Has he caused harm? If so, what harm? Who is his victim?
Dude, this is pretty clear cut. If there is profit to be gained in child pornography, which there will be if it was legal, then more hild pronography will be made, and thus more children raped. This is extremely black and white.
You understand that the demand is there even if it is not legal and I doubt illegality is seriously decreasing said demand.
Yes, because no amount of laws ever decrease demands for any product in ever. In fact, laws are kinda useless, no one follows them anyways.
Sometimes they do sometimes they do not. Nice of you to offer useless generalizations even though my post implied specifics of this particular scenario. Considering that attraction is pretty much given biologically and people watching child pornography are probably attracted to children so they will be most of the market. Considering that laws governing sexual behaviour have low compliance as they go against one of the most powerful instincts and they are not extremely well enforced. Thus my conclusion. Unless you have hard empirical data, which part of my argument is problematic to you ?
Anyway I am not disputing that there is some decrease, but not significant. And thus the question arises, is it worth it ? Making people that otherwise would never hurt anyone into criminals. It is problematic question.
I've made 3 more posts since that one where I explain my stance a bit more in depth. I don't feel like repeating them.
As far as I can tell you said nothing in them regarding your claim that banning it significantly reduces demand.
It makes it easier for people to put up a website anyone could visit and pay money to download child porn from. I really, really, don't want to make it easier for people to film Child pornography and sell it. Think of this scenario: what if there is actually a lot of people who enjoy child porn, and someone ends up earning a ton of cash through his new website "ChildTube".
Lets just keep it illegal, shal we?
How does it make it easier to setup a website. Setting up such a site would still be illegal. The only thing that would be legal would be viewing, commercial usage would still be illegal. And that is where my question comes in. Making viewing illegal makes sense only if it actually increases demand. If it does not, making viewing legal would be a better course of action.
It could be possible to make a special case where sharing is illegal, but viewing is not. I don't have any statistics to back up any claim that deman would increase in this case. But even if there is a slight chance that it does, I really don't want to take any chances on something this serious. Child pronography is about the most repulsive thing I can think of, and it literally destroys lives.
On June 14 2013 18:45 aNGryaRchon wrote: [quote] Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak.
I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise.
There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future.
Massive Facepalm.
dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care.
edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something.
Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on.
That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse.
so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves.
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed.
Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand.
but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one
I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one.
^this should have stopped all discussion
Why? If animals had such rights, sex with them would be rape rather than bestiality.
Bestiality is illegal due to the act being perverted, not due to concern for the animal.
On June 15 2013 02:40 teapot wrote: Funny how bestiality is illegal, but people are legally allowed to do this to animals:
On June 15 2013 01:15 Zaqwe wrote: [quote] Does viewing a knockout video on youtube create a "demand" for assault? Why then is it not a crime to view or possess knockout videos?
Let's examine a hypothetical situation: Someone is walking down the street and finds a flash drive on the ground. He takes it home and finds it contains child pornography. He then keeps it, views it regularly, and therefore violated child pornography laws.
Has he caused harm? If so, what harm? Who is his victim?
Dude, this is pretty clear cut. If there is profit to be gained in child pornography, which there will be if it was legal, then more hild pronography will be made, and thus more children raped. This is extremely black and white.
You understand that the demand is there even if it is not legal and I doubt illegality is seriously decreasing said demand.
Yes, because no amount of laws ever decrease demands for any product in ever. In fact, laws are kinda useless, no one follows them anyways.
Sometimes they do sometimes they do not. Nice of you to offer useless generalizations even though my post implied specifics of this particular scenario. Considering that attraction is pretty much given biologically and people watching child pornography are probably attracted to children so they will be most of the market. Considering that laws governing sexual behaviour have low compliance as they go against one of the most powerful instincts and they are not extremely well enforced. Thus my conclusion. Unless you have hard empirical data, which part of my argument is problematic to you ?
Anyway I am not disputing that there is some decrease, but not significant. And thus the question arises, is it worth it ? Making people that otherwise would never hurt anyone into criminals. It is problematic question.
I've made 3 more posts since that one where I explain my stance a bit more in depth. I don't feel like repeating them.
As far as I can tell you said nothing in them regarding your claim that banning it significantly reduces demand.
It makes it easier for people to put up a website anyone could visit and pay money to download child porn from. I really, really, don't want to make it easier for people to film Child pornography and sell it. Think of this scenario: what if there is actually a lot of people who enjoy child porn, and someone ends up earning a ton of cash through his new website "ChildTube".
Lets just keep it illegal, shal we?
How does it make it easier to setup a website. Setting up such a site would still be illegal. The only thing that would be legal would be viewing, commercial usage would still be illegal. And that is where my question comes in. Making viewing illegal makes sense only if it actually increases demand. If it does not, making viewing legal would be a better course of action.
It could be possible to make a special case where sharing is illegal, but viewing is not. I don't have any statistics to back up any claim that deman would increase in this case. But even if there is a slight chance that it does, I really don't want to take any chances on something this serious. Child pronography is about the most repulsive thing I can think of, and it literally destroys lives.
Problem is that removing outlet from those people may actually increase the chance of worse things happening. Banning it does not have only clear positives. So if the increase in demand is only very slight it still might be better to accept it. There are no easy solutions for complex societal problems.
Also, if that is the most repulsive thing you can think about, then I hope you never run into the repulsive things that happened throughout human history that are orders of magnitude worse.
On June 14 2013 18:53 xM(Z wrote: [quote] dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care.
edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something.
Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on.
That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse.
so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves.
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed.
Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand.
but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one
I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one.
^this should have stopped all discussion
Why? If animals had such rights, sex with them would be rape rather than bestiality.
Bestiality is illegal due to the act being perverted, not due to concern for the animal.
It makes perfect sense when you understand that bestiality is a moral law, not an animal protection law.
Which is why it shouldn't be law. And this entire affair is very sad. What right do I, or my government, have to suppress other people's sexuality? It's a very serious thing, much more serious than most people give it credit for. If you argue that it's a moral law and that it is right on a moral basis then you can use the same argument against homosexuality with no problem aswell. Except we've come to the conclusion that it's not a very sound argument to make.
On June 15 2013 00:23 Zaqwe wrote: [quote] Viewing pornography is not the same as having sex.
Some people will try to make ridiculous arguments to claim that harm is done by someone viewing a video. For example claiming that the video being viewed is harming the victim all over again. Of course those arguments are preposterous on the face of them and we all know it. Nobody tries to ban viewing videos of assault.
The reality and simple truth is that child pornography is illegal simply because most people find it despicable and the people who view it are so repugnant that it is a social good to punish them, ostracize them, and ensure they can never live a normal life. Not because they harmed anyone at all, simply because they are disgusting. Many countries even have laws against drawn child pornography and other obscenities.
The same is true of bestiality. It's just so disgusting and beyond the pale that people who engage in it should be legally punished and ousted from society, not due to causing any harm but just for being awful people.
This is the silliest argument I've ever seen, it makes absolutely no sense.
The reason viewing child pornography is illegal is because:
1) It vastly reduces the "demand" for the stuff, which means there will be less "supply" of the stuff. I think the ACLU considers it evidence to a crime, thus not protected. 2) Simply viewing a minor in a sexually explicit way is illegal by itself (IRL/in porn/whatever), because they are not old enough to consent. 3) Whether you believe it being viewed "hurts" or not, the fact of the matter is that it DOES cause pain. No, you clicking on the link will not harm the victim, that much is true. But if the video/pictures/whatever are able to be plastered all over the internet on porn sites/whatever, it can definitely cause pain, etc.
You could go on and on with logical reasons it's illegal, just like you could with bestiality. But just saying "they're nasty xD" is an awful way to justify anything.
Does viewing a knockout video on youtube create a "demand" for assault? Why then is it not a crime to view or possess knockout videos?
Let's examine a hypothetical situation: Someone is walking down the street and finds a flash drive on the ground. He takes it home and finds it contains child pornography. He then keeps it, views it regularly, and therefore violated child pornography laws.
Has he caused harm? If so, what harm? Who is his victim?
Dude, this is pretty clear cut. If there is profit to be gained in child pornography, which there will be if it was legal, then more hild pronography will be made, and thus more children raped. This is extremely black and white.
You understand that the demand is there even if it is not legal and I doubt illegality is seriously decreasing said demand.
Yes, because no amount of laws ever decrease demands for any product in ever. In fact, laws are kinda useless, no one follows them anyways.
Sometimes they do sometimes they do not. Nice of you to offer useless generalizations even though my post implied specifics of this particular scenario. Considering that attraction is pretty much given biologically and people watching child pornography are probably attracted to children so they will be most of the market. Considering that laws governing sexual behaviour have low compliance as they go against one of the most powerful instincts and they are not extremely well enforced. Thus my conclusion. Unless you have hard empirical data, which part of my argument is problematic to you ?
Anyway I am not disputing that there is some decrease, but not significant. And thus the question arises, is it worth it ? Making people that otherwise would never hurt anyone into criminals. It is problematic question.
I've made 3 more posts since that one where I explain my stance a bit more in depth. I don't feel like repeating them.
As far as I can tell you said nothing in them regarding your claim that banning it significantly reduces demand.
It makes it easier for people to put up a website anyone could visit and pay money to download child porn from. I really, really, don't want to make it easier for people to film Child pornography and sell it. Think of this scenario: what if there is actually a lot of people who enjoy child porn, and someone ends up earning a ton of cash through his new website "ChildTube".
Lets just keep it illegal, shal we?
Argument from unfounded assumption is incredibly easy. Think of this scenario: what if there is actually a lot of people who are attracted to children who wind up legally watching child porn made in the 1950s and their stepchildren wind up unmolested?
Let's maybe think our arguments a bit more carefully through?
Good for us, although it has never been accepted of course.
I saw some sick documentary a time ago though, in some South American, where they would have sex with donkey's first before trying a girl, maybe it was Chile or something? I can't remember the name or the country but if someone know's the documentary please link! ^_^
On June 15 2013 01:15 Zaqwe wrote: [quote] Does viewing a knockout video on youtube create a "demand" for assault? Why then is it not a crime to view or possess knockout videos?
Let's examine a hypothetical situation: Someone is walking down the street and finds a flash drive on the ground. He takes it home and finds it contains child pornography. He then keeps it, views it regularly, and therefore violated child pornography laws.
Has he caused harm? If so, what harm? Who is his victim?
Dude, this is pretty clear cut. If there is profit to be gained in child pornography, which there will be if it was legal, then more hild pronography will be made, and thus more children raped. This is extremely black and white.
You understand that the demand is there even if it is not legal and I doubt illegality is seriously decreasing said demand.
Yes, because no amount of laws ever decrease demands for any product in ever. In fact, laws are kinda useless, no one follows them anyways.
Sometimes they do sometimes they do not. Nice of you to offer useless generalizations even though my post implied specifics of this particular scenario. Considering that attraction is pretty much given biologically and people watching child pornography are probably attracted to children so they will be most of the market. Considering that laws governing sexual behaviour have low compliance as they go against one of the most powerful instincts and they are not extremely well enforced. Thus my conclusion. Unless you have hard empirical data, which part of my argument is problematic to you ?
Anyway I am not disputing that there is some decrease, but not significant. And thus the question arises, is it worth it ? Making people that otherwise would never hurt anyone into criminals. It is problematic question.
I've made 3 more posts since that one where I explain my stance a bit more in depth. I don't feel like repeating them.
As far as I can tell you said nothing in them regarding your claim that banning it significantly reduces demand.
It makes it easier for people to put up a website anyone could visit and pay money to download child porn from. I really, really, don't want to make it easier for people to film Child pornography and sell it. Think of this scenario: what if there is actually a lot of people who enjoy child porn, and someone ends up earning a ton of cash through his new website "ChildTube".
Lets just keep it illegal, shal we?
How does it make it easier to setup a website. Setting up such a site would still be illegal. The only thing that would be legal would be viewing, commercial usage would still be illegal. And that is where my question comes in. Making viewing illegal makes sense only if it actually increases demand. If it does not, making viewing legal would be a better course of action.
It could be possible to make a special case where sharing is illegal, but viewing is not. I don't have any statistics to back up any claim that deman would increase in this case. But even if there is a slight chance that it does, I really don't want to take any chances on something this serious. Child pronography is about the most repulsive thing I can think of, and it literally destroys lives.
We seem to be getting off track from the original point. I am sure we all agree that fighting child pornographers is great, and they do indeed harm children.
However if we narrowly adopt the view that only causing harm should be a criminal act, then the law should criminalize "encouragement or support for the creation of" rather than possession or viewing. Then in a court of law it would be required to prove support (such as showing credit card payments used to fund the content). Such a law wouldn't be acceptable to most people because then paedophiles would be free to view obscene material as long as they don't harm anyone.
The reason the law is not so narrow is because society at large doesn't just want to punish people who create it or support the creation. We live in a society that wants to punish people for being despicable, and that is why possession and viewership are illegal in general. Ultimately the average person doesn't care if harm is being done, they just want to punish sick and disgusting perverts for doing socially unacceptable things.
On June 14 2013 18:53 xM(Z wrote: [quote] dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care.
edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something.
Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on.
That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse.
so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves.
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed.
Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand.
but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one
I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one.
^this should have stopped all discussion
Unless of course people argue also on basis other than consent. And surprisingly they do, gasp.
This should have stopped all consent based discussion, which it didn't, gasp. His point stands.
On June 15 2013 02:54 Zaqwe wrote: Bestiality is illegal due to the act being perverted, not due to concern for the animal.
This is not true and it's been painful reading your ignorant posts in this thread, please stop, you don't know what you're talking about.
On June 15 2013 03:06 Zaqwe wrote: The reason the law is not so narrow is because society at large doesn't just want to punish people who create it or support the creation. We live in a society that wants to punish people for being despicable, and that is why possession and viewership are illegal in general. Ultimately the average person doesn't care if harm is being done, they just want to punish sick and disgusting perverts for doing socially unacceptable things.
Again, so completely and utterly wrong it boggles the mind that you're still confidently posting here as if you're doing anything other than talking out of your ass.
On June 15 2013 02:54 Zaqwe wrote: It makes perfect sense when you understand that bestiality is a moral law, not an animal protection law.
How do you know the animal is enjoying it? Animals aren't mindless drones that aren't capable of thinking or feeling. They're have been several studies that have shown this (you can find them if you want them). This law protects these animals that don't have the ability to express their displeasure.
On June 14 2013 19:09 KwarK wrote: [quote] Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on.
That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse.
so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves.
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed.
Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand.
but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one
I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one.
^this should have stopped all discussion
Unless of course people argue also on basis other than consent. And surprisingly they do, gasp.
This should have stopped all consent based discussion, which it didn't, gasp. His point stands.
Dude, this is pretty clear cut. If there is profit to be gained in child pornography, which there will be if it was legal, then more hild pronography will be made, and thus more children raped. This is extremely black and white.
You understand that the demand is there even if it is not legal and I doubt illegality is seriously decreasing said demand.
Yes, because no amount of laws ever decrease demands for any product in ever. In fact, laws are kinda useless, no one follows them anyways.
Sometimes they do sometimes they do not. Nice of you to offer useless generalizations even though my post implied specifics of this particular scenario. Considering that attraction is pretty much given biologically and people watching child pornography are probably attracted to children so they will be most of the market. Considering that laws governing sexual behaviour have low compliance as they go against one of the most powerful instincts and they are not extremely well enforced. Thus my conclusion. Unless you have hard empirical data, which part of my argument is problematic to you ?
Anyway I am not disputing that there is some decrease, but not significant. And thus the question arises, is it worth it ? Making people that otherwise would never hurt anyone into criminals. It is problematic question.
I've made 3 more posts since that one where I explain my stance a bit more in depth. I don't feel like repeating them.
As far as I can tell you said nothing in them regarding your claim that banning it significantly reduces demand.
It makes it easier for people to put up a website anyone could visit and pay money to download child porn from. I really, really, don't want to make it easier for people to film Child pornography and sell it. Think of this scenario: what if there is actually a lot of people who enjoy child porn, and someone ends up earning a ton of cash through his new website "ChildTube".
Lets just keep it illegal, shal we?
How does it make it easier to setup a website. Setting up such a site would still be illegal. The only thing that would be legal would be viewing, commercial usage would still be illegal. And that is where my question comes in. Making viewing illegal makes sense only if it actually increases demand. If it does not, making viewing legal would be a better course of action.
It could be possible to make a special case where sharing is illegal, but viewing is not. I don't have any statistics to back up any claim that deman would increase in this case. But even if there is a slight chance that it does, I really don't want to take any chances on something this serious. Child pronography is about the most repulsive thing I can think of, and it literally destroys lives.
We seem to be getting off track from the original point. I am sure we all agree that fighting child pornographers is great, and they do indeed harm children.
However if we narrowly adopt the view that only causing harm should be a criminal act, then the law should criminalize "encouragement or support for the creation of" rather than possession or viewing. Then in a court of law it would be required to prove support (such as showing credit card payments used to fund the content). Such a law wouldn't be acceptable to most people because then paedophiles would be free to view obscene material as long as they don't harm anyone.
The reason the law is not so narrow is because society at large doesn't just want to punish people who create it or support the creation. We live in a society that wants to punish people for being despicable, and that is why possession and viewership are illegal in general. Ultimately the average person doesn't care if harm is being done, they just want to punish sick and disgusting perverts for doing socially unacceptable things.
Such law would be acceptable to great many people if not for fearmongering and namecalling of people like you. Lets also punish schizophrenics because they do sick and disgusting things. The thing you call "moral" laws are stupid and should be abolished as all victimless crimes. Fortunately as time goes on views like yours are getting weaker.
On June 14 2013 19:35 xM(Z wrote: [quote] so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves.
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed.
Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand.
but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one
I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one.
^this should have stopped all discussion
Unless of course people argue also on basis other than consent. And surprisingly they do, gasp.
This should have stopped all consent based discussion, which it didn't, gasp. His point stands.
On June 15 2013 02:54 Zaqwe wrote: Bestiality is illegal due to the act being perverted, not due to concern for the animal.
This is not true and it's been painful reading your ignorant posts in this thread, please stop, you don't know what you're talking about.
You say I am wrong, yet you can't refute anything I have said.
Interesting.
You claimed bestiality is illegal due to the act being perverted, not due to concern for the animal.
On June 14 2013 19:46 KwarK wrote: [quote] My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed.
Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand.
but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one
I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one.
^this should have stopped all discussion
Unless of course people argue also on basis other than consent. And surprisingly they do, gasp.
This should have stopped all consent based discussion, which it didn't, gasp. His point stands.
On June 15 2013 02:54 Zaqwe wrote: Bestiality is illegal due to the act being perverted, not due to concern for the animal.
This is not true and it's been painful reading your ignorant posts in this thread, please stop, you don't know what you're talking about.
You say I am wrong, yet you can't refute anything I have said.
Interesting.
You claimed bestiality is illegal due to the act being perverted, not due to concern for the animal.
Prove it.
If it's motivated by concern for the animal, animal cruelty laws would be enough.
Bestiality criminalizes sex with animals, regardless of any harm or cruelty.
On June 14 2013 19:35 xM(Z wrote: [quote] so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves.
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed.
Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand.
but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one
I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one.
^this should have stopped all discussion
Unless of course people argue also on basis other than consent. And surprisingly they do, gasp.
This should have stopped all consent based discussion, which it didn't, gasp. His point stands.
On June 15 2013 02:54 Zaqwe wrote: Bestiality is illegal due to the act being perverted, not due to concern for the animal.
This is not true and it's been painful reading your ignorant posts in this thread, please stop, you don't know what you're talking about.
You say I am wrong, yet you can't refute anything I have said.
Interesting.
There is nothing to refute. We are talking about ethical/policymaking ideas, those are subjective to some degree. His opinion is as valid as yours, yours though when applied create society with more suffering than otherwise.
On June 14 2013 19:52 xM(Z wrote: [quote] yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed.
Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand.
but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one
I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one.
^this should have stopped all discussion
Unless of course people argue also on basis other than consent. And surprisingly they do, gasp.
This should have stopped all consent based discussion, which it didn't, gasp. His point stands.
On June 15 2013 02:54 Zaqwe wrote: Bestiality is illegal due to the act being perverted, not due to concern for the animal.
This is not true and it's been painful reading your ignorant posts in this thread, please stop, you don't know what you're talking about.
You say I am wrong, yet you can't refute anything I have said.
Interesting.
You claimed bestiality is illegal due to the act being perverted, not due to concern for the animal.
Prove it.
If it's motivated by concern for the animal, animal cruelty laws would be enough.
Bestiality criminalizes sex with animals, regardless of any harm or cruelty.
No, it declares that bestiality is cruelty, motivated by concern for the animal.
You've dodged the question.
You've made a claim, now prove it or be quiet.
Show me the piece of legislation that states "x because it's disgusting" and not "x because of the welfare of the animal"...
You won't be able to find that piece of legislation because it doesn't exist.
On June 14 2013 19:46 KwarK wrote: [quote] My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed.
Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand.
but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one
I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one.
^this should have stopped all discussion
Unless of course people argue also on basis other than consent. And surprisingly they do, gasp.
This should have stopped all consent based discussion, which it didn't, gasp. His point stands.
On June 15 2013 02:54 Zaqwe wrote: Bestiality is illegal due to the act being perverted, not due to concern for the animal.
This is not true and it's been painful reading your ignorant posts in this thread, please stop, you don't know what you're talking about.
You say I am wrong, yet you can't refute anything I have said.
Interesting.
There is nothing to refute. We are talking about ethical/policymaking ideas, those are subjective to some degree. His opinion is as valid as yours, yours though when applied create society with more suffering than otherwise.
I won't attempt to refute his claim until he attempts to prove it.
He has claimed to have knowledge of the reasoning behind the new bestiality law, and has said it is nothing to do with the well being of the animal but instead just that people find it to be disgusting.
On June 15 2013 01:19 mcc wrote: [quote] You understand that the demand is there even if it is not legal and I doubt illegality is seriously decreasing said demand.
Yes, because no amount of laws ever decrease demands for any product in ever. In fact, laws are kinda useless, no one follows them anyways.
Sometimes they do sometimes they do not. Nice of you to offer useless generalizations even though my post implied specifics of this particular scenario. Considering that attraction is pretty much given biologically and people watching child pornography are probably attracted to children so they will be most of the market. Considering that laws governing sexual behaviour have low compliance as they go against one of the most powerful instincts and they are not extremely well enforced. Thus my conclusion. Unless you have hard empirical data, which part of my argument is problematic to you ?
Anyway I am not disputing that there is some decrease, but not significant. And thus the question arises, is it worth it ? Making people that otherwise would never hurt anyone into criminals. It is problematic question.
I've made 3 more posts since that one where I explain my stance a bit more in depth. I don't feel like repeating them.
As far as I can tell you said nothing in them regarding your claim that banning it significantly reduces demand.
It makes it easier for people to put up a website anyone could visit and pay money to download child porn from. I really, really, don't want to make it easier for people to film Child pornography and sell it. Think of this scenario: what if there is actually a lot of people who enjoy child porn, and someone ends up earning a ton of cash through his new website "ChildTube".
Lets just keep it illegal, shal we?
How does it make it easier to setup a website. Setting up such a site would still be illegal. The only thing that would be legal would be viewing, commercial usage would still be illegal. And that is where my question comes in. Making viewing illegal makes sense only if it actually increases demand. If it does not, making viewing legal would be a better course of action.
It could be possible to make a special case where sharing is illegal, but viewing is not. I don't have any statistics to back up any claim that deman would increase in this case. But even if there is a slight chance that it does, I really don't want to take any chances on something this serious. Child pronography is about the most repulsive thing I can think of, and it literally destroys lives.
We seem to be getting off track from the original point. I am sure we all agree that fighting child pornographers is great, and they do indeed harm children.
However if we narrowly adopt the view that only causing harm should be a criminal act, then the law should criminalize "encouragement or support for the creation of" rather than possession or viewing. Then in a court of law it would be required to prove support (such as showing credit card payments used to fund the content). Such a law wouldn't be acceptable to most people because then paedophiles would be free to view obscene material as long as they don't harm anyone.
The reason the law is not so narrow is because society at large doesn't just want to punish people who create it or support the creation. We live in a society that wants to punish people for being despicable, and that is why possession and viewership are illegal in general. Ultimately the average person doesn't care if harm is being done, they just want to punish sick and disgusting perverts for doing socially unacceptable things.
Such law would be acceptable to great many people if not for fearmongering and namecalling of people like you. Lets also punish schizophrenics because they do sick and disgusting things. The thing you call "moral" laws are stupid and should be abolished as all victimless crimes. Fortunately as time goes on views like yours are getting weaker.
Society's morals are changing, but the desire to implement laws to enforce moral codes is as strong as ever.
For example in just recent history most of Europe has adopted very harsh speech/thought crime laws. Even when no harm to anyone can be demonstrated, expressing socially unacceptable views is illegal.
Morals change, but not the desire to punish immorality.
Yes, because no amount of laws ever decrease demands for any product in ever. In fact, laws are kinda useless, no one follows them anyways.
Sometimes they do sometimes they do not. Nice of you to offer useless generalizations even though my post implied specifics of this particular scenario. Considering that attraction is pretty much given biologically and people watching child pornography are probably attracted to children so they will be most of the market. Considering that laws governing sexual behaviour have low compliance as they go against one of the most powerful instincts and they are not extremely well enforced. Thus my conclusion. Unless you have hard empirical data, which part of my argument is problematic to you ?
Anyway I am not disputing that there is some decrease, but not significant. And thus the question arises, is it worth it ? Making people that otherwise would never hurt anyone into criminals. It is problematic question.
I've made 3 more posts since that one where I explain my stance a bit more in depth. I don't feel like repeating them.
As far as I can tell you said nothing in them regarding your claim that banning it significantly reduces demand.
It makes it easier for people to put up a website anyone could visit and pay money to download child porn from. I really, really, don't want to make it easier for people to film Child pornography and sell it. Think of this scenario: what if there is actually a lot of people who enjoy child porn, and someone ends up earning a ton of cash through his new website "ChildTube".
Lets just keep it illegal, shal we?
How does it make it easier to setup a website. Setting up such a site would still be illegal. The only thing that would be legal would be viewing, commercial usage would still be illegal. And that is where my question comes in. Making viewing illegal makes sense only if it actually increases demand. If it does not, making viewing legal would be a better course of action.
It could be possible to make a special case where sharing is illegal, but viewing is not. I don't have any statistics to back up any claim that deman would increase in this case. But even if there is a slight chance that it does, I really don't want to take any chances on something this serious. Child pronography is about the most repulsive thing I can think of, and it literally destroys lives.
We seem to be getting off track from the original point. I am sure we all agree that fighting child pornographers is great, and they do indeed harm children.
However if we narrowly adopt the view that only causing harm should be a criminal act, then the law should criminalize "encouragement or support for the creation of" rather than possession or viewing. Then in a court of law it would be required to prove support (such as showing credit card payments used to fund the content). Such a law wouldn't be acceptable to most people because then paedophiles would be free to view obscene material as long as they don't harm anyone.
The reason the law is not so narrow is because society at large doesn't just want to punish people who create it or support the creation. We live in a society that wants to punish people for being despicable, and that is why possession and viewership are illegal in general. Ultimately the average person doesn't care if harm is being done, they just want to punish sick and disgusting perverts for doing socially unacceptable things.
Such law would be acceptable to great many people if not for fearmongering and namecalling of people like you. Lets also punish schizophrenics because they do sick and disgusting things. The thing you call "moral" laws are stupid and should be abolished as all victimless crimes. Fortunately as time goes on views like yours are getting weaker.
Society's morals are changing, but the desire to implement laws to enforce moral codes is as strong as ever.
For example in just recent history most of Europe has adopted very harsh speech/thought crime laws. Even when no harm to anyone can be demonstrated, expressing socially unacceptable views is illegal.
Morals change, but not the desire to punish immorality.
Sigh. Would you care to give some examples demonstrating that in most of Europe it is illegal to express socially unacceptable views?
It's sad to see how many people reply without reading the whole...half paragraph. Four people a year on average had sex with a horse in a country of 9.5 million and you're bored enough, or ignorant enough to really try and make that some kind of association or representation of a country. As an American I hope that Swedes don't generalize us that badly, or they'd have a hell of a lot worse data than four horse-lovers a year to work with. I live near an Amish community that has more reported incest on a ten acre farm than Sweden does in all of Stockholm.
On June 15 2013 03:15 Reason wrote: No, it declares that bestiality is cruelty, motivated by concern for the animal.
You've dodged the question.
You've made a claim, now prove it or be quiet.
Show me the piece of legislation that states "x because it's disgusting" and not "x because of the welfare of the animal"...
You won't be able to find that piece of legislation because it doesn't exist.
Interesting.
If sex with an animal was cruelty, animal cruelty laws would be sufficient to prevent it. You would simply charge someone with animal cruelty, then in court provide evidence they had sex with the animal.
The only reason anti-bestiality laws are needed is to criminalize sex in cases where it is not cruel.
Yes, because no amount of laws ever decrease demands for any product in ever. In fact, laws are kinda useless, no one follows them anyways.
Sometimes they do sometimes they do not. Nice of you to offer useless generalizations even though my post implied specifics of this particular scenario. Considering that attraction is pretty much given biologically and people watching child pornography are probably attracted to children so they will be most of the market. Considering that laws governing sexual behaviour have low compliance as they go against one of the most powerful instincts and they are not extremely well enforced. Thus my conclusion. Unless you have hard empirical data, which part of my argument is problematic to you ?
Anyway I am not disputing that there is some decrease, but not significant. And thus the question arises, is it worth it ? Making people that otherwise would never hurt anyone into criminals. It is problematic question.
I've made 3 more posts since that one where I explain my stance a bit more in depth. I don't feel like repeating them.
As far as I can tell you said nothing in them regarding your claim that banning it significantly reduces demand.
It makes it easier for people to put up a website anyone could visit and pay money to download child porn from. I really, really, don't want to make it easier for people to film Child pornography and sell it. Think of this scenario: what if there is actually a lot of people who enjoy child porn, and someone ends up earning a ton of cash through his new website "ChildTube".
Lets just keep it illegal, shal we?
How does it make it easier to setup a website. Setting up such a site would still be illegal. The only thing that would be legal would be viewing, commercial usage would still be illegal. And that is where my question comes in. Making viewing illegal makes sense only if it actually increases demand. If it does not, making viewing legal would be a better course of action.
It could be possible to make a special case where sharing is illegal, but viewing is not. I don't have any statistics to back up any claim that deman would increase in this case. But even if there is a slight chance that it does, I really don't want to take any chances on something this serious. Child pronography is about the most repulsive thing I can think of, and it literally destroys lives.
We seem to be getting off track from the original point. I am sure we all agree that fighting child pornographers is great, and they do indeed harm children.
However if we narrowly adopt the view that only causing harm should be a criminal act, then the law should criminalize "encouragement or support for the creation of" rather than possession or viewing. Then in a court of law it would be required to prove support (such as showing credit card payments used to fund the content). Such a law wouldn't be acceptable to most people because then paedophiles would be free to view obscene material as long as they don't harm anyone.
The reason the law is not so narrow is because society at large doesn't just want to punish people who create it or support the creation. We live in a society that wants to punish people for being despicable, and that is why possession and viewership are illegal in general. Ultimately the average person doesn't care if harm is being done, they just want to punish sick and disgusting perverts for doing socially unacceptable things.
Such law would be acceptable to great many people if not for fearmongering and namecalling of people like you. Lets also punish schizophrenics because they do sick and disgusting things. The thing you call "moral" laws are stupid and should be abolished as all victimless crimes. Fortunately as time goes on views like yours are getting weaker.
Society's morals are changing, but the desire to implement laws to enforce moral codes is as strong as ever.
For example in just recent history most of Europe has adopted very harsh speech/thought crime laws. Even when no harm to anyone can be demonstrated, expressing socially unacceptable views is illegal.
Morals change, but not the desire to punish immorality.
It weakens. If you look how many such laws were there and how many are there today. Free speech limiting laws have also as a purpose prevention of harm. Nearly all of legislation in last 50 years is at least pretending to be motivated by harm prevention. Sometimes it is a ruse and mostly those laws meet rather harsh opposition if the ruse is too clearly seen.
Understanding beastiality laws as moral law is what makes it objectionable in the first place. Morals can be very subjective depending on culture or even the individual itself. You're essentially enforcing one side's morals over others.
On June 15 2013 05:56 S_SienZ wrote: Understanding beastiality laws as moral law is what makes it objectionable in the first place. Morals can be very subjective depending on culture or even the individual itself. You're essentially enforcing one side's morals over others.
Well, that's something that comes with democracy. Our elected parliament in our representative democracy voted for this change to happen.
Avoiding morals entirely when it comes to the creation of laws is almost impossible.
On June 15 2013 05:56 S_SienZ wrote: Understanding beastiality laws as moral law is what makes it objectionable in the first place. Morals can be very subjective depending on culture or even the individual itself. You're essentially enforcing one side's morals over others.
That's essentially the same for every law, and most of the time it's a good thing.
Most people consider murder to be morally wrong, so we outlawed murder, cool!
The problem arises when the majority of people are discriminatory and you end up like Uganda or Russia.
On June 15 2013 05:56 S_SienZ wrote: Understanding beastiality laws as moral law is what makes it objectionable in the first place. Morals can be very subjective depending on culture or even the individual itself. You're essentially enforcing one side's morals over others.
Well, that's something that comes with democracy. Our elected parliament in our representative democracy voted for this change to happen.
Avoiding morals entirely when it comes to the creation of laws is almost impossible.
No it isn't. Otherwise legal positivists would have died out a long time ago.
Your conception of democracy is misled, 51% telling 49% how to live isn't a democracy, that's populism. Democracy requires both form and substance. Basic liberties need to be ensured so that political equality can be ensured for democracy to take place in the first place.
On June 15 2013 05:56 S_SienZ wrote: Understanding beastiality laws as moral law is what makes it objectionable in the first place. Morals can be very subjective depending on culture or even the individual itself. You're essentially enforcing one side's morals over others.
That's essentially the same for every law, and most of the time it's a good thing.
Most people consider murder to be morally wrong, so we outlawed murder, cool!
The problem arises when the majority of people are discriminatory and you end up like Uganda or Russia.
Why are you writing like that? It makes me cringe.
On June 15 2013 05:56 S_SienZ wrote: Understanding beastiality laws as moral law is what makes it objectionable in the first place. Morals can be very subjective depending on culture or even the individual itself. You're essentially enforcing one side's morals over others.
That's essentially the same for every law, and most of the time it's a good thing.
Most people consider murder to be morally wrong, so we outlawed murder, cool!
The problem arises when the majority of people are discriminatory and you end up like Uganda or Russia.
That's the problem right there.
Most people just look at the paradigmatic cases of law we have and assume morals are the reasons why they are there. But that's far from a clear cut answer. There are many potential explanations for laws regarding murder, from Hobbes's social contract to Mill's harm principle to Bentham's empirical positivism.
When people only know the laws but don't know why they are there, we potentially develop bad laws like this one for the wrong reasons, assuming they were the original reasons underlying the system in the first place.
On June 15 2013 05:56 S_SienZ wrote: Understanding beastiality laws as moral law is what makes it objectionable in the first place. Morals can be very subjective depending on culture or even the individual itself. You're essentially enforcing one side's morals over others.
That's essentially the same for every law, and most of the time it's a good thing.
Most people consider murder to be morally wrong, so we outlawed murder, cool!
The problem arises when the majority of people are discriminatory and you end up like Uganda or Russia.
That's the problem right there.
Most people just look at the paradigmatic cases of law we have and assume morals are the reasons why they are there. But that's far from a clear cut answer. There are many potential explanations for laws regarding murder, from Hobbes's social contract to Mill's harm principle to Bentham's empirical positivism.
When people only know the laws but don't know why they are there, we potentially develop bad laws like this one for the wrong reasons, assuming they were the original reasons underlying the system in the first place.
So do you think every law should come with it's associated reasoning? I'm sure that information is held somewhere... but I don't know. What do you suggest as an alternative to the current situation and can you elaborate on what you feel this situation is?
I certainly don't feel like laws are passed willy nilly for no clear reason.
On June 15 2013 05:56 S_SienZ wrote: Understanding beastiality laws as moral law is what makes it objectionable in the first place. Morals can be very subjective depending on culture or even the individual itself. You're essentially enforcing one side's morals over others.
That's essentially the same for every law, and most of the time it's a good thing.
Most people consider murder to be morally wrong, so we outlawed murder, cool!
The problem arises when the majority of people are discriminatory and you end up like Uganda or Russia.
That's the problem right there.
Most people just look at the paradigmatic cases of law we have and assume morals are the reasons why they are there. But that's far from a clear cut answer. There are many potential explanations for laws regarding murder, from Hobbes's social contract to Mill's harm principle to Bentham's empirical positivism.
When people only know the laws but don't know why they are there, we potentially develop bad laws like this one for the wrong reasons, assuming they were the original reasons underlying the system in the first place.
So do you think every law should come with it's associated reasoning? I'm sure that information is held somewhere... but I don't know. What do you suggest as an alternative to the current situation and can you elaborate on what you feel this situation is?
I certainly don't feel like laws are passed willy nilly for no clear reason.
There's been (a still ongoing) hundreds of years of debate about that. It hasn't been conclusively resolved but it's been roughly divided into 2 camps: one side is saying laws are a social tool for regulation and essentially whatever the "source of law" in a society says is law. In that version, the content of law is generally checked by democracy, separation of powers, yadayada, you know the drill. The other camp is basically saying that laws and morals are one and the same. But personally, that camp's ideas is getting progressively untenable as globalisation forces the mingling of differing cultures.
Think about it, if laws that are moral are ok, what's stopping the legislation of positive obligations? (Instead of don't do something, you have to do something). What's stopping say, a predominantly Catholic populace from voting a new law that makes church mandatory for EVERYONE. They'd argue its moral, it was voted by a majority. Laws passed are generally negative obligations because such laws are the least infringing of people's liberty.
Also, a gap between law and morals is essential for moral goodness to even exist. Imagine a man walking past a beggar, he feels sorry for him and hands him his sandwich. The man has done a moral good deed and the beggar feels grateful. Now imagine if there was a law, for moral reasons, that compelled such charity. The beggar would (rightfully so) be entitled, and the moral merit of the deed is void since there was no choice involved.
On June 15 2013 05:56 S_SienZ wrote: Understanding beastiality laws as moral law is what makes it objectionable in the first place. Morals can be very subjective depending on culture or even the individual itself. You're essentially enforcing one side's morals over others.
That's essentially the same for every law, and most of the time it's a good thing.
Most people consider murder to be morally wrong, so we outlawed murder, cool!
The problem arises when the majority of people are discriminatory and you end up like Uganda or Russia.
That's the problem right there.
Most people just look at the paradigmatic cases of law we have and assume morals are the reasons why they are there. But that's far from a clear cut answer. There are many potential explanations for laws regarding murder, from Hobbes's social contract to Mill's harm principle to Bentham's empirical positivism.
When people only know the laws but don't know why they are there, we potentially develop bad laws like this one for the wrong reasons, assuming they were the original reasons underlying the system in the first place.
So do you think every law should come with it's associated reasoning? I'm sure that information is held somewhere... but I don't know. What do you suggest as an alternative to the current situation and can you elaborate on what you feel this situation is?
I certainly don't feel like laws are passed willy nilly for no clear reason.
There's been (a still ongoing) hundreds of years of debate about that. It hasn't been conclusively resolved but it's been roughly divided into 2 camps: one side is saying laws are a social tool for regulation and essentially whatever the "source of law" in a society says is law. In that version, the content of law is generally checked by democracy, separation of powers, yadayada, you know the drill. The other camp is basically saying that laws and morals are one and the same. But personally, that camp's ideas is getting progressively untenable as globalisation forces the mingling of differing cultures.
Think about it, if laws that are moral are ok, what's stopping the legislation of positive obligations? (Instead of don't do something, you have to do something). What's stopping say, a predominantly Catholic populace from voting a new law that makes church mandatory for EVERYONE. They'd argue its moral, it was voted by a majority. Laws passed are generally negative obligations because such laws are the least infringing of people's dignity.
Also, a gap between law and morals is essential for moral goodness to even exist. Imagine a man walking past a beggar, he feels sorry for him and hands him his sandwich. The man has done a moral good deed and the beggar feels grateful. Now imagine if there was a law, for moral reasons, that compelled such charity. The beggar would (rightfully so) be entitled, and the moral merit of the deed is void since there was no choice involved.
Laws are often based upon morals but morals are not based upon law. Our society doesn't seem to feel anybody has a moral obligation to do anything, save look after children properly, so I don't think laws of positive obligation are anything to be concerned about.
Does the removal of choice alter the morality of an action? If you say "kill x person or I will kill you" it removes some of the responsiblity from myself, but it doesn't make the act of killing that person any more or less morally corrupt than doing it on my own, the only difference there is that I did it through my own choice and responsibility for this morally wrong action lies solely with me.
If it was legally required to give money to homeless people that doesn't change the inherent morality of the action, it just places the credit of the action elsewhere as opposed to making it void, but that's not going to happen anyway.
On June 15 2013 05:56 S_SienZ wrote: Understanding beastiality laws as moral law is what makes it objectionable in the first place. Morals can be very subjective depending on culture or even the individual itself. You're essentially enforcing one side's morals over others.
That's essentially the same for every law, and most of the time it's a good thing.
Most people consider murder to be morally wrong, so we outlawed murder, cool!
The problem arises when the majority of people are discriminatory and you end up like Uganda or Russia.
That's the problem right there.
Most people just look at the paradigmatic cases of law we have and assume morals are the reasons why they are there. But that's far from a clear cut answer. There are many potential explanations for laws regarding murder, from Hobbes's social contract to Mill's harm principle to Bentham's empirical positivism.
When people only know the laws but don't know why they are there, we potentially develop bad laws like this one for the wrong reasons, assuming they were the original reasons underlying the system in the first place.
So do you think every law should come with it's associated reasoning? I'm sure that information is held somewhere... but I don't know. What do you suggest as an alternative to the current situation and can you elaborate on what you feel this situation is?
I certainly don't feel like laws are passed willy nilly for no clear reason.
There's been (a still ongoing) hundreds of years of debate about that. It hasn't been conclusively resolved but it's been roughly divided into 2 camps: one side is saying laws are a social tool for regulation and essentially whatever the "source of law" in a society says is law. In that version, the content of law is generally checked by democracy, separation of powers, yadayada, you know the drill. The other camp is basically saying that laws and morals are one and the same. But personally, that camp's ideas is getting progressively untenable as globalisation forces the mingling of differing cultures.
Think about it, if laws that are moral are ok, what's stopping the legislation of positive obligations? (Instead of don't do something, you have to do something). What's stopping say, a predominantly Catholic populace from voting a new law that makes church mandatory for EVERYONE. They'd argue its moral, it was voted by a majority. Laws passed are generally negative obligations because such laws are the least infringing of people's dignity.
Also, a gap between law and morals is essential for moral goodness to even exist. Imagine a man walking past a beggar, he feels sorry for him and hands him his sandwich. The man has done a moral good deed and the beggar feels grateful. Now imagine if there was a law, for moral reasons, that compelled such charity. The beggar would (rightfully so) be entitled, and the moral merit of the deed is void since there was no choice involved.
Laws are often based upon morals but morals are not based upon law. Our society doesn't seem to feel anybody has a moral obligation to do anything, save look after children properly, so I don't think laws of positive obligation are anything to be concerned about.
Does the removal of choice alter the morality of an action? If you say "kill x person or I will kill you" it removes some of the responsiblity from myself, but it doesn't make the act of killing that person any more or less morally corrupt than doing it on my own, the only difference there is that I did it through my own choice and responsibility for this morally wrong action lies solely with me.
If it was legally required to give money to homeless people that doesn't change the inherent morality of the action, it just places the credit of the action elsewhere as opposed to making it void, but that's not going to happen anyway.
Your first statement raises more questions than it answers. Laws are often based upon morals, how often? Is there a principled method? Also is the problem of subjectivity, a conflation of the legal and the moral could only feasibly work with the existence of an objective moral code (if you look at the works of those who argue for such a case e.g. Aristotle, Finnis, they talk about self-evident (LOL) basic goods which all humans should strive towards), but such objective morals have yet to be proven. How do you resolve it when one side's morals fundamentally clash with anothers?
Of course the removal of choice alters the morality of an action. Morality isn't an instrumentalist concept that's concerned with outcome, but about how we arrive at our decisions. If outcome were the sole determinant, businesses who grant scholarships for tax break purposes would be far more moral than the pauper who split his bread to a dying hobo.
On June 15 2013 05:56 S_SienZ wrote: Understanding beastiality laws as moral law is what makes it objectionable in the first place. Morals can be very subjective depending on culture or even the individual itself. You're essentially enforcing one side's morals over others.
That's essentially the same for every law, and most of the time it's a good thing.
Most people consider murder to be morally wrong, so we outlawed murder, cool!
The problem arises when the majority of people are discriminatory and you end up like Uganda or Russia.
That's the problem right there.
Most people just look at the paradigmatic cases of law we have and assume morals are the reasons why they are there. But that's far from a clear cut answer. There are many potential explanations for laws regarding murder, from Hobbes's social contract to Mill's harm principle to Bentham's empirical positivism.
When people only know the laws but don't know why they are there, we potentially develop bad laws like this one for the wrong reasons, assuming they were the original reasons underlying the system in the first place.
So do you think every law should come with it's associated reasoning? I'm sure that information is held somewhere... but I don't know. What do you suggest as an alternative to the current situation and can you elaborate on what you feel this situation is?
I certainly don't feel like laws are passed willy nilly for no clear reason.
There's been (a still ongoing) hundreds of years of debate about that. It hasn't been conclusively resolved but it's been roughly divided into 2 camps: one side is saying laws are a social tool for regulation and essentially whatever the "source of law" in a society says is law. In that version, the content of law is generally checked by democracy, separation of powers, yadayada, you know the drill. The other camp is basically saying that laws and morals are one and the same. But personally, that camp's ideas is getting progressively untenable as globalisation forces the mingling of differing cultures.
Think about it, if laws that are moral are ok, what's stopping the legislation of positive obligations? (Instead of don't do something, you have to do something). What's stopping say, a predominantly Catholic populace from voting a new law that makes church mandatory for EVERYONE. They'd argue its moral, it was voted by a majority. Laws passed are generally negative obligations because such laws are the least infringing of people's dignity.
Also, a gap between law and morals is essential for moral goodness to even exist. Imagine a man walking past a beggar, he feels sorry for him and hands him his sandwich. The man has done a moral good deed and the beggar feels grateful. Now imagine if there was a law, for moral reasons, that compelled such charity. The beggar would (rightfully so) be entitled, and the moral merit of the deed is void since there was no choice involved.
Laws are often based upon morals but morals are not based upon law. Our society doesn't seem to feel anybody has a moral obligation to do anything, save look after children properly, so I don't think laws of positive obligation are anything to be concerned about.
Does the removal of choice alter the morality of an action? If you say "kill x person or I will kill you" it removes some of the responsiblity from myself, but it doesn't make the act of killing that person any more or less morally corrupt than doing it on my own, the only difference there is that I did it through my own choice and responsibility for this morally wrong action lies solely with me.
If it was legally required to give money to homeless people that doesn't change the inherent morality of the action, it just places the credit of the action elsewhere as opposed to making it void, but that's not going to happen anyway.
Your first statement raises more questions than it answers. Laws are often based upon morals, how often? Is there a principled method? Also is the problem of subjectivity, a conflation of the legal and the moral could only feasibly work with the existence of an objective moral code (if you look at the works of those who argue for such a case e.g. Aristotle, Finnis, they talk about self-evident (LOL) basic goods which all humans should strive towards), but such objective morals have yet to be proven. How do you resolve it when one side's morals fundamentally clash with anothers?
Of course the removal of choice alters the morality of an action. Morality isn't an instrumentalist concept that's concerned with outcome, but about how we arrive at our decisions. If outcome were the sole determinant, businesses who grant scholarships for tax break purposes would be far more moral than the pauper who split his bread to a dying hobo.
I think choice is a matter of responsibility and doesn't change the nature of the action, but motivation is entirely a separate issue.
If I go back in time and kill Hitler, am I a cold blooded murderer or a hero? Am I both or neither?
If I were American, I guess I would be sentenced to death for unlawful murder then high-fived all the way to the chair by everybody in the place, which seems a little strange. I think whether we like it or not a conflation of legality and morality is exactly what we wrestle with every day and I don't think we always emerge victorious.
I feel morals dictate laws and changes in law reflect the changing morality of the populace. I think that's a good thing and it seems to me that morals should actually overrule law as a result of this. Why should I be punished for murdering a genocidal maniac just because the basic act of murder is morally wrong?
To consider laws without morals or morals without laws, I'd have to choose the latter, laws are just a shortcut to arriving at the right moral answer in the majority of cases, I guess this is where judge and jury come into play to explore the final aspects of an each individually.
When one sides morals clash with the others, I guess you just have to go with the majority. If the majority of the population are pro-choice it stands to reason that this act has to be viewed as morally good, as there is no objective morality apparently, and if the majority of the population are pro-life it has to be morally corrupt. Compromise is often the only tool at our disposal and when uncompromising issues arise majority dictates morality.
At face value using my own reasoning on this then I'd have to agree with this law if that's the way the majority of Sweden feels, but on closer inspection you'd have to consider the morality of denying others their wishes simply because you disagree with it and that's where we get into issues of harm.
So although morality I think does and should dictate law, it's incredibly complex and intertwined. This is a difficult situation because everyone has decided that cruelty to animals is morally wrong and overrules the rights of the person inflicting the cruelty on the animal to do so. What I think is questionable is whether it really constitutes cruelty, laws based purely upon a simple moral objection with no connection to other pre-established moral guidelines are definitely not a good thing as they lead to discrimination and oppression of minorities. Whether this is simply moral objection with no real basis being disguised as protecting against animal cruelty is another question altogether, this brings us back to whether motivation behind an action changes it's inherent morality or not.
If I do a good deed for a selfish reason does that make it a bad deed or any less of a good deed?
What about inseminating animals for livestock? Surely it's some sort of sexual act between a human and an animal if the animal ends up being pregnant as a result.
Or do they have a loophole for economic reasons like in my country?
On June 15 2013 08:07 Komei wrote: What about inseminating animals for livestock? Surely it's some sort of sexual act between a human and an animal if the animal ends up being pregnant as a result.
Or do they have a loophole for economic reasons like in my country?
On June 15 2013 05:56 S_SienZ wrote: Understanding beastiality laws as moral law is what makes it objectionable in the first place. Morals can be very subjective depending on culture or even the individual itself. You're essentially enforcing one side's morals over others.
That's essentially the same for every law, and most of the time it's a good thing.
Most people consider murder to be morally wrong, so we outlawed murder, cool!
The problem arises when the majority of people are discriminatory and you end up like Uganda or Russia.
That's the problem right there.
Most people just look at the paradigmatic cases of law we have and assume morals are the reasons why they are there. But that's far from a clear cut answer. There are many potential explanations for laws regarding murder, from Hobbes's social contract to Mill's harm principle to Bentham's empirical positivism.
When people only know the laws but don't know why they are there, we potentially develop bad laws like this one for the wrong reasons, assuming they were the original reasons underlying the system in the first place.
So do you think every law should come with it's associated reasoning? I'm sure that information is held somewhere... but I don't know. What do you suggest as an alternative to the current situation and can you elaborate on what you feel this situation is?
I certainly don't feel like laws are passed willy nilly for no clear reason.
There's been (a still ongoing) hundreds of years of debate about that. It hasn't been conclusively resolved but it's been roughly divided into 2 camps: one side is saying laws are a social tool for regulation and essentially whatever the "source of law" in a society says is law. In that version, the content of law is generally checked by democracy, separation of powers, yadayada, you know the drill. The other camp is basically saying that laws and morals are one and the same. But personally, that camp's ideas is getting progressively untenable as globalisation forces the mingling of differing cultures.
Think about it, if laws that are moral are ok, what's stopping the legislation of positive obligations? (Instead of don't do something, you have to do something). What's stopping say, a predominantly Catholic populace from voting a new law that makes church mandatory for EVERYONE. They'd argue its moral, it was voted by a majority. Laws passed are generally negative obligations because such laws are the least infringing of people's dignity.
Also, a gap between law and morals is essential for moral goodness to even exist. Imagine a man walking past a beggar, he feels sorry for him and hands him his sandwich. The man has done a moral good deed and the beggar feels grateful. Now imagine if there was a law, for moral reasons, that compelled such charity. The beggar would (rightfully so) be entitled, and the moral merit of the deed is void since there was no choice involved.
Laws are often based upon morals but morals are not based upon law. Our society doesn't seem to feel anybody has a moral obligation to do anything, save look after children properly, so I don't think laws of positive obligation are anything to be concerned about.
Does the removal of choice alter the morality of an action? If you say "kill x person or I will kill you" it removes some of the responsiblity from myself, but it doesn't make the act of killing that person any more or less morally corrupt than doing it on my own, the only difference there is that I did it through my own choice and responsibility for this morally wrong action lies solely with me.
If it was legally required to give money to homeless people that doesn't change the inherent morality of the action, it just places the credit of the action elsewhere as opposed to making it void, but that's not going to happen anyway.
Your first statement raises more questions than it answers. Laws are often based upon morals, how often? Is there a principled method? Also is the problem of subjectivity, a conflation of the legal and the moral could only feasibly work with the existence of an objective moral code (if you look at the works of those who argue for such a case e.g. Aristotle, Finnis, they talk about self-evident (LOL) basic goods which all humans should strive towards), but such objective morals have yet to be proven. How do you resolve it when one side's morals fundamentally clash with anothers?
Of course the removal of choice alters the morality of an action. Morality isn't an instrumentalist concept that's concerned with outcome, but about how we arrive at our decisions. If outcome were the sole determinant, businesses who grant scholarships for tax break purposes would be far more moral than the pauper who split his bread to a dying hobo.
I think choice is a matter of responsibility and doesn't change the nature of the action, but motivation is entirely a separate issue. If I do a good deed for a selfish reason does that make it a bad deed?
If I go back in time and kill Hitler, am I a cold blooded murderer or a hero? Am I both or neither?
If I were American, I guess I would be sentenced to death for unlawful murder then high-fived all the way to the chair by everybody in the place, which seems a little strange. I think whether we like it or not a conflation of legality and morality is exactly what we wrestle with every day.
I feel morals dictate laws and changes in law reflect the changing morality of the populace. I think that's a good thing and it seems to me that morals should actually overrule law as a result of this. Why should I be punished for murdering a genocidal maniac just because the basic act of murder is morally wrong?
To consider laws without morals or morals without laws, I'd have to choose the latter, laws are just a shortcut to arriving at the right moral answer in the majority of cases, I guess this is where judge and jury come into play to explore the final aspects of an each individually.
When one sides morals clash with the others, I guess you just have to go with the majority. If the majority of the population are pro-choice it stands to reason that this act has to be viewed as morally good, as there is no objective morality apparently, and if the majority of the population are pro-life it has to be morally corrupt. Compromise is often the only tool at our disposal and when uncompromising issues arise majority dictates morality.
Using my own reasoning on this then I'd have to agree with this law if that's the way the majority of Sweden feels, but then you'd have to consider the morality of denying others their wishes simply because you disagree with it and that's where we get into issues of harm. The majority of Sweden may feel the act itself is immoral but I feel the act of outlawing certain activities because of purely a moral objection would itself be more immoral than the act itself, which is why I disagree with this ruling.
Morality I think does and should dictate law but it's incredibly complex and intertwined. This is a difficult situation because everyone has decided that cruelty to animals is morally wrong and overrules the rights of the person inflicting the cruelty on the animal to do so. What I think is questionable is whether it really constitutes cruelty, laws based purely upon a simple moral objection with no connection to other pre-established moral guidelines are definitely not a good thing.
But you don't have to make a choice between the 2. That's actually the beauty of the argument behind separation of laws and morals, it allows moral criticisms of the law. One could morally disagree with a legal provision while acknowledging that nonetheless he is legally obligated to do something.
To clarify further, I don't see the problem with this law, if as a matter of public policy, Sweden feels sufficiently strongly against this, they decided to ban it. What I am essentially objecting, is the notion that beastiality is banned because it is morally wrong. There's 2 arguments at play here, what I think the law should be, and one regarding what the law now is in Sweden. Lets disregard the former for a moment here, for its just my 2 cents, I'm arguing that this law needs to be passed for the right reasons. Going back to the idea that laws are a social tool, the detachment of laws and morals is precisely what allows this to be passed. But the understanding of this as moral law, is what opens up the can of worms.
On June 15 2013 05:56 S_SienZ wrote: Understanding beastiality laws as moral law is what makes it objectionable in the first place. Morals can be very subjective depending on culture or even the individual itself. You're essentially enforcing one side's morals over others.
That's essentially the same for every law, and most of the time it's a good thing.
Most people consider murder to be morally wrong, so we outlawed murder, cool!
The problem arises when the majority of people are discriminatory and you end up like Uganda or Russia.
That's the problem right there.
Most people just look at the paradigmatic cases of law we have and assume morals are the reasons why they are there. But that's far from a clear cut answer. There are many potential explanations for laws regarding murder, from Hobbes's social contract to Mill's harm principle to Bentham's empirical positivism.
When people only know the laws but don't know why they are there, we potentially develop bad laws like this one for the wrong reasons, assuming they were the original reasons underlying the system in the first place.
So do you think every law should come with it's associated reasoning? I'm sure that information is held somewhere... but I don't know. What do you suggest as an alternative to the current situation and can you elaborate on what you feel this situation is?
I certainly don't feel like laws are passed willy nilly for no clear reason.
There's been (a still ongoing) hundreds of years of debate about that. It hasn't been conclusively resolved but it's been roughly divided into 2 camps: one side is saying laws are a social tool for regulation and essentially whatever the "source of law" in a society says is law. In that version, the content of law is generally checked by democracy, separation of powers, yadayada, you know the drill. The other camp is basically saying that laws and morals are one and the same. But personally, that camp's ideas is getting progressively untenable as globalisation forces the mingling of differing cultures.
Think about it, if laws that are moral are ok, what's stopping the legislation of positive obligations? (Instead of don't do something, you have to do something). What's stopping say, a predominantly Catholic populace from voting a new law that makes church mandatory for EVERYONE. They'd argue its moral, it was voted by a majority. Laws passed are generally negative obligations because such laws are the least infringing of people's dignity.
Also, a gap between law and morals is essential for moral goodness to even exist. Imagine a man walking past a beggar, he feels sorry for him and hands him his sandwich. The man has done a moral good deed and the beggar feels grateful. Now imagine if there was a law, for moral reasons, that compelled such charity. The beggar would (rightfully so) be entitled, and the moral merit of the deed is void since there was no choice involved.
Laws are often based upon morals but morals are not based upon law. Our society doesn't seem to feel anybody has a moral obligation to do anything, save look after children properly, so I don't think laws of positive obligation are anything to be concerned about.
Does the removal of choice alter the morality of an action? If you say "kill x person or I will kill you" it removes some of the responsiblity from myself, but it doesn't make the act of killing that person any more or less morally corrupt than doing it on my own, the only difference there is that I did it through my own choice and responsibility for this morally wrong action lies solely with me.
If it was legally required to give money to homeless people that doesn't change the inherent morality of the action, it just places the credit of the action elsewhere as opposed to making it void, but that's not going to happen anyway.
Your first statement raises more questions than it answers. Laws are often based upon morals, how often? Is there a principled method? Also is the problem of subjectivity, a conflation of the legal and the moral could only feasibly work with the existence of an objective moral code (if you look at the works of those who argue for such a case e.g. Aristotle, Finnis, they talk about self-evident (LOL) basic goods which all humans should strive towards), but such objective morals have yet to be proven. How do you resolve it when one side's morals fundamentally clash with anothers?
Of course the removal of choice alters the morality of an action. Morality isn't an instrumentalist concept that's concerned with outcome, but about how we arrive at our decisions. If outcome were the sole determinant, businesses who grant scholarships for tax break purposes would be far more moral than the pauper who split his bread to a dying hobo.
I think choice is a matter of responsibility and doesn't change the nature of the action, but motivation is entirely a separate issue. If I do a good deed for a selfish reason does that make it a bad deed?
If I go back in time and kill Hitler, am I a cold blooded murderer or a hero? Am I both or neither?
If I were American, I guess I would be sentenced to death for unlawful murder then high-fived all the way to the chair by everybody in the place, which seems a little strange. I think whether we like it or not a conflation of legality and morality is exactly what we wrestle with every day.
I feel morals dictate laws and changes in law reflect the changing morality of the populace. I think that's a good thing and it seems to me that morals should actually overrule law as a result of this. Why should I be punished for murdering a genocidal maniac just because the basic act of murder is morally wrong?
To consider laws without morals or morals without laws, I'd have to choose the latter, laws are just a shortcut to arriving at the right moral answer in the majority of cases, I guess this is where judge and jury come into play to explore the final aspects of an each individually.
When one sides morals clash with the others, I guess you just have to go with the majority. If the majority of the population are pro-choice it stands to reason that this act has to be viewed as morally good, as there is no objective morality apparently, and if the majority of the population are pro-life it has to be morally corrupt. Compromise is often the only tool at our disposal and when uncompromising issues arise majority dictates morality.
Using my own reasoning on this then I'd have to agree with this law if that's the way the majority of Sweden feels, but then you'd have to consider the morality of denying others their wishes simply because you disagree with it and that's where we get into issues of harm. The majority of Sweden may feel the act itself is immoral but I feel the act of outlawing certain activities because of purely a moral objection would itself be more immoral than the act itself, which is why I disagree with this ruling.
Morality I think does and should dictate law but it's incredibly complex and intertwined. This is a difficult situation because everyone has decided that cruelty to animals is morally wrong and overrules the rights of the person inflicting the cruelty on the animal to do so. What I think is questionable is whether it really constitutes cruelty, laws based purely upon a simple moral objection with no connection to other pre-established moral guidelines are definitely not a good thing.
But you don't have to make a choice between the 2. That's actually the beauty of the argument behind separation of laws and morals, it allows moral criticisms of the law. One could morally disagree with a legal provision while acknowledging that nonetheless he is legally obligated to do something.
To clarify further, I don't see the problem with this law, if as a matter of public policy, Sweden feels sufficiently strongly against this, they decided to ban it. What I am essentially objecting, is the notion that beastiality is banned because it is morally wrong. There's 2 arguments at play here, what I think the law should be, and one regarding what the law now is in Sweden. Lets disregard the former for a moment here, for its just my 2 cents, I'm arguing that this law needs to be passed for the right reasons. Going back to the idea that laws are a social tool, the detachment of laws and morals is precisely what allows this to be passed. But the understanding of this as moral law, is what opens up the can of worms.
Why should the law be passed if not for moral reasons?
On June 15 2013 05:56 S_SienZ wrote: Understanding beastiality laws as moral law is what makes it objectionable in the first place. Morals can be very subjective depending on culture or even the individual itself. You're essentially enforcing one side's morals over others.
That's essentially the same for every law, and most of the time it's a good thing.
Most people consider murder to be morally wrong, so we outlawed murder, cool!
The problem arises when the majority of people are discriminatory and you end up like Uganda or Russia.
That's the problem right there.
Most people just look at the paradigmatic cases of law we have and assume morals are the reasons why they are there. But that's far from a clear cut answer. There are many potential explanations for laws regarding murder, from Hobbes's social contract to Mill's harm principle to Bentham's empirical positivism.
When people only know the laws but don't know why they are there, we potentially develop bad laws like this one for the wrong reasons, assuming they were the original reasons underlying the system in the first place.
So do you think every law should come with it's associated reasoning? I'm sure that information is held somewhere... but I don't know. What do you suggest as an alternative to the current situation and can you elaborate on what you feel this situation is?
I certainly don't feel like laws are passed willy nilly for no clear reason.
There's been (a still ongoing) hundreds of years of debate about that. It hasn't been conclusively resolved but it's been roughly divided into 2 camps: one side is saying laws are a social tool for regulation and essentially whatever the "source of law" in a society says is law. In that version, the content of law is generally checked by democracy, separation of powers, yadayada, you know the drill. The other camp is basically saying that laws and morals are one and the same. But personally, that camp's ideas is getting progressively untenable as globalisation forces the mingling of differing cultures.
Think about it, if laws that are moral are ok, what's stopping the legislation of positive obligations? (Instead of don't do something, you have to do something). What's stopping say, a predominantly Catholic populace from voting a new law that makes church mandatory for EVERYONE. They'd argue its moral, it was voted by a majority. Laws passed are generally negative obligations because such laws are the least infringing of people's dignity.
Also, a gap between law and morals is essential for moral goodness to even exist. Imagine a man walking past a beggar, he feels sorry for him and hands him his sandwich. The man has done a moral good deed and the beggar feels grateful. Now imagine if there was a law, for moral reasons, that compelled such charity. The beggar would (rightfully so) be entitled, and the moral merit of the deed is void since there was no choice involved.
Laws are often based upon morals but morals are not based upon law. Our society doesn't seem to feel anybody has a moral obligation to do anything, save look after children properly, so I don't think laws of positive obligation are anything to be concerned about.
Does the removal of choice alter the morality of an action? If you say "kill x person or I will kill you" it removes some of the responsiblity from myself, but it doesn't make the act of killing that person any more or less morally corrupt than doing it on my own, the only difference there is that I did it through my own choice and responsibility for this morally wrong action lies solely with me.
If it was legally required to give money to homeless people that doesn't change the inherent morality of the action, it just places the credit of the action elsewhere as opposed to making it void, but that's not going to happen anyway.
Your first statement raises more questions than it answers. Laws are often based upon morals, how often? Is there a principled method? Also is the problem of subjectivity, a conflation of the legal and the moral could only feasibly work with the existence of an objective moral code (if you look at the works of those who argue for such a case e.g. Aristotle, Finnis, they talk about self-evident (LOL) basic goods which all humans should strive towards), but such objective morals have yet to be proven. How do you resolve it when one side's morals fundamentally clash with anothers?
Of course the removal of choice alters the morality of an action. Morality isn't an instrumentalist concept that's concerned with outcome, but about how we arrive at our decisions. If outcome were the sole determinant, businesses who grant scholarships for tax break purposes would be far more moral than the pauper who split his bread to a dying hobo.
I think choice is a matter of responsibility and doesn't change the nature of the action, but motivation is entirely a separate issue. If I do a good deed for a selfish reason does that make it a bad deed?
If I go back in time and kill Hitler, am I a cold blooded murderer or a hero? Am I both or neither?
If I were American, I guess I would be sentenced to death for unlawful murder then high-fived all the way to the chair by everybody in the place, which seems a little strange. I think whether we like it or not a conflation of legality and morality is exactly what we wrestle with every day.
I feel morals dictate laws and changes in law reflect the changing morality of the populace. I think that's a good thing and it seems to me that morals should actually overrule law as a result of this. Why should I be punished for murdering a genocidal maniac just because the basic act of murder is morally wrong?
To consider laws without morals or morals without laws, I'd have to choose the latter, laws are just a shortcut to arriving at the right moral answer in the majority of cases, I guess this is where judge and jury come into play to explore the final aspects of an each individually.
When one sides morals clash with the others, I guess you just have to go with the majority. If the majority of the population are pro-choice it stands to reason that this act has to be viewed as morally good, as there is no objective morality apparently, and if the majority of the population are pro-life it has to be morally corrupt. Compromise is often the only tool at our disposal and when uncompromising issues arise majority dictates morality.
Using my own reasoning on this then I'd have to agree with this law if that's the way the majority of Sweden feels, but then you'd have to consider the morality of denying others their wishes simply because you disagree with it and that's where we get into issues of harm. The majority of Sweden may feel the act itself is immoral but I feel the act of outlawing certain activities because of purely a moral objection would itself be more immoral than the act itself, which is why I disagree with this ruling.
Morality I think does and should dictate law but it's incredibly complex and intertwined. This is a difficult situation because everyone has decided that cruelty to animals is morally wrong and overrules the rights of the person inflicting the cruelty on the animal to do so. What I think is questionable is whether it really constitutes cruelty, laws based purely upon a simple moral objection with no connection to other pre-established moral guidelines are definitely not a good thing.
But you don't have to make a choice between the 2. That's actually the beauty of the argument behind separation of laws and morals, it allows moral criticisms of the law. One could morally disagree with a legal provision while acknowledging that nonetheless he is legally obligated to do something.
To clarify further, I don't see the problem with this law, if as a matter of public policy, Sweden feels sufficiently strongly against this, they decided to ban it. What I am essentially objecting, is the notion that beastiality is banned because it is morally wrong. There's 2 arguments at play here, what I think the law should be, and one regarding what the law now is in Sweden. Lets disregard the former for a moment here, for its just my 2 cents, I'm arguing that this law needs to be passed for the right reasons. Going back to the idea that laws are a social tool, the detachment of laws and morals is precisely what allows this to be passed. But the understanding of this as moral law, is what opens up the can of worms.
I find this confusing because it seems to me what you're essentially saying is that if the majority of people in Sweden feel it's morally wrong then it's okay to ban it, but it's not okay if they decide to ban it because it's morally wrong.
Honestly, people who are into animals are no different from pedophiles, homosexuals or straight people. Well, they are in the sense that they partake in risky/potentially abusive behavior like pedophiles do but the brain lights up the same; they are attracted to what they are attracted to. It's just unfortunate that what they are attracted to happens to be a horse and there is no way in which to partake in the activity without potentially harming yourself or the animal. It's like pedophilia; they are attracted to children, that part is not their fault. However, partaking in their fantasies is what causes harm.
On June 15 2013 05:56 S_SienZ wrote: Understanding beastiality laws as moral law is what makes it objectionable in the first place. Morals can be very subjective depending on culture or even the individual itself. You're essentially enforcing one side's morals over others.
That's essentially the same for every law, and most of the time it's a good thing.
Most people consider murder to be morally wrong, so we outlawed murder, cool!
The problem arises when the majority of people are discriminatory and you end up like Uganda or Russia.
That's the problem right there.
Most people just look at the paradigmatic cases of law we have and assume morals are the reasons why they are there. But that's far from a clear cut answer. There are many potential explanations for laws regarding murder, from Hobbes's social contract to Mill's harm principle to Bentham's empirical positivism.
When people only know the laws but don't know why they are there, we potentially develop bad laws like this one for the wrong reasons, assuming they were the original reasons underlying the system in the first place.
So do you think every law should come with it's associated reasoning? I'm sure that information is held somewhere... but I don't know. What do you suggest as an alternative to the current situation and can you elaborate on what you feel this situation is?
I certainly don't feel like laws are passed willy nilly for no clear reason.
There's been (a still ongoing) hundreds of years of debate about that. It hasn't been conclusively resolved but it's been roughly divided into 2 camps: one side is saying laws are a social tool for regulation and essentially whatever the "source of law" in a society says is law. In that version, the content of law is generally checked by democracy, separation of powers, yadayada, you know the drill. The other camp is basically saying that laws and morals are one and the same. But personally, that camp's ideas is getting progressively untenable as globalisation forces the mingling of differing cultures.
Think about it, if laws that are moral are ok, what's stopping the legislation of positive obligations? (Instead of don't do something, you have to do something). What's stopping say, a predominantly Catholic populace from voting a new law that makes church mandatory for EVERYONE. They'd argue its moral, it was voted by a majority. Laws passed are generally negative obligations because such laws are the least infringing of people's dignity.
Also, a gap between law and morals is essential for moral goodness to even exist. Imagine a man walking past a beggar, he feels sorry for him and hands him his sandwich. The man has done a moral good deed and the beggar feels grateful. Now imagine if there was a law, for moral reasons, that compelled such charity. The beggar would (rightfully so) be entitled, and the moral merit of the deed is void since there was no choice involved.
Laws are often based upon morals but morals are not based upon law. Our society doesn't seem to feel anybody has a moral obligation to do anything, save look after children properly, so I don't think laws of positive obligation are anything to be concerned about.
Does the removal of choice alter the morality of an action? If you say "kill x person or I will kill you" it removes some of the responsiblity from myself, but it doesn't make the act of killing that person any more or less morally corrupt than doing it on my own, the only difference there is that I did it through my own choice and responsibility for this morally wrong action lies solely with me.
If it was legally required to give money to homeless people that doesn't change the inherent morality of the action, it just places the credit of the action elsewhere as opposed to making it void, but that's not going to happen anyway.
Your first statement raises more questions than it answers. Laws are often based upon morals, how often? Is there a principled method? Also is the problem of subjectivity, a conflation of the legal and the moral could only feasibly work with the existence of an objective moral code (if you look at the works of those who argue for such a case e.g. Aristotle, Finnis, they talk about self-evident (LOL) basic goods which all humans should strive towards), but such objective morals have yet to be proven. How do you resolve it when one side's morals fundamentally clash with anothers?
Of course the removal of choice alters the morality of an action. Morality isn't an instrumentalist concept that's concerned with outcome, but about how we arrive at our decisions. If outcome were the sole determinant, businesses who grant scholarships for tax break purposes would be far more moral than the pauper who split his bread to a dying hobo.
I think choice is a matter of responsibility and doesn't change the nature of the action, but motivation is entirely a separate issue. If I do a good deed for a selfish reason does that make it a bad deed?
If I go back in time and kill Hitler, am I a cold blooded murderer or a hero? Am I both or neither?
If I were American, I guess I would be sentenced to death for unlawful murder then high-fived all the way to the chair by everybody in the place, which seems a little strange. I think whether we like it or not a conflation of legality and morality is exactly what we wrestle with every day.
I feel morals dictate laws and changes in law reflect the changing morality of the populace. I think that's a good thing and it seems to me that morals should actually overrule law as a result of this. Why should I be punished for murdering a genocidal maniac just because the basic act of murder is morally wrong?
To consider laws without morals or morals without laws, I'd have to choose the latter, laws are just a shortcut to arriving at the right moral answer in the majority of cases, I guess this is where judge and jury come into play to explore the final aspects of an each individually.
When one sides morals clash with the others, I guess you just have to go with the majority. If the majority of the population are pro-choice it stands to reason that this act has to be viewed as morally good, as there is no objective morality apparently, and if the majority of the population are pro-life it has to be morally corrupt. Compromise is often the only tool at our disposal and when uncompromising issues arise majority dictates morality.
Using my own reasoning on this then I'd have to agree with this law if that's the way the majority of Sweden feels, but then you'd have to consider the morality of denying others their wishes simply because you disagree with it and that's where we get into issues of harm. The majority of Sweden may feel the act itself is immoral but I feel the act of outlawing certain activities because of purely a moral objection would itself be more immoral than the act itself, which is why I disagree with this ruling.
Morality I think does and should dictate law but it's incredibly complex and intertwined. This is a difficult situation because everyone has decided that cruelty to animals is morally wrong and overrules the rights of the person inflicting the cruelty on the animal to do so. What I think is questionable is whether it really constitutes cruelty, laws based purely upon a simple moral objection with no connection to other pre-established moral guidelines are definitely not a good thing.
But you don't have to make a choice between the 2. That's actually the beauty of the argument behind separation of laws and morals, it allows moral criticisms of the law. One could morally disagree with a legal provision while acknowledging that nonetheless he is legally obligated to do something.
To clarify further, I don't see the problem with this law, if as a matter of public policy, Sweden feels sufficiently strongly against this, they decided to ban it. What I am essentially objecting, is the notion that beastiality is banned because it is morally wrong. There's 2 arguments at play here, what I think the law should be, and one regarding what the law now is in Sweden. Lets disregard the former for a moment here, for its just my 2 cents, I'm arguing that this law needs to be passed for the right reasons. Going back to the idea that laws are a social tool, the detachment of laws and morals is precisely what allows this to be passed. But the understanding of this as moral law, is what opens up the can of worms.
I find this confusing because it seems to me what you're essentially saying is that if the majority of people in Sweden feel it's morally wrong then it's okay to ban it, but it's not okay if they decide to ban it because it's morally wrong.
In scenario A the law remains detached from morals in essence, each Swede could have different reasons for supporting such a ban, ranging from personal views that such acts are immoral, to paranoia of potential diseases which might form because of such acts. Law remains social, it is law by virtue of the Swedish society saying so, for whatever reasons.
In scenario B the law is passed because it is derived directly from morals. A logical causal connection exists. That is what I'm refuting.
On June 15 2013 08:26 Ponera wrote: I am officially cancelling my tickets to sweden.
Honestly, people who are into animals are no different from pedophiles, homosexuals or straight people. Well, they are in the sense that they partake in risky/potentially abusive behavior like pedophiles do but the brain lights up the same; they are attracted to what they are attracted to. It's just unfortunate that what they are attracted to happens to be a horse and there is no way in which to partake in the activity without potentially harming yourself or the animal. It's like pedophilia; they are attracted to children, that part is not their fault. However, partaking in their fantasies is what causes harm.
You think Sweden somehow is specially inclined to bestiality? One of the most civilized countries in the world? I've always assumed it's illegal since it technically is, so does everyone else.
On June 15 2013 08:26 Ponera wrote: I am officially cancelling my tickets to sweden.
Honestly, people who are into animals are no different from pedophiles, homosexuals or straight people. Well, they are in the sense that they partake in risky/potentially abusive behavior like pedophiles do but the brain lights up the same; they are attracted to what they are attracted to. It's just unfortunate that what they are attracted to happens to be a horse and there is no way in which to partake in the activity without potentially harming yourself or the animal. It's like pedophilia; they are attracted to children, that part is not their fault. However, partaking in their fantasies is what causes harm.
Would be a horrific spot to be in, mentally.
Being a pedophile isnt't a crime and not all of them act out their desires. Zoophiles who partake in their fantasies don't necessarily cause harm, thus the discussion.
On June 15 2013 06:01 Reason wrote: [quote] That's essentially the same for every law, and most of the time it's a good thing.
Most people consider murder to be morally wrong, so we outlawed murder, cool!
The problem arises when the majority of people are discriminatory and you end up like Uganda or Russia.
That's the problem right there.
Most people just look at the paradigmatic cases of law we have and assume morals are the reasons why they are there. But that's far from a clear cut answer. There are many potential explanations for laws regarding murder, from Hobbes's social contract to Mill's harm principle to Bentham's empirical positivism.
When people only know the laws but don't know why they are there, we potentially develop bad laws like this one for the wrong reasons, assuming they were the original reasons underlying the system in the first place.
So do you think every law should come with it's associated reasoning? I'm sure that information is held somewhere... but I don't know. What do you suggest as an alternative to the current situation and can you elaborate on what you feel this situation is?
I certainly don't feel like laws are passed willy nilly for no clear reason.
There's been (a still ongoing) hundreds of years of debate about that. It hasn't been conclusively resolved but it's been roughly divided into 2 camps: one side is saying laws are a social tool for regulation and essentially whatever the "source of law" in a society says is law. In that version, the content of law is generally checked by democracy, separation of powers, yadayada, you know the drill. The other camp is basically saying that laws and morals are one and the same. But personally, that camp's ideas is getting progressively untenable as globalisation forces the mingling of differing cultures.
Think about it, if laws that are moral are ok, what's stopping the legislation of positive obligations? (Instead of don't do something, you have to do something). What's stopping say, a predominantly Catholic populace from voting a new law that makes church mandatory for EVERYONE. They'd argue its moral, it was voted by a majority. Laws passed are generally negative obligations because such laws are the least infringing of people's dignity.
Also, a gap between law and morals is essential for moral goodness to even exist. Imagine a man walking past a beggar, he feels sorry for him and hands him his sandwich. The man has done a moral good deed and the beggar feels grateful. Now imagine if there was a law, for moral reasons, that compelled such charity. The beggar would (rightfully so) be entitled, and the moral merit of the deed is void since there was no choice involved.
Laws are often based upon morals but morals are not based upon law. Our society doesn't seem to feel anybody has a moral obligation to do anything, save look after children properly, so I don't think laws of positive obligation are anything to be concerned about.
Does the removal of choice alter the morality of an action? If you say "kill x person or I will kill you" it removes some of the responsiblity from myself, but it doesn't make the act of killing that person any more or less morally corrupt than doing it on my own, the only difference there is that I did it through my own choice and responsibility for this morally wrong action lies solely with me.
If it was legally required to give money to homeless people that doesn't change the inherent morality of the action, it just places the credit of the action elsewhere as opposed to making it void, but that's not going to happen anyway.
Your first statement raises more questions than it answers. Laws are often based upon morals, how often? Is there a principled method? Also is the problem of subjectivity, a conflation of the legal and the moral could only feasibly work with the existence of an objective moral code (if you look at the works of those who argue for such a case e.g. Aristotle, Finnis, they talk about self-evident (LOL) basic goods which all humans should strive towards), but such objective morals have yet to be proven. How do you resolve it when one side's morals fundamentally clash with anothers?
Of course the removal of choice alters the morality of an action. Morality isn't an instrumentalist concept that's concerned with outcome, but about how we arrive at our decisions. If outcome were the sole determinant, businesses who grant scholarships for tax break purposes would be far more moral than the pauper who split his bread to a dying hobo.
I think choice is a matter of responsibility and doesn't change the nature of the action, but motivation is entirely a separate issue. If I do a good deed for a selfish reason does that make it a bad deed?
If I go back in time and kill Hitler, am I a cold blooded murderer or a hero? Am I both or neither?
If I were American, I guess I would be sentenced to death for unlawful murder then high-fived all the way to the chair by everybody in the place, which seems a little strange. I think whether we like it or not a conflation of legality and morality is exactly what we wrestle with every day.
I feel morals dictate laws and changes in law reflect the changing morality of the populace. I think that's a good thing and it seems to me that morals should actually overrule law as a result of this. Why should I be punished for murdering a genocidal maniac just because the basic act of murder is morally wrong?
To consider laws without morals or morals without laws, I'd have to choose the latter, laws are just a shortcut to arriving at the right moral answer in the majority of cases, I guess this is where judge and jury come into play to explore the final aspects of an each individually.
When one sides morals clash with the others, I guess you just have to go with the majority. If the majority of the population are pro-choice it stands to reason that this act has to be viewed as morally good, as there is no objective morality apparently, and if the majority of the population are pro-life it has to be morally corrupt. Compromise is often the only tool at our disposal and when uncompromising issues arise majority dictates morality.
Using my own reasoning on this then I'd have to agree with this law if that's the way the majority of Sweden feels, but then you'd have to consider the morality of denying others their wishes simply because you disagree with it and that's where we get into issues of harm. The majority of Sweden may feel the act itself is immoral but I feel the act of outlawing certain activities because of purely a moral objection would itself be more immoral than the act itself, which is why I disagree with this ruling.
Morality I think does and should dictate law but it's incredibly complex and intertwined. This is a difficult situation because everyone has decided that cruelty to animals is morally wrong and overrules the rights of the person inflicting the cruelty on the animal to do so. What I think is questionable is whether it really constitutes cruelty, laws based purely upon a simple moral objection with no connection to other pre-established moral guidelines are definitely not a good thing.
But you don't have to make a choice between the 2. That's actually the beauty of the argument behind separation of laws and morals, it allows moral criticisms of the law. One could morally disagree with a legal provision while acknowledging that nonetheless he is legally obligated to do something.
To clarify further, I don't see the problem with this law, if as a matter of public policy, Sweden feels sufficiently strongly against this, they decided to ban it. What I am essentially objecting, is the notion that beastiality is banned because it is morally wrong. There's 2 arguments at play here, what I think the law should be, and one regarding what the law now is in Sweden. Lets disregard the former for a moment here, for its just my 2 cents, I'm arguing that this law needs to be passed for the right reasons. Going back to the idea that laws are a social tool, the detachment of laws and morals is precisely what allows this to be passed. But the understanding of this as moral law, is what opens up the can of worms.
I find this confusing because it seems to me what you're essentially saying is that if the majority of people in Sweden feel it's morally wrong then it's okay to ban it, but it's not okay if they decide to ban it because it's morally wrong.
In scenario A the law remains detached from morals in essence, each Swede could have different reasons for supporting such a ban, ranging from personal views that such acts are immoral, to paranoia of potential diseases which might form because of such acts. Law remains social, it is law by virtue of the Swedish society saying so, for whatever reasons.
In scenario B the law is passed because it is derived directly from morals. A logical causal connection exists. That is what I'm refuting.
A. The majority of Swedes are against bestiality for a multitude of reasons, including morality. This is okay. B. The majority of Swedes are against bestiality for a single reason, morality. This is not okay.
On June 15 2013 08:26 Ponera wrote: I am officially cancelling my tickets to sweden.
Honestly, people who are into animals are no different from pedophiles, homosexuals or straight people. Well, they are in the sense that they partake in risky/potentially abusive behavior like pedophiles do but the brain lights up the same; they are attracted to what they are attracted to. It's just unfortunate that what they are attracted to happens to be a horse and there is no way in which to partake in the activity without potentially harming yourself or the animal. It's like pedophilia; they are attracted to children, that part is not their fault. However, partaking in their fantasies is what causes harm.
Would be a horrific spot to be in, mentally.
Being a pedophile isnt't a crime and not all of them act out their desires. Zoophiles who partake in their fantasies don't necessarily cause harm, thus the discussion.
On June 15 2013 06:07 S_SienZ wrote: [quote] That's the problem right there.
Most people just look at the paradigmatic cases of law we have and assume morals are the reasons why they are there. But that's far from a clear cut answer. There are many potential explanations for laws regarding murder, from Hobbes's social contract to Mill's harm principle to Bentham's empirical positivism.
When people only know the laws but don't know why they are there, we potentially develop bad laws like this one for the wrong reasons, assuming they were the original reasons underlying the system in the first place.
So do you think every law should come with it's associated reasoning? I'm sure that information is held somewhere... but I don't know. What do you suggest as an alternative to the current situation and can you elaborate on what you feel this situation is?
I certainly don't feel like laws are passed willy nilly for no clear reason.
There's been (a still ongoing) hundreds of years of debate about that. It hasn't been conclusively resolved but it's been roughly divided into 2 camps: one side is saying laws are a social tool for regulation and essentially whatever the "source of law" in a society says is law. In that version, the content of law is generally checked by democracy, separation of powers, yadayada, you know the drill. The other camp is basically saying that laws and morals are one and the same. But personally, that camp's ideas is getting progressively untenable as globalisation forces the mingling of differing cultures.
Think about it, if laws that are moral are ok, what's stopping the legislation of positive obligations? (Instead of don't do something, you have to do something). What's stopping say, a predominantly Catholic populace from voting a new law that makes church mandatory for EVERYONE. They'd argue its moral, it was voted by a majority. Laws passed are generally negative obligations because such laws are the least infringing of people's dignity.
Also, a gap between law and morals is essential for moral goodness to even exist. Imagine a man walking past a beggar, he feels sorry for him and hands him his sandwich. The man has done a moral good deed and the beggar feels grateful. Now imagine if there was a law, for moral reasons, that compelled such charity. The beggar would (rightfully so) be entitled, and the moral merit of the deed is void since there was no choice involved.
Laws are often based upon morals but morals are not based upon law. Our society doesn't seem to feel anybody has a moral obligation to do anything, save look after children properly, so I don't think laws of positive obligation are anything to be concerned about.
Does the removal of choice alter the morality of an action? If you say "kill x person or I will kill you" it removes some of the responsiblity from myself, but it doesn't make the act of killing that person any more or less morally corrupt than doing it on my own, the only difference there is that I did it through my own choice and responsibility for this morally wrong action lies solely with me.
If it was legally required to give money to homeless people that doesn't change the inherent morality of the action, it just places the credit of the action elsewhere as opposed to making it void, but that's not going to happen anyway.
Your first statement raises more questions than it answers. Laws are often based upon morals, how often? Is there a principled method? Also is the problem of subjectivity, a conflation of the legal and the moral could only feasibly work with the existence of an objective moral code (if you look at the works of those who argue for such a case e.g. Aristotle, Finnis, they talk about self-evident (LOL) basic goods which all humans should strive towards), but such objective morals have yet to be proven. How do you resolve it when one side's morals fundamentally clash with anothers?
Of course the removal of choice alters the morality of an action. Morality isn't an instrumentalist concept that's concerned with outcome, but about how we arrive at our decisions. If outcome were the sole determinant, businesses who grant scholarships for tax break purposes would be far more moral than the pauper who split his bread to a dying hobo.
I think choice is a matter of responsibility and doesn't change the nature of the action, but motivation is entirely a separate issue. If I do a good deed for a selfish reason does that make it a bad deed?
If I go back in time and kill Hitler, am I a cold blooded murderer or a hero? Am I both or neither?
If I were American, I guess I would be sentenced to death for unlawful murder then high-fived all the way to the chair by everybody in the place, which seems a little strange. I think whether we like it or not a conflation of legality and morality is exactly what we wrestle with every day.
I feel morals dictate laws and changes in law reflect the changing morality of the populace. I think that's a good thing and it seems to me that morals should actually overrule law as a result of this. Why should I be punished for murdering a genocidal maniac just because the basic act of murder is morally wrong?
To consider laws without morals or morals without laws, I'd have to choose the latter, laws are just a shortcut to arriving at the right moral answer in the majority of cases, I guess this is where judge and jury come into play to explore the final aspects of an each individually.
When one sides morals clash with the others, I guess you just have to go with the majority. If the majority of the population are pro-choice it stands to reason that this act has to be viewed as morally good, as there is no objective morality apparently, and if the majority of the population are pro-life it has to be morally corrupt. Compromise is often the only tool at our disposal and when uncompromising issues arise majority dictates morality.
Using my own reasoning on this then I'd have to agree with this law if that's the way the majority of Sweden feels, but then you'd have to consider the morality of denying others their wishes simply because you disagree with it and that's where we get into issues of harm. The majority of Sweden may feel the act itself is immoral but I feel the act of outlawing certain activities because of purely a moral objection would itself be more immoral than the act itself, which is why I disagree with this ruling.
Morality I think does and should dictate law but it's incredibly complex and intertwined. This is a difficult situation because everyone has decided that cruelty to animals is morally wrong and overrules the rights of the person inflicting the cruelty on the animal to do so. What I think is questionable is whether it really constitutes cruelty, laws based purely upon a simple moral objection with no connection to other pre-established moral guidelines are definitely not a good thing.
But you don't have to make a choice between the 2. That's actually the beauty of the argument behind separation of laws and morals, it allows moral criticisms of the law. One could morally disagree with a legal provision while acknowledging that nonetheless he is legally obligated to do something.
To clarify further, I don't see the problem with this law, if as a matter of public policy, Sweden feels sufficiently strongly against this, they decided to ban it. What I am essentially objecting, is the notion that beastiality is banned because it is morally wrong. There's 2 arguments at play here, what I think the law should be, and one regarding what the law now is in Sweden. Lets disregard the former for a moment here, for its just my 2 cents, I'm arguing that this law needs to be passed for the right reasons. Going back to the idea that laws are a social tool, the detachment of laws and morals is precisely what allows this to be passed. But the understanding of this as moral law, is what opens up the can of worms.
I find this confusing because it seems to me what you're essentially saying is that if the majority of people in Sweden feel it's morally wrong then it's okay to ban it, but it's not okay if they decide to ban it because it's morally wrong.
In scenario A the law remains detached from morals in essence, each Swede could have different reasons for supporting such a ban, ranging from personal views that such acts are immoral, to paranoia of potential diseases which might form because of such acts. Law remains social, it is law by virtue of the Swedish society saying so, for whatever reasons.
In scenario B the law is passed because it is derived directly from morals. A logical causal connection exists. That is what I'm refuting.
A. The majority of Swedes are against bestiality for a multitude of reasons, including morality. This is okay. B. The majority of Swedes are against bestiality for a single reason, morality. This is not okay.
I don't understand.
B will be used as a stepping stone for more morality based laws on animals in the future, A won't necessarily.
Bestiality is taboo and was illegal in sweden until homosexuality was legalized. Then people of that age reasoned that if same-sex sex was allowed why not animals and now someone realised that it is so not the same thing. End of story.
To all people who eat meat here, please stop and think. You kill these animals, how the fuck can you then not think it is ok to fuck them, it at the very least is nothing to them and at most would give them pleasure. If they don't like it they\ll let you know anyway.
This is the current swedish minister of agriculture speaking in our parliament. It's really awkward, and in my opinion very weird that he sees it necessary to problematize this. i highly doubt that this is a big problem in Sweden. But then there seems to be something off with him, as a whole...
I just googletranslatede what he said:
"However, we note that it ultimately becomes a matter of what is sexual exploitation of animals. Let me give some examples. Is it, and should it be, legal to a sex emphasize on something that for example a dog tastes or smells good, to let the dog lick it is påstruket on sex? Should it be permitted to stroke a bitch on the teats with love, or will it count as a sexual exploitation of animals? It becomes extremely difficult question of judgment to decide whether a change in the law."
I see this is really bad enlgish but i don't have time to make a better translation now..
On June 15 2013 08:26 Ponera wrote: I am officially cancelling my tickets to sweden.
Honestly, people who are into animals are no different from pedophiles, homosexuals or straight people. Well, they are in the sense that they partake in risky/potentially abusive behavior like pedophiles do but the brain lights up the same; they are attracted to what they are attracted to. It's just unfortunate that what they are attracted to happens to be a horse and there is no way in which to partake in the activity without potentially harming yourself or the animal. It's like pedophilia; they are attracted to children, that part is not their fault. However, partaking in their fantasies is what causes harm.
Would be a horrific spot to be in, mentally.
Being a pedophile isnt't a crime and not all of them act out their desires. Zoophiles who partake in their fantasies don't necessarily cause harm, thus the discussion.
On June 15 2013 08:29 S_SienZ wrote:
On June 15 2013 08:17 Reason wrote:
On June 15 2013 08:15 S_SienZ wrote:
On June 15 2013 07:53 Reason wrote:
On June 15 2013 06:48 S_SienZ wrote:
On June 15 2013 06:37 Reason wrote:
On June 15 2013 06:21 S_SienZ wrote:
On June 15 2013 06:14 Reason wrote: [quote] So do you think every law should come with it's associated reasoning? I'm sure that information is held somewhere... but I don't know. What do you suggest as an alternative to the current situation and can you elaborate on what you feel this situation is?
I certainly don't feel like laws are passed willy nilly for no clear reason.
There's been (a still ongoing) hundreds of years of debate about that. It hasn't been conclusively resolved but it's been roughly divided into 2 camps: one side is saying laws are a social tool for regulation and essentially whatever the "source of law" in a society says is law. In that version, the content of law is generally checked by democracy, separation of powers, yadayada, you know the drill. The other camp is basically saying that laws and morals are one and the same. But personally, that camp's ideas is getting progressively untenable as globalisation forces the mingling of differing cultures.
Think about it, if laws that are moral are ok, what's stopping the legislation of positive obligations? (Instead of don't do something, you have to do something). What's stopping say, a predominantly Catholic populace from voting a new law that makes church mandatory for EVERYONE. They'd argue its moral, it was voted by a majority. Laws passed are generally negative obligations because such laws are the least infringing of people's dignity.
Also, a gap between law and morals is essential for moral goodness to even exist. Imagine a man walking past a beggar, he feels sorry for him and hands him his sandwich. The man has done a moral good deed and the beggar feels grateful. Now imagine if there was a law, for moral reasons, that compelled such charity. The beggar would (rightfully so) be entitled, and the moral merit of the deed is void since there was no choice involved.
Laws are often based upon morals but morals are not based upon law. Our society doesn't seem to feel anybody has a moral obligation to do anything, save look after children properly, so I don't think laws of positive obligation are anything to be concerned about.
Does the removal of choice alter the morality of an action? If you say "kill x person or I will kill you" it removes some of the responsiblity from myself, but it doesn't make the act of killing that person any more or less morally corrupt than doing it on my own, the only difference there is that I did it through my own choice and responsibility for this morally wrong action lies solely with me.
If it was legally required to give money to homeless people that doesn't change the inherent morality of the action, it just places the credit of the action elsewhere as opposed to making it void, but that's not going to happen anyway.
Your first statement raises more questions than it answers. Laws are often based upon morals, how often? Is there a principled method? Also is the problem of subjectivity, a conflation of the legal and the moral could only feasibly work with the existence of an objective moral code (if you look at the works of those who argue for such a case e.g. Aristotle, Finnis, they talk about self-evident (LOL) basic goods which all humans should strive towards), but such objective morals have yet to be proven. How do you resolve it when one side's morals fundamentally clash with anothers?
Of course the removal of choice alters the morality of an action. Morality isn't an instrumentalist concept that's concerned with outcome, but about how we arrive at our decisions. If outcome were the sole determinant, businesses who grant scholarships for tax break purposes would be far more moral than the pauper who split his bread to a dying hobo.
I think choice is a matter of responsibility and doesn't change the nature of the action, but motivation is entirely a separate issue. If I do a good deed for a selfish reason does that make it a bad deed?
If I go back in time and kill Hitler, am I a cold blooded murderer or a hero? Am I both or neither?
If I were American, I guess I would be sentenced to death for unlawful murder then high-fived all the way to the chair by everybody in the place, which seems a little strange. I think whether we like it or not a conflation of legality and morality is exactly what we wrestle with every day.
I feel morals dictate laws and changes in law reflect the changing morality of the populace. I think that's a good thing and it seems to me that morals should actually overrule law as a result of this. Why should I be punished for murdering a genocidal maniac just because the basic act of murder is morally wrong?
To consider laws without morals or morals without laws, I'd have to choose the latter, laws are just a shortcut to arriving at the right moral answer in the majority of cases, I guess this is where judge and jury come into play to explore the final aspects of an each individually.
When one sides morals clash with the others, I guess you just have to go with the majority. If the majority of the population are pro-choice it stands to reason that this act has to be viewed as morally good, as there is no objective morality apparently, and if the majority of the population are pro-life it has to be morally corrupt. Compromise is often the only tool at our disposal and when uncompromising issues arise majority dictates morality.
Using my own reasoning on this then I'd have to agree with this law if that's the way the majority of Sweden feels, but then you'd have to consider the morality of denying others their wishes simply because you disagree with it and that's where we get into issues of harm. The majority of Sweden may feel the act itself is immoral but I feel the act of outlawing certain activities because of purely a moral objection would itself be more immoral than the act itself, which is why I disagree with this ruling.
Morality I think does and should dictate law but it's incredibly complex and intertwined. This is a difficult situation because everyone has decided that cruelty to animals is morally wrong and overrules the rights of the person inflicting the cruelty on the animal to do so. What I think is questionable is whether it really constitutes cruelty, laws based purely upon a simple moral objection with no connection to other pre-established moral guidelines are definitely not a good thing.
But you don't have to make a choice between the 2. That's actually the beauty of the argument behind separation of laws and morals, it allows moral criticisms of the law. One could morally disagree with a legal provision while acknowledging that nonetheless he is legally obligated to do something.
To clarify further, I don't see the problem with this law, if as a matter of public policy, Sweden feels sufficiently strongly against this, they decided to ban it. What I am essentially objecting, is the notion that beastiality is banned because it is morally wrong. There's 2 arguments at play here, what I think the law should be, and one regarding what the law now is in Sweden. Lets disregard the former for a moment here, for its just my 2 cents, I'm arguing that this law needs to be passed for the right reasons. Going back to the idea that laws are a social tool, the detachment of laws and morals is precisely what allows this to be passed. But the understanding of this as moral law, is what opens up the can of worms.
I find this confusing because it seems to me what you're essentially saying is that if the majority of people in Sweden feel it's morally wrong then it's okay to ban it, but it's not okay if they decide to ban it because it's morally wrong.
In scenario A the law remains detached from morals in essence, each Swede could have different reasons for supporting such a ban, ranging from personal views that such acts are immoral, to paranoia of potential diseases which might form because of such acts. Law remains social, it is law by virtue of the Swedish society saying so, for whatever reasons.
In scenario B the law is passed because it is derived directly from morals. A logical causal connection exists. That is what I'm refuting.
A. The majority of Swedes are against bestiality for a multitude of reasons, including morality. This is okay. B. The majority of Swedes are against bestiality for a single reason, morality. This is not okay.
I don't understand.
B will be used as a stepping stone for more morality based laws on animals in the future, A won't necessarily.
So one day we might make it illegal to eat meat or keep pets?!
What are reasons against animal cruelty aside from moral? Is this such a bad thing?
On June 15 2013 08:26 Ponera wrote: I am officially cancelling my tickets to sweden.
Honestly, people who are into animals are no different from pedophiles, homosexuals or straight people. Well, they are in the sense that they partake in risky/potentially abusive behavior like pedophiles do but the brain lights up the same; they are attracted to what they are attracted to. It's just unfortunate that what they are attracted to happens to be a horse and there is no way in which to partake in the activity without potentially harming yourself or the animal. It's like pedophilia; they are attracted to children, that part is not their fault. However, partaking in their fantasies is what causes harm.
Would be a horrific spot to be in, mentally.
Being a pedophile isnt't a crime and not all of them act out their desires. Zoophiles who partake in their fantasies don't necessarily cause harm, thus the discussion.
On June 15 2013 08:29 S_SienZ wrote:
On June 15 2013 08:17 Reason wrote:
On June 15 2013 08:15 S_SienZ wrote:
On June 15 2013 07:53 Reason wrote:
On June 15 2013 06:48 S_SienZ wrote:
On June 15 2013 06:37 Reason wrote:
On June 15 2013 06:21 S_SienZ wrote: [quote] There's been (a still ongoing) hundreds of years of debate about that. It hasn't been conclusively resolved but it's been roughly divided into 2 camps: one side is saying laws are a social tool for regulation and essentially whatever the "source of law" in a society says is law. In that version, the content of law is generally checked by democracy, separation of powers, yadayada, you know the drill. The other camp is basically saying that laws and morals are one and the same. But personally, that camp's ideas is getting progressively untenable as globalisation forces the mingling of differing cultures.
Think about it, if laws that are moral are ok, what's stopping the legislation of positive obligations? (Instead of don't do something, you have to do something). What's stopping say, a predominantly Catholic populace from voting a new law that makes church mandatory for EVERYONE. They'd argue its moral, it was voted by a majority. Laws passed are generally negative obligations because such laws are the least infringing of people's dignity.
Also, a gap between law and morals is essential for moral goodness to even exist. Imagine a man walking past a beggar, he feels sorry for him and hands him his sandwich. The man has done a moral good deed and the beggar feels grateful. Now imagine if there was a law, for moral reasons, that compelled such charity. The beggar would (rightfully so) be entitled, and the moral merit of the deed is void since there was no choice involved.
Laws are often based upon morals but morals are not based upon law. Our society doesn't seem to feel anybody has a moral obligation to do anything, save look after children properly, so I don't think laws of positive obligation are anything to be concerned about.
Does the removal of choice alter the morality of an action? If you say "kill x person or I will kill you" it removes some of the responsiblity from myself, but it doesn't make the act of killing that person any more or less morally corrupt than doing it on my own, the only difference there is that I did it through my own choice and responsibility for this morally wrong action lies solely with me.
If it was legally required to give money to homeless people that doesn't change the inherent morality of the action, it just places the credit of the action elsewhere as opposed to making it void, but that's not going to happen anyway.
Your first statement raises more questions than it answers. Laws are often based upon morals, how often? Is there a principled method? Also is the problem of subjectivity, a conflation of the legal and the moral could only feasibly work with the existence of an objective moral code (if you look at the works of those who argue for such a case e.g. Aristotle, Finnis, they talk about self-evident (LOL) basic goods which all humans should strive towards), but such objective morals have yet to be proven. How do you resolve it when one side's morals fundamentally clash with anothers?
Of course the removal of choice alters the morality of an action. Morality isn't an instrumentalist concept that's concerned with outcome, but about how we arrive at our decisions. If outcome were the sole determinant, businesses who grant scholarships for tax break purposes would be far more moral than the pauper who split his bread to a dying hobo.
I think choice is a matter of responsibility and doesn't change the nature of the action, but motivation is entirely a separate issue. If I do a good deed for a selfish reason does that make it a bad deed?
If I go back in time and kill Hitler, am I a cold blooded murderer or a hero? Am I both or neither?
If I were American, I guess I would be sentenced to death for unlawful murder then high-fived all the way to the chair by everybody in the place, which seems a little strange. I think whether we like it or not a conflation of legality and morality is exactly what we wrestle with every day.
I feel morals dictate laws and changes in law reflect the changing morality of the populace. I think that's a good thing and it seems to me that morals should actually overrule law as a result of this. Why should I be punished for murdering a genocidal maniac just because the basic act of murder is morally wrong?
To consider laws without morals or morals without laws, I'd have to choose the latter, laws are just a shortcut to arriving at the right moral answer in the majority of cases, I guess this is where judge and jury come into play to explore the final aspects of an each individually.
When one sides morals clash with the others, I guess you just have to go with the majority. If the majority of the population are pro-choice it stands to reason that this act has to be viewed as morally good, as there is no objective morality apparently, and if the majority of the population are pro-life it has to be morally corrupt. Compromise is often the only tool at our disposal and when uncompromising issues arise majority dictates morality.
Using my own reasoning on this then I'd have to agree with this law if that's the way the majority of Sweden feels, but then you'd have to consider the morality of denying others their wishes simply because you disagree with it and that's where we get into issues of harm. The majority of Sweden may feel the act itself is immoral but I feel the act of outlawing certain activities because of purely a moral objection would itself be more immoral than the act itself, which is why I disagree with this ruling.
Morality I think does and should dictate law but it's incredibly complex and intertwined. This is a difficult situation because everyone has decided that cruelty to animals is morally wrong and overrules the rights of the person inflicting the cruelty on the animal to do so. What I think is questionable is whether it really constitutes cruelty, laws based purely upon a simple moral objection with no connection to other pre-established moral guidelines are definitely not a good thing.
But you don't have to make a choice between the 2. That's actually the beauty of the argument behind separation of laws and morals, it allows moral criticisms of the law. One could morally disagree with a legal provision while acknowledging that nonetheless he is legally obligated to do something.
To clarify further, I don't see the problem with this law, if as a matter of public policy, Sweden feels sufficiently strongly against this, they decided to ban it. What I am essentially objecting, is the notion that beastiality is banned because it is morally wrong. There's 2 arguments at play here, what I think the law should be, and one regarding what the law now is in Sweden. Lets disregard the former for a moment here, for its just my 2 cents, I'm arguing that this law needs to be passed for the right reasons. Going back to the idea that laws are a social tool, the detachment of laws and morals is precisely what allows this to be passed. But the understanding of this as moral law, is what opens up the can of worms.
I find this confusing because it seems to me what you're essentially saying is that if the majority of people in Sweden feel it's morally wrong then it's okay to ban it, but it's not okay if they decide to ban it because it's morally wrong.
In scenario A the law remains detached from morals in essence, each Swede could have different reasons for supporting such a ban, ranging from personal views that such acts are immoral, to paranoia of potential diseases which might form because of such acts. Law remains social, it is law by virtue of the Swedish society saying so, for whatever reasons.
In scenario B the law is passed because it is derived directly from morals. A logical causal connection exists. That is what I'm refuting.
A. The majority of Swedes are against bestiality for a multitude of reasons, including morality. This is okay. B. The majority of Swedes are against bestiality for a single reason, morality. This is not okay.
I don't understand.
B will be used as a stepping stone for more morality based laws on animals in the future, A won't necessarily.
So one day we might make it illegal to eat meat or keep pets?!
What are reasons against animal cruelty aside from moral? Is this such a bad thing?
It could happen, coz B essentially states that animals are deserved the same liberties as humans. A right not to be "raped" on the part of the animal with a corresponding duty to not infringe that right on the part of humans.
Well, that's up to the people the relevant law is directed towards. Unfortunately in a democracy things often are not done for the best of reasons. Some could even be bad or contradictory reasons.
On June 15 2013 09:14 KoRDragoon wrote: I just googletranslatede what he said:
"However, we note that it ultimately becomes a matter of what is sexual exploitation of animals. Let me give some examples. Is it, and should it be, legal to a sex emphasize on something that for example a dog tastes or smells good, to let the dog lick it is påstruket on sex? Should it be permitted to stroke a bitch on the teats with love, or will it count as a sexual exploitation of animals? It can become extremely difficult to determine exactly how to change the law."
I see this is really bad enlgish but i don't have time to make a better translation now..
Ill help you out.
"It ultimately comes down to a matter of defining the issue. For example, would it be considered exploitation to encourage a dog to sexually smell or lick something? Should it be legal to fondle a female dog's teats with love, or will it count as sexual exploitation? It becomes extremely difficult to exactly judge how to change the law."
"permitted to stroke a bitch on the teats with love" sounds totally creepy lol
On June 15 2013 09:14 KoRDragoon wrote: I just googletranslatede what he said:
"However, we note that it ultimately becomes a matter of what is sexual exploitation of animals. Let me give some examples. Is it, and should it be, legal to a sex emphasize on something that for example a dog tastes or smells good, to let the dog lick it is påstruket on sex? Should it be permitted to stroke a bitch on the teats with love, or will it count as a sexual exploitation of animals? It can become extremely difficult to determine exactly how to change the law."
I see this is really bad enlgish but i don't have time to make a better translation now..
Ill help you out.
"It ultimately comes down to a matter of defining the issue. For example, would it be considered exploitation to encourage a dog to sexually smell or lick something? Should it be legal to fondle a female dog's teats with love, or will it count as sexual exploitation? It becomes extremely difficult to exactly judge how to change the law."
"permitted to stroke a bitch on the teats with love" sounds totally creepy lol
It sounds pretty creepy but considering the fact that most people who own a dog love that dog, and almost all of the dogs I know or have owned love (loved) to have their belly scratched I can understand where he comes from.
In all honesty, I think this debate is a classic case of much ado about nothing... Yes a few animals might be sexually abused (170 cases in 40 years? I think a number like that might be too low, but still...) compared to the thousands of animals who have been brutally misstreated in the same time period (only counting home owned animals, the food industry is on another level by itself), I'd much prefer they'd focus their legislation in that direction.
Before someone calls me a hypocrite, yes I am aware that we have had a similar law in Austria for the past 20 years, I also believe that whoever spent his time on that law also wasted his time
Only half a year left to make sweet luv to them animals.
JK.
But seriously, the idea that beastiality should be illegalized is not as clear cut as you might think instinctively. Indeed, if, as ImperialFist so bluntly suggested above, a woman would let a dog do it's thing on her; the dog enjoys it, she enjoys it, is that really a crime? And the argument that it's hypocritical how we find it totally acceptable that we slaughter them and use them as tools in a ton of various ways, yet having sex with them is wrong, is an interesting one as well. If their ''consent'' is really that important, isn't the slaughtering of animals straight up murder?
On June 15 2013 03:05 Gladiator6 wrote: Good for us, although it has never been accepted of course.
I saw some sick documentary a time ago though, in some South American, where they would have sex with donkey's first before trying a girl, maybe it was Chile or something? I can't remember the name or the country but if someone know's the documentary please link! ^_^
Where's the maybe option? I mean, if it weren't illegal/taboo, I wouldn't immediately run to the first goat I see and fuck it, but who knows what happens in life? Also if it was legal and not taboo I would be fine with other people doing it.
On June 15 2013 08:26 Ponera wrote: I am officially cancelling my tickets to sweden.
Honestly, people who are into animals are no different from pedophiles, homosexuals or straight people. Well, they are in the sense that they partake in risky/potentially abusive behavior like pedophiles do but the brain lights up the same; they are attracted to what they are attracted to. It's just unfortunate that what they are attracted to happens to be a horse and there is no way in which to partake in the activity without potentially harming yourself or the animal. It's like pedophilia; they are attracted to children, that part is not their fault. However, partaking in their fantasies is what causes harm.
Would be a horrific spot to be in, mentally.
Being a pedophile isnt't a crime and not all of them act out their desires. Zoophiles who partake in their fantasies don't necessarily cause harm, thus the discussion.
On June 15 2013 06:07 S_SienZ wrote: [quote] That's the problem right there.
Most people just look at the paradigmatic cases of law we have and assume morals are the reasons why they are there. But that's far from a clear cut answer. There are many potential explanations for laws regarding murder, from Hobbes's social contract to Mill's harm principle to Bentham's empirical positivism.
When people only know the laws but don't know why they are there, we potentially develop bad laws like this one for the wrong reasons, assuming they were the original reasons underlying the system in the first place.
So do you think every law should come with it's associated reasoning? I'm sure that information is held somewhere... but I don't know. What do you suggest as an alternative to the current situation and can you elaborate on what you feel this situation is?
I certainly don't feel like laws are passed willy nilly for no clear reason.
There's been (a still ongoing) hundreds of years of debate about that. It hasn't been conclusively resolved but it's been roughly divided into 2 camps: one side is saying laws are a social tool for regulation and essentially whatever the "source of law" in a society says is law. In that version, the content of law is generally checked by democracy, separation of powers, yadayada, you know the drill. The other camp is basically saying that laws and morals are one and the same. But personally, that camp's ideas is getting progressively untenable as globalisation forces the mingling of differing cultures.
Think about it, if laws that are moral are ok, what's stopping the legislation of positive obligations? (Instead of don't do something, you have to do something). What's stopping say, a predominantly Catholic populace from voting a new law that makes church mandatory for EVERYONE. They'd argue its moral, it was voted by a majority. Laws passed are generally negative obligations because such laws are the least infringing of people's dignity.
Also, a gap between law and morals is essential for moral goodness to even exist. Imagine a man walking past a beggar, he feels sorry for him and hands him his sandwich. The man has done a moral good deed and the beggar feels grateful. Now imagine if there was a law, for moral reasons, that compelled such charity. The beggar would (rightfully so) be entitled, and the moral merit of the deed is void since there was no choice involved.
Laws are often based upon morals but morals are not based upon law. Our society doesn't seem to feel anybody has a moral obligation to do anything, save look after children properly, so I don't think laws of positive obligation are anything to be concerned about.
Does the removal of choice alter the morality of an action? If you say "kill x person or I will kill you" it removes some of the responsiblity from myself, but it doesn't make the act of killing that person any more or less morally corrupt than doing it on my own, the only difference there is that I did it through my own choice and responsibility for this morally wrong action lies solely with me.
If it was legally required to give money to homeless people that doesn't change the inherent morality of the action, it just places the credit of the action elsewhere as opposed to making it void, but that's not going to happen anyway.
Your first statement raises more questions than it answers. Laws are often based upon morals, how often? Is there a principled method? Also is the problem of subjectivity, a conflation of the legal and the moral could only feasibly work with the existence of an objective moral code (if you look at the works of those who argue for such a case e.g. Aristotle, Finnis, they talk about self-evident (LOL) basic goods which all humans should strive towards), but such objective morals have yet to be proven. How do you resolve it when one side's morals fundamentally clash with anothers?
Of course the removal of choice alters the morality of an action. Morality isn't an instrumentalist concept that's concerned with outcome, but about how we arrive at our decisions. If outcome were the sole determinant, businesses who grant scholarships for tax break purposes would be far more moral than the pauper who split his bread to a dying hobo.
I think choice is a matter of responsibility and doesn't change the nature of the action, but motivation is entirely a separate issue. If I do a good deed for a selfish reason does that make it a bad deed?
If I go back in time and kill Hitler, am I a cold blooded murderer or a hero? Am I both or neither?
If I were American, I guess I would be sentenced to death for unlawful murder then high-fived all the way to the chair by everybody in the place, which seems a little strange. I think whether we like it or not a conflation of legality and morality is exactly what we wrestle with every day.
I feel morals dictate laws and changes in law reflect the changing morality of the populace. I think that's a good thing and it seems to me that morals should actually overrule law as a result of this. Why should I be punished for murdering a genocidal maniac just because the basic act of murder is morally wrong?
To consider laws without morals or morals without laws, I'd have to choose the latter, laws are just a shortcut to arriving at the right moral answer in the majority of cases, I guess this is where judge and jury come into play to explore the final aspects of an each individually.
When one sides morals clash with the others, I guess you just have to go with the majority. If the majority of the population are pro-choice it stands to reason that this act has to be viewed as morally good, as there is no objective morality apparently, and if the majority of the population are pro-life it has to be morally corrupt. Compromise is often the only tool at our disposal and when uncompromising issues arise majority dictates morality.
Using my own reasoning on this then I'd have to agree with this law if that's the way the majority of Sweden feels, but then you'd have to consider the morality of denying others their wishes simply because you disagree with it and that's where we get into issues of harm. The majority of Sweden may feel the act itself is immoral but I feel the act of outlawing certain activities because of purely a moral objection would itself be more immoral than the act itself, which is why I disagree with this ruling.
Morality I think does and should dictate law but it's incredibly complex and intertwined. This is a difficult situation because everyone has decided that cruelty to animals is morally wrong and overrules the rights of the person inflicting the cruelty on the animal to do so. What I think is questionable is whether it really constitutes cruelty, laws based purely upon a simple moral objection with no connection to other pre-established moral guidelines are definitely not a good thing.
But you don't have to make a choice between the 2. That's actually the beauty of the argument behind separation of laws and morals, it allows moral criticisms of the law. One could morally disagree with a legal provision while acknowledging that nonetheless he is legally obligated to do something.
To clarify further, I don't see the problem with this law, if as a matter of public policy, Sweden feels sufficiently strongly against this, they decided to ban it. What I am essentially objecting, is the notion that beastiality is banned because it is morally wrong. There's 2 arguments at play here, what I think the law should be, and one regarding what the law now is in Sweden. Lets disregard the former for a moment here, for its just my 2 cents, I'm arguing that this law needs to be passed for the right reasons. Going back to the idea that laws are a social tool, the detachment of laws and morals is precisely what allows this to be passed. But the understanding of this as moral law, is what opens up the can of worms.
I find this confusing because it seems to me what you're essentially saying is that if the majority of people in Sweden feel it's morally wrong then it's okay to ban it, but it's not okay if they decide to ban it because it's morally wrong.
In scenario A the law remains detached from morals in essence, each Swede could have different reasons for supporting such a ban, ranging from personal views that such acts are immoral, to paranoia of potential diseases which might form because of such acts. Law remains social, it is law by virtue of the Swedish society saying so, for whatever reasons.
In scenario B the law is passed because it is derived directly from morals. A logical causal connection exists. That is what I'm refuting.
A. The majority of Swedes are against bestiality for a multitude of reasons, including morality. This is okay. B. The majority of Swedes are against bestiality for a single reason, morality. This is not okay.
I don't understand.
You really don't understand the basic difference between "multiple" and "single"? For a seemingly intelligent human being you've said some incredibly poorly thought out things.
Basically, the government of Sweden in case A is understanding that the majority of Swedes are against bestiality but it could be because of risk of disease, worry about animal cruelty, "immorality" because they believe it is wrong, etc. Case B would be a direct result of believe it is immoral with no concern to the animal or the transmission of disease, etc. Basically, Case A considers multiple facets while Case B only considers one (immorality of the human being as judged by the societal context).
To be honest I came into this thread like a lot of other people thinking eww bestiality took em long enough to make this law. After reading posts made by people especially Kwark and Reason my view has completely changed. Although I would never have sex with an animal I really don't think it is my right/others to say what people should and shouldn't do in the privacy of their bedrooms (or barn lol) among other great points brought up by them.
On June 16 2013 17:00 darklordjac wrote: To be honest I came into this thread like a lot of other people thinking eww bestiality took em long enough to make this law. After reading posts made by people especially Kwark and Reason my view has completely changed. Although I would never have sex with an animal I really don't think it is my right/others to say what people should and shouldn't do in the privacy of their bedrooms (or barn lol) among other great points brought up by them.
I just watched at least 10 bestiality porn due to this thread. I dont know what to think anymore.
On June 14 2013 16:56 DorF wrote: A total of 209 cases of bestiality, of which 161 involved horses, have been documented since the 1970s. wow that's shockingly low number. I came here thinking " maybe we Swedes are weird" but 200 cases in 43 years ? not even bothered.
I doubt people who engage in that tend to document or report their experience to the proper authority.... I imagine its much more prevalent than that.
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.
Using the same logic, would It be cool if I tucked my penis inside a woman who's passed out? I mean she won't get harmed - I make gentle loving and Ill use protection and she won't remember a thing. Also, it's a well-known fact that men outrank women in our day and age - just look at any statitistics - they'll confirm that woman are infact inferior to men. Guess Ill be hitting town tonight!
Sorry, clearly you're confused by your colossal amount of idiocy. When I said I was fine with this because no animal was being harmed I wasn't suggesting that that was the only way of judging whether something was right or wrong. Rape is wrong, even though it doesn't involve any animals at all. I brought up harm of animals because it is eminently relevant to this issue but it's actually less relevant to other issues such as rape which doesn't involve any animals at all. There are things which make things bad and in this case harm of animals would be one of them but in other cases we might use other factors. Hopefully that clears up my point for you so you can avoid making such incredibly, obscenely stupid straw men arguments in future.
How would a person guarantee that they're not hurting the animal? How could they absolutely know? I just disagree with it in general.
On June 14 2013 16:11 nttea wrote: We can own them, pet them, restrain them but god forbid someone tries something sexual with them. Stupid law but if i were to protest something it'd be something more important so W/E.
Are you implying you think sex with animals is ok?
I think he's implying he actually does it.
User was temp banned for this post.
i think he meant that its a useless law because there are other important issues they should focus more rather than this one
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.
Using the same logic, would It be cool if I tucked my penis inside a woman who's passed out? I mean she won't get harmed - I make gentle loving and Ill use protection and she won't remember a thing. Also, it's a well-known fact that men outrank women in our day and age - just look at any statitistics - they'll confirm that woman are infact inferior to men. Guess Ill be hitting town tonight!
Sorry, clearly you're confused by your colossal amount of idiocy. When I said I was fine with this because no animal was being harmed I wasn't suggesting that that was the only way of judging whether something was right or wrong. Rape is wrong, even though it doesn't involve any animals at all. I brought up harm of animals because it is eminently relevant to this issue but it's actually less relevant to other issues such as rape which doesn't involve any animals at all. There are things which make things bad and in this case harm of animals would be one of them but in other cases we might use other factors. Hopefully that clears up my point for you so you can avoid making such incredibly, obscenely stupid straw men arguments in future.
How would a person guarantee that they're not hurting the animal? How could they absolutely know? I just disagree with it in general.
Hurt and harm are different anyway but animals are perfectly capable of expressing pain.
I would be very interested in seeing what kind of harm is done to the animals involved in beastiality (okay, that sounded creepy.) What harm IS being done to these animals? I can't imagine very much/any at all considering the size of the animals (unless its like a chicken or something) and if you're a woman I can't imagine any harm at all.
If theres no real harm being done to the animals I seriously can't fathom how this could be illegal. Something you perceive as disgusting does not mean it deserves to be legislated against. I'm personally not a fan of scat porn but I believe that people have the right to shit on one another if they get off on that.
The other dimension to this is the animal's suffering, but since we can rule out psychological damage, this comes down to physical damage. So, if an animal receives no physical harm then how can this be considered harmful?
Consent should be a non-factor. We do not grant animals consent. Consent is only a factor between humans.
Overall, I just don't think that the government has a right to outlaw beastiality if it does not harm the animal. If it does harm the animal, well shit we have animal cruelty laws that cover that.
On June 17 2013 01:01 Zambrah wrote: I would be very interested in seeing what kind of harm is done to the animals involved in beastiality (okay, that sounded creepy.) What harm IS being done to these animals? I can't imagine very much/any at all considering the size of the animals (unless its like a chicken or something) and if you're a woman I can't imagine any harm at all.
If theres no real harm being done to the animals I seriously can't fathom how this could be illegal. Something you perceive as disgusting does not mean it deserves to be legislated against. I'm personally not a fan of scat porn but I believe that people have the right to shit on one another if they get off on that.
The other dimension to this is the animal's suffering, but since we can rule out psychological damage, this comes down to physical damage. So, if an animal receives no physical harm then how can this be considered harmful?
Consent should be a non-factor. We do not grant animals consent. Consent is only a factor between humans.
Overall, I just don't think that the government has a right to outlaw beastiality if it does not harm the animal. If it does harm the animal, well shit we have animal cruelty laws that cover that.
The only argument I can think of is that yes, some animals can theoretically be hurt emotionally. Think of a dog that isn't really physically hurt but is abused in other ways. It can experience sadness and things like that.
Also there are possible medical complications in both directions, but I haven't heard any strong arguments that really justify new legislation.
I summary, I think the arguments for the complete banning of sex with animals are not with zero merit, but don't justify full bans (the same way I don't think we should ban other things unless we specifically have a good reason).
On June 17 2013 01:01 Zambrah wrote: I would be very interested in seeing what kind of harm is done to the animals involved in beastiality (okay, that sounded creepy.) What harm IS being done to these animals? I can't imagine very much/any at all considering the size of the animals (unless its like a chicken or something) and if you're a woman I can't imagine any harm at all.
If theres no real harm being done to the animals I seriously can't fathom how this could be illegal. Something you perceive as disgusting does not mean it deserves to be legislated against. I'm personally not a fan of scat porn but I believe that people have the right to shit on one another if they get off on that.
The other dimension to this is the animal's suffering, but since we can rule out psychological damage, this comes down to physical damage. So, if an animal receives no physical harm then how can this be considered harmful?
Consent should be a non-factor. We do not grant animals consent. Consent is only a factor between humans.
Overall, I just don't think that the government has a right to outlaw beastiality if it does not harm the animal. If it does harm the animal, well shit we have animal cruelty laws that cover that.
Why don't you look up some cases of bestiality before you make such a claim?
People who rape their pets are generally people who abuse them. One particular case rings in my head of this teen who locked his dog in his closet and only dragged her out to fuck her, and then throw her back into the closet where she nearly starved to death. Of course she tried to fight back every time but he would just beat her down. Saying animals can't suffer psychological damage definitely takes the ballgame of the most biologically ignorant statement I have ever heard in my entire life. I don't even have to cite this, it's already common knowledge that animals have complex emotions and psychological tendencies/bias' much like humans.
Saying we shouldn't legislate bestiality since sex with most animals doesn't physically harm them in itself is like saying we shouldn't legislate rape because sex with a human doesn't physically harm them inherently. The people who do this kind of shit are sick fucks who don't lovingly caress their dog or whatever, take them on a night on the town and give them a backrub and warm them up. These are people who grab their dog by the collar, throw them on the ground, pin them down, and fuck them, beat them, and throw them in the corner when they're done.
Consent should be a factor because no animal can fucking consent to this kind of thing. It's like a child, they simply don't have the mental capacity to understand consent. That in itself should make it illegal. These are people who can't get it anywhere else so they resort to fucking things that don't have the ability to say no.
I'm sorry if my post was a bit hard, but I take this issue very personally.
On June 17 2013 01:01 Zambrah wrote: I would be very interested in seeing what kind of harm is done to the animals involved in beastiality (okay, that sounded creepy.) What harm IS being done to these animals? I can't imagine very much/any at all considering the size of the animals (unless its like a chicken or something) and if you're a woman I can't imagine any harm at all.
If theres no real harm being done to the animals I seriously can't fathom how this could be illegal. Something you perceive as disgusting does not mean it deserves to be legislated against. I'm personally not a fan of scat porn but I believe that people have the right to shit on one another if they get off on that.
The other dimension to this is the animal's suffering, but since we can rule out psychological damage, this comes down to physical damage. So, if an animal receives no physical harm then how can this be considered harmful?
Consent should be a non-factor. We do not grant animals consent. Consent is only a factor between humans.
Overall, I just don't think that the government has a right to outlaw beastiality if it does not harm the animal. If it does harm the animal, well shit we have animal cruelty laws that cover that.
Why don't you look up some cases of bestiality before you make such a claim?
People who rape their pets are generally people who abuse them. One particular case rings in my head of this teen who locked his dog in his closet and only dragged her out to fuck her, and then throw her back into the closet where she nearly starved to death. Of course she tried to fight back every time but he would just beat her down. Saying animals can't suffer psychological damage definitely takes the ballgame of the most biologically ignorant statement I have ever heard in my entire life.
Saying we shouldn't legislate bestiality since sex with most animals doesn't physically harm them in itself is like saying we shouldn't legislate rape because sex with a human doesn't physically harm them inherently. The people who do this kind of shit are sick fucks who don't lovingly caress their dog or whatever, take them on a night on the town and give them a backrub and warm them up. These are people who grab their dog by the collar, throw them on the ground, pin them down, and fuck them, beat them, and throw them in the corner when they're done.
Consent should be a factor because no animal can fucking consent to this kind of thing. It's like a child, they simply don't have the mental capacity to understand consent. That in itself should make it illegal.
I'm sorry if my post was a bit hard, but I take this issue very personally.
The previous laws covering animal abuse covered that and genuine zoophiles would be horrified by the treatment of the animal that you describe. As for your argument about mental capacity, that's precisely what makes it okay to do it. A child isn't protected just because it's vulnerable, it's protected because it's a vulnerable human. A plant has even less understanding of sex than an animal but that doesn't mean fucking a melon is worse than fucking a dog, it doesn't get worse the further you get from mental capacity.
On June 17 2013 01:01 Zambrah wrote: I would be very interested in seeing what kind of harm is done to the animals involved in beastiality (okay, that sounded creepy.) What harm IS being done to these animals? I can't imagine very much/any at all considering the size of the animals (unless its like a chicken or something) and if you're a woman I can't imagine any harm at all.
If theres no real harm being done to the animals I seriously can't fathom how this could be illegal. Something you perceive as disgusting does not mean it deserves to be legislated against. I'm personally not a fan of scat porn but I believe that people have the right to shit on one another if they get off on that.
The other dimension to this is the animal's suffering, but since we can rule out psychological damage, this comes down to physical damage. So, if an animal receives no physical harm then how can this be considered harmful?
Consent should be a non-factor. We do not grant animals consent. Consent is only a factor between humans.
Overall, I just don't think that the government has a right to outlaw beastiality if it does not harm the animal. If it does harm the animal, well shit we have animal cruelty laws that cover that.
Why don't you look up some cases of bestiality before you make such a claim?
People who rape their pets are generally people who abuse them. One particular case rings in my head of this teen who locked his dog in his closet and only dragged her out to fuck her, and then throw her back into the closet where she nearly starved to death. Of course she tried to fight back every time but he would just beat her down. Saying animals can't suffer psychological damage definitely takes the ballgame of the most biologically ignorant statement I have ever heard in my entire life.
Saying we shouldn't legislate bestiality since sex with most animals doesn't physically harm them in itself is like saying we shouldn't legislate rape because sex with a human doesn't physically harm them inherently. The people who do this kind of shit are sick fucks who don't lovingly caress their dog or whatever, take them on a night on the town and give them a backrub and warm them up. These are people who grab their dog by the collar, throw them on the ground, pin them down, and fuck them, beat them, and throw them in the corner when they're done.
Consent should be a factor because no animal can fucking consent to this kind of thing. It's like a child, they simply don't have the mental capacity to understand consent. That in itself should make it illegal.
I'm sorry if my post was a bit hard, but I take this issue very personally.
The previous laws covering animal abuse covered that and genuine zoophiles would be horrified by the treatment of the animal that you describe.
My argument comes down to this:
Since an animal, much like a child, is inherently unable to give consent because they can not understand the concept of consent nor can they in animals case vocalize that nonconsent if it was there sex with animals should be illegal because of that.
Secondly, what you're saying, at least to me, is like saying the violent assault laws already cover all the shit that happens to women in rape. Since the sex itself is completely natural and doesn't physically hurt them at all, why include it? Everyone who enjoys having loving sex with their partners would never do that to each other, why ban a natural part of life that doesn't hurt anyone? People who rape women usually kidnap them and beat them, so we already got laws to cover it. Why get more?
Because of consent. Consent is an important thing, as well as psychological damage. Two things fucking animals will always entail. Non-consent and psychological damage.
Also, as for your edit, I seriously can't grasp that argument. Why not make it legal to hit dogs with a sledgehammer since it's completely legal to do it for a melon? We're not talking about melons, we're talking about animals. I want you to find me one case of a zoophile having sex with something like a dog or a cat and the animal not being psychologically or physically damaged.
since animals cant "say" if they want to have that kind of "contact" with humans...i think it is right to make laws against it. Animals have rights and we should respect that...i know Zoophiles see that from a "different angle"..but thats my 2 cents.
On June 15 2013 08:26 Ponera wrote: I am officially cancelling my tickets to sweden.
Honestly, people who are into animals are no different from pedophiles, homosexuals or straight people. Well, they are in the sense that they partake in risky/potentially abusive behavior like pedophiles do but the brain lights up the same; they are attracted to what they are attracted to. It's just unfortunate that what they are attracted to happens to be a horse and there is no way in which to partake in the activity without potentially harming yourself or the animal. It's like pedophilia; they are attracted to children, that part is not their fault. However, partaking in their fantasies is what causes harm.
Would be a horrific spot to be in, mentally.
Being a pedophile isnt't a crime and not all of them act out their desires. Zoophiles who partake in their fantasies don't necessarily cause harm, thus the discussion.
On June 15 2013 08:29 S_SienZ wrote:
On June 15 2013 08:17 Reason wrote:
On June 15 2013 08:15 S_SienZ wrote:
On June 15 2013 07:53 Reason wrote:
On June 15 2013 06:48 S_SienZ wrote:
On June 15 2013 06:37 Reason wrote:
On June 15 2013 06:21 S_SienZ wrote:
On June 15 2013 06:14 Reason wrote: [quote] So do you think every law should come with it's associated reasoning? I'm sure that information is held somewhere... but I don't know. What do you suggest as an alternative to the current situation and can you elaborate on what you feel this situation is?
I certainly don't feel like laws are passed willy nilly for no clear reason.
There's been (a still ongoing) hundreds of years of debate about that. It hasn't been conclusively resolved but it's been roughly divided into 2 camps: one side is saying laws are a social tool for regulation and essentially whatever the "source of law" in a society says is law. In that version, the content of law is generally checked by democracy, separation of powers, yadayada, you know the drill. The other camp is basically saying that laws and morals are one and the same. But personally, that camp's ideas is getting progressively untenable as globalisation forces the mingling of differing cultures.
Think about it, if laws that are moral are ok, what's stopping the legislation of positive obligations? (Instead of don't do something, you have to do something). What's stopping say, a predominantly Catholic populace from voting a new law that makes church mandatory for EVERYONE. They'd argue its moral, it was voted by a majority. Laws passed are generally negative obligations because such laws are the least infringing of people's dignity.
Also, a gap between law and morals is essential for moral goodness to even exist. Imagine a man walking past a beggar, he feels sorry for him and hands him his sandwich. The man has done a moral good deed and the beggar feels grateful. Now imagine if there was a law, for moral reasons, that compelled such charity. The beggar would (rightfully so) be entitled, and the moral merit of the deed is void since there was no choice involved.
Laws are often based upon morals but morals are not based upon law. Our society doesn't seem to feel anybody has a moral obligation to do anything, save look after children properly, so I don't think laws of positive obligation are anything to be concerned about.
Does the removal of choice alter the morality of an action? If you say "kill x person or I will kill you" it removes some of the responsiblity from myself, but it doesn't make the act of killing that person any more or less morally corrupt than doing it on my own, the only difference there is that I did it through my own choice and responsibility for this morally wrong action lies solely with me.
If it was legally required to give money to homeless people that doesn't change the inherent morality of the action, it just places the credit of the action elsewhere as opposed to making it void, but that's not going to happen anyway.
Your first statement raises more questions than it answers. Laws are often based upon morals, how often? Is there a principled method? Also is the problem of subjectivity, a conflation of the legal and the moral could only feasibly work with the existence of an objective moral code (if you look at the works of those who argue for such a case e.g. Aristotle, Finnis, they talk about self-evident (LOL) basic goods which all humans should strive towards), but such objective morals have yet to be proven. How do you resolve it when one side's morals fundamentally clash with anothers?
Of course the removal of choice alters the morality of an action. Morality isn't an instrumentalist concept that's concerned with outcome, but about how we arrive at our decisions. If outcome were the sole determinant, businesses who grant scholarships for tax break purposes would be far more moral than the pauper who split his bread to a dying hobo.
I think choice is a matter of responsibility and doesn't change the nature of the action, but motivation is entirely a separate issue. If I do a good deed for a selfish reason does that make it a bad deed?
If I go back in time and kill Hitler, am I a cold blooded murderer or a hero? Am I both or neither?
If I were American, I guess I would be sentenced to death for unlawful murder then high-fived all the way to the chair by everybody in the place, which seems a little strange. I think whether we like it or not a conflation of legality and morality is exactly what we wrestle with every day.
I feel morals dictate laws and changes in law reflect the changing morality of the populace. I think that's a good thing and it seems to me that morals should actually overrule law as a result of this. Why should I be punished for murdering a genocidal maniac just because the basic act of murder is morally wrong?
To consider laws without morals or morals without laws, I'd have to choose the latter, laws are just a shortcut to arriving at the right moral answer in the majority of cases, I guess this is where judge and jury come into play to explore the final aspects of an each individually.
When one sides morals clash with the others, I guess you just have to go with the majority. If the majority of the population are pro-choice it stands to reason that this act has to be viewed as morally good, as there is no objective morality apparently, and if the majority of the population are pro-life it has to be morally corrupt. Compromise is often the only tool at our disposal and when uncompromising issues arise majority dictates morality.
Using my own reasoning on this then I'd have to agree with this law if that's the way the majority of Sweden feels, but then you'd have to consider the morality of denying others their wishes simply because you disagree with it and that's where we get into issues of harm. The majority of Sweden may feel the act itself is immoral but I feel the act of outlawing certain activities because of purely a moral objection would itself be more immoral than the act itself, which is why I disagree with this ruling.
Morality I think does and should dictate law but it's incredibly complex and intertwined. This is a difficult situation because everyone has decided that cruelty to animals is morally wrong and overrules the rights of the person inflicting the cruelty on the animal to do so. What I think is questionable is whether it really constitutes cruelty, laws based purely upon a simple moral objection with no connection to other pre-established moral guidelines are definitely not a good thing.
But you don't have to make a choice between the 2. That's actually the beauty of the argument behind separation of laws and morals, it allows moral criticisms of the law. One could morally disagree with a legal provision while acknowledging that nonetheless he is legally obligated to do something.
To clarify further, I don't see the problem with this law, if as a matter of public policy, Sweden feels sufficiently strongly against this, they decided to ban it. What I am essentially objecting, is the notion that beastiality is banned because it is morally wrong. There's 2 arguments at play here, what I think the law should be, and one regarding what the law now is in Sweden. Lets disregard the former for a moment here, for its just my 2 cents, I'm arguing that this law needs to be passed for the right reasons. Going back to the idea that laws are a social tool, the detachment of laws and morals is precisely what allows this to be passed. But the understanding of this as moral law, is what opens up the can of worms.
I find this confusing because it seems to me what you're essentially saying is that if the majority of people in Sweden feel it's morally wrong then it's okay to ban it, but it's not okay if they decide to ban it because it's morally wrong.
In scenario A the law remains detached from morals in essence, each Swede could have different reasons for supporting such a ban, ranging from personal views that such acts are immoral, to paranoia of potential diseases which might form because of such acts. Law remains social, it is law by virtue of the Swedish society saying so, for whatever reasons.
In scenario B the law is passed because it is derived directly from morals. A logical causal connection exists. That is what I'm refuting.
A. The majority of Swedes are against bestiality for a multitude of reasons, including morality. This is okay. B. The majority of Swedes are against bestiality for a single reason, morality. This is not okay.
I don't understand.
You really don't understand the basic difference between "multiple" and "single"? For a seemingly intelligent human being you've said some incredibly poorly thought out things.
Basically, the government of Sweden in case A is understanding that the majority of Swedes are against bestiality but it could be because of risk of disease, worry about animal cruelty, "immorality" because they believe it is wrong, etc. Case B would be a direct result of believe it is immoral with no concern to the animal or the transmission of disease, etc. Basically, Case A considers multiple facets while Case B only considers one (immorality of the human being as judged by the societal context).
I understand the basic difference between multiple and single, I didn't see the relevance. If you had paid attention I was having a conversation with a specific poster and he explained in detail what the relevance of this was as far as he was concerned.
There was no need for you to make this post, the only poorly thought out comment is your own.
People still going on about consent huh -_- round and round and round we go.
On June 17 2013 01:01 Zambrah wrote: I would be very interested in seeing what kind of harm is done to the animals involved in beastiality (okay, that sounded creepy.) What harm IS being done to these animals? I can't imagine very much/any at all considering the size of the animals (unless its like a chicken or something) and if you're a woman I can't imagine any harm at all.
If theres no real harm being done to the animals I seriously can't fathom how this could be illegal. Something you perceive as disgusting does not mean it deserves to be legislated against. I'm personally not a fan of scat porn but I believe that people have the right to shit on one another if they get off on that.
The other dimension to this is the animal's suffering, but since we can rule out psychological damage, this comes down to physical damage. So, if an animal receives no physical harm then how can this be considered harmful?
Consent should be a non-factor. We do not grant animals consent. Consent is only a factor between humans.
Overall, I just don't think that the government has a right to outlaw beastiality if it does not harm the animal. If it does harm the animal, well shit we have animal cruelty laws that cover that.
Why don't you look up some cases of bestiality before you make such a claim?
People who rape their pets are generally people who abuse them. One particular case rings in my head of this teen who locked his dog in his closet and only dragged her out to fuck her, and then throw her back into the closet where she nearly starved to death. Of course she tried to fight back every time but he would just beat her down. Saying animals can't suffer psychological damage definitely takes the ballgame of the most biologically ignorant statement I have ever heard in my entire life.
Saying we shouldn't legislate bestiality since sex with most animals doesn't physically harm them in itself is like saying we shouldn't legislate rape because sex with a human doesn't physically harm them inherently. The people who do this kind of shit are sick fucks who don't lovingly caress their dog or whatever, take them on a night on the town and give them a backrub and warm them up. These are people who grab their dog by the collar, throw them on the ground, pin them down, and fuck them, beat them, and throw them in the corner when they're done.
Consent should be a factor because no animal can fucking consent to this kind of thing. It's like a child, they simply don't have the mental capacity to understand consent. That in itself should make it illegal.
I'm sorry if my post was a bit hard, but I take this issue very personally.
The previous laws covering animal abuse covered that and genuine zoophiles would be horrified by the treatment of the animal that you describe.
Secondly, what you're saying, at least to me, is like saying the violent assault laws already cover all the shit that happens to women in rape. Since the sex itself is completely natural and doesn't physically hurt them at all, why include it? Everyone who enjoys having loving sex with their partners would never do that to each other, why ban a natural part of life that doesn't hurt anyone? People who rape women usually kidnap them and beat them, so we already got laws to cover it. Why get more?
Because of consent. Consent is an important thing, as well as psychological damage. Two things fucking animals will always entail. Non-consent and psychological damage.
You make a good point that animals can have deep affection for their owners, a variety of emotional states, and personalities and preferences similar to human beings. But I think you have to clearly distinguish between the psychological damage that is associated with the traumatic treatment of animals you described above, with the psychological damage that comes from an animal that may not "consent" to sex, but is otherwise treated well - and in which sex isn't painful as a result of penetration. In the latter case, considering the mental capabilities of an animal, if its not being harmed, I don't think you've clearly shown that the animal will suffer any significant psychological damage.
I think the reason why psychological trauma occurs is that you either have a painful emotional experience, or its the result of intense physical pain. If we consider a case in which penetration occurs gently, with lubrication and care...then bestiality may have the potential to provide a positive, or at the very least, a strange but neutral experience for the animal, and a form of emotional bonding between the man/woman and animal.
Of course in some cases where that is simply not possible, then it should probably be outlawed. But I don't think the fact that animals can't consent is reason enough to disallow the practise. Assuming no psychological trauma occurs, then at most what you're talking about is a situation where an animal doesn't want something (feels bad psychologically) which may either feel neutral or good in a strictly physical sense.
But this is precisely the way we treat animals in every other setting; although many people will try to "listen" to their animals, in many cases they are forced to do things (i.e. stay out in the rain, go to the garage, get spayed or neutered) without their consent. I'm all for animal rights; but if you were to take a strong stance on this issue on the basis of consent, then I feel you would virtually end up banning the ownership of pets in general.
On June 17 2013 01:01 Zambrah wrote: I would be very interested in seeing what kind of harm is done to the animals involved in beastiality (okay, that sounded creepy.) What harm IS being done to these animals? I can't imagine very much/any at all considering the size of the animals (unless its like a chicken or something) and if you're a woman I can't imagine any harm at all.
If theres no real harm being done to the animals I seriously can't fathom how this could be illegal. Something you perceive as disgusting does not mean it deserves to be legislated against. I'm personally not a fan of scat porn but I believe that people have the right to shit on one another if they get off on that.
The other dimension to this is the animal's suffering, but since we can rule out psychological damage, this comes down to physical damage. So, if an animal receives no physical harm then how can this be considered harmful?
Consent should be a non-factor. We do not grant animals consent. Consent is only a factor between humans.
Overall, I just don't think that the government has a right to outlaw beastiality if it does not harm the animal. If it does harm the animal, well shit we have animal cruelty laws that cover that.
Why don't you look up some cases of bestiality before you make such a claim?
People who rape their pets are generally people who abuse them. One particular case rings in my head of this teen who locked his dog in his closet and only dragged her out to fuck her, and then throw her back into the closet where she nearly starved to death. Of course she tried to fight back every time but he would just beat her down. Saying animals can't suffer psychological damage definitely takes the ballgame of the most biologically ignorant statement I have ever heard in my entire life.
Saying we shouldn't legislate bestiality since sex with most animals doesn't physically harm them in itself is like saying we shouldn't legislate rape because sex with a human doesn't physically harm them inherently. The people who do this kind of shit are sick fucks who don't lovingly caress their dog or whatever, take them on a night on the town and give them a backrub and warm them up. These are people who grab their dog by the collar, throw them on the ground, pin them down, and fuck them, beat them, and throw them in the corner when they're done.
Consent should be a factor because no animal can fucking consent to this kind of thing. It's like a child, they simply don't have the mental capacity to understand consent. That in itself should make it illegal.
I'm sorry if my post was a bit hard, but I take this issue very personally.
The previous laws covering animal abuse covered that and genuine zoophiles would be horrified by the treatment of the animal that you describe.
My argument comes down to this:
Since an animal, much like a child, is inherently unable to give consent because they can not understand the concept of consent nor can they in animals case vocalize that nonconsent if it was there sex with animals should be illegal because of that.
Secondly, what you're saying, at least to me, is like saying the violent assault laws already cover all the shit that happens to women in rape. Since the sex itself is completely natural and doesn't physically hurt them at all, why include it? Everyone who enjoys having loving sex with their partners would never do that to each other, why ban a natural part of life that doesn't hurt anyone? People who rape women usually kidnap them and beat them, so we already got laws to cover it. Why get more?
Because of consent. Consent is an important thing, as well as psychological damage. Two things fucking animals will always entail. Non-consent and psychological damage.
Also, as for your edit, I seriously can't grasp that argument. Why not make it legal to hit dogs with a sledgehammer since it's completely legal to do it for a melon? We're not talking about melons, we're talking about animals. I want you to find me one case of a zoophile having sex with something like a dog or a cat and the animal not being psychologically or physically damaged.
I'm not going to look up cases of zoophiles for you but zoophilia is not the same thing as beastiality, zoophilia is a paraphilia in which the individual genuinely feels a strong sense of emotional attachment and love towards the target. Claiming that all beastiality involves neglect, violence and abuse of the animal completely ignores the fact that zoophiles love and are devoted to their animals in a way that people who don't share their paraphilia could never be capable of. It sucks that one case you read about involved the abuse of a pet but I don't think you know what zoophilia is.
Dogs are pack animals, given the chance they will leap at the opportunity to have sex with other members of the pack and give no fucks about it because they don't identify beyond "pack" and "not pack". That's like the basis of all canine domestication, they don't go "ewww, human" because they don't get that the two legged guy isn't another dog. As for psychological damage, dogs get conditioned by physical trauma because they understand it, they don't get the psychological implications of rape because they're dogs. You're applying human concepts to animals which they simply do not apply to.
Your knowledge of rape is very lacking. People who rape women generally are people the women already know, most often their partner, otherwise a friend or family member. Very rarely is kidnapping or physical violence involved. Furthermore rape in the case of humans causes psychological damage and is a violation of the rights of the person to their own body and of their consent. These things do not apply to pets, you can imprison a pet in your home, you can have them neutered, you can even get them put down, pets do not have the right to their own body and they certainly don't have any right of consent. Rape is a specifically human crime which is completely separate to kidnapping and so forth as you would know if you knew anything about it (I really suggest you actually do some research into this) and that is why we have laws against it.
As for the melon argument, I was illustrating the obvious flaw in what you wrote. You made the claim that an animal is incapable of understanding sex and should therefore be protected, much like a child. Here you make the argument that the more vulnerable something is, the more it needs to be protected, and you use the child as an example of this principle in action. I pointed out that this is nonsense with the example of the melon which is even more incapable of understanding sex than the child and the pet and is therefore even more vulnerable to rape. Obviously this is absurd because it's a melon, clearly vulnerability isn't the factor. The reason we protect children from sex is not just because they don't understand sex but because they are humans who don't understand sex. This is where your argument falls apart, you attempt to tie not understanding sex to vulnerability to rape and use the example of the child while completely ignoring the fact that the child has the unique advantage of being human, a factor not shared by pets.
On June 17 2013 01:18 Fruscainte wrote: My argument comes down to this:
Since an animal, much like a child, is inherently unable to give consent because they can not understand the concept of consent nor can they in animals case vocalize that nonconsent if it was there sex with animals should be illegal because of that.
This only makes sense if non-consensual sex carries similar levels of risk for the animal as it does for human children. We have found that adults having sex with children, even when there is no physical force or apparent mental trauma, is still often very detrimental to the well-being of the child. The degree to which this is true for animals seems to be to be much less. I don't think having sex with animals is a good idea, but I really don't see a need to ban it in cases where there isn't obvious physical abuse.
Problem is animals cant consent, they are almost biological machines, with the right conditioning anyone can get themselves a beast that will act as if its the shit.
Personally I wouldnt make it something criminal unless theres some serious abuse involved, but I wouldnt make it legal either, maybe give zoophile some psychological evaluation, if the guy is pathologically a zoophile, well id rather have him fuck a sheep than killhimself.
Also, a hefty fine and be done with it, that way at least the government is earning some money to turn a blind eye to something no one wants to see anyways.
On June 17 2013 03:59 D10 wrote: Problem is animals cant consent, they are almost biological machines, with the right conditioning anyone can get themselves a beast that will act as if its the shit.
Personally I wouldnt make it something criminal unless theres some serious abuse involved, but I wouldnt make it legal either, maybe give zoophile some psychological evaluation, if the guy is pathologically a zoophile, well id rather have him fuck a sheep than killhimself.
Also, a hefty fine and be done with it, that way at least the government is earning some money to turn a blind eye to something no one wants to see anyways.
You don't get to fine people for doing things you don't like. If you tax zoophiles to lower taxes on yourself then you might as well just go into their houses and steal their shit.
On June 17 2013 03:59 D10 wrote: Problem is animals cant consent, they are almost biological machines, with the right conditioning anyone can get themselves a beast that will act as if its the shit.
Personally I wouldnt make it something criminal unless theres some serious abuse involved, but I wouldnt make it legal either, maybe give zoophile some psychological evaluation, if the guy is pathologically a zoophile, well id rather have him fuck a sheep than killhimself.
Also, a hefty fine and be done with it, that way at least the government is earning some money to turn a blind eye to something no one wants to see anyways.
Fleshlights can't consent. No one mind's them existing.
Not saying animals = fleshlight
But hinging purely on consent is meaningless without context.
If you're saying animal emotions = human emotions and hence their rights to consent have to be put on the table--then should we arrest dogs who rape other dogs for rape?
Unless the thing is literally Human's can't rape animals but animals can rape animals--then consent isn't the issue but race differences is the issue.
Do you see the problem that occurs if you purify the argument to just consent? I don't want to arrest dogs for raping other dogs just because we arrest based on consent--that is silly.
On June 17 2013 03:59 D10 wrote: Problem is animals cant consent, they are almost biological machines, with the right conditioning anyone can get themselves a beast that will act as if its the shit.
Personally I wouldnt make it something criminal unless theres some serious abuse involved, but I wouldnt make it legal either, maybe give zoophile some psychological evaluation, if the guy is pathologically a zoophile, well id rather have him fuck a sheep than killhimself.
Also, a hefty fine and be done with it, that way at least the government is earning some money to turn a blind eye to something no one wants to see anyways.
Are you sure animals can't consent?
Does the animal try to prevent it, i.e. fight back/avoid the person? If yes, it doesn't consent. If no, it does.
I personally think zoophilia is pretty gross, but I'm not going to try to impose that view on everyone else.
On June 17 2013 01:01 Zambrah wrote: I would be very interested in seeing what kind of harm is done to the animals involved in beastiality (okay, that sounded creepy.) What harm IS being done to these animals? I can't imagine very much/any at all considering the size of the animals (unless its like a chicken or something) and if you're a woman I can't imagine any harm at all.
If theres no real harm being done to the animals I seriously can't fathom how this could be illegal. Something you perceive as disgusting does not mean it deserves to be legislated against. I'm personally not a fan of scat porn but I believe that people have the right to shit on one another if they get off on that.
The other dimension to this is the animal's suffering, but since we can rule out psychological damage, this comes down to physical damage. So, if an animal receives no physical harm then how can this be considered harmful?
Consent should be a non-factor. We do not grant animals consent. Consent is only a factor between humans.
Overall, I just don't think that the government has a right to outlaw beastiality if it does not harm the animal. If it does harm the animal, well shit we have animal cruelty laws that cover that.
The only argument I can think of is that yes, some animals can theoretically be hurt emotionally. Think of a dog that isn't really physically hurt but is abused in other ways. It can experience sadness and things like that.
Also there are possible medical complications in both directions, but I haven't heard any strong arguments that really justify new legislation.
I summary, I think the arguments for the complete banning of sex with animals are not with zero merit, but don't justify full bans (the same way I don't think we should ban other things unless we specifically have a good reason).
I would only say that the ban has zero merit in that what its trying to do should already be covered by animal cruelty laws in the first place. Maybe that requires an expansion of animal cruelty laws, but yeah, I don't think beastiality = animal cruelty in a way that requires specific legislation banning it. :-P
I'll have to look into the emotional impact on the animal though, because initially I have to believe its extraordinarily hard to prove an animal's emotional harm with regards to beastiality. Though I imagine that it could be included in animal abuse, if it CAN be proved, however difficult it may be to do so, it probably does have merit within animal cruelty legislation.
But uh, yeah, if noone is hurt, let people fuck their horses.
On June 17 2013 03:59 D10 wrote: Problem is animals cant consent, they are almost biological machines, with the right conditioning anyone can get themselves a beast that will act as if its the shit.
Personally I wouldnt make it something criminal unless theres some serious abuse involved, but I wouldnt make it legal either, maybe give zoophile some psychological evaluation, if the guy is pathologically a zoophile, well id rather have him fuck a sheep than killhimself.
Also, a hefty fine and be done with it, that way at least the government is earning some money to turn a blind eye to something no one wants to see anyways.
Are you sure animals can't consent?
Does the animal try to prevent it, i.e. fight back/avoid the person? If yes, it doesn't consent. If no, it does.
I personally think zoophilia is pretty gross, but I'm not going to try to impose that view on everyone else.
I believe consent is meant in its legal sense here. Animals struggle in a lot of different situations, such as when being slaughtered, but their non consent has no legal value because they're animals.
On June 17 2013 03:59 D10 wrote: Problem is animals cant consent, they are almost biological machines, with the right conditioning anyone can get themselves a beast that will act as if its the shit.
Personally I wouldnt make it something criminal unless theres some serious abuse involved, but I wouldnt make it legal either, maybe give zoophile some psychological evaluation, if the guy is pathologically a zoophile, well id rather have him fuck a sheep than killhimself.
Also, a hefty fine and be done with it, that way at least the government is earning some money to turn a blind eye to something no one wants to see anyways.
Are you sure animals can't consent?
Does the animal try to prevent it, i.e. fight back/avoid the person? If yes, it doesn't consent. If no, it does.
I personally think zoophilia is pretty gross, but I'm not going to try to impose that view on everyone else.
I was thinking about it and that's something I wasn't sure about. Even if the animal does not physically show that it does not want to have sex by fighting back or by displaying some kind of physical and observable behavior, is this necessary and sufficient proof that the animal consents to sex?
What if the animal would prefer not to have sex, but would not dare or does not understand how to display behavior indicating this to be the case? I don't think it's radical to imagine that could be the case in some instances.
I think it makes more sense to conclude that because there is no communication possible, that we have to err on the side of not allowing any sex with animals, on the off chance that it may be violating the animal in many or even just some cases. I think it makes less sense to err on the side of allowing sex with animals just because it may be okay with some or even many animals.
On June 17 2013 03:59 D10 wrote: Problem is animals cant consent, they are almost biological machines, with the right conditioning anyone can get themselves a beast that will act as if its the shit.
Personally I wouldnt make it something criminal unless theres some serious abuse involved, but I wouldnt make it legal either, maybe give zoophile some psychological evaluation, if the guy is pathologically a zoophile, well id rather have him fuck a sheep than killhimself.
Also, a hefty fine and be done with it, that way at least the government is earning some money to turn a blind eye to something no one wants to see anyways.
Are you sure animals can't consent?
Does the animal try to prevent it, i.e. fight back/avoid the person? If yes, it doesn't consent. If no, it does.
I personally think zoophilia is pretty gross, but I'm not going to try to impose that view on everyone else.
I was thinking about it and that's something I wasn't sure about. Even if the animal does not physically show that it does not want to have sex by fighting back or by displaying some kind of physical and observable behavior, is this necessary and sufficient proof that the animal consents to sex?
What if the animal would prefer not to have sex, but would not dare or does not understand how to display behavior indicating this to be the case? I don't think it's radical to imagine that could be the case in some instances.
I think it makes more sense to conclude that because there is no communication possible, that we have to err on the side of not allowing any sex with animals, on the off chance that it may be violating the animal in many or even just some cases. I think it makes less sense to err on the side of allowing sex with animals just because it may be okay with some or even many animals.
Sorry, I think I've missed an important step in your argument here. If I'm following correctly it goes like this 1) Animals are incapable of communicating their wishes to us 2) We shouldn't do things to them if we don't know whether or not they consent 3) Sex is a thing you can do to them but because of 2 you should not do it 4) 2 only applies to sex with them, not eating them or domesticating them or using them as farm tools or keeping them as pets or doing medical research on them, rather just in the one situation described in 3 which makes up 0.00000000001% of nonconsensual animal-human interactions and an even smaller proportion of animal suffering.
I don't understand how 4 logically follows from 2.
On June 17 2013 03:59 D10 wrote: Problem is animals cant consent, they are almost biological machines, with the right conditioning anyone can get themselves a beast that will act as if its the shit.
Personally I wouldnt make it something criminal unless theres some serious abuse involved, but I wouldnt make it legal either, maybe give zoophile some psychological evaluation, if the guy is pathologically a zoophile, well id rather have him fuck a sheep than killhimself.
Also, a hefty fine and be done with it, that way at least the government is earning some money to turn a blind eye to something no one wants to see anyways.
Are you sure animals can't consent?
Does the animal try to prevent it, i.e. fight back/avoid the person? If yes, it doesn't consent. If no, it does.
I personally think zoophilia is pretty gross, but I'm not going to try to impose that view on everyone else.
On June 17 2013 03:59 D10 wrote: Problem is animals cant consent, they are almost biological machines, with the right conditioning anyone can get themselves a beast that will act as if its the shit.
Personally I wouldnt make it something criminal unless theres some serious abuse involved, but I wouldnt make it legal either, maybe give zoophile some psychological evaluation, if the guy is pathologically a zoophile, well id rather have him fuck a sheep than killhimself.
Also, a hefty fine and be done with it, that way at least the government is earning some money to turn a blind eye to something no one wants to see anyways.
Are you sure animals can't consent?
Does the animal try to prevent it, i.e. fight back/avoid the person? If yes, it doesn't consent. If no, it does.
I personally think zoophilia is pretty gross, but I'm not going to try to impose that view on everyone else.
I was thinking about it and that's something I wasn't sure about. Even if the animal does not physically show that it does not want to have sex by fighting back or by displaying some kind of physical and observable behavior, is this necessary and sufficient proof that the animal consents to sex?
What if the animal would prefer not to have sex, but would not dare or does not understand how to display behavior indicating this to be the case? I don't think it's radical to imagine that could be the case in some instances.
I think it makes more sense to conclude that because there is no communication possible, that we have to err on the side of not allowing any sex with animals, on the off chance that it may be violating the animal in many or even just some cases. I think it makes less sense to err on the side of allowing sex with animals just because it may be okay with some or even many animals.
Sorry, I think I've missed an important step in your argument here. If I'm following correctly it goes like this 1) Animals are incapable of communicating their wishes to us 2) We shouldn't do things to them if we don't know whether or not they consent 3) 2 only applies to sex with them, not eating them or domesticating them or using them as farm tools or keeping them as pets or doing medical research on them
I don't understand how 3 logically follows from 2.
Logically, yeah, we'd not capture them/eat them by that argument made out in a vacuum of space. However realistically it becomes a moral issue. It turns out that domesticating them and eating them in some cases greatly benefits humans (re: food/medicine). With raping animals, however, there is no real gain to humans on the whole. So it doesn't seem as worthwhile to violate their autonomy. It's tricky, and it's probably why it remains a 'hot topic' in bioethics
Here I'll break down my moral view on the subject for you KwarK: 1) If it benefits the human species greatly on the whole, such as by providing food/medical knowledge, then we can carefully proceed with breaking that respect for animal moral autonomy
2) If it seems selfish and needless, such as it does with animal rape, then I'd rather respect the animal moral autonomy over that.
On June 17 2013 03:59 D10 wrote: Problem is animals cant consent, they are almost biological machines, with the right conditioning anyone can get themselves a beast that will act as if its the shit.
Personally I wouldnt make it something criminal unless theres some serious abuse involved, but I wouldnt make it legal either, maybe give zoophile some psychological evaluation, if the guy is pathologically a zoophile, well id rather have him fuck a sheep than killhimself.
Also, a hefty fine and be done with it, that way at least the government is earning some money to turn a blind eye to something no one wants to see anyways.
Are you sure animals can't consent?
Does the animal try to prevent it, i.e. fight back/avoid the person? If yes, it doesn't consent. If no, it does.
I personally think zoophilia is pretty gross, but I'm not going to try to impose that view on everyone else.
I was thinking about it and that's something I wasn't sure about. Even if the animal does not physically show that it does not want to have sex by fighting back or by displaying some kind of physical and observable behavior, is this necessary and sufficient proof that the animal consents to sex?
What if the animal would prefer not to have sex, but would not dare or does not understand how to display behavior indicating this to be the case? I don't think it's radical to imagine that could be the case in some instances.
I think it makes more sense to conclude that because there is no communication possible, that we have to err on the side of not allowing any sex with animals, on the off chance that it may be violating the animal in many or even just some cases. I think it makes less sense to err on the side of allowing sex with animals just because it may be okay with some or even many animals.
Sorry, I think I've missed an important step in your argument here. If I'm following correctly it goes like this 1) Animals are incapable of communicating their wishes to us 2) We shouldn't do things to them if we don't know whether or not they consent 3) 2 only applies to sex with them, not eating them or domesticating them or using them as farm tools or keeping them as pets or doing medical research on them
I don't understand how 3 logically follows from 2.
Logically, yeah, we'd not capture them/eat them by that logic. However realistically it becomes a moral issue. It turns out that domesticating them and eating them in some cases greatly benefits humans. With raping animals, however, there is no real gain to humans on the whole. So it doesn't seem as worthwhile to violate their autonomy. It's tricky, and it's probably why it remains a 'hot topic' in bioethics
To me your post reads "I like meat so consent doesn't matter if I want a steak but I don't like fucking them so consent is really important for that". It's a colossal hypocrisy, you don't get to argue one is fine and the other isn't, especially when your argument is rooted in animal welfare and the thing you claim is fine is killing them and the thing you claim is not fine is non harmful sex.
Your desire for a steak is not a necessary thing for the good of the species.
FallDownMarigold why do you value the benefit you get from being able to eat animals over the benefit someone else receives from being able to have sex with them? I think you can even make the argument that eating red meat (for example) is more unhealthy than having sex with the animal the meat came from!
Ok a woman loves her dog she lives alone with it, she never had him neutered. On night a bitch is in heat outside causeing the dog to get aroused. It is hot and the woman decides to sleep naked and her dog mounts her while she is sleeping. At first the woman is shocked and appaled but she realizes she doesnt mind she loves her dog, from that point on she never stops him when he wants to mount her.
Same women same story except this time when he mounts her she freaks out and kicks him off her as hard as she can yelling at the top of her lungs.
Which of these is worse, and how in any way is the first story illegal?
On June 17 2013 03:59 D10 wrote: Problem is animals cant consent, they are almost biological machines, with the right conditioning anyone can get themselves a beast that will act as if its the shit.
Personally I wouldnt make it something criminal unless theres some serious abuse involved, but I wouldnt make it legal either, maybe give zoophile some psychological evaluation, if the guy is pathologically a zoophile, well id rather have him fuck a sheep than killhimself.
Also, a hefty fine and be done with it, that way at least the government is earning some money to turn a blind eye to something no one wants to see anyways.
Are you sure animals can't consent?
Does the animal try to prevent it, i.e. fight back/avoid the person? If yes, it doesn't consent. If no, it does.
I personally think zoophilia is pretty gross, but I'm not going to try to impose that view on everyone else.
I was thinking about it and that's something I wasn't sure about. Even if the animal does not physically show that it does not want to have sex by fighting back or by displaying some kind of physical and observable behavior, is this necessary and sufficient proof that the animal consents to sex?
What if the animal would prefer not to have sex, but would not dare or does not understand how to display behavior indicating this to be the case? I don't think it's radical to imagine that could be the case in some instances.
I think it makes more sense to conclude that because there is no communication possible, that we have to err on the side of not allowing any sex with animals, on the off chance that it may be violating the animal in many or even just some cases. I think it makes less sense to err on the side of allowing sex with animals just because it may be okay with some or even many animals.
Sorry, I think I've missed an important step in your argument here. If I'm following correctly it goes like this 1) Animals are incapable of communicating their wishes to us 2) We shouldn't do things to them if we don't know whether or not they consent 3) 2 only applies to sex with them, not eating them or domesticating them or using them as farm tools or keeping them as pets or doing medical research on them
I don't understand how 3 logically follows from 2.
Logically, yeah, we'd not capture them/eat them by that logic. However realistically it becomes a moral issue. It turns out that domesticating them and eating them in some cases greatly benefits humans. With raping animals, however, there is no real gain to humans on the whole. So it doesn't seem as worthwhile to violate their autonomy. It's tricky, and it's probably why it remains a 'hot topic' in bioethics
To me your post reads "I like meat so consent doesn't matter if I want a steak but I don't like fucking them so consent is really important for that". It's a colossal hypocrisy, you don't get to argue one is fine and the other isn't, especially when your argument is rooted in animal welfare and the thing you claim is fine is killing them and the thing you claim is not fine is non harmful sex.
Your desire for a steak is not a necessary thing for the good of the species.
KwarK, may I ask why this topic is so important to you?
On June 17 2013 04:35 Onegu wrote: Ok a woman loves her dog she lives alone with it, she never had him neutered. On night a bitch is in heat outside causeing the dog to get aroused. It is hot and the woman decides to sleep naked and her dog mounts her while she is sleeping. At first the woman is shocked and appaled but she realizes she doesnt mind she loves her dog, from that point on she never stops him when he wants to mount her.
On June 17 2013 04:34 micronesia wrote: FallDownMarigold why do you value the benefit you get from being able to eat animals over the benefit someone else receives from being able to have sex with them? I think you can even make the argument that eating red meat (for example) is more unhealthy than having sex with the animal the meat came from!
Maybe, so I'll concede eating red meat isn't necessary. You win. I will work on not doing that when I am focusing on being a good person.
Now moving on to my choice of example: Medicine. Many billions of lives are made better by medical advances that are contingent on animal studies throughout the research and development process. I think the value we get from shunning animal moral autonomy in this case is worthwhile in light of what we gain toward human health and well being. I do not value eating red meat or raping animals as highly so next to animal moral autonomy in these cases perhaps I would support the latter.
On June 17 2013 03:59 D10 wrote: Problem is animals cant consent, they are almost biological machines, with the right conditioning anyone can get themselves a beast that will act as if its the shit.
Personally I wouldnt make it something criminal unless theres some serious abuse involved, but I wouldnt make it legal either, maybe give zoophile some psychological evaluation, if the guy is pathologically a zoophile, well id rather have him fuck a sheep than killhimself.
Also, a hefty fine and be done with it, that way at least the government is earning some money to turn a blind eye to something no one wants to see anyways.
Are you sure animals can't consent?
Does the animal try to prevent it, i.e. fight back/avoid the person? If yes, it doesn't consent. If no, it does.
I personally think zoophilia is pretty gross, but I'm not going to try to impose that view on everyone else.
I was thinking about it and that's something I wasn't sure about. Even if the animal does not physically show that it does not want to have sex by fighting back or by displaying some kind of physical and observable behavior, is this necessary and sufficient proof that the animal consents to sex?
What if the animal would prefer not to have sex, but would not dare or does not understand how to display behavior indicating this to be the case? I don't think it's radical to imagine that could be the case in some instances.
I think it makes more sense to conclude that because there is no communication possible, that we have to err on the side of not allowing any sex with animals, on the off chance that it may be violating the animal in many or even just some cases. I think it makes less sense to err on the side of allowing sex with animals just because it may be okay with some or even many animals.
Sorry, I think I've missed an important step in your argument here. If I'm following correctly it goes like this 1) Animals are incapable of communicating their wishes to us 2) We shouldn't do things to them if we don't know whether or not they consent 3) 2 only applies to sex with them, not eating them or domesticating them or using them as farm tools or keeping them as pets or doing medical research on them
I don't understand how 3 logically follows from 2.
Logically, yeah, we'd not capture them/eat them by that logic. However realistically it becomes a moral issue. It turns out that domesticating them and eating them in some cases greatly benefits humans. With raping animals, however, there is no real gain to humans on the whole. So it doesn't seem as worthwhile to violate their autonomy. It's tricky, and it's probably why it remains a 'hot topic' in bioethics
To me your post reads "I like meat so consent doesn't matter if I want a steak but I don't like fucking them so consent is really important for that". It's a colossal hypocrisy, you don't get to argue one is fine and the other isn't, especially when your argument is rooted in animal welfare and the thing you claim is fine is killing them and the thing you claim is not fine is non harmful sex.
Your desire for a steak is not a necessary thing for the good of the species.
KwarK, may I ask why this topic is so important to you?
somebody is wrong on the internet, thats very important.
on topic: Kwark, if we asume that eating animals is wrong, would you agree with the points of falldownmarigold?
What are your opinions on keeping pets, Marigold? A pet serves no purpose other than satisfying the selfish desires of a human. An animal is unable to consent to being purchased and kept in a human's house and is basically a piece of property.
Look I dont want to rain on anybodies parade, but theres tons of way to read what the zoophiles are doing as something wrong.
From a mental health standpoint, if your fetishes get to the point where you simply are unable to live on without acting on them, and they are very socially represible things that would be in your best interest to put a hold on, that means you have some psychological problems going on over there.
Right or wrong, the fact that the majority of people dictate whats right or wrong means that from the normallity pov, having sex with an animal is wrong, having sex with an animal on a usual basis is extremelly wrong, they wont find solace in any legislature I know off.
The question really isnt about whats best for the animal, but whats best for the person, it simply isnt healthy for a persons psyche to regularly have sex with animals, and im too tired to explain why, but i can come back and do it if its demanded.
On June 17 2013 03:59 D10 wrote: Problem is animals cant consent, they are almost biological machines, with the right conditioning anyone can get themselves a beast that will act as if its the shit.
Personally I wouldnt make it something criminal unless theres some serious abuse involved, but I wouldnt make it legal either, maybe give zoophile some psychological evaluation, if the guy is pathologically a zoophile, well id rather have him fuck a sheep than killhimself.
Also, a hefty fine and be done with it, that way at least the government is earning some money to turn a blind eye to something no one wants to see anyways.
Are you sure animals can't consent?
Does the animal try to prevent it, i.e. fight back/avoid the person? If yes, it doesn't consent. If no, it does.
I personally think zoophilia is pretty gross, but I'm not going to try to impose that view on everyone else.
I was thinking about it and that's something I wasn't sure about. Even if the animal does not physically show that it does not want to have sex by fighting back or by displaying some kind of physical and observable behavior, is this necessary and sufficient proof that the animal consents to sex?
What if the animal would prefer not to have sex, but would not dare or does not understand how to display behavior indicating this to be the case? I don't think it's radical to imagine that could be the case in some instances.
I think it makes more sense to conclude that because there is no communication possible, that we have to err on the side of not allowing any sex with animals, on the off chance that it may be violating the animal in many or even just some cases. I think it makes less sense to err on the side of allowing sex with animals just because it may be okay with some or even many animals.
Sorry, I think I've missed an important step in your argument here. If I'm following correctly it goes like this 1) Animals are incapable of communicating their wishes to us 2) We shouldn't do things to them if we don't know whether or not they consent 3) 2 only applies to sex with them, not eating them or domesticating them or using them as farm tools or keeping them as pets or doing medical research on them
I don't understand how 3 logically follows from 2.
Logically, yeah, we'd not capture them/eat them by that logic. However realistically it becomes a moral issue. It turns out that domesticating them and eating them in some cases greatly benefits humans. With raping animals, however, there is no real gain to humans on the whole. So it doesn't seem as worthwhile to violate their autonomy. It's tricky, and it's probably why it remains a 'hot topic' in bioethics
To me your post reads "I like meat so consent doesn't matter if I want a steak but I don't like fucking them so consent is really important for that". It's a colossal hypocrisy, you don't get to argue one is fine and the other isn't, especially when your argument is rooted in animal welfare and the thing you claim is fine is killing them and the thing you claim is not fine is non harmful sex.
Your desire for a steak is not a necessary thing for the good of the species.
KwarK, may I ask why this topic is so important to you?
somebody is wrong on the internet, thats very important.
on topic: Kwark, if we asume that eating animals is wrong, would you agree with the points of falldownmarigold?
No, I would still disagree with his premises but his argument would at least be internally consistent. I think animal consent has no value, I'm fine with eating them. If someone were to genuinely believe that animal consent had value, that beastiality was literally equivalent to rape and that slaughtering an animal to eat was literally equivalent to murder then their argument would be internally consistent but based upon premises which I did not agree with. However instead we've been getting that animal non-consent only matters when they're not being harmed and when the thing happening is something that I personally don't want to do which is just bullshit.
I'd be happy to debate the value of animal consent but the only person in this topic to argue that animals are literally people is Evangelist who QQed out earlier. Everyone else has gone with "animals are people only when it suits me".
I was just thinking about pets, haha. I'm really not sure. Emotionally I want to say pets are fine. I've enjoyed pets in the past, and I think many many many people have fantastic relationships with their own pets. Some people keep pets who are miserable, of course. But if we don't allow pets just because some people are cruel to pets then we will make all the people who are good to pets very sad and unhappy. Is that better just because it results in more 'moral respect' for animals on the whole? Probably not, but it doesn't seem super straight forward.
On June 17 2013 04:45 SnipedSoul wrote: What are your opinions on keeping pets, Marigold? A pet serves no purpose other than satisfying the selfish desires of a human. An animal is unable to consent to being purchased and kept in a human's house and is basically a piece of property.
Adopting a pet or buying one from a store serves more than just a selfish purpose, I assure you. Especially given the conditions many of them live in. Taking care of a pet in general requires a lot of time, money, and empathy.
For the third time, consent isn't what actually matters here.
On June 17 2013 04:47 D10 wrote: From a mental health standpoint, if your fetishes get to the point where you simply are unable to live on without acting on them, and they are very socially represible things that would be in your best interest to put a hold on, that means you have some psychological problems going on over there.
Right or wrong, the fact that the majority of people dictate whats right or wrong means that from the normallity pov,
Heard this one fifty years ago when homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder.
On June 17 2013 03:59 D10 wrote: Problem is animals cant consent, they are almost biological machines, with the right conditioning anyone can get themselves a beast that will act as if its the shit.
Personally I wouldnt make it something criminal unless theres some serious abuse involved, but I wouldnt make it legal either, maybe give zoophile some psychological evaluation, if the guy is pathologically a zoophile, well id rather have him fuck a sheep than killhimself.
Also, a hefty fine and be done with it, that way at least the government is earning some money to turn a blind eye to something no one wants to see anyways.
Are you sure animals can't consent?
Does the animal try to prevent it, i.e. fight back/avoid the person? If yes, it doesn't consent. If no, it does.
I personally think zoophilia is pretty gross, but I'm not going to try to impose that view on everyone else.
I was thinking about it and that's something I wasn't sure about. Even if the animal does not physically show that it does not want to have sex by fighting back or by displaying some kind of physical and observable behavior, is this necessary and sufficient proof that the animal consents to sex?
What if the animal would prefer not to have sex, but would not dare or does not understand how to display behavior indicating this to be the case? I don't think it's radical to imagine that could be the case in some instances.
I think it makes more sense to conclude that because there is no communication possible, that we have to err on the side of not allowing any sex with animals, on the off chance that it may be violating the animal in many or even just some cases. I think it makes less sense to err on the side of allowing sex with animals just because it may be okay with some or even many animals.
Sorry, I think I've missed an important step in your argument here. If I'm following correctly it goes like this 1) Animals are incapable of communicating their wishes to us 2) We shouldn't do things to them if we don't know whether or not they consent 3) 2 only applies to sex with them, not eating them or domesticating them or using them as farm tools or keeping them as pets or doing medical research on them
I don't understand how 3 logically follows from 2.
Logically, yeah, we'd not capture them/eat them by that logic. However realistically it becomes a moral issue. It turns out that domesticating them and eating them in some cases greatly benefits humans. With raping animals, however, there is no real gain to humans on the whole. So it doesn't seem as worthwhile to violate their autonomy. It's tricky, and it's probably why it remains a 'hot topic' in bioethics
To me your post reads "I like meat so consent doesn't matter if I want a steak but I don't like fucking them so consent is really important for that". It's a colossal hypocrisy, you don't get to argue one is fine and the other isn't, especially when your argument is rooted in animal welfare and the thing you claim is fine is killing them and the thing you claim is not fine is non harmful sex.
Your desire for a steak is not a necessary thing for the good of the species.
The act of killing can take as little as a couple seconds. I find the abuse of an animal throughout their life a lot worse than the killing of an animal at the end. I'm perfectly happy eating meat and at the same time not being okay with the needless suffering of animals to get me that meat. Just because they die in the end to become food doesn't mean you can't have the opinion that they should have some sort of decent life. In fact, particularly because they die to be eaten by me is why I find it important that they are not mistreated. The whole "just because you do X to them you should also be okay with doing Y" is pretty absurd.
On June 17 2013 04:45 SnipedSoul wrote: What are your opinions on keeping pets, Marigold? A pet serves no purpose other than satisfying the selfish desires of a human. An animal is unable to consent to being purchased and kept in a human's house and is basically a piece of property.
Adopting a pet or buying one from a store serves more than just a selfish purpose, I assure you. Especially given the conditions many of them live in. Taking care of a pet in general requires a lot of time, money, and empathy.
For the third time, consent isn't what actually matters here.
You think they'd be in the pet store if people didn't keep buying them? The reason there are so many abandoned pet dogs and cats is because we keep pet dogs and cats, you don't see badgers in miserable conditions in pet stores because no fucker wants a pet badger.
On June 17 2013 03:59 D10 wrote: Problem is animals cant consent, they are almost biological machines, with the right conditioning anyone can get themselves a beast that will act as if its the shit.
Personally I wouldnt make it something criminal unless theres some serious abuse involved, but I wouldnt make it legal either, maybe give zoophile some psychological evaluation, if the guy is pathologically a zoophile, well id rather have him fuck a sheep than killhimself.
Also, a hefty fine and be done with it, that way at least the government is earning some money to turn a blind eye to something no one wants to see anyways.
Are you sure animals can't consent?
Does the animal try to prevent it, i.e. fight back/avoid the person? If yes, it doesn't consent. If no, it does.
I personally think zoophilia is pretty gross, but I'm not going to try to impose that view on everyone else.
I was thinking about it and that's something I wasn't sure about. Even if the animal does not physically show that it does not want to have sex by fighting back or by displaying some kind of physical and observable behavior, is this necessary and sufficient proof that the animal consents to sex?
What if the animal would prefer not to have sex, but would not dare or does not understand how to display behavior indicating this to be the case? I don't think it's radical to imagine that could be the case in some instances.
I think it makes more sense to conclude that because there is no communication possible, that we have to err on the side of not allowing any sex with animals, on the off chance that it may be violating the animal in many or even just some cases. I think it makes less sense to err on the side of allowing sex with animals just because it may be okay with some or even many animals.
Sorry, I think I've missed an important step in your argument here. If I'm following correctly it goes like this 1) Animals are incapable of communicating their wishes to us 2) We shouldn't do things to them if we don't know whether or not they consent 3) 2 only applies to sex with them, not eating them or domesticating them or using them as farm tools or keeping them as pets or doing medical research on them
I don't understand how 3 logically follows from 2.
Logically, yeah, we'd not capture them/eat them by that logic. However realistically it becomes a moral issue. It turns out that domesticating them and eating them in some cases greatly benefits humans. With raping animals, however, there is no real gain to humans on the whole. So it doesn't seem as worthwhile to violate their autonomy. It's tricky, and it's probably why it remains a 'hot topic' in bioethics
To me your post reads "I like meat so consent doesn't matter if I want a steak but I don't like fucking them so consent is really important for that". It's a colossal hypocrisy, you don't get to argue one is fine and the other isn't, especially when your argument is rooted in animal welfare and the thing you claim is fine is killing them and the thing you claim is not fine is non harmful sex.
Your desire for a steak is not a necessary thing for the good of the species.
The act of killing can take as little as a couple seconds. I find the abuse of an animal throughout their life a lot worse than the killing of an animal at the end. I'm perfectly happy eating meat and at the same time not being okay with the needless suffering of animals to get me that meat. Just because they die in the end to become food doesn't mean you can't have the opinion that they should have some sort of decent life. In fact, particularly because they die to be eaten by me is why I find it important that they are not mistreated. The whole "just because you do X to them you should also be okay with doing Y" is pretty absurd.
You think animals reared for meat are treated better than a zoophile (someone who literally feels love towards an animal) treats their, in their eyes, partner and lover? I'm not sure you have any idea where your food comes from.
On June 17 2013 03:59 D10 wrote: Problem is animals cant consent, they are almost biological machines, with the right conditioning anyone can get themselves a beast that will act as if its the shit.
Personally I wouldnt make it something criminal unless theres some serious abuse involved, but I wouldnt make it legal either, maybe give zoophile some psychological evaluation, if the guy is pathologically a zoophile, well id rather have him fuck a sheep than killhimself.
Also, a hefty fine and be done with it, that way at least the government is earning some money to turn a blind eye to something no one wants to see anyways.
Are you sure animals can't consent?
Does the animal try to prevent it, i.e. fight back/avoid the person? If yes, it doesn't consent. If no, it does.
I personally think zoophilia is pretty gross, but I'm not going to try to impose that view on everyone else.
I was thinking about it and that's something I wasn't sure about. Even if the animal does not physically show that it does not want to have sex by fighting back or by displaying some kind of physical and observable behavior, is this necessary and sufficient proof that the animal consents to sex?
What if the animal would prefer not to have sex, but would not dare or does not understand how to display behavior indicating this to be the case? I don't think it's radical to imagine that could be the case in some instances.
I think it makes more sense to conclude that because there is no communication possible, that we have to err on the side of not allowing any sex with animals, on the off chance that it may be violating the animal in many or even just some cases. I think it makes less sense to err on the side of allowing sex with animals just because it may be okay with some or even many animals.
Sorry, I think I've missed an important step in your argument here. If I'm following correctly it goes like this 1) Animals are incapable of communicating their wishes to us 2) We shouldn't do things to them if we don't know whether or not they consent 3) 2 only applies to sex with them, not eating them or domesticating them or using them as farm tools or keeping them as pets or doing medical research on them
I don't understand how 3 logically follows from 2.
Logically, yeah, we'd not capture them/eat them by that logic. However realistically it becomes a moral issue. It turns out that domesticating them and eating them in some cases greatly benefits humans. With raping animals, however, there is no real gain to humans on the whole. So it doesn't seem as worthwhile to violate their autonomy. It's tricky, and it's probably why it remains a 'hot topic' in bioethics
To me your post reads "I like meat so consent doesn't matter if I want a steak but I don't like fucking them so consent is really important for that". It's a colossal hypocrisy, you don't get to argue one is fine and the other isn't, especially when your argument is rooted in animal welfare and the thing you claim is fine is killing them and the thing you claim is not fine is non harmful sex.
Your desire for a steak is not a necessary thing for the good of the species.
The act of killing can take as little as a couple seconds. I find the abuse of an animal throughout their life a lot worse than the killing of an animal at the end. I'm perfectly happy eating meat and at the same time not being okay with the needless suffering of animals to get me that meat. Just because they die in the end to become food doesn't mean you can't have the opinion that they should have some sort of decent life. In fact, particularly because they die to be eaten by me is why I find it important that they are not mistreated. The whole "just because you do X to them you should also be okay with doing Y" is pretty absurd.
You think animals reared for meat are treated better than a zoophile (someone who literally feels love towards an animal) treats their, in their eyes, partner and lover? I'm not sure you have any idea where your food comes from.
He never came a nautic mile close from infering that he thinks that.
On June 17 2013 03:59 D10 wrote: Problem is animals cant consent, they are almost biological machines, with the right conditioning anyone can get themselves a beast that will act as if its the shit.
Personally I wouldnt make it something criminal unless theres some serious abuse involved, but I wouldnt make it legal either, maybe give zoophile some psychological evaluation, if the guy is pathologically a zoophile, well id rather have him fuck a sheep than killhimself.
Also, a hefty fine and be done with it, that way at least the government is earning some money to turn a blind eye to something no one wants to see anyways.
Are you sure animals can't consent?
Does the animal try to prevent it, i.e. fight back/avoid the person? If yes, it doesn't consent. If no, it does.
I personally think zoophilia is pretty gross, but I'm not going to try to impose that view on everyone else.
I was thinking about it and that's something I wasn't sure about. Even if the animal does not physically show that it does not want to have sex by fighting back or by displaying some kind of physical and observable behavior, is this necessary and sufficient proof that the animal consents to sex?
What if the animal would prefer not to have sex, but would not dare or does not understand how to display behavior indicating this to be the case? I don't think it's radical to imagine that could be the case in some instances.
I think it makes more sense to conclude that because there is no communication possible, that we have to err on the side of not allowing any sex with animals, on the off chance that it may be violating the animal in many or even just some cases. I think it makes less sense to err on the side of allowing sex with animals just because it may be okay with some or even many animals.
Sorry, I think I've missed an important step in your argument here. If I'm following correctly it goes like this 1) Animals are incapable of communicating their wishes to us 2) We shouldn't do things to them if we don't know whether or not they consent 3) 2 only applies to sex with them, not eating them or domesticating them or using them as farm tools or keeping them as pets or doing medical research on them
I don't understand how 3 logically follows from 2.
Logically, yeah, we'd not capture them/eat them by that logic. However realistically it becomes a moral issue. It turns out that domesticating them and eating them in some cases greatly benefits humans. With raping animals, however, there is no real gain to humans on the whole. So it doesn't seem as worthwhile to violate their autonomy. It's tricky, and it's probably why it remains a 'hot topic' in bioethics
To me your post reads "I like meat so consent doesn't matter if I want a steak but I don't like fucking them so consent is really important for that". It's a colossal hypocrisy, you don't get to argue one is fine and the other isn't, especially when your argument is rooted in animal welfare and the thing you claim is fine is killing them and the thing you claim is not fine is non harmful sex.
Your desire for a steak is not a necessary thing for the good of the species.
The act of killing can take as little as a couple seconds. I find the abuse of an animal throughout their life a lot worse than the killing of an animal at the end. I'm perfectly happy eating meat and at the same time not being okay with the needless suffering of animals to get me that meat. Just because they die in the end to become food doesn't mean you can't have the opinion that they should have some sort of decent life. In fact, particularly because they die to be eaten by me is why I find it important that they are not mistreated. The whole "just because you do X to them you should also be okay with doing Y" is pretty absurd.
You think animals reared for meat are treated better than a zoophile (someone who literally feels love towards an animal) treats their, in their eyes, partner and lover? I'm not sure you have any idea where your food comes from.
Kwark, don't forget, in the battle of taboos, here in America, sex is a shit ton more taboo than violence. Therefore, sexual deviance is considered much more "weird" than any violence related. By violence, I mean slaughtering for the purposes of food.
On June 17 2013 03:59 D10 wrote: Problem is animals cant consent, they are almost biological machines, with the right conditioning anyone can get themselves a beast that will act as if its the shit.
Personally I wouldnt make it something criminal unless theres some serious abuse involved, but I wouldnt make it legal either, maybe give zoophile some psychological evaluation, if the guy is pathologically a zoophile, well id rather have him fuck a sheep than killhimself.
Also, a hefty fine and be done with it, that way at least the government is earning some money to turn a blind eye to something no one wants to see anyways.
Are you sure animals can't consent?
Does the animal try to prevent it, i.e. fight back/avoid the person? If yes, it doesn't consent. If no, it does.
I personally think zoophilia is pretty gross, but I'm not going to try to impose that view on everyone else.
I was thinking about it and that's something I wasn't sure about. Even if the animal does not physically show that it does not want to have sex by fighting back or by displaying some kind of physical and observable behavior, is this necessary and sufficient proof that the animal consents to sex?
What if the animal would prefer not to have sex, but would not dare or does not understand how to display behavior indicating this to be the case? I don't think it's radical to imagine that could be the case in some instances.
I think it makes more sense to conclude that because there is no communication possible, that we have to err on the side of not allowing any sex with animals, on the off chance that it may be violating the animal in many or even just some cases. I think it makes less sense to err on the side of allowing sex with animals just because it may be okay with some or even many animals.
Sorry, I think I've missed an important step in your argument here. If I'm following correctly it goes like this 1) Animals are incapable of communicating their wishes to us 2) We shouldn't do things to them if we don't know whether or not they consent 3) 2 only applies to sex with them, not eating them or domesticating them or using them as farm tools or keeping them as pets or doing medical research on them
I don't understand how 3 logically follows from 2.
Logically, yeah, we'd not capture them/eat them by that logic. However realistically it becomes a moral issue. It turns out that domesticating them and eating them in some cases greatly benefits humans. With raping animals, however, there is no real gain to humans on the whole. So it doesn't seem as worthwhile to violate their autonomy. It's tricky, and it's probably why it remains a 'hot topic' in bioethics
To me your post reads "I like meat so consent doesn't matter if I want a steak but I don't like fucking them so consent is really important for that". It's a colossal hypocrisy, you don't get to argue one is fine and the other isn't, especially when your argument is rooted in animal welfare and the thing you claim is fine is killing them and the thing you claim is not fine is non harmful sex.
Your desire for a steak is not a necessary thing for the good of the species.
KwarK, may I ask why this topic is so important to you?
somebody is wrong on the internet, thats very important.
on topic: Kwark, if we asume that eating animals is wrong, would you agree with the points of falldownmarigold?
No, I would still disagree with his premises but his argument would at least be internally consistent. I think animal consent has no value, I'm fine with eating them. If someone were to genuinely believe that animal consent had value, that beastiality was literally equivalent to rape and that slaughtering an animal to eat was literally equivalent to murder then their argument would be internally consistent but based upon premises which I did not agree with. However instead we've been getting that animal non-consent only matters when they're not being harmed and when the thing happening is something that I personally don't want to do which is just bullshit.
I'd be happy to debate the value of animal consent but the only person in this topic to argue that animals are literally people is Evangelist who QQed out earlier. Everyone else has gone with "animals are people only when it suits me".
Eating animals is OK because it's a normal, healthy and unavoidable aspect of life (if humans don't eat them, something else will). Having sex with an animal seems optional. Society can then have a say in if it's OK to use that option or not.
On June 17 2013 03:59 D10 wrote: Problem is animals cant consent, they are almost biological machines, with the right conditioning anyone can get themselves a beast that will act as if its the shit.
Personally I wouldnt make it something criminal unless theres some serious abuse involved, but I wouldnt make it legal either, maybe give zoophile some psychological evaluation, if the guy is pathologically a zoophile, well id rather have him fuck a sheep than killhimself.
Also, a hefty fine and be done with it, that way at least the government is earning some money to turn a blind eye to something no one wants to see anyways.
Are you sure animals can't consent?
Does the animal try to prevent it, i.e. fight back/avoid the person? If yes, it doesn't consent. If no, it does.
I personally think zoophilia is pretty gross, but I'm not going to try to impose that view on everyone else.
I was thinking about it and that's something I wasn't sure about. Even if the animal does not physically show that it does not want to have sex by fighting back or by displaying some kind of physical and observable behavior, is this necessary and sufficient proof that the animal consents to sex?
What if the animal would prefer not to have sex, but would not dare or does not understand how to display behavior indicating this to be the case? I don't think it's radical to imagine that could be the case in some instances.
I think it makes more sense to conclude that because there is no communication possible, that we have to err on the side of not allowing any sex with animals, on the off chance that it may be violating the animal in many or even just some cases. I think it makes less sense to err on the side of allowing sex with animals just because it may be okay with some or even many animals.
Sorry, I think I've missed an important step in your argument here. If I'm following correctly it goes like this 1) Animals are incapable of communicating their wishes to us 2) We shouldn't do things to them if we don't know whether or not they consent 3) 2 only applies to sex with them, not eating them or domesticating them or using them as farm tools or keeping them as pets or doing medical research on them
I don't understand how 3 logically follows from 2.
Logically, yeah, we'd not capture them/eat them by that logic. However realistically it becomes a moral issue. It turns out that domesticating them and eating them in some cases greatly benefits humans. With raping animals, however, there is no real gain to humans on the whole. So it doesn't seem as worthwhile to violate their autonomy. It's tricky, and it's probably why it remains a 'hot topic' in bioethics
To me your post reads "I like meat so consent doesn't matter if I want a steak but I don't like fucking them so consent is really important for that". It's a colossal hypocrisy, you don't get to argue one is fine and the other isn't, especially when your argument is rooted in animal welfare and the thing you claim is fine is killing them and the thing you claim is not fine is non harmful sex.
Your desire for a steak is not a necessary thing for the good of the species.
The act of killing can take as little as a couple seconds. I find the abuse of an animal throughout their life a lot worse than the killing of an animal at the end. I'm perfectly happy eating meat and at the same time not being okay with the needless suffering of animals to get me that meat. Just because they die in the end to become food doesn't mean you can't have the opinion that they should have some sort of decent life. In fact, particularly because they die to be eaten by me is why I find it important that they are not mistreated. The whole "just because you do X to them you should also be okay with doing Y" is pretty absurd.
You think animals reared for meat are treated better than a zoophile (someone who literally feels love towards an animal) treats their, in their eyes, partner and lover? I'm not sure you have any idea where your food comes from.
Kwark, don't forget, in the battle of taboos, here in America, sex is a shit ton more taboo than violence. Therefore, sexual deviance is considered much more "weird" than any violence related. By violence, I mean slaughtering for the purposes of food.
People have been eating animals since we were animals ourselves, you saying that we should have started eating people to complement our early diet ?
On June 17 2013 03:59 D10 wrote: Problem is animals cant consent, they are almost biological machines, with the right conditioning anyone can get themselves a beast that will act as if its the shit.
Personally I wouldnt make it something criminal unless theres some serious abuse involved, but I wouldnt make it legal either, maybe give zoophile some psychological evaluation, if the guy is pathologically a zoophile, well id rather have him fuck a sheep than killhimself.
Also, a hefty fine and be done with it, that way at least the government is earning some money to turn a blind eye to something no one wants to see anyways.
Are you sure animals can't consent?
Does the animal try to prevent it, i.e. fight back/avoid the person? If yes, it doesn't consent. If no, it does.
I personally think zoophilia is pretty gross, but I'm not going to try to impose that view on everyone else.
I was thinking about it and that's something I wasn't sure about. Even if the animal does not physically show that it does not want to have sex by fighting back or by displaying some kind of physical and observable behavior, is this necessary and sufficient proof that the animal consents to sex?
What if the animal would prefer not to have sex, but would not dare or does not understand how to display behavior indicating this to be the case? I don't think it's radical to imagine that could be the case in some instances.
I think it makes more sense to conclude that because there is no communication possible, that we have to err on the side of not allowing any sex with animals, on the off chance that it may be violating the animal in many or even just some cases. I think it makes less sense to err on the side of allowing sex with animals just because it may be okay with some or even many animals.
Sorry, I think I've missed an important step in your argument here. If I'm following correctly it goes like this 1) Animals are incapable of communicating their wishes to us 2) We shouldn't do things to them if we don't know whether or not they consent 3) 2 only applies to sex with them, not eating them or domesticating them or using them as farm tools or keeping them as pets or doing medical research on them
I don't understand how 3 logically follows from 2.
Logically, yeah, we'd not capture them/eat them by that logic. However realistically it becomes a moral issue. It turns out that domesticating them and eating them in some cases greatly benefits humans. With raping animals, however, there is no real gain to humans on the whole. So it doesn't seem as worthwhile to violate their autonomy. It's tricky, and it's probably why it remains a 'hot topic' in bioethics
To me your post reads "I like meat so consent doesn't matter if I want a steak but I don't like fucking them so consent is really important for that". It's a colossal hypocrisy, you don't get to argue one is fine and the other isn't, especially when your argument is rooted in animal welfare and the thing you claim is fine is killing them and the thing you claim is not fine is non harmful sex.
Your desire for a steak is not a necessary thing for the good of the species.
The act of killing can take as little as a couple seconds. I find the abuse of an animal throughout their life a lot worse than the killing of an animal at the end. I'm perfectly happy eating meat and at the same time not being okay with the needless suffering of animals to get me that meat. Just because they die in the end to become food doesn't mean you can't have the opinion that they should have some sort of decent life. In fact, particularly because they die to be eaten by me is why I find it important that they are not mistreated. The whole "just because you do X to them you should also be okay with doing Y" is pretty absurd.
You think animals reared for meat are treated better than a zoophile (someone who literally feels love towards an animal) treats their, in their eyes, partner and lover? I'm not sure you have any idea where your food comes from.
He never came a nautic mile close from infering that he thinks that.
He characterised beastiality as a lifetime of abuse while food production killing as taking just a few seconds. I think that's somewhat missing the issue.
On June 17 2013 03:59 D10 wrote: Problem is animals cant consent, they are almost biological machines, with the right conditioning anyone can get themselves a beast that will act as if its the shit.
Personally I wouldnt make it something criminal unless theres some serious abuse involved, but I wouldnt make it legal either, maybe give zoophile some psychological evaluation, if the guy is pathologically a zoophile, well id rather have him fuck a sheep than killhimself.
Also, a hefty fine and be done with it, that way at least the government is earning some money to turn a blind eye to something no one wants to see anyways.
Are you sure animals can't consent?
Does the animal try to prevent it, i.e. fight back/avoid the person? If yes, it doesn't consent. If no, it does.
I personally think zoophilia is pretty gross, but I'm not going to try to impose that view on everyone else.
I was thinking about it and that's something I wasn't sure about. Even if the animal does not physically show that it does not want to have sex by fighting back or by displaying some kind of physical and observable behavior, is this necessary and sufficient proof that the animal consents to sex?
What if the animal would prefer not to have sex, but would not dare or does not understand how to display behavior indicating this to be the case? I don't think it's radical to imagine that could be the case in some instances.
I think it makes more sense to conclude that because there is no communication possible, that we have to err on the side of not allowing any sex with animals, on the off chance that it may be violating the animal in many or even just some cases. I think it makes less sense to err on the side of allowing sex with animals just because it may be okay with some or even many animals.
Sorry, I think I've missed an important step in your argument here. If I'm following correctly it goes like this 1) Animals are incapable of communicating their wishes to us 2) We shouldn't do things to them if we don't know whether or not they consent 3) 2 only applies to sex with them, not eating them or domesticating them or using them as farm tools or keeping them as pets or doing medical research on them
I don't understand how 3 logically follows from 2.
Logically, yeah, we'd not capture them/eat them by that logic. However realistically it becomes a moral issue. It turns out that domesticating them and eating them in some cases greatly benefits humans. With raping animals, however, there is no real gain to humans on the whole. So it doesn't seem as worthwhile to violate their autonomy. It's tricky, and it's probably why it remains a 'hot topic' in bioethics
To me your post reads "I like meat so consent doesn't matter if I want a steak but I don't like fucking them so consent is really important for that". It's a colossal hypocrisy, you don't get to argue one is fine and the other isn't, especially when your argument is rooted in animal welfare and the thing you claim is fine is killing them and the thing you claim is not fine is non harmful sex.
Your desire for a steak is not a necessary thing for the good of the species.
KwarK, may I ask why this topic is so important to you?
somebody is wrong on the internet, thats very important.
on topic: Kwark, if we asume that eating animals is wrong, would you agree with the points of falldownmarigold?
No, I would still disagree with his premises but his argument would at least be internally consistent. I think animal consent has no value, I'm fine with eating them. If someone were to genuinely believe that animal consent had value, that beastiality was literally equivalent to rape and that slaughtering an animal to eat was literally equivalent to murder then their argument would be internally consistent but based upon premises which I did not agree with. However instead we've been getting that animal non-consent only matters when they're not being harmed and when the thing happening is something that I personally don't want to do which is just bullshit.
I'd be happy to debate the value of animal consent but the only person in this topic to argue that animals are literally people is Evangelist who QQed out earlier. Everyone else has gone with "animals are people only when it suits me".
Eating animals is OK because it's a normal, healthy and unavoidable aspect of life (if humans don't eat them, something else will). Having sex with an animal seems optional. Society can then have a say in if it's OK to use that option or not.
Society gets to have a say in whether or not an individual gets to do something optional? Even if it doesn't harm another member of society?
Since when? Why? How do you reconcile that with liberty?
On June 17 2013 03:59 D10 wrote: Problem is animals cant consent, they are almost biological machines, with the right conditioning anyone can get themselves a beast that will act as if its the shit.
Personally I wouldnt make it something criminal unless theres some serious abuse involved, but I wouldnt make it legal either, maybe give zoophile some psychological evaluation, if the guy is pathologically a zoophile, well id rather have him fuck a sheep than killhimself.
Also, a hefty fine and be done with it, that way at least the government is earning some money to turn a blind eye to something no one wants to see anyways.
Are you sure animals can't consent?
Does the animal try to prevent it, i.e. fight back/avoid the person? If yes, it doesn't consent. If no, it does.
I personally think zoophilia is pretty gross, but I'm not going to try to impose that view on everyone else.
I was thinking about it and that's something I wasn't sure about. Even if the animal does not physically show that it does not want to have sex by fighting back or by displaying some kind of physical and observable behavior, is this necessary and sufficient proof that the animal consents to sex?
What if the animal would prefer not to have sex, but would not dare or does not understand how to display behavior indicating this to be the case? I don't think it's radical to imagine that could be the case in some instances.
I think it makes more sense to conclude that because there is no communication possible, that we have to err on the side of not allowing any sex with animals, on the off chance that it may be violating the animal in many or even just some cases. I think it makes less sense to err on the side of allowing sex with animals just because it may be okay with some or even many animals.
Sorry, I think I've missed an important step in your argument here. If I'm following correctly it goes like this 1) Animals are incapable of communicating their wishes to us 2) We shouldn't do things to them if we don't know whether or not they consent 3) 2 only applies to sex with them, not eating them or domesticating them or using them as farm tools or keeping them as pets or doing medical research on them
I don't understand how 3 logically follows from 2.
Logically, yeah, we'd not capture them/eat them by that logic. However realistically it becomes a moral issue. It turns out that domesticating them and eating them in some cases greatly benefits humans. With raping animals, however, there is no real gain to humans on the whole. So it doesn't seem as worthwhile to violate their autonomy. It's tricky, and it's probably why it remains a 'hot topic' in bioethics
To me your post reads "I like meat so consent doesn't matter if I want a steak but I don't like fucking them so consent is really important for that". It's a colossal hypocrisy, you don't get to argue one is fine and the other isn't, especially when your argument is rooted in animal welfare and the thing you claim is fine is killing them and the thing you claim is not fine is non harmful sex.
Your desire for a steak is not a necessary thing for the good of the species.
KwarK, may I ask why this topic is so important to you?
somebody is wrong on the internet, thats very important.
on topic: Kwark, if we asume that eating animals is wrong, would you agree with the points of falldownmarigold?
No, I would still disagree with his premises but his argument would at least be internally consistent. I think animal consent has no value, I'm fine with eating them. If someone were to genuinely believe that animal consent had value, that beastiality was literally equivalent to rape and that slaughtering an animal to eat was literally equivalent to murder then their argument would be internally consistent but based upon premises which I did not agree with. However instead we've been getting that animal non-consent only matters when they're not being harmed and when the thing happening is something that I personally don't want to do which is just bullshit.
I'd be happy to debate the value of animal consent but the only person in this topic to argue that animals are literally people is Evangelist who QQed out earlier. Everyone else has gone with "animals are people only when it suits me".
Eating animals is OK because it's a normal, healthy and unavoidable aspect of life (if humans don't eat them, something else will). Having sex with an animal seems optional. Society can then have a say in if it's OK to use that option or not.
I don't get why you think eating animals isn't just as optional as having sex with animals. You call it 'normal' as though that gives your point some time of justification... but it doesn't. You also call eating animals healthy... and while eating a little bit of animal can be healthy, eating animals is generally not healthier to eating alternatives. You also call it unavoidable which isn't true either.
I'm sure having sex with animals seems quite optional to you, who ostensibly does not have a sexual attraction to animals. I don't either, but I don't consider the sexual tendencies of others to be optional and the sexual tendencies of myself to be somehow less optional, as you might.
I've seen enough animals with history of physical abuse to rather easily tell if an animal has been abused. Physical abuse is obviously very harmful to the well being of an animal.
Has anyone here actually encountered an animal that they can confirm has had regular sexual interaction with a human that was also not abused in other ways?
Of course an animal that is beaten, starved, and otherwise mistreated while also being sexually abused will be very damaged. What I am curious about is the effect that sexual interaction alone has on the well being of an animal. Unfortunately, sexual abuse is often coupled with other forms of abuse, so it's difficult to discern the impact of one specific behavior.
On June 17 2013 03:59 D10 wrote: Problem is animals cant consent, they are almost biological machines, with the right conditioning anyone can get themselves a beast that will act as if its the shit.
Personally I wouldnt make it something criminal unless theres some serious abuse involved, but I wouldnt make it legal either, maybe give zoophile some psychological evaluation, if the guy is pathologically a zoophile, well id rather have him fuck a sheep than killhimself.
Also, a hefty fine and be done with it, that way at least the government is earning some money to turn a blind eye to something no one wants to see anyways.
Are you sure animals can't consent?
Does the animal try to prevent it, i.e. fight back/avoid the person? If yes, it doesn't consent. If no, it does.
I personally think zoophilia is pretty gross, but I'm not going to try to impose that view on everyone else.
I was thinking about it and that's something I wasn't sure about. Even if the animal does not physically show that it does not want to have sex by fighting back or by displaying some kind of physical and observable behavior, is this necessary and sufficient proof that the animal consents to sex?
What if the animal would prefer not to have sex, but would not dare or does not understand how to display behavior indicating this to be the case? I don't think it's radical to imagine that could be the case in some instances.
I think it makes more sense to conclude that because there is no communication possible, that we have to err on the side of not allowing any sex with animals, on the off chance that it may be violating the animal in many or even just some cases. I think it makes less sense to err on the side of allowing sex with animals just because it may be okay with some or even many animals.
Sorry, I think I've missed an important step in your argument here. If I'm following correctly it goes like this 1) Animals are incapable of communicating their wishes to us 2) We shouldn't do things to them if we don't know whether or not they consent 3) 2 only applies to sex with them, not eating them or domesticating them or using them as farm tools or keeping them as pets or doing medical research on them
I don't understand how 3 logically follows from 2.
Logically, yeah, we'd not capture them/eat them by that logic. However realistically it becomes a moral issue. It turns out that domesticating them and eating them in some cases greatly benefits humans. With raping animals, however, there is no real gain to humans on the whole. So it doesn't seem as worthwhile to violate their autonomy. It's tricky, and it's probably why it remains a 'hot topic' in bioethics
To me your post reads "I like meat so consent doesn't matter if I want a steak but I don't like fucking them so consent is really important for that". It's a colossal hypocrisy, you don't get to argue one is fine and the other isn't, especially when your argument is rooted in animal welfare and the thing you claim is fine is killing them and the thing you claim is not fine is non harmful sex.
Your desire for a steak is not a necessary thing for the good of the species.
The act of killing can take as little as a couple seconds. I find the abuse of an animal throughout their life a lot worse than the killing of an animal at the end. I'm perfectly happy eating meat and at the same time not being okay with the needless suffering of animals to get me that meat. Just because they die in the end to become food doesn't mean you can't have the opinion that they should have some sort of decent life. In fact, particularly because they die to be eaten by me is why I find it important that they are not mistreated. The whole "just because you do X to them you should also be okay with doing Y" is pretty absurd.
You think animals reared for meat are treated better than a zoophile (someone who literally feels love towards an animal) treats their, in their eyes, partner and lover? I'm not sure you have any idea where your food comes from.
Kwark, don't forget, in the battle of taboos, here in America, sex is a shit ton more taboo than violence. Therefore, sexual deviance is considered much more "weird" than any violence related. By violence, I mean slaughtering for the purposes of food.
People have been eating animals since we were animals ourselves, you saying that we should have started eating people to complement our early diet ?
I never said we should. Murder = Violence, but doesn't infer cannibalism, but both are still either illegal or regarded as taboo. Eating meat is not taboo, slaughtering animals by the thousands for meat could be considered taboo if we gave into PETA.
Don't make assumed associations with partial logic.
On June 17 2013 03:59 D10 wrote: Problem is animals cant consent, they are almost biological machines, with the right conditioning anyone can get themselves a beast that will act as if its the shit.
Personally I wouldnt make it something criminal unless theres some serious abuse involved, but I wouldnt make it legal either, maybe give zoophile some psychological evaluation, if the guy is pathologically a zoophile, well id rather have him fuck a sheep than killhimself.
Also, a hefty fine and be done with it, that way at least the government is earning some money to turn a blind eye to something no one wants to see anyways.
Are you sure animals can't consent?
Does the animal try to prevent it, i.e. fight back/avoid the person? If yes, it doesn't consent. If no, it does.
I personally think zoophilia is pretty gross, but I'm not going to try to impose that view on everyone else.
I was thinking about it and that's something I wasn't sure about. Even if the animal does not physically show that it does not want to have sex by fighting back or by displaying some kind of physical and observable behavior, is this necessary and sufficient proof that the animal consents to sex?
What if the animal would prefer not to have sex, but would not dare or does not understand how to display behavior indicating this to be the case? I don't think it's radical to imagine that could be the case in some instances.
I think it makes more sense to conclude that because there is no communication possible, that we have to err on the side of not allowing any sex with animals, on the off chance that it may be violating the animal in many or even just some cases. I think it makes less sense to err on the side of allowing sex with animals just because it may be okay with some or even many animals.
Sorry, I think I've missed an important step in your argument here. If I'm following correctly it goes like this 1) Animals are incapable of communicating their wishes to us 2) We shouldn't do things to them if we don't know whether or not they consent 3) 2 only applies to sex with them, not eating them or domesticating them or using them as farm tools or keeping them as pets or doing medical research on them
I don't understand how 3 logically follows from 2.
Logically, yeah, we'd not capture them/eat them by that logic. However realistically it becomes a moral issue. It turns out that domesticating them and eating them in some cases greatly benefits humans. With raping animals, however, there is no real gain to humans on the whole. So it doesn't seem as worthwhile to violate their autonomy. It's tricky, and it's probably why it remains a 'hot topic' in bioethics
To me your post reads "I like meat so consent doesn't matter if I want a steak but I don't like fucking them so consent is really important for that". It's a colossal hypocrisy, you don't get to argue one is fine and the other isn't, especially when your argument is rooted in animal welfare and the thing you claim is fine is killing them and the thing you claim is not fine is non harmful sex.
Your desire for a steak is not a necessary thing for the good of the species.
The act of killing can take as little as a couple seconds. I find the abuse of an animal throughout their life a lot worse than the killing of an animal at the end. I'm perfectly happy eating meat and at the same time not being okay with the needless suffering of animals to get me that meat. Just because they die in the end to become food doesn't mean you can't have the opinion that they should have some sort of decent life. In fact, particularly because they die to be eaten by me is why I find it important that they are not mistreated. The whole "just because you do X to them you should also be okay with doing Y" is pretty absurd.
You think animals reared for meat are treated better than a zoophile (someone who literally feels love towards an animal) treats their, in their eyes, partner and lover? I'm not sure you have any idea where your food comes from.
He never came a nautic mile close from infering that he thinks that.
He characterised beastiality as a lifetime of abuse while food production killing as taking just a few seconds. I think that's somewhat missing the issue.
no, it is not missing the issue at all. the way that most of our meat is produced is just fucking disgusting and should be illegal.
On June 17 2013 03:59 D10 wrote: Problem is animals cant consent, they are almost biological machines, with the right conditioning anyone can get themselves a beast that will act as if its the shit.
Personally I wouldnt make it something criminal unless theres some serious abuse involved, but I wouldnt make it legal either, maybe give zoophile some psychological evaluation, if the guy is pathologically a zoophile, well id rather have him fuck a sheep than killhimself.
Also, a hefty fine and be done with it, that way at least the government is earning some money to turn a blind eye to something no one wants to see anyways.
Are you sure animals can't consent?
Does the animal try to prevent it, i.e. fight back/avoid the person? If yes, it doesn't consent. If no, it does.
I personally think zoophilia is pretty gross, but I'm not going to try to impose that view on everyone else.
I was thinking about it and that's something I wasn't sure about. Even if the animal does not physically show that it does not want to have sex by fighting back or by displaying some kind of physical and observable behavior, is this necessary and sufficient proof that the animal consents to sex?
What if the animal would prefer not to have sex, but would not dare or does not understand how to display behavior indicating this to be the case? I don't think it's radical to imagine that could be the case in some instances.
I think it makes more sense to conclude that because there is no communication possible, that we have to err on the side of not allowing any sex with animals, on the off chance that it may be violating the animal in many or even just some cases. I think it makes less sense to err on the side of allowing sex with animals just because it may be okay with some or even many animals.
Sorry, I think I've missed an important step in your argument here. If I'm following correctly it goes like this 1) Animals are incapable of communicating their wishes to us 2) We shouldn't do things to them if we don't know whether or not they consent 3) 2 only applies to sex with them, not eating them or domesticating them or using them as farm tools or keeping them as pets or doing medical research on them
I don't understand how 3 logically follows from 2.
Logically, yeah, we'd not capture them/eat them by that logic. However realistically it becomes a moral issue. It turns out that domesticating them and eating them in some cases greatly benefits humans. With raping animals, however, there is no real gain to humans on the whole. So it doesn't seem as worthwhile to violate their autonomy. It's tricky, and it's probably why it remains a 'hot topic' in bioethics
To me your post reads "I like meat so consent doesn't matter if I want a steak but I don't like fucking them so consent is really important for that". It's a colossal hypocrisy, you don't get to argue one is fine and the other isn't, especially when your argument is rooted in animal welfare and the thing you claim is fine is killing them and the thing you claim is not fine is non harmful sex.
Your desire for a steak is not a necessary thing for the good of the species.
The act of killing can take as little as a couple seconds. I find the abuse of an animal throughout their life a lot worse than the killing of an animal at the end. I'm perfectly happy eating meat and at the same time not being okay with the needless suffering of animals to get me that meat. Just because they die in the end to become food doesn't mean you can't have the opinion that they should have some sort of decent life. In fact, particularly because they die to be eaten by me is why I find it important that they are not mistreated. The whole "just because you do X to them you should also be okay with doing Y" is pretty absurd.
You think animals reared for meat are treated better than a zoophile (someone who literally feels love towards an animal) treats their, in their eyes, partner and lover? I'm not sure you have any idea where your food comes from.
I have no idea what that has got to do with what I said. I just disagree with the perspective that just because you are okay with killing animals for food you must also be okay with any type of abuse and mistreatment they go through to get there. None of your post even has anything to do with that.
Also, clearly you don't have a clue as to what type of meat I buy, nor is it relevant to my point.
On June 17 2013 03:59 D10 wrote: Problem is animals cant consent, they are almost biological machines, with the right conditioning anyone can get themselves a beast that will act as if its the shit.
Personally I wouldnt make it something criminal unless theres some serious abuse involved, but I wouldnt make it legal either, maybe give zoophile some psychological evaluation, if the guy is pathologically a zoophile, well id rather have him fuck a sheep than killhimself.
Also, a hefty fine and be done with it, that way at least the government is earning some money to turn a blind eye to something no one wants to see anyways.
Are you sure animals can't consent?
Does the animal try to prevent it, i.e. fight back/avoid the person? If yes, it doesn't consent. If no, it does.
I personally think zoophilia is pretty gross, but I'm not going to try to impose that view on everyone else.
I was thinking about it and that's something I wasn't sure about. Even if the animal does not physically show that it does not want to have sex by fighting back or by displaying some kind of physical and observable behavior, is this necessary and sufficient proof that the animal consents to sex?
What if the animal would prefer not to have sex, but would not dare or does not understand how to display behavior indicating this to be the case? I don't think it's radical to imagine that could be the case in some instances.
I think it makes more sense to conclude that because there is no communication possible, that we have to err on the side of not allowing any sex with animals, on the off chance that it may be violating the animal in many or even just some cases. I think it makes less sense to err on the side of allowing sex with animals just because it may be okay with some or even many animals.
Sorry, I think I've missed an important step in your argument here. If I'm following correctly it goes like this 1) Animals are incapable of communicating their wishes to us 2) We shouldn't do things to them if we don't know whether or not they consent 3) 2 only applies to sex with them, not eating them or domesticating them or using them as farm tools or keeping them as pets or doing medical research on them
I don't understand how 3 logically follows from 2.
Logically, yeah, we'd not capture them/eat them by that logic. However realistically it becomes a moral issue. It turns out that domesticating them and eating them in some cases greatly benefits humans. With raping animals, however, there is no real gain to humans on the whole. So it doesn't seem as worthwhile to violate their autonomy. It's tricky, and it's probably why it remains a 'hot topic' in bioethics
To me your post reads "I like meat so consent doesn't matter if I want a steak but I don't like fucking them so consent is really important for that". It's a colossal hypocrisy, you don't get to argue one is fine and the other isn't, especially when your argument is rooted in animal welfare and the thing you claim is fine is killing them and the thing you claim is not fine is non harmful sex.
Your desire for a steak is not a necessary thing for the good of the species.
The act of killing can take as little as a couple seconds. I find the abuse of an animal throughout their life a lot worse than the killing of an animal at the end. I'm perfectly happy eating meat and at the same time not being okay with the needless suffering of animals to get me that meat. Just because they die in the end to become food doesn't mean you can't have the opinion that they should have some sort of decent life. In fact, particularly because they die to be eaten by me is why I find it important that they are not mistreated. The whole "just because you do X to them you should also be okay with doing Y" is pretty absurd.
You think animals reared for meat are treated better than a zoophile (someone who literally feels love towards an animal) treats their, in their eyes, partner and lover? I'm not sure you have any idea where your food comes from.
He never came a nautic mile close from infering that he thinks that.
He characterised beastiality as a lifetime of abuse while food production killing as taking just a few seconds. I think that's somewhat missing the issue.
I wasn't referring to bestiality at all, you were talking about animal welfare.
On June 17 2013 03:59 D10 wrote: Problem is animals cant consent, they are almost biological machines, with the right conditioning anyone can get themselves a beast that will act as if its the shit.
Personally I wouldnt make it something criminal unless theres some serious abuse involved, but I wouldnt make it legal either, maybe give zoophile some psychological evaluation, if the guy is pathologically a zoophile, well id rather have him fuck a sheep than killhimself.
Also, a hefty fine and be done with it, that way at least the government is earning some money to turn a blind eye to something no one wants to see anyways.
Are you sure animals can't consent?
Does the animal try to prevent it, i.e. fight back/avoid the person? If yes, it doesn't consent. If no, it does.
I personally think zoophilia is pretty gross, but I'm not going to try to impose that view on everyone else.
I was thinking about it and that's something I wasn't sure about. Even if the animal does not physically show that it does not want to have sex by fighting back or by displaying some kind of physical and observable behavior, is this necessary and sufficient proof that the animal consents to sex?
What if the animal would prefer not to have sex, but would not dare or does not understand how to display behavior indicating this to be the case? I don't think it's radical to imagine that could be the case in some instances.
I think it makes more sense to conclude that because there is no communication possible, that we have to err on the side of not allowing any sex with animals, on the off chance that it may be violating the animal in many or even just some cases. I think it makes less sense to err on the side of allowing sex with animals just because it may be okay with some or even many animals.
Sorry, I think I've missed an important step in your argument here. If I'm following correctly it goes like this 1) Animals are incapable of communicating their wishes to us 2) We shouldn't do things to them if we don't know whether or not they consent 3) 2 only applies to sex with them, not eating them or domesticating them or using them as farm tools or keeping them as pets or doing medical research on them
I don't understand how 3 logically follows from 2.
Logically, yeah, we'd not capture them/eat them by that logic. However realistically it becomes a moral issue. It turns out that domesticating them and eating them in some cases greatly benefits humans. With raping animals, however, there is no real gain to humans on the whole. So it doesn't seem as worthwhile to violate their autonomy. It's tricky, and it's probably why it remains a 'hot topic' in bioethics
To me your post reads "I like meat so consent doesn't matter if I want a steak but I don't like fucking them so consent is really important for that". It's a colossal hypocrisy, you don't get to argue one is fine and the other isn't, especially when your argument is rooted in animal welfare and the thing you claim is fine is killing them and the thing you claim is not fine is non harmful sex.
Your desire for a steak is not a necessary thing for the good of the species.
The act of killing can take as little as a couple seconds. I find the abuse of an animal throughout their life a lot worse than the killing of an animal at the end. I'm perfectly happy eating meat and at the same time not being okay with the needless suffering of animals to get me that meat. Just because they die in the end to become food doesn't mean you can't have the opinion that they should have some sort of decent life. In fact, particularly because they die to be eaten by me is why I find it important that they are not mistreated. The whole "just because you do X to them you should also be okay with doing Y" is pretty absurd.
You think animals reared for meat are treated better than a zoophile (someone who literally feels love towards an animal) treats their, in their eyes, partner and lover? I'm not sure you have any idea where your food comes from.
I have no idea what that has got to do with what I said. I just disagree with the perspective that just because you are okay with killing animals for food you must also be okay with any type of abuse and mistreatment they go through to get there. None of your post even has anything to do with that.
Also, clearly you don't have a clue as to what type of meat I buy, nor is it relevant to my point.
I misread your post as calling beastiality a lifetime of abuse rather than industrialised meat farming as a lifetime of abuse. Sorry.
On June 17 2013 04:11 Millitron wrote: [quote] Are you sure animals can't consent?
Does the animal try to prevent it, i.e. fight back/avoid the person? If yes, it doesn't consent. If no, it does.
I personally think zoophilia is pretty gross, but I'm not going to try to impose that view on everyone else.
I was thinking about it and that's something I wasn't sure about. Even if the animal does not physically show that it does not want to have sex by fighting back or by displaying some kind of physical and observable behavior, is this necessary and sufficient proof that the animal consents to sex?
What if the animal would prefer not to have sex, but would not dare or does not understand how to display behavior indicating this to be the case? I don't think it's radical to imagine that could be the case in some instances.
I think it makes more sense to conclude that because there is no communication possible, that we have to err on the side of not allowing any sex with animals, on the off chance that it may be violating the animal in many or even just some cases. I think it makes less sense to err on the side of allowing sex with animals just because it may be okay with some or even many animals.
Sorry, I think I've missed an important step in your argument here. If I'm following correctly it goes like this 1) Animals are incapable of communicating their wishes to us 2) We shouldn't do things to them if we don't know whether or not they consent 3) 2 only applies to sex with them, not eating them or domesticating them or using them as farm tools or keeping them as pets or doing medical research on them
I don't understand how 3 logically follows from 2.
Logically, yeah, we'd not capture them/eat them by that logic. However realistically it becomes a moral issue. It turns out that domesticating them and eating them in some cases greatly benefits humans. With raping animals, however, there is no real gain to humans on the whole. So it doesn't seem as worthwhile to violate their autonomy. It's tricky, and it's probably why it remains a 'hot topic' in bioethics
To me your post reads "I like meat so consent doesn't matter if I want a steak but I don't like fucking them so consent is really important for that". It's a colossal hypocrisy, you don't get to argue one is fine and the other isn't, especially when your argument is rooted in animal welfare and the thing you claim is fine is killing them and the thing you claim is not fine is non harmful sex.
Your desire for a steak is not a necessary thing for the good of the species.
KwarK, may I ask why this topic is so important to you?
somebody is wrong on the internet, thats very important.
on topic: Kwark, if we asume that eating animals is wrong, would you agree with the points of falldownmarigold?
No, I would still disagree with his premises but his argument would at least be internally consistent. I think animal consent has no value, I'm fine with eating them. If someone were to genuinely believe that animal consent had value, that beastiality was literally equivalent to rape and that slaughtering an animal to eat was literally equivalent to murder then their argument would be internally consistent but based upon premises which I did not agree with. However instead we've been getting that animal non-consent only matters when they're not being harmed and when the thing happening is something that I personally don't want to do which is just bullshit.
I'd be happy to debate the value of animal consent but the only person in this topic to argue that animals are literally people is Evangelist who QQed out earlier. Everyone else has gone with "animals are people only when it suits me".
Eating animals is OK because it's a normal, healthy and unavoidable aspect of life (if humans don't eat them, something else will). Having sex with an animal seems optional. Society can then have a say in if it's OK to use that option or not.
I don't get why you think eating animals isn't just as optional as having sex with animals. You call it 'normal' as though that gives your point some time of justification... but it doesn't. You also call eating animals healthy... and while eating a little bit of animal can be healthy, eating animals is generally not healthier to eating alternatives. You also call it unavoidable which isn't true either.
I'm sure having sex with animals seems quite optional to you, who ostensibly does not have a sexual attraction to animals. I don't either, but I don't consider the sexual tendencies of others to be optional and the sexual tendencies of myself to be somehow less optional, as you might.
Fwiw maybe there will come a day where eating an animal is seen worse than having sex with him, that day has certainly not yet arrived.
Regardless of the merits, unless one wants to isolate oneself into hermitage, he will be forced to interact with others, their cultures, societies and laws.
All of whom are created by their perception of reality, so yes, in the end, its all subjective, and most likely we are all wrong, but we must operate from where we are, and not a single one of the people condemning this, specially the ones at the top of the swedish parliament, are looking at these zoophiles and thinking.
"Oh how cute, she has decided to have a dog as a boyfriend"
No, they are thinking "Oh my god, what poor disturbed sick person, im gonna outlaw this out of pity for her wreched mind"
And thats how things work, one day someone is right, the other day someone is wrong, we can set our eyes high looking for the ultimate truth, and forget that despire it being right before our eyes we are forced to live in a world where everyone else is looking at the same thing from a different place experiencing a different perception.
I say it is natural that with a population of 7 billion people we will have people with all sorts of deviations from the norm in regards to behavior, psyche, sexual desire, etc... There will always be people with patterns of behavior and affinities that are outrageous to the great majority, same way we believe human trafficking, raping, killing are wrong but some dont give a crap and dont see peoples rights in quite the same light as we do. Im not trying to like one thing to the other, merely show that what is right or wrong is really subjective and no one should feel like they have the ultimate answer without ultimaty subscribing to some sort of heavy ideology.
When many countries created their modern court systems and legislature, they didnt wanted equality fraternity and liberty, they started to try to enforce the "ideal" way of life, and it is that mindset of trying to enforce on people which is the correct way to live, based on studies, averages, and etc that creates this feeling of empowerment at the people doing such deviations illegal or condemenable, they believe themselves empowered by the people for this very purpose, to proselityze the ideal of humanity.
Personally, I believe that having a sexual relationship with an animal, someone who doesnt talk back to you, who has a different lifespan than you, different sensorial perception, different priorities in life, incapable of basically any kind of cognitive hability that would allow him to actually fully comprehend what his human sex partner is feeling and intending, I feel its sort of cheap to say its a valid relationship because I get the impression that its a one way relationship.
The animal is owned by whoever is doing sex with him (more often than not), isnt it quite a medieval concept to have sex with your proprierty ?
Actually, I think it's wrong to be able to own something capable of being emotionally damaged by statutory rape. The only close exception to this is being a parent/guardian of a child, of course. I don't believe non-sentient creatures are at risk of emotional damage from sex like humans are, and similarly believe animal ownership (but not physical abuse) is okay.
On June 17 2013 05:35 micronesia wrote: Actually, I think it's wrong to be able to own something capable of being emotionally damaged by statutory rape. The only close exception to this is being a parent/guardian of a child, of course. I don't believe non-sentient creatures are at risk of emotional damage from sex like humans are, and similarly believe animal ownership (but not physical abuse) is okay.
Well you are most likely wrong, I work in a lab and we do experiments with live rats.
We work with something called fear conditioning, basically we make the rats scared to increase their anxiety level, when we do that we are effectively traumatizing the rats with electrical pain stimulation in order to increase their anxiety response the next time they are into that context.
That means even an animal as simple as a rat can suffer psychological damage and be traumatized, now its extremelly difficult to know if an animal will be traumatized by having a sexual relationship with a zoophile, but its not impossible, because different animals can also experience things differently.
On June 17 2013 05:35 micronesia wrote: Actually, I think it's wrong to be able to own something capable of being emotionally damaged by statutory rape. The only close exception to this is being a parent/guardian of a child, of course. I don't believe non-sentient creatures are at risk of emotional damage from sex like humans are, and similarly believe animal ownership (but not physical abuse) is okay.
Well you are most likely wrong, I work in a lab and we do experiments with live rats.
We work with something called fear conditioning, basically we make the rats scared to increase their anxiety level, when we do that we are effectively traumatizing the rats with electrical pain stimulation in order to increase their anxiety response the next time they are into that context.
That means even an animal as simple as a rat can suffer psychological damage and be traumatized, now its extremelly difficult to know if an animal will be traumatized by having a sexual relationship with a zoophile, but its not impossible, because different animals can also experience things differently.
Oh I don't deny the results of your experiments at all. I stand by what I said: "I don't believe non-sentient creatures are at risk of emotional damage from sex like humans are." That's not to say I think it's impossible for sexual relations to have any affect on the permanent brain-state of an animal whatsoever, but it's minor and not justification for sweeping laws.
Also, everyone knows that physical pain will have lasting negative effects on animals. What we're talking about is the impact that sexual interaction with humans has on animals.
On June 17 2013 05:35 micronesia wrote: Actually, I think it's wrong to be able to own something capable of being emotionally damaged by statutory rape. The only close exception to this is being a parent/guardian of a child, of course. I don't believe non-sentient creatures are at risk of emotional damage from sex like humans are, and similarly believe animal ownership (but not physical abuse) is okay.
Well you are most likely wrong, I work in a lab and we do experiments with live rats.
We work with something called fear conditioning, basically we make the rats scared to increase their anxiety level, when we do that we are effectively traumatizing the rats with electrical pain stimulation in order to increase their anxiety response the next time they are into that context.
That means even an animal as simple as a rat can suffer psychological damage and be traumatized, now its extremelly difficult to know if an animal will be traumatized by having a sexual relationship with a zoophile, but its not impossible, because different animals can also experience things differently.
Oh I don't deny the results of your experiments at all. I stand by what I said: "I don't believe non-sentient creatures are at risk of emotional damage from sex like humans are." That's not to say I think it's impossible for sexual relations to have any affect on the permanent brain-state of an animal whatsoever, but it's minor and not justification for sweeping laws.
I agree, sweeping laws are not necessary, if anything, just amend something in the animal abuse laws that already exist, but this huge circus over the subject is ridiculous.
On June 17 2013 05:52 Mefano wrote: Wow Kwark, you must know a lot about these things! What is the difference?
The psychological trauma from sexual abuse is from a number of psychological and societal factors which don't apply to animals because the context is completely different. For example an abused dog won't feel isolated and unable to communicate with its peers, nor humiliated by the loss of control, nor shamed by the victim blame placed upon them nor alienated by their new identity as a victim. A dog can be conditioned by pain because dogs get pain, they understand it, it's a physical thing. A dog can be conditioned by food because again they understand food. A dog cannot be conditioned by societies attitude towards sexual abuse because a dog does not understand this, you can call it a whore and tell it it deserved the abuse all day but it still won't cry.
On June 17 2013 05:52 Mefano wrote: Wow Kwark, you must know a lot about these things! What is the difference?
The psychological trauma from sexual abuse is from a number of psychological and societal factors which don't apply to animals because the context is completely different. For example an abused dog won't feel isolated and unable to communicate with its peers, nor humiliated by the loss of control, nor shamed by the victim blame placed upon them nor alienated by their new identity as a victim. A dog can be conditioned by pain because dogs get pain, they understand it, it's a physical thing. A dog can be conditioned by food because again they understand food. A dog cannot be conditioned by societies attitude towards sexual abuse because a dog does not understand this, you can call it a whore and tell it it deserved the abuse all day but it still won't cry.
I take back my statement about you seeming to know a lot, you write fancy text but with very little substance and you seem to know nothing more than something you might have read on the internet.
This thread really shows everything thats wrong with modern libertarian culture. Trully one of the most dispicable threads on TL starting from the topic to the discussion and the arguing, the ad hominem attacks and what not...
On June 17 2013 05:52 Mefano wrote: Wow Kwark, you must know a lot about these things! What is the difference?
The psychological trauma from sexual abuse is from a number of psychological and societal factors which don't apply to animals because the context is completely different. For example an abused dog won't feel isolated and unable to communicate with its peers, nor humiliated by the loss of control, nor shamed by the victim blame placed upon them nor alienated by their new identity as a victim. A dog can be conditioned by pain because dogs get pain, they understand it, it's a physical thing. A dog can be conditioned by food because again they understand food. A dog cannot be conditioned by societies attitude towards sexual abuse because a dog does not understand this, you can call it a whore and tell it it deserved the abuse all day but it still won't cry.
humiliated by the loss of control is completely possible, animals minds work with pleasure and power and fear mechanisms.
On June 17 2013 05:52 Mefano wrote: Wow Kwark, you must know a lot about these things! What is the difference?
The psychological trauma from sexual abuse is from a number of psychological and societal factors which don't apply to animals because the context is completely different. For example an abused dog won't feel isolated and unable to communicate with its peers, nor humiliated by the loss of control, nor shamed by the victim blame placed upon them nor alienated by their new identity as a victim. A dog can be conditioned by pain because dogs get pain, they understand it, it's a physical thing. A dog can be conditioned by food because again they understand food. A dog cannot be conditioned by societies attitude towards sexual abuse because a dog does not understand this, you can call it a whore and tell it it deserved the abuse all day but it still won't cry.
As a student in a doctoral program for clinical psychology and a former emergency room vet tech I disagree with your assertions. Abused dogs absolutely have observable behavioral changes in line with the human conception of PTSD or "psychological trauma."
It's a waste of time to argue so I won't be replying but yeah, animals can feel emotions.
On June 17 2013 05:52 Mefano wrote: Wow Kwark, you must know a lot about these things! What is the difference?
The psychological trauma from sexual abuse is from a number of psychological and societal factors which don't apply to animals because the context is completely different. For example an abused dog won't feel isolated and unable to communicate with its peers, nor humiliated by the loss of control, nor shamed by the victim blame placed upon them nor alienated by their new identity as a victim. A dog can be conditioned by pain because dogs get pain, they understand it, it's a physical thing. A dog can be conditioned by food because again they understand food. A dog cannot be conditioned by societies attitude towards sexual abuse because a dog does not understand this, you can call it a whore and tell it it deserved the abuse all day but it still won't cry.
humiliated by the loss of control is completely possible, animals minds work with pleasure and power and fear mechanisms.
I wasn't aware that animals could feel shame. I've had dogs express what could be described as remorse from the anticipation of punishment after doing something naughty but actual shame requires a sense of self against which actions can be judged and found unworthy. It requires sentience.
We don't yet fully understand the underpinnings of our own emotional and psychological aspects, let alone animals', so I think it's too early to have strong beliefs against some animals being suspect to psychological damage in the same way humans experience it. Some evidence suggests it's possible
On June 17 2013 05:52 Mefano wrote: Wow Kwark, you must know a lot about these things! What is the difference?
The psychological trauma from sexual abuse is from a number of psychological and societal factors which don't apply to animals because the context is completely different. For example an abused dog won't feel isolated and unable to communicate with its peers, nor humiliated by the loss of control, nor shamed by the victim blame placed upon them nor alienated by their new identity as a victim. A dog can be conditioned by pain because dogs get pain, they understand it, it's a physical thing. A dog can be conditioned by food because again they understand food. A dog cannot be conditioned by societies attitude towards sexual abuse because a dog does not understand this, you can call it a whore and tell it it deserved the abuse all day but it still won't cry.
As a student in a doctoral program for clinical psychology and a former emergency room vet tech I disagree with your assertions. Abused dogs absolutely have observable behavioral changes in line with the human conception of PTSD or "psychological trauma."
It's a waste of time to argue so I won't be replying but yeah, animals can feel emotions.
On June 17 2013 05:52 Mefano wrote: Wow Kwark, you must know a lot about these things! What is the difference?
The psychological trauma from sexual abuse is from a number of psychological and societal factors which don't apply to animals because the context is completely different. For example an abused dog won't feel isolated and unable to communicate with its peers, nor humiliated by the loss of control, nor shamed by the victim blame placed upon them nor alienated by their new identity as a victim. A dog can be conditioned by pain because dogs get pain, they understand it, it's a physical thing. A dog can be conditioned by food because again they understand food. A dog cannot be conditioned by societies attitude towards sexual abuse because a dog does not understand this, you can call it a whore and tell it it deserved the abuse all day but it still won't cry.
As a student in a doctoral program for clinical psychology and a former emergency room vet tech I disagree with your assertions. Abused dogs absolutely have observable behavioral changes in line with the human conception of PTSD or "psychological trauma."
It's a waste of time to argue so I won't be replying but yeah, animals can feel emotions.
Sexually abused dogs?
As I said before, abuse is a question of perception, a dog that is being engaged in sexual activity can perceive that as abuse.
On June 17 2013 05:52 Mefano wrote: Wow Kwark, you must know a lot about these things! What is the difference?
The psychological trauma from sexual abuse is from a number of psychological and societal factors which don't apply to animals because the context is completely different. For example an abused dog won't feel isolated and unable to communicate with its peers, nor humiliated by the loss of control, nor shamed by the victim blame placed upon them nor alienated by their new identity as a victim. A dog can be conditioned by pain because dogs get pain, they understand it, it's a physical thing. A dog can be conditioned by food because again they understand food. A dog cannot be conditioned by societies attitude towards sexual abuse because a dog does not understand this, you can call it a whore and tell it it deserved the abuse all day but it still won't cry.
As a student in a doctoral program for clinical psychology and a former emergency room vet tech I disagree with your assertions. Abused dogs absolutely have observable behavioral changes in line with the human conception of PTSD or "psychological trauma."
It's a waste of time to argue so I won't be replying but yeah, animals can feel emotions.
Sexually abused dogs?
As I said before, abuse is a question of perception, a dog that is being engaged in sexual activity can perceive that as abuse.
Do we have any data on this? How many cases are there where a dog is sexually engaged with a human without being abused in other ways as well? It's certainly possible that they might see sexual activity as abuse, but how do we actually know whether or not they do?
On June 17 2013 05:52 Mefano wrote: Wow Kwark, you must know a lot about these things! What is the difference?
The psychological trauma from sexual abuse is from a number of psychological and societal factors which don't apply to animals because the context is completely different. For example an abused dog won't feel isolated and unable to communicate with its peers, nor humiliated by the loss of control, nor shamed by the victim blame placed upon them nor alienated by their new identity as a victim. A dog can be conditioned by pain because dogs get pain, they understand it, it's a physical thing. A dog can be conditioned by food because again they understand food. A dog cannot be conditioned by societies attitude towards sexual abuse because a dog does not understand this, you can call it a whore and tell it it deserved the abuse all day but it still won't cry.
As a student in a doctoral program for clinical psychology and a former emergency room vet tech I disagree with your assertions. Abused dogs absolutely have observable behavioral changes in line with the human conception of PTSD or "psychological trauma."
It's a waste of time to argue so I won't be replying but yeah, animals can feel emotions.
Sexually abused dogs?
As I said before, abuse is a question of perception, a dog that is being engaged in sexual activity can perceive that as abuse.
I was using your definition of any sexual activity is abuse in that question. I was just trying to find out if the dogs exhibiting symptoms of PTSD that he mentioned were dogs which had been sexually abused but not otherwise harmed or neglected because I would find that quite surprising. If it's just dogs that have been hurt and so forth then I'm not sure it contradicts anything I wrote about dogs being unable to grasp the more complicated aspects of sexual abuse.
On June 17 2013 05:52 Mefano wrote: Wow Kwark, you must know a lot about these things! What is the difference?
The psychological trauma from sexual abuse is from a number of psychological and societal factors which don't apply to animals because the context is completely different. For example an abused dog won't feel isolated and unable to communicate with its peers, nor humiliated by the loss of control, nor shamed by the victim blame placed upon them nor alienated by their new identity as a victim. A dog can be conditioned by pain because dogs get pain, they understand it, it's a physical thing. A dog can be conditioned by food because again they understand food. A dog cannot be conditioned by societies attitude towards sexual abuse because a dog does not understand this, you can call it a whore and tell it it deserved the abuse all day but it still won't cry.
humiliated by the loss of control is completely possible, animals minds work with pleasure and power and fear mechanisms.
I wasn't aware that animals could feel shame. I've had dogs express what could be described as remorse from the anticipation of punishment after doing something naughty but actual shame requires a sense of self against which actions can be judged and found unworthy. It requires sentience.
On June 17 2013 05:52 Mefano wrote: Wow Kwark, you must know a lot about these things! What is the difference?
The psychological trauma from sexual abuse is from a number of psychological and societal factors which don't apply to animals because the context is completely different. For example an abused dog won't feel isolated and unable to communicate with its peers, nor humiliated by the loss of control, nor shamed by the victim blame placed upon them nor alienated by their new identity as a victim. A dog can be conditioned by pain because dogs get pain, they understand it, it's a physical thing. A dog can be conditioned by food because again they understand food. A dog cannot be conditioned by societies attitude towards sexual abuse because a dog does not understand this, you can call it a whore and tell it it deserved the abuse all day but it still won't cry.
As a student in a doctoral program for clinical psychology and a former emergency room vet tech I disagree with your assertions. Abused dogs absolutely have observable behavioral changes in line with the human conception of PTSD or "psychological trauma."
It's a waste of time to argue so I won't be replying but yeah, animals can feel emotions.
Sexually abused dogs?
As I said before, abuse is a question of perception, a dog that is being engaged in sexual activity can perceive that as abuse.
Do we have any data on this? How many cases are there where a dog is sexually engaged with a human without being abused in other ways as well? It's certainly possible that they might see sexual activity as abuse, but how do we actually know whether or not they do?
I dont know if there is any data on this specifically, usually you just get the dogs who went thro some kind of abuse in shelters and etc.. and compare the symptoms to people who were raped or suffered trauma or abuse, and there are quite similar developments.
On June 17 2013 05:52 Mefano wrote: Wow Kwark, you must know a lot about these things! What is the difference?
The psychological trauma from sexual abuse is from a number of psychological and societal factors which don't apply to animals because the context is completely different. For example an abused dog won't feel isolated and unable to communicate with its peers, nor humiliated by the loss of control, nor shamed by the victim blame placed upon them nor alienated by their new identity as a victim. A dog can be conditioned by pain because dogs get pain, they understand it, it's a physical thing. A dog can be conditioned by food because again they understand food. A dog cannot be conditioned by societies attitude towards sexual abuse because a dog does not understand this, you can call it a whore and tell it it deserved the abuse all day but it still won't cry.
humiliated by the loss of control is completely possible, animals minds work with pleasure and power and fear mechanisms.
I wasn't aware that animals could feel shame. I've had dogs express what could be described as remorse from the anticipation of punishment after doing something naughty but actual shame requires a sense of self against which actions can be judged and found unworthy. It requires sentience.
and animals have that.
Do you have any evidence for that? Shame is actually quite complicated, it requires a conceptual understanding of an ideal self so that reality can be weighed against it. Given dogs can't pass a mirror test (they don't get that the thing in the mirror is them) I'd be amazed. But if you have citations then go for it.
On June 17 2013 05:52 Mefano wrote: Wow Kwark, you must know a lot about these things! What is the difference?
The psychological trauma from sexual abuse is from a number of psychological and societal factors which don't apply to animals because the context is completely different. For example an abused dog won't feel isolated and unable to communicate with its peers, nor humiliated by the loss of control, nor shamed by the victim blame placed upon them nor alienated by their new identity as a victim. A dog can be conditioned by pain because dogs get pain, they understand it, it's a physical thing. A dog can be conditioned by food because again they understand food. A dog cannot be conditioned by societies attitude towards sexual abuse because a dog does not understand this, you can call it a whore and tell it it deserved the abuse all day but it still won't cry.
As a student in a doctoral program for clinical psychology and a former emergency room vet tech I disagree with your assertions. Abused dogs absolutely have observable behavioral changes in line with the human conception of PTSD or "psychological trauma."
It's a waste of time to argue so I won't be replying but yeah, animals can feel emotions.
Sexually abused dogs?
As I said before, abuse is a question of perception, a dog that is being engaged in sexual activity can perceive that as abuse.
Do we have any data on this? How many cases are there where a dog is sexually engaged with a human without being abused in other ways as well? It's certainly possible that they might see sexual activity as abuse, but how do we actually know whether or not they do?
I dont know if there is any data on this specifically, usually you just get the dogs who went thro some kind of abuse in shelters and etc.. and compare the symptoms to people who were raped or suffered trauma or abuse, and there are quite similar developments.
This is evidence that people suffer from sexual abuse. We're talking about animals.
On June 17 2013 05:52 Mefano wrote: Wow Kwark, you must know a lot about these things! What is the difference?
The psychological trauma from sexual abuse is from a number of psychological and societal factors which don't apply to animals because the context is completely different. For example an abused dog won't feel isolated and unable to communicate with its peers, nor humiliated by the loss of control, nor shamed by the victim blame placed upon them nor alienated by their new identity as a victim. A dog can be conditioned by pain because dogs get pain, they understand it, it's a physical thing. A dog can be conditioned by food because again they understand food. A dog cannot be conditioned by societies attitude towards sexual abuse because a dog does not understand this, you can call it a whore and tell it it deserved the abuse all day but it still won't cry.
As a student in a doctoral program for clinical psychology and a former emergency room vet tech I disagree with your assertions. Abused dogs absolutely have observable behavioral changes in line with the human conception of PTSD or "psychological trauma."
It's a waste of time to argue so I won't be replying but yeah, animals can feel emotions.
Sexually abused dogs?
As I said before, abuse is a question of perception, a dog that is being engaged in sexual activity can perceive that as abuse.
I was using your definition of any sexual activity is abuse in that question. I was just trying to find out if the dogs exhibiting symptoms of PTSD that he mentioned were dogs which had been sexually abused but not otherwise harmed or neglected because I would find that quite surprising. If it's just dogs that have been hurt and so forth then I'm not sure it contradicts anything I wrote about dogs being unable to grasp the more complicated aspects of sexual abuse.
Well im sure he wont be able to write essays about sexual abuse, but that doesnt mean he cant feel powerless, depressive, agressive, confused, and unmotivated to life due to something that happened to him that he had no control over, and worse yet, he wont even grasp enough of whats going on to do more than cry about it.
And I am absolutely sure that there will be people out there with animals that dont exhibit those behaviors who have sexual intercourse with zoophiles, because they havent been traumatized, but one thing you have to take into consideration is that trauma is something that can happen in a moment or over the course of years.
Just because all its well and fine, doesnt mean that inside the person and animal psyche there isnt something unhealthy going on being hidden by efusive pleasure behaviors.
On June 17 2013 05:52 Mefano wrote: Wow Kwark, you must know a lot about these things! What is the difference?
The psychological trauma from sexual abuse is from a number of psychological and societal factors which don't apply to animals because the context is completely different. For example an abused dog won't feel isolated and unable to communicate with its peers, nor humiliated by the loss of control, nor shamed by the victim blame placed upon them nor alienated by their new identity as a victim. A dog can be conditioned by pain because dogs get pain, they understand it, it's a physical thing. A dog can be conditioned by food because again they understand food. A dog cannot be conditioned by societies attitude towards sexual abuse because a dog does not understand this, you can call it a whore and tell it it deserved the abuse all day but it still won't cry.
As a student in a doctoral program for clinical psychology and a former emergency room vet tech I disagree with your assertions. Abused dogs absolutely have observable behavioral changes in line with the human conception of PTSD or "psychological trauma."
It's a waste of time to argue so I won't be replying but yeah, animals can feel emotions.
Sexually abused dogs?
As I said before, abuse is a question of perception, a dog that is being engaged in sexual activity can perceive that as abuse.
Do we have any data on this? How many cases are there where a dog is sexually engaged with a human without being abused in other ways as well? It's certainly possible that they might see sexual activity as abuse, but how do we actually know whether or not they do?
I dont know if there is any data on this specifically, usually you just get the dogs who went thro some kind of abuse in shelters and etc.. and compare the symptoms to people who were raped or suffered trauma or abuse, and there are quite similar developments.
What I am curious about is this: You have two dogs. Dog A and dog B. Both dogs are kept as pets in loving families who properly care for them and treat them with love and admiration. The only difference between the dogs is that the owner of dog B engages in non-violent sexual behavior with dog B. What is the impact that the sexual behavior alone has on dog B?
on the privat torrent side i browse there is a section for this and if u just look for high seed / download torrents...they are _always_ on top.
thats kinda scary :3
I heard about a village in Colombia or some other place in South America where having sex with a female donkey is a right of passage for teenage boys. It's no big deal down there, they see it as 'practice' for when they get married. The donkeys don't care either since a dude's dong is nothing compared to a donkey's lol.
on the privat torrent side i browse there is a section for this and if u just look for high seed / download torrents...they are _always_ on top.
thats kinda scary :3
I heard about a village in Colombia or some other place in South America where having sex with a female donkey is a right of passage for teenage boys. It's no big deal down there, they see it as 'practice' for when they get married. The donkeys don't care either since a dude's dong is nothing compared to a donkey's lol.
On June 17 2013 05:52 Mefano wrote: Wow Kwark, you must know a lot about these things! What is the difference?
The psychological trauma from sexual abuse is from a number of psychological and societal factors which don't apply to animals because the context is completely different. For example an abused dog won't feel isolated and unable to communicate with its peers, nor humiliated by the loss of control, nor shamed by the victim blame placed upon them nor alienated by their new identity as a victim. A dog can be conditioned by pain because dogs get pain, they understand it, it's a physical thing. A dog can be conditioned by food because again they understand food. A dog cannot be conditioned by societies attitude towards sexual abuse because a dog does not understand this, you can call it a whore and tell it it deserved the abuse all day but it still won't cry.
As a student in a doctoral program for clinical psychology and a former emergency room vet tech I disagree with your assertions. Abused dogs absolutely have observable behavioral changes in line with the human conception of PTSD or "psychological trauma."
It's a waste of time to argue so I won't be replying but yeah, animals can feel emotions.
Sexually abused dogs?
As I said before, abuse is a question of perception, a dog that is being engaged in sexual activity can perceive that as abuse.
Do we have any data on this? How many cases are there where a dog is sexually engaged with a human without being abused in other ways as well? It's certainly possible that they might see sexual activity as abuse, but how do we actually know whether or not they do?
I dont know if there is any data on this specifically, usually you just get the dogs who went thro some kind of abuse in shelters and etc.. and compare the symptoms to people who were raped or suffered trauma or abuse, and there are quite similar developments.
What I am curious about is this: You have two dogs. Dog A and dog B. Both dogs are kept as pets in loving families who properly care for them and treat them with love and admiration. The only difference between the dogs is that the owner of dog B engages in non-violent sexual behavior with dog B. What is the impact that the sexual behavior alone has on dog B?
Give me 100 of each dog. 10000 dollars and a couple months and ill run the study for you
On June 17 2013 05:52 Mefano wrote: Wow Kwark, you must know a lot about these things! What is the difference?
The psychological trauma from sexual abuse is from a number of psychological and societal factors which don't apply to animals because the context is completely different. For example an abused dog won't feel isolated and unable to communicate with its peers, nor humiliated by the loss of control, nor shamed by the victim blame placed upon them nor alienated by their new identity as a victim. A dog can be conditioned by pain because dogs get pain, they understand it, it's a physical thing. A dog can be conditioned by food because again they understand food. A dog cannot be conditioned by societies attitude towards sexual abuse because a dog does not understand this, you can call it a whore and tell it it deserved the abuse all day but it still won't cry.
humiliated by the loss of control is completely possible, animals minds work with pleasure and power and fear mechanisms.
I wasn't aware that animals could feel shame. I've had dogs express what could be described as remorse from the anticipation of punishment after doing something naughty but actual shame requires a sense of self against which actions can be judged and found unworthy. It requires sentience.
and animals have that.
Do you have any evidence for that? Shame is actually quite complicated, it requires a conceptual understanding of an ideal self so that reality can be weighed against it. Given dogs can't pass a mirror test (they don't get that the thing in the mirror is them) I'd be amazed. But if you have citations then go for it.
On June 17 2013 05:52 Mefano wrote: Wow Kwark, you must know a lot about these things! What is the difference?
The psychological trauma from sexual abuse is from a number of psychological and societal factors which don't apply to animals because the context is completely different. For example an abused dog won't feel isolated and unable to communicate with its peers, nor humiliated by the loss of control, nor shamed by the victim blame placed upon them nor alienated by their new identity as a victim. A dog can be conditioned by pain because dogs get pain, they understand it, it's a physical thing. A dog can be conditioned by food because again they understand food. A dog cannot be conditioned by societies attitude towards sexual abuse because a dog does not understand this, you can call it a whore and tell it it deserved the abuse all day but it still won't cry.
As a student in a doctoral program for clinical psychology and a former emergency room vet tech I disagree with your assertions. Abused dogs absolutely have observable behavioral changes in line with the human conception of PTSD or "psychological trauma."
It's a waste of time to argue so I won't be replying but yeah, animals can feel emotions.
Sexually abused dogs?
As I said before, abuse is a question of perception, a dog that is being engaged in sexual activity can perceive that as abuse.
Do we have any data on this? How many cases are there where a dog is sexually engaged with a human without being abused in other ways as well? It's certainly possible that they might see sexual activity as abuse, but how do we actually know whether or not they do?
I dont know if there is any data on this specifically, usually you just get the dogs who went thro some kind of abuse in shelters and etc.. and compare the symptoms to people who were raped or suffered trauma or abuse, and there are quite similar developments.
What I am curious about is this: You have two dogs. Dog A and dog B. Both dogs are kept as pets in loving families who properly care for them and treat them with love and admiration. The only difference between the dogs is that the owner of dog B engages in non-violent sexual behavior with dog B. What is the impact that the sexual behavior alone has on dog B?
Give me 100 of each dog. 10000 dollars and a couple months and ill run the study for you
On June 17 2013 05:52 Mefano wrote: Wow Kwark, you must know a lot about these things! What is the difference?
The psychological trauma from sexual abuse is from a number of psychological and societal factors which don't apply to animals because the context is completely different. For example an abused dog won't feel isolated and unable to communicate with its peers, nor humiliated by the loss of control, nor shamed by the victim blame placed upon them nor alienated by their new identity as a victim. A dog can be conditioned by pain because dogs get pain, they understand it, it's a physical thing. A dog can be conditioned by food because again they understand food. A dog cannot be conditioned by societies attitude towards sexual abuse because a dog does not understand this, you can call it a whore and tell it it deserved the abuse all day but it still won't cry.
As a student in a doctoral program for clinical psychology and a former emergency room vet tech I disagree with your assertions. Abused dogs absolutely have observable behavioral changes in line with the human conception of PTSD or "psychological trauma."
It's a waste of time to argue so I won't be replying but yeah, animals can feel emotions.
Sexually abused dogs?
As I said before, abuse is a question of perception, a dog that is being engaged in sexual activity can perceive that as abuse.
Do we have any data on this? How many cases are there where a dog is sexually engaged with a human without being abused in other ways as well? It's certainly possible that they might see sexual activity as abuse, but how do we actually know whether or not they do?
I dont know if there is any data on this specifically, usually you just get the dogs who went thro some kind of abuse in shelters and etc.. and compare the symptoms to people who were raped or suffered trauma or abuse, and there are quite similar developments.
What I am curious about is this: You have two dogs. Dog A and dog B. Both dogs are kept as pets in loving families who properly care for them and treat them with love and admiration. The only difference between the dogs is that the owner of dog B engages in non-violent sexual behavior with dog B. What is the impact that the sexual behavior alone has on dog B?
Give me 100 of each dog. 10000 dollars and a couple months and ill run the study for you
On June 17 2013 05:52 Mefano wrote: Wow Kwark, you must know a lot about these things! What is the difference?
The psychological trauma from sexual abuse is from a number of psychological and societal factors which don't apply to animals because the context is completely different. For example an abused dog won't feel isolated and unable to communicate with its peers, nor humiliated by the loss of control, nor shamed by the victim blame placed upon them nor alienated by their new identity as a victim. A dog can be conditioned by pain because dogs get pain, they understand it, it's a physical thing. A dog can be conditioned by food because again they understand food. A dog cannot be conditioned by societies attitude towards sexual abuse because a dog does not understand this, you can call it a whore and tell it it deserved the abuse all day but it still won't cry.
humiliated by the loss of control is completely possible, animals minds work with pleasure and power and fear mechanisms.
I wasn't aware that animals could feel shame. I've had dogs express what could be described as remorse from the anticipation of punishment after doing something naughty but actual shame requires a sense of self against which actions can be judged and found unworthy. It requires sentience.
and animals have that.
Do you have any evidence for that? Shame is actually quite complicated, it requires a conceptual understanding of an ideal self so that reality can be weighed against it. Given dogs can't pass a mirror test (they don't get that the thing in the mirror is them) I'd be amazed. But if you have citations then go for it.
On June 17 2013 05:52 Mefano wrote: Wow Kwark, you must know a lot about these things! What is the difference?
The psychological trauma from sexual abuse is from a number of psychological and societal factors which don't apply to animals because the context is completely different. For example an abused dog won't feel isolated and unable to communicate with its peers, nor humiliated by the loss of control, nor shamed by the victim blame placed upon them nor alienated by their new identity as a victim. A dog can be conditioned by pain because dogs get pain, they understand it, it's a physical thing. A dog can be conditioned by food because again they understand food. A dog cannot be conditioned by societies attitude towards sexual abuse because a dog does not understand this, you can call it a whore and tell it it deserved the abuse all day but it still won't cry.
humiliated by the loss of control is completely possible, animals minds work with pleasure and power and fear mechanisms.
I wasn't aware that animals could feel shame. I've had dogs express what could be described as remorse from the anticipation of punishment after doing something naughty but actual shame requires a sense of self against which actions can be judged and found unworthy. It requires sentience.
and animals have that.
Do you have any evidence for that? Shame is actually quite complicated, it requires a conceptual understanding of an ideal self so that reality can be weighed against it. Given dogs can't pass a mirror test (they don't get that the thing in the mirror is them) I'd be amazed. But if you have citations then go for it.
however, there is plenty fo evidence that a lot of mammals can in fact do feel shame.
Care to link any evidence of that?
Kwark in this case, I'm usually one to see how your arguments pan out, you are just wrong. As Zerg_Russian stated, and as many people have stated before, animals of higher intelligences (usually mammalian animals) can suffer from shame and abuse. Your argument is becoming ludicrous dude, you are bordering on saying that animals do not experience any negative effects from sexual abuse, which is untrue. You are asking for human responses from an animal, which is not going to happen. The Pit of Despair experiment by Harlow shows that animals do feel depression and sadness from abuse, though that one was solitary confinement for long periods of time, animals who are abused sexually or physically also demonstrate fear. That, in some animals such as Dolphins and Monkeys, extend itself all the way to suicide, as seen by Harlow. What you are arguing, if I'm following the thread of responses correctly, is ignorant dude, it shows that you have little background in the psychology of animals or in the psychology of abuse victims.
I am asking for evidence that the concept of rape has any relevance to animals and so far I've not gotten any. Zerg_Russian stated that animals can get PTSD from abuse but I'm pretty sure he meant physical abuse rather than sexual. I asked him to clarify but he did not. I have repeatedly requested that people who claim to be better informed provide evidence and so far have just gotten an article claiming that dogs don't experience shame and another challenging the reasoning of the first one. So again, docvoc, do you have any evidence for that? The Pit of Despair experiment did a total of zero research on sexual abuse on monkeys or dolphins.
On June 17 2013 05:52 Mefano wrote: Wow Kwark, you must know a lot about these things! What is the difference?
The psychological trauma from sexual abuse is from a number of psychological and societal factors which don't apply to animals because the context is completely different. For example an abused dog won't feel isolated and unable to communicate with its peers, nor humiliated by the loss of control, nor shamed by the victim blame placed upon them nor alienated by their new identity as a victim. A dog can be conditioned by pain because dogs get pain, they understand it, it's a physical thing. A dog can be conditioned by food because again they understand food. A dog cannot be conditioned by societies attitude towards sexual abuse because a dog does not understand this, you can call it a whore and tell it it deserved the abuse all day but it still won't cry.
humiliated by the loss of control is completely possible, animals minds work with pleasure and power and fear mechanisms.
I wasn't aware that animals could feel shame. I've had dogs express what could be described as remorse from the anticipation of punishment after doing something naughty but actual shame requires a sense of self against which actions can be judged and found unworthy. It requires sentience.
and animals have that.
Do you have any evidence for that? Shame is actually quite complicated, it requires a conceptual understanding of an ideal self so that reality can be weighed against it. Given dogs can't pass a mirror test (they don't get that the thing in the mirror is them) I'd be amazed. But if you have citations then go for it.
As disgusting as I find stuff like that, Sweden is making the classic mistake of micromanaging its people. Do they honestly think that they will start catching these people left and right? I would imagine that the people who engage in bestiality wouldn't really be public about it.
On June 17 2013 07:09 KwarK wrote: I am asking for evidence that the concept of rape has any relevance to animals and so far I've not gotten any. Zerg_Russian stated that animals can get PTSD from abuse but I'm pretty sure he meant physical abuse rather than sexual. I asked him to clarify but he did not. I have repeatedly requested that people who claim to be better informed provide evidence and so far have just gotten an article claiming that dogs don't experience shame and another challenging the reasoning of the first one. So again, docvoc, do you have any evidence for that? The Pit of Despair experiment did a total of zero research on sexual abuse on monkeys or dolphins.
I didn't phrase that part correctly. I meant that it was on mammals (monkeys) which showed that the monkeys can feel abuse. The dolphin part has had research done and when dolphins feel loss or abuse, they commit suicide. Also, sexual abuse is still abuse, which was the point of the pit of despair. While it is a different category, I think we can both agree that it is abuse, and therefore should not be carried out on animals. But yes, I followed the argument wrong and I'm sorry about that.
On June 17 2013 07:09 KwarK wrote: I am asking for evidence that the concept of rape has any relevance to animals and so far I've not gotten any. Zerg_Russian stated that animals can get PTSD from abuse but I'm pretty sure he meant physical abuse rather than sexual. I asked him to clarify but he did not. I have repeatedly requested that people who claim to be better informed provide evidence and so far have just gotten an article claiming that dogs don't experience shame and another challenging the reasoning of the first one. So again, docvoc, do you have any evidence for that? The Pit of Despair experiment did a total of zero research on sexual abuse on monkeys or dolphins.
I dont think this experiment was ever done, no one raped dogs, dolphins, horses and monkeys and then ran behavioral data analysis because its not ethical, but the precedents indicate that the result you were claiming is impossible to happen, such as shame, has been verified in other kinds of abuse.
No one knows for sure at this point if sexual abuse of an animal is bad for him.
On June 17 2013 04:11 Millitron wrote: [quote] Are you sure animals can't consent?
Does the animal try to prevent it, i.e. fight back/avoid the person? If yes, it doesn't consent. If no, it does.
I personally think zoophilia is pretty gross, but I'm not going to try to impose that view on everyone else.
I was thinking about it and that's something I wasn't sure about. Even if the animal does not physically show that it does not want to have sex by fighting back or by displaying some kind of physical and observable behavior, is this necessary and sufficient proof that the animal consents to sex?
What if the animal would prefer not to have sex, but would not dare or does not understand how to display behavior indicating this to be the case? I don't think it's radical to imagine that could be the case in some instances.
I think it makes more sense to conclude that because there is no communication possible, that we have to err on the side of not allowing any sex with animals, on the off chance that it may be violating the animal in many or even just some cases. I think it makes less sense to err on the side of allowing sex with animals just because it may be okay with some or even many animals.
Sorry, I think I've missed an important step in your argument here. If I'm following correctly it goes like this 1) Animals are incapable of communicating their wishes to us 2) We shouldn't do things to them if we don't know whether or not they consent 3) 2 only applies to sex with them, not eating them or domesticating them or using them as farm tools or keeping them as pets or doing medical research on them
I don't understand how 3 logically follows from 2.
Logically, yeah, we'd not capture them/eat them by that logic. However realistically it becomes a moral issue. It turns out that domesticating them and eating them in some cases greatly benefits humans. With raping animals, however, there is no real gain to humans on the whole. So it doesn't seem as worthwhile to violate their autonomy. It's tricky, and it's probably why it remains a 'hot topic' in bioethics
To me your post reads "I like meat so consent doesn't matter if I want a steak but I don't like fucking them so consent is really important for that". It's a colossal hypocrisy, you don't get to argue one is fine and the other isn't, especially when your argument is rooted in animal welfare and the thing you claim is fine is killing them and the thing you claim is not fine is non harmful sex.
Your desire for a steak is not a necessary thing for the good of the species.
KwarK, may I ask why this topic is so important to you?
somebody is wrong on the internet, thats very important.
on topic: Kwark, if we asume that eating animals is wrong, would you agree with the points of falldownmarigold?
No, I would still disagree with his premises but his argument would at least be internally consistent. I think animal consent has no value, I'm fine with eating them. If someone were to genuinely believe that animal consent had value, that beastiality was literally equivalent to rape and that slaughtering an animal to eat was literally equivalent to murder then their argument would be internally consistent but based upon premises which I did not agree with. However instead we've been getting that animal non-consent only matters when they're not being harmed and when the thing happening is something that I personally don't want to do which is just bullshit.
I'd be happy to debate the value of animal consent but the only person in this topic to argue that animals are literally people is Evangelist who QQed out earlier. Everyone else has gone with "animals are people only when it suits me".
Eating animals is OK because it's a normal, healthy and unavoidable aspect of life (if humans don't eat them, something else will). Having sex with an animal seems optional. Society can then have a say in if it's OK to use that option or not.
Society gets to have a say in whether or not an individual gets to do something optional? Even if it doesn't harm another member of society?
Since when? Why? How do you reconcile that with liberty?
lol. Since drug wars, since seat belt laws, since prostitution bans, since gun control, since the Affordable Care Act...
The problem is people can twist logic around so that "harm" means absolutely anything. They can say eating at McDonald's is harmful to society. They can say not buying something is harmful to society. They can say having children, or drinking soda, or owning an object, are all harmful to society. Absolutely anything goes, unfortunately. And no, you can't reconcile that thinking with liberty, but that doesn't stop us.
On June 17 2013 04:20 FallDownMarigold wrote: [quote] I was thinking about it and that's something I wasn't sure about. Even if the animal does not physically show that it does not want to have sex by fighting back or by displaying some kind of physical and observable behavior, is this necessary and sufficient proof that the animal consents to sex?
What if the animal would prefer not to have sex, but would not dare or does not understand how to display behavior indicating this to be the case? I don't think it's radical to imagine that could be the case in some instances.
I think it makes more sense to conclude that because there is no communication possible, that we have to err on the side of not allowing any sex with animals, on the off chance that it may be violating the animal in many or even just some cases. I think it makes less sense to err on the side of allowing sex with animals just because it may be okay with some or even many animals.
Sorry, I think I've missed an important step in your argument here. If I'm following correctly it goes like this 1) Animals are incapable of communicating their wishes to us 2) We shouldn't do things to them if we don't know whether or not they consent 3) 2 only applies to sex with them, not eating them or domesticating them or using them as farm tools or keeping them as pets or doing medical research on them
I don't understand how 3 logically follows from 2.
Logically, yeah, we'd not capture them/eat them by that logic. However realistically it becomes a moral issue. It turns out that domesticating them and eating them in some cases greatly benefits humans. With raping animals, however, there is no real gain to humans on the whole. So it doesn't seem as worthwhile to violate their autonomy. It's tricky, and it's probably why it remains a 'hot topic' in bioethics
To me your post reads "I like meat so consent doesn't matter if I want a steak but I don't like fucking them so consent is really important for that". It's a colossal hypocrisy, you don't get to argue one is fine and the other isn't, especially when your argument is rooted in animal welfare and the thing you claim is fine is killing them and the thing you claim is not fine is non harmful sex.
Your desire for a steak is not a necessary thing for the good of the species.
KwarK, may I ask why this topic is so important to you?
somebody is wrong on the internet, thats very important.
on topic: Kwark, if we asume that eating animals is wrong, would you agree with the points of falldownmarigold?
No, I would still disagree with his premises but his argument would at least be internally consistent. I think animal consent has no value, I'm fine with eating them. If someone were to genuinely believe that animal consent had value, that beastiality was literally equivalent to rape and that slaughtering an animal to eat was literally equivalent to murder then their argument would be internally consistent but based upon premises which I did not agree with. However instead we've been getting that animal non-consent only matters when they're not being harmed and when the thing happening is something that I personally don't want to do which is just bullshit.
I'd be happy to debate the value of animal consent but the only person in this topic to argue that animals are literally people is Evangelist who QQed out earlier. Everyone else has gone with "animals are people only when it suits me".
Eating animals is OK because it's a normal, healthy and unavoidable aspect of life (if humans don't eat them, something else will). Having sex with an animal seems optional. Society can then have a say in if it's OK to use that option or not.
Society gets to have a say in whether or not an individual gets to do something optional? Even if it doesn't harm another member of society?
Since when? Why? How do you reconcile that with liberty?
lol. Since drug wars, since seat belt laws, since prostitution bans, since gun control, since the Affordable Care Act...
The problem is people can twist logic around so that "harm" means absolutely anything. They can say eating at McDonald's is harmful to society. They can say not buying something is harmful to society. They can say having children, or drinking soda, or owning an object, are all harmful to society. Absolutely anything goes, unfortunately. And no, you can't reconcile that thinking with liberty, but that doesn't stop us.
Drug wars cause a lot of harm, and just one of many concerns about letting drugs go free is that it endangers kids and teenagers. Seat belts is a law to protect the lazy and the young, by making it a law adults are far more pressured to make sure kids have their seat belts on.
Ban on prostitution is a stupid law (in my eyes) that not all countries agree with, just like people here disagree with this law, but it has been known to endanger women and some believe it degrading to women (but not men for some reason).
Gun control is also to protect people as guns can be quite easily used to cause a lot of harm to people. Not being from the US nor reading up on too much about the healthcare (which I assume Affordable Care Act is) I don't know about that last point.
Apart from prostitution ban the examples don't really fit into Kwarks statement as drugs and seatbelt laws help protect kids for one and gun control helps protect members of society in general, and I would expect Kwark to disagree with prostitution ban when its something between consenting adults, unless he holds the stance of it being degrading or endangering women, but then the latter is actually a reason that excludes it from his statement.
We can own and kill animals for food without their consent but THIS is something that is more harmful or on par with violence towards animals?
Cruelty towards animals is a huge issue, especially for the industrial farm/livestock businesses - I question the priority or need to legislate things like this.
I also question the effectiveness or penalty of such legislature.
On June 17 2013 04:11 Millitron wrote: [quote] Are you sure animals can't consent?
Does the animal try to prevent it, i.e. fight back/avoid the person? If yes, it doesn't consent. If no, it does.
I personally think zoophilia is pretty gross, but I'm not going to try to impose that view on everyone else.
I was thinking about it and that's something I wasn't sure about. Even if the animal does not physically show that it does not want to have sex by fighting back or by displaying some kind of physical and observable behavior, is this necessary and sufficient proof that the animal consents to sex?
What if the animal would prefer not to have sex, but would not dare or does not understand how to display behavior indicating this to be the case? I don't think it's radical to imagine that could be the case in some instances.
I think it makes more sense to conclude that because there is no communication possible, that we have to err on the side of not allowing any sex with animals, on the off chance that it may be violating the animal in many or even just some cases. I think it makes less sense to err on the side of allowing sex with animals just because it may be okay with some or even many animals.
Sorry, I think I've missed an important step in your argument here. If I'm following correctly it goes like this 1) Animals are incapable of communicating their wishes to us 2) We shouldn't do things to them if we don't know whether or not they consent 3) 2 only applies to sex with them, not eating them or domesticating them or using them as farm tools or keeping them as pets or doing medical research on them
I don't understand how 3 logically follows from 2.
Logically, yeah, we'd not capture them/eat them by that logic. However realistically it becomes a moral issue. It turns out that domesticating them and eating them in some cases greatly benefits humans. With raping animals, however, there is no real gain to humans on the whole. So it doesn't seem as worthwhile to violate their autonomy. It's tricky, and it's probably why it remains a 'hot topic' in bioethics
To me your post reads "I like meat so consent doesn't matter if I want a steak but I don't like fucking them so consent is really important for that". It's a colossal hypocrisy, you don't get to argue one is fine and the other isn't, especially when your argument is rooted in animal welfare and the thing you claim is fine is killing them and the thing you claim is not fine is non harmful sex.
Your desire for a steak is not a necessary thing for the good of the species.
KwarK, may I ask why this topic is so important to you?
somebody is wrong on the internet, thats very important.
on topic: Kwark, if we asume that eating animals is wrong, would you agree with the points of falldownmarigold?
No, I would still disagree with his premises but his argument would at least be internally consistent. I think animal consent has no value, I'm fine with eating them. If someone were to genuinely believe that animal consent had value, that beastiality was literally equivalent to rape and that slaughtering an animal to eat was literally equivalent to murder then their argument would be internally consistent but based upon premises which I did not agree with. However instead we've been getting that animal non-consent only matters when they're not being harmed and when the thing happening is something that I personally don't want to do which is just bullshit.
I'd be happy to debate the value of animal consent but the only person in this topic to argue that animals are literally people is Evangelist who QQed out earlier. Everyone else has gone with "animals are people only when it suits me".
Eating animals is OK because it's a normal, healthy and unavoidable aspect of life (if humans don't eat them, something else will). Having sex with an animal seems optional. Society can then have a say in if it's OK to use that option or not.
Society gets to have a say in whether or not an individual gets to do something optional? Even if it doesn't harm another member of society?
Since when? Why? How do you reconcile that with liberty?
You're right, I was too narrow. Society gets a say in everything people do (not just the optional bits). Like it or not that's the sacrifice you make when you join a society.
So then eating animals is accepted because people generally view it as acceptable.
Bestiality is controversial because on one hand a lot of people don't like it (for a variety of opinions) yet on the other hand people value freedom. Society then has to find some balance that 'works'.
On June 14 2013 16:00 TOCHMY wrote: I've not much experience with beastiality... But I don't see why it should not be illegal
Well the reason why it should be illegal is about consent. An animal can't really intelligently consent to sex at the same level a human does. That's the official reasoning anyways.
well the reason we get rapists behind bars is because the brave victims come forward and testify. I don't expect a dog to be able to do that. So... the only way to have an unbiased trial is to test the dog's genitals. And doing so without consent is basically sexual abuse. LOL
my opinion: this is vulgar and i hope the 8% voting yes are just misclicks.
On June 17 2013 12:06 Thieving Magpie wrote: Killing animals is legal, but having sex with animals is not.
This simply shows that the society passing this law is okay with murder but not sex. Which is okay, depending on one's moral compass.
I dislike murder more than I dislike sex, so in my opinion, punishments for killing should be harsher than punishment for having sex.
We do this with humans (murder has a harsher punishment than rape) and we should do it for animals as well.
Where is killing animals for the sake of killing legal? (aside from hunting, tradition passed down thousands of years and most people eat and/or don't waste their kills.) I'd love to see this civilized country you speak of. How about you use your words and actually explain you mean "eating". Never mind I know why, because you can't compare eating animals and fucking them.
On June 17 2013 12:32 PSdualwielder wrote: who the fuck voted yes in the poll?
Probably either people who wanted to screw with you (and succeeded), or people who were born with an attraction to animals in some capacity. Are you blaming them for this?
On June 17 2013 12:06 Thieving Magpie wrote: Killing animals is legal, but having sex with animals is not.
This simply shows that the society passing this law is okay with murder but not sex. Which is okay, depending on one's moral compass.
I dislike murder more than I dislike sex, so in my opinion, punishments for killing should be harsher than punishment for having sex.
We do this with humans (murder has a harsher punishment than rape) and we should do it for animals as well.
Where is killing animals for the sake of killing legal? (aside from hunting, tradition passed down thousands of years and most people eat and/or don't waste their kills.) I'd love to see this civilized country you speak of. How about you use your words and actually explain you mean "eating". Never mind I know why, because you can't compare eating animals and fucking them.
I'm against eating people. I'm also against raping people.
Laws against eating people is harsher than laws against raping them.
On June 17 2013 12:06 Thieving Magpie wrote: Killing animals is legal, but having sex with animals is not.
This simply shows that the society passing this law is okay with murder but not sex. Which is okay, depending on one's moral compass.
I dislike murder more than I dislike sex, so in my opinion, punishments for killing should be harsher than punishment for having sex.
We do this with humans (murder has a harsher punishment than rape) and we should do it for animals as well.
Where is killing animals for the sake of killing legal? (aside from hunting, tradition passed down thousands of years and most people eat and/or don't waste their kills.) I'd love to see this civilized country you speak of. How about you use your words and actually explain you mean "eating". Never mind I know why, because you can't compare eating animals and fucking them.
I'm against eating people. I'm also against raping people.
Laws against eating people is harsher than laws against raping them.
On June 17 2013 12:06 Thieving Magpie wrote: Killing animals is legal, but having sex with animals is not.
This simply shows that the society passing this law is okay with murder but not sex. Which is okay, depending on one's moral compass.
I dislike murder more than I dislike sex, so in my opinion, punishments for killing should be harsher than punishment for having sex.
We do this with humans (murder has a harsher punishment than rape) and we should do it for animals as well.
Where is killing animals for the sake of killing legal? (aside from hunting, tradition passed down thousands of years and most people eat and/or don't waste their kills.) I'd love to see this civilized country you speak of. How about you use your words and actually explain you mean "eating". Never mind I know why, because you can't compare eating animals and fucking them.
I'm against eating people. I'm also against raping people.
Laws against eating people is harsher than laws against raping them.
What does that have to do with Bestiality?
If bestiality is wrong because it is raping animals. Then eating animals is wrong because it is killing animals.
Assuming of course, killing is something you deem a worse offense than rape. If you deem rape a worse offense than murder, then I can understand why you would ban bestiality.
It seems pretty stupid to argue that they "cannot give consent".
People don't give formal consent in most cases, rather we want persons to actively say "no" to prove non-consent.
For me, it is pretty misguided to talk about rape and animals. They have incomparable psychosexual development and libido. Bonobo's may have a quickie with their grandfather after a fight ...just to clear the air, right? Spiders killing their mate after the act? Dog's willing to hump even if they are females or what they are humping is an inanimate object?
In my opinion it muddies the waters, and generally makes a mockery of the phenomena to legislate in that way.
I think there should definitely be spefications in the animal cruelty laws about this sort of thing, but think of it like this... we think it is acceptable to tie a horse down, and force it to fuck a rubber tube. We force animals into "sexual acts" all the time, and always have. What we want to legislate against now, is people deriving pleasure from it.
I could go on to talk about the moral pitfalls of legislating in that particular way (targeting the morality of deriving pleasure from something, as the thing that makes it imprudent or immoral) but that's a large subject so i'll end it here.
I happen to be a semi-vegetarian (i generally don't eat mammals, it really just depends what kind of awareness and experience i think a specific animal has - i would probably eat all animals if i was hungry enough though..) so it's not the first time i spend time thinking about the morality of the way we treat animals. I recommend it, there's more than a little hypocrisy in the way most people view animals, and the way they treat them. That's my experience anyway.
On June 17 2013 01:01 Zambrah wrote: I would be very interested in seeing what kind of harm is done to the animals involved in beastiality (okay, that sounded creepy.) What harm IS being done to these animals? I can't imagine very much/any at all considering the size of the animals (unless its like a chicken or something) and if you're a woman I can't imagine any harm at all.
If theres no real harm being done to the animals I seriously can't fathom how this could be illegal. Something you perceive as disgusting does not mean it deserves to be legislated against. I'm personally not a fan of scat porn but I believe that people have the right to shit on one another if they get off on that.
The other dimension to this is the animal's suffering, but since we can rule out psychological damage, this comes down to physical damage. So, if an animal receives no physical harm then how can this be considered harmful?
Consent should be a non-factor. We do not grant animals consent. Consent is only a factor between humans.
Overall, I just don't think that the government has a right to outlaw beastiality if it does not harm the animal. If it does harm the animal, well shit we have animal cruelty laws that cover that.
Why don't you look up some cases of bestiality before you make such a claim?
People who rape their pets are generally people who abuse them. One particular case rings in my head of this teen who locked his dog in his closet and only dragged her out to fuck her, and then throw her back into the closet where she nearly starved to death. Of course she tried to fight back every time but he would just beat her down. Saying animals can't suffer psychological damage definitely takes the ballgame of the most biologically ignorant statement I have ever heard in my entire life.
Saying we shouldn't legislate bestiality since sex with most animals doesn't physically harm them in itself is like saying we shouldn't legislate rape because sex with a human doesn't physically harm them inherently. The people who do this kind of shit are sick fucks who don't lovingly caress their dog or whatever, take them on a night on the town and give them a backrub and warm them up. These are people who grab their dog by the collar, throw them on the ground, pin them down, and fuck them, beat them, and throw them in the corner when they're done.
Consent should be a factor because no animal can fucking consent to this kind of thing. It's like a child, they simply don't have the mental capacity to understand consent. That in itself should make it illegal.
I'm sorry if my post was a bit hard, but I take this issue very personally.
The previous laws covering animal abuse covered that and genuine zoophiles would be horrified by the treatment of the animal that you describe.
My argument comes down to this:
Since an animal, much like a child, is inherently unable to give consent because they can not understand the concept of consent nor can they in animals case vocalize that nonconsent if it was there sex with animals should be illegal because of that.
Secondly, what you're saying, at least to me, is like saying the violent assault laws already cover all the shit that happens to women in rape. Since the sex itself is completely natural and doesn't physically hurt them at all, why include it? Everyone who enjoys having loving sex with their partners would never do that to each other, why ban a natural part of life that doesn't hurt anyone? People who rape women usually kidnap them and beat them, so we already got laws to cover it. Why get more?
Because of consent. Consent is an important thing, as well as psychological damage. Two things fucking animals will always entail. Non-consent and psychological damage.
Also, as for your edit, I seriously can't grasp that argument. Why not make it legal to hit dogs with a sledgehammer since it's completely legal to do it for a melon? We're not talking about melons, we're talking about animals. I want you to find me one case of a zoophile having sex with something like a dog or a cat and the animal not being psychologically or physically damaged.
farmers and docs routinely do sexual acts with pigs/boars/horses/fowl and probably other animals i don't know about...
On June 17 2013 13:29 Soulstice wrote: why would anyone want inter-species erotica banned? Fascists.
I personally want it banned. But I am aware that the reason's I want it banned are arbitrary, personal, and linked to an archaic zeitgeist wherein I believe that people just don't do that.
There is no real argument against bestiality in a society that finds it okay to kill animals, to put them through the meat industry.
When a society feels it is okay to kill animals, it has no logical argument against sex with animals.
On June 17 2013 12:06 Thieving Magpie wrote: Killing animals is legal, but having sex with animals is not.
This simply shows that the society passing this law is okay with murder but not sex. Which is okay, depending on one's moral compass.
I dislike murder more than I dislike sex, so in my opinion, punishments for killing should be harsher than punishment for having sex.
We do this with humans (murder has a harsher punishment than rape) and we should do it for animals as well.
Where is killing animals for the sake of killing legal? (aside from hunting, tradition passed down thousands of years and most people eat and/or don't waste their kills.) I'd love to see this civilized country you speak of. How about you use your words and actually explain you mean "eating". Never mind I know why, because you can't compare eating animals and fucking them.
I'm against eating people. I'm also against raping people.
Laws against eating people is harsher than laws against raping them.
What does that have to do with Bestiality?
If bestiality is wrong because it is raping animals. Then eating animals is wrong because it is killing animals.
Assuming of course, killing is something you deem a worse offense than rape. If you deem rape a worse offense than murder, then I can understand why you would ban bestiality.
Just gonna quote my own post since you ignored that portion.
because you can't compare eating animals and fucking them.
On June 17 2013 07:40 docvoc wrote: I didn't phrase that part correctly. I meant that it was on mammals (monkeys) which showed that the monkeys can feel abuse. The dolphin part has had research done and when dolphins feel loss or abuse, they commit suicide. Also, sexual abuse is still abuse, which was the point of the pit of despair. While it is a different category, I think we can both agree that it is abuse, and therefore should not be carried out on animals. But yes, I followed the argument wrong and I'm sorry about that.
Saying that something "can feel abuse" is meaningless in this context. A Bonobo chimp will fuck their family member as a response to many different situations, such as to appease them because they had a row... It is a ridiculous kind of generalization to make across species, because it completely depends on their specific species' psychosexual experience, which can be anything from "kill after corpulation" to "fuck once, stay with you and support you forever"
I'm not saying this to try to validate beastiality either. To generalize across the species and just assume that they experience things like us, seems to me just as terrible an act of willful ignorance as fucking and animal and saying it liked it because it "didn't move" or "humped away itself".
Just like you can't perform surgical operations on animals and assume they have the same anatomy cross-species, we have to question whether the psychological assumptions we make, are really meaningful at all.
On June 17 2013 12:06 Thieving Magpie wrote: Killing animals is legal, but having sex with animals is not.
This simply shows that the society passing this law is okay with murder but not sex. Which is okay, depending on one's moral compass.
I dislike murder more than I dislike sex, so in my opinion, punishments for killing should be harsher than punishment for having sex.
We do this with humans (murder has a harsher punishment than rape) and we should do it for animals as well.
Where is killing animals for the sake of killing legal? (aside from hunting, tradition passed down thousands of years and most people eat and/or don't waste their kills.) I'd love to see this civilized country you speak of. How about you use your words and actually explain you mean "eating". Never mind I know why, because you can't compare eating animals and fucking them.
I'm against eating people. I'm also against raping people.
Laws against eating people is harsher than laws against raping them.
What does that have to do with Bestiality?
If bestiality is wrong because it is raping animals. Then eating animals is wrong because it is killing animals.
Assuming of course, killing is something you deem a worse offense than rape. If you deem rape a worse offense than murder, then I can understand why you would ban bestiality.
Just gonna quote my own post since you ignored that portion.
On June 17 2013 12:06 Thieving Magpie wrote: Killing animals is legal, but having sex with animals is not.
This simply shows that the society passing this law is okay with murder but not sex. Which is okay, depending on one's moral compass.
I dislike murder more than I dislike sex, so in my opinion, punishments for killing should be harsher than punishment for having sex.
We do this with humans (murder has a harsher punishment than rape) and we should do it for animals as well.
Where is killing animals for the sake of killing legal? (aside from hunting, tradition passed down thousands of years and most people eat and/or don't waste their kills.) I'd love to see this civilized country you speak of. How about you use your words and actually explain you mean "eating". Never mind I know why, because you can't compare eating animals and fucking them.
I'm against eating people. I'm also against raping people.
Laws against eating people is harsher than laws against raping them.
What does that have to do with Bestiality?
If bestiality is wrong because it is raping animals. Then eating animals is wrong because it is killing animals.
Assuming of course, killing is something you deem a worse offense than rape. If you deem rape a worse offense than murder, then I can understand why you would ban bestiality.
Just gonna quote my own post since you ignored that portion.
because you can't compare eating animals and fucking them.
Non-consensual sex is rape.
Murder is worse than rape.
You can't be okay with murder and be against rape. It is dishonest.
On June 17 2013 12:06 Thieving Magpie wrote: Killing animals is legal, but having sex with animals is not.
This simply shows that the society passing this law is okay with murder but not sex. Which is okay, depending on one's moral compass.
I dislike murder more than I dislike sex, so in my opinion, punishments for killing should be harsher than punishment for having sex.
We do this with humans (murder has a harsher punishment than rape) and we should do it for animals as well.
Where is killing animals for the sake of killing legal? (aside from hunting, tradition passed down thousands of years and most people eat and/or don't waste their kills.) I'd love to see this civilized country you speak of. How about you use your words and actually explain you mean "eating". Never mind I know why, because you can't compare eating animals and fucking them.
I'm against eating people. I'm also against raping people.
Laws against eating people is harsher than laws against raping them.
What does that have to do with Bestiality?
If bestiality is wrong because it is raping animals. Then eating animals is wrong because it is killing animals.
Assuming of course, killing is something you deem a worse offense than rape. If you deem rape a worse offense than murder, then I can understand why you would ban bestiality.
Just gonna quote my own post since you ignored that portion.
because you can't compare eating animals and fucking them.
Non-consensual sex is rape.
Murder is worse than rape.
You can't be okay with murder and be against rape. It is dishonest.
So what are we going to do, photosynthesize?
Animals aren't the only source of protein. We are choosing to kill animals, we don't have to.
On June 17 2013 12:06 Thieving Magpie wrote: Killing animals is legal, but having sex with animals is not.
This simply shows that the society passing this law is okay with murder but not sex. Which is okay, depending on one's moral compass.
I dislike murder more than I dislike sex, so in my opinion, punishments for killing should be harsher than punishment for having sex.
We do this with humans (murder has a harsher punishment than rape) and we should do it for animals as well.
Where is killing animals for the sake of killing legal? (aside from hunting, tradition passed down thousands of years and most people eat and/or don't waste their kills.) I'd love to see this civilized country you speak of. How about you use your words and actually explain you mean "eating". Never mind I know why, because you can't compare eating animals and fucking them.
I'm against eating people. I'm also against raping people.
Laws against eating people is harsher than laws against raping them.
What does that have to do with Bestiality?
If bestiality is wrong because it is raping animals. Then eating animals is wrong because it is killing animals.
Assuming of course, killing is something you deem a worse offense than rape. If you deem rape a worse offense than murder, then I can understand why you would ban bestiality.
Just gonna quote my own post since you ignored that portion.
because you can't compare eating animals and fucking them.
Non-consensual sex is rape.
Murder is worse than rape.
You can't be okay with murder and be against rape. It is dishonest.
So what are we going to do, photosynthesize?
Animals aren't the only source of protein. We are choosing to kill animals, we don't have to.
On June 17 2013 12:06 Thieving Magpie wrote: Killing animals is legal, but having sex with animals is not.
This simply shows that the society passing this law is okay with murder but not sex. Which is okay, depending on one's moral compass.
I dislike murder more than I dislike sex, so in my opinion, punishments for killing should be harsher than punishment for having sex.
We do this with humans (murder has a harsher punishment than rape) and we should do it for animals as well.
Where is killing animals for the sake of killing legal? (aside from hunting, tradition passed down thousands of years and most people eat and/or don't waste their kills.) I'd love to see this civilized country you speak of. How about you use your words and actually explain you mean "eating". Never mind I know why, because you can't compare eating animals and fucking them.
I'm against eating people. I'm also against raping people.
Laws against eating people is harsher than laws against raping them.
What does that have to do with Bestiality?
If bestiality is wrong because it is raping animals. Then eating animals is wrong because it is killing animals.
Assuming of course, killing is something you deem a worse offense than rape. If you deem rape a worse offense than murder, then I can understand why you would ban bestiality.
Just gonna quote my own post since you ignored that portion.
because you can't compare eating animals and fucking them.
Non-consensual sex is rape.
Murder is worse than rape.
You can't be okay with murder and be against rape. It is dishonest.
So what are we going to do, photosynthesize?
Animals aren't the only source of protein. We are choosing to kill animals, we don't have to.
Uh, you forgot plants are organisms too.
I have not.
I'm saying that wanting to ban animal rape but not animal murder is dishonest.
Honest is being okay with killing animals and hence okay with raping them.
If you want to protect an animal's psyche because they have feelings, then you should want to protect their life for the same reasons.
If you are okay with murdering something, then you shouldn't care that much if it has sex with someone.
Where is killing animals for the sake of killing legal? (aside from hunting, tradition passed down thousands of years and most people eat and/or don't waste their kills.) I'd love to see this civilized country you speak of. How about you use your words and actually explain you mean "eating". Never mind I know why, because you can't compare eating animals and fucking them.
I'm against eating people. I'm also against raping people.
Laws against eating people is harsher than laws against raping them.
What does that have to do with Bestiality?
If bestiality is wrong because it is raping animals. Then eating animals is wrong because it is killing animals.
Assuming of course, killing is something you deem a worse offense than rape. If you deem rape a worse offense than murder, then I can understand why you would ban bestiality.
Just gonna quote my own post since you ignored that portion.
because you can't compare eating animals and fucking them.
Non-consensual sex is rape.
Murder is worse than rape.
You can't be okay with murder and be against rape. It is dishonest.
So what are we going to do, photosynthesize?
Animals aren't the only source of protein. We are choosing to kill animals, we don't have to.
Uh, you forgot plants are organisms too.
I have not.
I'm saying that wanting to ban animal rape but not animal murder is dishonest.
Honest is being okay with killing animals and hence okay with raping them.
If you want to protect an animal's psyche because they have feelings, then you should want to protect their life for the same reasons.
If you are okay with murdering something, then you shouldn't care that much if it has sex with someone.
Humans are omnivores. We are meant to eat both animals and plants. If we were meant to fuck both humans and horses, it would be possible to create centaurs.
Where is killing animals for the sake of killing legal? (aside from hunting, tradition passed down thousands of years and most people eat and/or don't waste their kills.) I'd love to see this civilized country you speak of. How about you use your words and actually explain you mean "eating". Never mind I know why, because you can't compare eating animals and fucking them.
I'm against eating people. I'm also against raping people.
Laws against eating people is harsher than laws against raping them.
What does that have to do with Bestiality?
If bestiality is wrong because it is raping animals. Then eating animals is wrong because it is killing animals.
Assuming of course, killing is something you deem a worse offense than rape. If you deem rape a worse offense than murder, then I can understand why you would ban bestiality.
Just gonna quote my own post since you ignored that portion.
because you can't compare eating animals and fucking them.
Non-consensual sex is rape.
Murder is worse than rape.
You can't be okay with murder and be against rape. It is dishonest.
So what are we going to do, photosynthesize?
Animals aren't the only source of protein. We are choosing to kill animals, we don't have to.
Uh, you forgot plants are organisms too.
I have not.
I'm saying that wanting to ban animal rape but not animal murder is dishonest.
Honest is being okay with killing animals and hence okay with raping them.
If you want to protect an animal's psyche because they have feelings, then you should want to protect their life for the same reasons.
If you are okay with murdering something, then you shouldn't care that much if it has sex with someone.
You seem to view the world in a very black and white way. You can kill animals for meat as long as you do it "humanely" otherwise you might end up paying for it. In the same way it will most likely be allowed to breed cows and such (even though it's technically "sexual abuse" in the same sense) while not allowed to have sex with them for personal satisfaction. Why can't you have both?
On June 17 2013 13:21 Thieving Magpie wrote: [quote]
I'm against eating people. I'm also against raping people.
Laws against eating people is harsher than laws against raping them.
What does that have to do with Bestiality?
If bestiality is wrong because it is raping animals. Then eating animals is wrong because it is killing animals.
Assuming of course, killing is something you deem a worse offense than rape. If you deem rape a worse offense than murder, then I can understand why you would ban bestiality.
Just gonna quote my own post since you ignored that portion.
because you can't compare eating animals and fucking them.
Non-consensual sex is rape.
Murder is worse than rape.
You can't be okay with murder and be against rape. It is dishonest.
So what are we going to do, photosynthesize?
Animals aren't the only source of protein. We are choosing to kill animals, we don't have to.
Uh, you forgot plants are organisms too.
I have not.
I'm saying that wanting to ban animal rape but not animal murder is dishonest.
Honest is being okay with killing animals and hence okay with raping them.
If you want to protect an animal's psyche because they have feelings, then you should want to protect their life for the same reasons.
If you are okay with murdering something, then you shouldn't care that much if it has sex with someone.
Humans are omnivores. We are meant to eat both animals and plants. If we were meant to fuck both humans and horses, it would be possible to create centaurs.
Just because we ate both animals and plants in the past does not mean we have to continue eating animals and plants in the present. That doesn't make any sense.
On June 17 2013 13:21 Thieving Magpie wrote: [quote]
I'm against eating people. I'm also against raping people.
Laws against eating people is harsher than laws against raping them.
What does that have to do with Bestiality?
If bestiality is wrong because it is raping animals. Then eating animals is wrong because it is killing animals.
Assuming of course, killing is something you deem a worse offense than rape. If you deem rape a worse offense than murder, then I can understand why you would ban bestiality.
Just gonna quote my own post since you ignored that portion.
because you can't compare eating animals and fucking them.
Non-consensual sex is rape.
Murder is worse than rape.
You can't be okay with murder and be against rape. It is dishonest.
So what are we going to do, photosynthesize?
Animals aren't the only source of protein. We are choosing to kill animals, we don't have to.
Uh, you forgot plants are organisms too.
I have not.
I'm saying that wanting to ban animal rape but not animal murder is dishonest.
Honest is being okay with killing animals and hence okay with raping them.
If you want to protect an animal's psyche because they have feelings, then you should want to protect their life for the same reasons.
If you are okay with murdering something, then you shouldn't care that much if it has sex with someone.
You seem to view the world in a very black and white way. You can kill animals for meat as long as you do it "humanely" otherwise you might end up paying for it. In the same way it will most likely be allowed to breed cows and such (even though it's technically "sexual abuse" in the same sense) while not allowed to have sex with them for personal satisfaction. Why can't you have both?
I agree, there are different degrees of murder and to the same extent there are different degrees of sexual assault. We should try to minimize the negative effects of both of these practices on animals for as long as we continue to kill animals and force them to breed with one another.
On June 17 2013 12:06 Thieving Magpie wrote: Killing animals is legal, but having sex with animals is not.
This simply shows that the society passing this law is okay with murder but not sex. Which is okay, depending on one's moral compass.
I dislike murder more than I dislike sex, so in my opinion, punishments for killing should be harsher than punishment for having sex.
We do this with humans (murder has a harsher punishment than rape) and we should do it for animals as well.
Where is killing animals for the sake of killing legal? (aside from hunting, tradition passed down thousands of years and most people eat and/or don't waste their kills.) I'd love to see this civilized country you speak of. How about you use your words and actually explain you mean "eating". Never mind I know why, because you can't compare eating animals and fucking them.
I'm against eating people. I'm also against raping people.
Laws against eating people is harsher than laws against raping them.
What does that have to do with Bestiality?
If bestiality is wrong because it is raping animals. Then eating animals is wrong because it is killing animals.
Assuming of course, killing is something you deem a worse offense than rape. If you deem rape a worse offense than murder, then I can understand why you would ban bestiality.
Just gonna quote my own post since you ignored that portion.
because you can't compare eating animals and fucking them.
Non-consensual sex is rape.
Murder is worse than rape.
You can't be okay with murder and be against rape. It is dishonest.
You just keep ignoring the whole point of the argument so I'm just gonna ignore your replies.
I didn't feel like quoting myself for the 2nd time and posting the same thing 3 times now since you won't acknowledge it.
This whole thing is getting horribly off-topic because Magpie wants us to stop eating meat all-together and become like the cows he's trying to save. Nothing at all with the topic at hand.
On June 17 2013 12:06 Thieving Magpie wrote: Killing animals is legal, but having sex with animals is not.
This simply shows that the society passing this law is okay with murder but not sex. Which is okay, depending on one's moral compass.
I dislike murder more than I dislike sex, so in my opinion, punishments for killing should be harsher than punishment for having sex.
We do this with humans (murder has a harsher punishment than rape) and we should do it for animals as well.
Where is killing animals for the sake of killing legal? (aside from hunting, tradition passed down thousands of years and most people eat and/or don't waste their kills.) I'd love to see this civilized country you speak of. How about you use your words and actually explain you mean "eating". Never mind I know why, because you can't compare eating animals and fucking them.
I'm against eating people. I'm also against raping people.
Laws against eating people is harsher than laws against raping them.
What does that have to do with Bestiality?
If bestiality is wrong because it is raping animals. Then eating animals is wrong because it is killing animals.
Assuming of course, killing is something you deem a worse offense than rape. If you deem rape a worse offense than murder, then I can understand why you would ban bestiality.
Just gonna quote my own post since you ignored that portion.
because you can't compare eating animals and fucking them.
Non-consensual sex is rape.
Murder is worse than rape.
You can't be okay with murder and be against rape. It is dishonest.
You just keep ignoring the whole point of the argument so I'm just gonna ignore your replies.
I didn't feel like quoting myself for the 2nd time and posting the same thing 3 times now since you won't acknowledge it.
This whole thing is getting horribly off-topic because Magpie wants us to stop eating meat all-together and become like the cows he's trying to save. Nothing at all with the topic at hand.
Save cows?
I'm being honest with myself.
I'm okay with killing animals. I'm not okay with thinking that rape is worse than murder.
That has nothing at all to do with saving cows, stop derailing.
Where is killing animals for the sake of killing legal? (aside from hunting, tradition passed down thousands of years and most people eat and/or don't waste their kills.) I'd love to see this civilized country you speak of. How about you use your words and actually explain you mean "eating". Never mind I know why, because you can't compare eating animals and fucking them.
I'm against eating people. I'm also against raping people.
Laws against eating people is harsher than laws against raping them.
What does that have to do with Bestiality?
If bestiality is wrong because it is raping animals. Then eating animals is wrong because it is killing animals.
Assuming of course, killing is something you deem a worse offense than rape. If you deem rape a worse offense than murder, then I can understand why you would ban bestiality.
Just gonna quote my own post since you ignored that portion.
because you can't compare eating animals and fucking them.
Non-consensual sex is rape.
Murder is worse than rape.
You can't be okay with murder and be against rape. It is dishonest.
So what are we going to do, photosynthesize?
Animals aren't the only source of protein. We are choosing to kill animals, we don't have to.
Uh, you forgot plants are organisms too.
I have not.
I'm saying that wanting to ban animal rape but not animal murder is dishonest.
Honest is being okay with killing animals and hence okay with raping them.
If you want to protect an animal's psyche because they have feelings, then you should want to protect their life for the same reasons.
If you are okay with murdering something, then you shouldn't care that much if it has sex with someone.
Killing animals is evolution. Sexing animals is a major evolutionary fuck-up. Or too much porn.
Where is killing animals for the sake of killing legal? (aside from hunting, tradition passed down thousands of years and most people eat and/or don't waste their kills.) I'd love to see this civilized country you speak of. How about you use your words and actually explain you mean "eating". Never mind I know why, because you can't compare eating animals and fucking them.
I'm against eating people. I'm also against raping people.
Laws against eating people is harsher than laws against raping them.
What does that have to do with Bestiality?
If bestiality is wrong because it is raping animals. Then eating animals is wrong because it is killing animals.
Assuming of course, killing is something you deem a worse offense than rape. If you deem rape a worse offense than murder, then I can understand why you would ban bestiality.
Just gonna quote my own post since you ignored that portion.
because you can't compare eating animals and fucking them.
Non-consensual sex is rape.
Murder is worse than rape.
You can't be okay with murder and be against rape. It is dishonest.
So what are we going to do, photosynthesize?
Animals aren't the only source of protein. We are choosing to kill animals, we don't have to.
Uh, you forgot plants are organisms too.
I have not.
I'm saying that wanting to ban animal rape but not animal murder is dishonest.
Honest is being okay with killing animals and hence okay with raping them.
If you want to protect an animal's psyche because they have feelings, then you should want to protect their life for the same reasons.
If you are okay with murdering something, then you shouldn't care that much if it has sex with someone.
Why? People can feel that killing animals for food is fine and having sex with animals is not fine. I'm talking feelings here, it doesn't have to be logical.
On June 17 2013 13:21 Thieving Magpie wrote: [quote]
I'm against eating people. I'm also against raping people.
Laws against eating people is harsher than laws against raping them.
What does that have to do with Bestiality?
If bestiality is wrong because it is raping animals. Then eating animals is wrong because it is killing animals.
Assuming of course, killing is something you deem a worse offense than rape. If you deem rape a worse offense than murder, then I can understand why you would ban bestiality.
Just gonna quote my own post since you ignored that portion.
because you can't compare eating animals and fucking them.
Non-consensual sex is rape.
Murder is worse than rape.
You can't be okay with murder and be against rape. It is dishonest.
So what are we going to do, photosynthesize?
Animals aren't the only source of protein. We are choosing to kill animals, we don't have to.
Uh, you forgot plants are organisms too.
I have not.
I'm saying that wanting to ban animal rape but not animal murder is dishonest.
Honest is being okay with killing animals and hence okay with raping them.
If you want to protect an animal's psyche because they have feelings, then you should want to protect their life for the same reasons.
If you are okay with murdering something, then you shouldn't care that much if it has sex with someone.
Why? People can feel that killing animals for food is fine and having sex with animals is not fine. I'm talking feelings here, it doesn't have to be logical.
Do you really want laws based on illogical arguments and feelings?
On June 17 2013 13:21 Thieving Magpie wrote: [quote]
I'm against eating people. I'm also against raping people.
Laws against eating people is harsher than laws against raping them.
What does that have to do with Bestiality?
If bestiality is wrong because it is raping animals. Then eating animals is wrong because it is killing animals.
Assuming of course, killing is something you deem a worse offense than rape. If you deem rape a worse offense than murder, then I can understand why you would ban bestiality.
Just gonna quote my own post since you ignored that portion.
because you can't compare eating animals and fucking them.
Non-consensual sex is rape.
Murder is worse than rape.
You can't be okay with murder and be against rape. It is dishonest.
So what are we going to do, photosynthesize?
Animals aren't the only source of protein. We are choosing to kill animals, we don't have to.
Uh, you forgot plants are organisms too.
I have not.
I'm saying that wanting to ban animal rape but not animal murder is dishonest.
Honest is being okay with killing animals and hence okay with raping them.
If you want to protect an animal's psyche because they have feelings, then you should want to protect their life for the same reasons.
If you are okay with murdering something, then you shouldn't care that much if it has sex with someone.
Killing animals is evolution. Sexing animals is a major evolutionary fuck-up. Or too much porn.
Do you believe that animals are sentient enough to be harmed by sex?
If so,
Do you believe that animals are sentient enough to be harmed by death?
If bestiality is wrong because it is raping animals. Then eating animals is wrong because it is killing animals.
Assuming of course, killing is something you deem a worse offense than rape. If you deem rape a worse offense than murder, then I can understand why you would ban bestiality.
Just gonna quote my own post since you ignored that portion.
because you can't compare eating animals and fucking them.
Non-consensual sex is rape.
Murder is worse than rape.
You can't be okay with murder and be against rape. It is dishonest.
So what are we going to do, photosynthesize?
Animals aren't the only source of protein. We are choosing to kill animals, we don't have to.
Uh, you forgot plants are organisms too.
I have not.
I'm saying that wanting to ban animal rape but not animal murder is dishonest.
Honest is being okay with killing animals and hence okay with raping them.
If you want to protect an animal's psyche because they have feelings, then you should want to protect their life for the same reasons.
If you are okay with murdering something, then you shouldn't care that much if it has sex with someone.
Killing animals is evolution. Sexing animals is a major evolutionary fuck-up. Or too much porn.
Do you believe that animals are sentient enough to be harmed by sex?
If so,
Do you believe that animals are sentient enough to be harmed by death?
Does it matter if he is sentient enough to be harmed by death ? Hes gonna be dead.
If you go and eat a human, society will consider you a monster that is sick, twisted and other repulsive words, rape a person and society considers you a bad man with a mental disorder or lack of willpower mostly.
Yet fucking an animal is apparently wrong and eating them is just dandy.
People should really stop the hypocrisy about "harming" animals if they are willing to EAT them. If you won't eat animals you at least have consistency in your arguement, but humans remain on the top of the food chain, and the world works by abusing those lower down the chain.
From eating them to milking them to making them work for you; and it should let you use them sexually as well regardless of whetever you personally as an individual has any interest in it.
On June 17 2013 13:26 Thieving Magpie wrote: [quote]
If bestiality is wrong because it is raping animals. Then eating animals is wrong because it is killing animals.
Assuming of course, killing is something you deem a worse offense than rape. If you deem rape a worse offense than murder, then I can understand why you would ban bestiality.
Just gonna quote my own post since you ignored that portion.
because you can't compare eating animals and fucking them.
Non-consensual sex is rape.
Murder is worse than rape.
You can't be okay with murder and be against rape. It is dishonest.
So what are we going to do, photosynthesize?
Animals aren't the only source of protein. We are choosing to kill animals, we don't have to.
Uh, you forgot plants are organisms too.
I have not.
I'm saying that wanting to ban animal rape but not animal murder is dishonest.
Honest is being okay with killing animals and hence okay with raping them.
If you want to protect an animal's psyche because they have feelings, then you should want to protect their life for the same reasons.
If you are okay with murdering something, then you shouldn't care that much if it has sex with someone.
Killing animals is evolution. Sexing animals is a major evolutionary fuck-up. Or too much porn.
Do you believe that animals are sentient enough to be harmed by sex?
If so,
Do you believe that animals are sentient enough to be harmed by death?
Does it matter if he is sentient enough to be harmed by death ? Hes gonna be dead.
Rape is a form of torture. Because of the dominant-subservient/owner-property relationship b/w humans and animals, bestiality will always be considered rape. It's not right or wrong to kill something. you can kill human and animal in self-defense. You can even kill for food(human and animal likewise, some of the most amazing survival stories only happened b/c of cannibalism). Killing is not inherently wrong. On the other hand, torture is wrong. And since rape is a form of torture, by connection, bestiality is wrong.
On June 17 2013 15:43 D10 wrote: Regardless of what you believe, eating animals is part of what makes us human.
Fucking them isnt.
Some people eat animals, some don't. Some people (apparently) have sex with animals, some don't. Why do you get to decide which of those is what 'makes us human'? There is not a real need to do either. There are reasons why one is more prevalent than the other, but it doesn't contribute towards an explanation of human nature.
On June 17 2013 15:44 czylu wrote: Rape is a form of torture. Because of the dominant-subservient/owner-property relationship b/w humans and animals, bestiality will always be considered rape.
This is questionable, since animals are not sentient.
On the other hand, torture is wrong. And since rape is a form of torture, by connection, bestiality is wrong.
This is only true if you can really show that animals are being tortured by sex with humans... but it's just speculation as far as I've seen (barring violent abuse and the like).
Statutory rape is only a serious threat to the well being of a child due to aspects of our sentience, which animals lack. That's not to say there can't be any negative consequences for the animal whatsoever, but I assert they are minor.
If bestiality is wrong because it is raping animals. Then eating animals is wrong because it is killing animals.
Assuming of course, killing is something you deem a worse offense than rape. If you deem rape a worse offense than murder, then I can understand why you would ban bestiality.
Just gonna quote my own post since you ignored that portion.
because you can't compare eating animals and fucking them.
Non-consensual sex is rape.
Murder is worse than rape.
You can't be okay with murder and be against rape. It is dishonest.
So what are we going to do, photosynthesize?
Animals aren't the only source of protein. We are choosing to kill animals, we don't have to.
Uh, you forgot plants are organisms too.
I have not.
I'm saying that wanting to ban animal rape but not animal murder is dishonest.
Honest is being okay with killing animals and hence okay with raping them.
If you want to protect an animal's psyche because they have feelings, then you should want to protect their life for the same reasons.
If you are okay with murdering something, then you shouldn't care that much if it has sex with someone.
Why? People can feel that killing animals for food is fine and having sex with animals is not fine. I'm talking feelings here, it doesn't have to be logical.
Do you really want laws based on illogical arguments and feelings?
Sometimes, sure. At the end of the day you want to have a civil society. Sometimes that means you need to split hairs and be a hypocrite.
On June 17 2013 15:44 czylu wrote: Rape is a form of torture. Because of the dominant-subservient/owner-property relationship b/w humans and animals, bestiality will always be considered rape.
This is questionable, since animals are not sentient.
I'm sorry what
I'm looking for sarcasm but I just can't find it since I know that this is/was an accepted fact among scientists...
On June 17 2013 13:26 Thieving Magpie wrote: [quote]
If bestiality is wrong because it is raping animals. Then eating animals is wrong because it is killing animals.
Assuming of course, killing is something you deem a worse offense than rape. If you deem rape a worse offense than murder, then I can understand why you would ban bestiality.
Just gonna quote my own post since you ignored that portion.
because you can't compare eating animals and fucking them.
Non-consensual sex is rape.
Murder is worse than rape.
You can't be okay with murder and be against rape. It is dishonest.
So what are we going to do, photosynthesize?
Animals aren't the only source of protein. We are choosing to kill animals, we don't have to.
Uh, you forgot plants are organisms too.
I have not.
I'm saying that wanting to ban animal rape but not animal murder is dishonest.
Honest is being okay with killing animals and hence okay with raping them.
If you want to protect an animal's psyche because they have feelings, then you should want to protect their life for the same reasons.
If you are okay with murdering something, then you shouldn't care that much if it has sex with someone.
Why? People can feel that killing animals for food is fine and having sex with animals is not fine. I'm talking feelings here, it doesn't have to be logical.
Do you really want laws based on illogical arguments and feelings?
Sometimes, sure. At the end of the day you want to have a civil society. Sometimes that means you need to split hairs and be a hypocrite.
While this is impossible to avoid completely, shouldn't our goal be to use logic and evidence to support plans for new laws, rather than hypocrisy, emotion, and the like?
Just gonna quote my own post since you ignored that portion.
[quote]
Non-consensual sex is rape.
Murder is worse than rape.
You can't be okay with murder and be against rape. It is dishonest.
So what are we going to do, photosynthesize?
Animals aren't the only source of protein. We are choosing to kill animals, we don't have to.
Uh, you forgot plants are organisms too.
I have not.
I'm saying that wanting to ban animal rape but not animal murder is dishonest.
Honest is being okay with killing animals and hence okay with raping them.
If you want to protect an animal's psyche because they have feelings, then you should want to protect their life for the same reasons.
If you are okay with murdering something, then you shouldn't care that much if it has sex with someone.
Why? People can feel that killing animals for food is fine and having sex with animals is not fine. I'm talking feelings here, it doesn't have to be logical.
Do you really want laws based on illogical arguments and feelings?
Sometimes, sure. At the end of the day you want to have a civil society. Sometimes that means you need to split hairs and be a hypocrite.
While this is impossible to avoid completely, shouldn't our goal be to use logic and evidence to support plans for new laws, rather than hypocrisy, emotion, and the like?
Sure, but sometimes needs are driven by emotion or illogical psychological factors so you can't ignore it.
Since some of you seem to love comparing us humans to animals; Have you ever seen a lion fucking a warthog and eating it afterwards? No? Well, that's because it's unnatural. Animals kill to have food, they don't have sex with their prey.
Be honest to yourself, even if it sounds right on paper (if we can kill & eat them, we also can fuck them), that's still fucking sick.
And tbh, the only reason i can think of why someone would fuck an animal is, because he can't get any human puss. But maybe i'm wrong on this one, there really are some weird people out there.
On June 17 2013 17:32 syno wrote: Since some of you seem to love comparing us humans to animals; Have you ever seen a lion fucking a warthog and eating it afterwards? No? Well, that's because it's unnatural. Animals kill to have food, they don't have sex with their prey.
Be honest to yourself, even if it sounds right on paper (if we can kill & eat them, we also can fuck them), that's still fucking sick.
And tbh, the only reason i can think of why someone would fuck an animal is, because he can't get any human puss. But maybe i'm wrong on this one, there really are some weird people out there.
Guys, does it trully need to be explained why bestiallity generally is a bad thing? I mean really, these forums nowadays are starting to get silly. Talk about moral decay.
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.
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.
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.
Would you really call that natural tho?
Considering that they define what is natural, I would say yes. Conceptions of nature that do not derive from nature seem to be pure fantasy to me...
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.
Would you really call that natural tho?
If we're not calling what animals do to other animals without human interference natural then what are we calling it?
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.
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.
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.
It's quite good for the wallet. Yes, that's egoistic, but i guess that's how we humans are. Do you eat meat and eggs? If yes, would you be ready to pay ALOT more for those things if the animals lived a life like they're "supposed" to?
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.
It's quite good for the wallet. Yes, that's egoistic, but i guess that's how we humans are. Do you eat meat and eggs? If yes, would you be ready to pay ALOT more for those things if the animals lived a life like they're "supposed" to?
So greed is legit, hedonistic consumption of meat is legit but god forbid you stick your dick in it without harming it?
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.
It's quite good for the wallet. Yes, that's egoistic, but i guess that's how we humans are. Do you eat meat and eggs? If yes, would you be ready to pay ALOT more for those things if the animals lived a life like they're "supposed" to?
So greed is legit, hedonistic consumption of meat is legit but god forbid you stick your dick in it without harming it?
I just don't buy that.
Well I guess we could discuss this topic for ages, none of us will change his opinion on that.
Like I said, you are right on paper, but IMHO on things like this you have to make rules based on feelings. And I have to agree with sweden in this case, this is wrong and should not be tollerated (even if it's not on paper).
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.
Would you really call that natural tho?
If we're not calling what animals do to other animals without human interference natural then what are we calling it?
Unnatural.
Does chimpanzee fucking a frog really make inerspecies sex natural?
I dont think we will be able to come at an agreement on this issue.
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.
I think that is generally agreed that industrialised food production with awfull animal treatment and living conditions is a bad thing, however a necessity.
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.
It's quite good for the wallet. Yes, that's egoistic, but i guess that's how we humans are. Do you eat meat and eggs? If yes, would you be ready to pay ALOT more for those things if the animals lived a life like they're "supposed" to?
So greed is legit, hedonistic consumption of meat is legit but god forbid you stick your dick in it without harming it?
I just don't buy that.
Well I guess we could discuss this topic for ages, none of us will change his opinion on that.
Like I said, you are right on paper, but IMHO on things like this you have to make rules based on feelings. And I have to agree with sweden in this case, this is wrong and should not be tollerated (even if it's not on paper).
It's why I hope you/others making the same argument never have any responsibility. It's been gone over again and again how dangerous it is to make rules based on 'feelings' and disregarding logic you admit yourself exists. Ick.
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.
Would you really call that natural tho?
If we're not calling what animals do to other animals without human interference natural then what are we calling it?
Unnatural.
Does chimpanzee fucking a frog really make inerspecies sex natural?
I just want to say the poll is pretty pointless. The taboo surrounding bestiality is so heavy I don't think we can even imagine how it would be like if it wasn't.
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.
Would you really call that natural tho?
I would; dogs humping girls happen A LOT, I can go on youtube right now and find over 10 pages of dog humps girl.
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.
Would you really call that natural tho?
If we're not calling what animals do to other animals without human interference natural then what are we calling it?
Unnatural.
Does chimpanzee fucking a frog really make inerspecies sex natural?
Pretty much by definition, yes, yes it does.
I think you are taking that term to literally.
EDIT: If we agree that everything that happens in nature is natural than i agree with you. But why do we then even distinct those two terms, natural/unnatural? What would you say is unnatural then?
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.
Would you really call that natural tho?
If we're not calling what animals do to other animals without human interference natural then what are we calling it?
Unnatural.
Does chimpanzee fucking a frog really make inerspecies sex natural?
Pretty much by definition, yes, yes it does.
I think you are taking that term to literally.
I'm taking the term for what it means. You can't just change the meanings of words to suit your own agenda.
Nonononono guys, he "may" have a point here. Let's listen to his argument. So, what exactly is unnatural in something that happens in nature without human intervention ? I'm really curious how you justify this.
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.
Would you really call that natural tho?
If we're not calling what animals do to other animals without human interference natural then what are we calling it?
Unnatural.
Does chimpanzee fucking a frog really make inerspecies sex natural?
Pretty much by definition, yes, yes it does.
I think you are taking that term to literally.
EDIT: If we agree that everything that happens in nature is natural than i agree with you. But why do we then even distinct those two terms, natural/unnatural? What would you say is unnatural then?
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.
It's quite good for the wallet. Yes, that's egoistic, but i guess that's how we humans are. Do you eat meat and eggs? If yes, would you be ready to pay ALOT more for those things if the animals lived a life like they're "supposed" to?
So greed is legit, hedonistic consumption of meat is legit but god forbid you stick your dick in it without harming it?
I just don't buy that.
Well I guess we could discuss this topic for ages, none of us will change his opinion on that.
Like I said, you are right on paper, but IMHO on things like this you have to make rules based on feelings. And I have to agree with sweden in this case, this is wrong and should not be tollerated (even if it's not on paper).
It's why I hope you/others making the same argument never have any responsibility. It's been gone over again and again how dangerous it is to make rules based on 'feelings' and disregarding logic you admit yourself exists. Ick.
If you'd make all laws based on logic, you could also legalize things like necrophilia. Go ahead, unborrow all the corpses and have sex with them, because hey, no one will be harmed.
Sometimes it's not that bad if you put a touch of humanity in the law.
Oh and I think i handle my responsibilities pretty good. I'm not a robot who creates rules for everything, i make most of my decisions based on my gut feeling, and i was never terribly wrong.
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.
It's quite good for the wallet. Yes, that's egoistic, but i guess that's how we humans are. Do you eat meat and eggs? If yes, would you be ready to pay ALOT more for those things if the animals lived a life like they're "supposed" to?
So greed is legit, hedonistic consumption of meat is legit but god forbid you stick your dick in it without harming it?
I just don't buy that.
Well I guess we could discuss this topic for ages, none of us will change his opinion on that.
Like I said, you are right on paper, but IMHO on things like this you have to make rules based on feelings. And I have to agree with sweden in this case, this is wrong and should not be tollerated (even if it's not on paper).
It's why I hope you/others making the same argument never have any responsibility. It's been gone over again and again how dangerous it is to make rules based on 'feelings' and disregarding logic you admit yourself exists. Ick.
If you'd make all laws based on logic, you could also legalize things like necrophilia. Go ahead, unborrow all the corpses and have sex with them, because hey, no one will be harmed.
Sometimes it's not that bad if you put a touch of humanity in the law.
Oh and I think i handle my responsibilities pretty good. I'm not a robot who creates rules for everything, i make most of my decisions based on my gut feeling, and i was never terribly wrong.
Necrophilia is a stupid law on the basis of people thinking "yucky", however it becomes more legit when you remember that most dead people had family and friends that care for them, and I imagine a father hearing his 8 yo daughter that died from cancer 2 months ago have been dug up and fucked would be harmful, and the emotional stress for the mother is harmful and close friends, or the ex boyfriend of that sweet 21 yo girl that died in a car accident etcetcetc.
Point being that dead people usually have someone caring for them, while you can get an animal that noone cares for. On that same point I would consider it wrong to take someone elses dog and have sex with it without their say.
And just because your gut feeling has a lot of logical touch to it, does not give everyone a gut feeling full of sensible choices, plenty of people that completely lack what most considers common sense.
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.
It's quite good for the wallet. Yes, that's egoistic, but i guess that's how we humans are. Do you eat meat and eggs? If yes, would you be ready to pay ALOT more for those things if the animals lived a life like they're "supposed" to?
So greed is legit, hedonistic consumption of meat is legit but god forbid you stick your dick in it without harming it?
I just don't buy that.
Well I guess we could discuss this topic for ages, none of us will change his opinion on that.
Like I said, you are right on paper, but IMHO on things like this you have to make rules based on feelings. And I have to agree with sweden in this case, this is wrong and should not be tollerated (even if it's not on paper).
It's why I hope you/others making the same argument never have any responsibility. It's been gone over again and again how dangerous it is to make rules based on 'feelings' and disregarding logic you admit yourself exists. Ick.
If you'd make all laws based on logic, you could also legalize things like necrophilia. Go ahead, unborrow all the corpses and have sex with them, because hey, no one will be harmed.
Sometimes it's not that bad if you put a touch of humanity in the law.
Oh and I think i handle my responsibilities pretty good. I'm not a robot who creates rules for everything, i make most of my decisions based on my gut feeling, and i was never terribly wrong.
You're justifying your argument with "digging up rotting corpses is logical"? Ok dear.
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.
Would you really call that natural tho?
If we're not calling what animals do to other animals without human interference natural then what are we calling it?
Unnatural.
Does chimpanzee fucking a frog really make inerspecies sex natural?
Pretty much by definition, yes, yes it does.
I think you are taking that term to literally.
EDIT: If we agree that everything that happens in nature is natural than i agree with you. But why do we then even distinct those two terms, natural/unnatural? What would you say is unnatural then?
The atomic bomb, selective breeding, cities etc.
But hey, humans are part of nature too. How can we do anything that is unnatural?
You see my point here? You obviously CAN take the term too literally.
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.
It's quite good for the wallet. Yes, that's egoistic, but i guess that's how we humans are. Do you eat meat and eggs? If yes, would you be ready to pay ALOT more for those things if the animals lived a life like they're "supposed" to?
So greed is legit, hedonistic consumption of meat is legit but god forbid you stick your dick in it without harming it?
I just don't buy that.
Well I guess we could discuss this topic for ages, none of us will change his opinion on that.
Like I said, you are right on paper, but IMHO on things like this you have to make rules based on feelings. And I have to agree with sweden in this case, this is wrong and should not be tollerated (even if it's not on paper).
It's why I hope you/others making the same argument never have any responsibility. It's been gone over again and again how dangerous it is to make rules based on 'feelings' and disregarding logic you admit yourself exists. Ick.
If you'd make all laws based on logic, you could also legalize things like necrophilia. Go ahead, unborrow all the corpses and have sex with them, because hey, no one will be harmed.
Sometimes it's not that bad if you put a touch of humanity in the law.
Oh and I think i handle my responsibilities pretty good. I'm not a robot who creates rules for everything, i make most of my decisions based on my gut feeling, and i was never terribly wrong.
Mh wouldn't you be hurt if someone unburried your beloved grandma to fuck her eyesocket ?
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.
Would you really call that natural tho?
If we're not calling what animals do to other animals without human interference natural then what are we calling it?
Unnatural.
Does chimpanzee fucking a frog really make inerspecies sex natural?
Pretty much by definition, yes, yes it does.
I think you are taking that term to literally.
EDIT: If we agree that everything that happens in nature is natural than i agree with you. But why do we then even distinct those two terms, natural/unnatural? What would you say is unnatural then?
The atomic bomb, selective breeding, cities etc.
But hey, humans are part of nature too. How can we do anything that is unnatural?
You see my point here? You obviously CAN take the term too literally.
Here's dictionary.com for you.
Nature:
1. the material world, especially as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities.
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.
Would you really call that natural tho?
If we're not calling what animals do to other animals without human interference natural then what are we calling it?
Unnatural.
Does chimpanzee fucking a frog really make inerspecies sex natural?
Pretty much by definition, yes, yes it does.
I think you are taking that term to literally.
EDIT: If we agree that everything that happens in nature is natural than i agree with you. But why do we then even distinct those two terms, natural/unnatural? What would you say is unnatural then?
The atomic bomb, selective breeding, cities etc.
But hey, humans are part of nature too. How can we do anything that is unnatural?
You see my point here? You obviously CAN take the term too literally.
Actually no, the term natural indicates everything that happens outside of human interferance.
edit: should have read last comment before I posted.
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.
Would you really call that natural tho?
If we're not calling what animals do to other animals without human interference natural then what are we calling it?
Unnatural.
Does chimpanzee fucking a frog really make inerspecies sex natural?
Pretty much by definition, yes, yes it does.
I think you are taking that term to literally.
EDIT: If we agree that everything that happens in nature is natural than i agree with you. But why do we then even distinct those two terms, natural/unnatural? What would you say is unnatural then?
The argumentum ad naturam is an old fallacy. The concept of nature is vague and even if people could agree on something being natural, what should follow from it? Nothing.
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.
It's quite good for the wallet. Yes, that's egoistic, but i guess that's how we humans are. Do you eat meat and eggs? If yes, would you be ready to pay ALOT more for those things if the animals lived a life like they're "supposed" to?
So greed is legit, hedonistic consumption of meat is legit but god forbid you stick your dick in it without harming it?
I just don't buy that.
Well I guess we could discuss this topic for ages, none of us will change his opinion on that.
Like I said, you are right on paper, but IMHO on things like this you have to make rules based on feelings. And I have to agree with sweden in this case, this is wrong and should not be tollerated (even if it's not on paper).
It's why I hope you/others making the same argument never have any responsibility. It's been gone over again and again how dangerous it is to make rules based on 'feelings' and disregarding logic you admit yourself exists. Ick.
If you'd make all laws based on logic, you could also legalize things like necrophilia. Go ahead, unborrow all the corpses and have sex with them, because hey, no one will be harmed.
Sometimes it's not that bad if you put a touch of humanity in the law.
Oh and I think i handle my responsibilities pretty good. I'm not a robot who creates rules for everything, i make most of my decisions based on my gut feeling, and i was never terribly wrong.
You're justifying your argument with "digging up rotting corpses is logical"? Ok dear.
That was just an extreme example. You're saying the animal is not harmed when you fuck it. Neither is a rotting corpse.
Some people like fucking animals, some people like fucking rotten corpses. Isn't that the same case, in a weird way?
Again, this is just an extreme example. Ofc friends and families are harmed when this happens.
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.
Would you really call that natural tho?
If we're not calling what animals do to other animals without human interference natural then what are we calling it?
Unnatural.
Does chimpanzee fucking a frog really make inerspecies sex natural?
Pretty much by definition, yes, yes it does.
I think you are taking that term to literally.
EDIT: If we agree that everything that happens in nature is natural than i agree with you. But why do we then even distinct those two terms, natural/unnatural? What would you say is unnatural then?
The atomic bomb, selective breeding, cities etc.
But hey, humans are part of nature too. How can we do anything that is unnatural?
You see my point here? You obviously CAN take the term too literally.
Here's dictionary.com for you.
Nature:
1. the material world, especially as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities.
existing independently of human activities.
We done here?
Really?
Nature?
Why didnt you google natural? You are obviously trying hard to make me look stupid for no particular reason.
nat·u·ral (nchr-l, nchrl) adj. 1. Present in or produced by nature:
Look I know what you are saying, im not an idiot. My point is: if you make thing too relative, they lose meaning and arguing about them is nonsensical. We are arguing semantics.
EDIT: we arent arguing semantics but its silly nontheless
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.
Would you really call that natural tho?
If we're not calling what animals do to other animals without human interference natural then what are we calling it?
Unnatural.
Does chimpanzee fucking a frog really make inerspecies sex natural?
Pretty much by definition, yes, yes it does.
I think you are taking that term to literally.
EDIT: If we agree that everything that happens in nature is natural than i agree with you. But why do we then even distinct those two terms, natural/unnatural? What would you say is unnatural then?
The atomic bomb, selective breeding, cities etc.
But hey, humans are part of nature too. How can we do anything that is unnatural?
You see my point here? You obviously CAN take the term too literally.
Exactly, humans are a part of nature and as such human behaviour is natural. Hence following your own statement, a human being having sex with an animal is natural. Such people, as an unaltered naturally appearing member of our race, have the urge to commit such acts. What can possibly be unnatural about that? I mean the fact that it appears to be evolutionairy or biologically retarded hardly makes it unnatural to me.
What is unnatural in my opinion is the interfering in natural processses with created means not inherent to a species. Such as genetic manipulation. Tools are an unnatural phenomenon as well as they do not naturally occur and require labour to create. This does not make the use of tools unnatural however as this is exibited as self occurring behaviour by several species without interferance.
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.
Would you really call that natural tho?
If we're not calling what animals do to other animals without human interference natural then what are we calling it?
Unnatural.
Does chimpanzee fucking a frog really make inerspecies sex natural?
Pretty much by definition, yes, yes it does.
I think you are taking that term to literally.
EDIT: If we agree that everything that happens in nature is natural than i agree with you. But why do we then even distinct those two terms, natural/unnatural? What would you say is unnatural then?
The atomic bomb, selective breeding, cities etc.
But hey, humans are part of nature too. How can we do anything that is unnatural?
You see my point here? You obviously CAN take the term too literally.
Exactly, humans are a part of nature and as such human behaviour is natural. Hence following your own statement, a human being having sex with an animal is natural. Such people, as an unaltered naturally appearing member of our race, have the urge to commit such acts. What can possibly be unnatural about that? I mean the fact that it appears to be evolutionairy or biologically retarded hardly makes it unnatural to me.
What is unnatural in my opinion is the interfering in natural processses with created means not inherent to a species. Such as genetic manipulation. Tools are an unnatural phenomenon as well as they do not naturally occur and require labour to create. This does not make the use of tools unnatural however as this is exibited as self occurring behaviour by several species without interferance.
Ok. I have clearly dug a hole for my self when i used the word natural.
If I had known a word that I could use to describe "evolutionairy or biologically retarded" I would have used that instead.
Bottom line of why I think bestiallity is wrong is it being sodomic and unmoral. And I really dont want to come into argument about what and when is something being sodomic cos there is obviously not a clear definition on that.
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.
Would you really call that natural tho?
If we're not calling what animals do to other animals without human interference natural then what are we calling it?
Unnatural.
Does chimpanzee fucking a frog really make inerspecies sex natural?
Pretty much by definition, yes, yes it does.
I think you are taking that term to literally.
EDIT: If we agree that everything that happens in nature is natural than i agree with you. But why do we then even distinct those two terms, natural/unnatural? What would you say is unnatural then?
The atomic bomb, selective breeding, cities etc.
But hey, humans are part of nature too. How can we do anything that is unnatural?
You see my point here? You obviously CAN take the term too literally.
Exactly, humans are a part of nature and as such human behaviour is natural. Hence following your own statement, a human being having sex with an animal is natural. Such people, as an unaltered naturally appearing member of our race, have the urge to commit such acts. What can possibly be unnatural about that? I mean the fact that it appears to be evolutionairy or biologically retarded hardly makes it unnatural to me.
What is unnatural in my opinion is the interfering in natural processses with created means not inherent to a species. Such as genetic manipulation. Tools are an unnatural phenomenon as well as they do not naturally occur and require labour to create. This does not make the use of tools unnatural however as this is exibited as self occurring behaviour by several species without interferance.
Ok. I have clearly dug a hole for my self when i used the word natural.
If I had known a word that I could use to describe "evolutionairy or biologically retarded" I would have used that instead.
Bottom line of why I think bestiallity is wrong is it being sodomic and unmoral. And I really dont want to come into argument about what and when is something being sodomic cos there is obviously not a clear definition on that.
Sodomic is merely a description and you've not really made an argument for why it's immoral...
If we're not calling what animals do to other animals without human interference natural then what are we calling it?
Unnatural.
Does chimpanzee fucking a frog really make inerspecies sex natural?
Pretty much by definition, yes, yes it does.
I think you are taking that term to literally.
EDIT: If we agree that everything that happens in nature is natural than i agree with you. But why do we then even distinct those two terms, natural/unnatural? What would you say is unnatural then?
The atomic bomb, selective breeding, cities etc.
But hey, humans are part of nature too. How can we do anything that is unnatural?
You see my point here? You obviously CAN take the term too literally.
Exactly, humans are a part of nature and as such human behaviour is natural. Hence following your own statement, a human being having sex with an animal is natural. Such people, as an unaltered naturally appearing member of our race, have the urge to commit such acts. What can possibly be unnatural about that? I mean the fact that it appears to be evolutionairy or biologically retarded hardly makes it unnatural to me.
What is unnatural in my opinion is the interfering in natural processses with created means not inherent to a species. Such as genetic manipulation. Tools are an unnatural phenomenon as well as they do not naturally occur and require labour to create. This does not make the use of tools unnatural however as this is exibited as self occurring behaviour by several species without interferance.
Ok. I have clearly dug a hole for my self when i used the word natural.
If I had known a word that I could use to describe "evolutionairy or biologically retarded" I would have used that instead.
Bottom line of why I think bestiallity is wrong is it being sodomic and unmoral. And I really dont want to come into argument about what and when is something being sodomic cos there is obviously not a clear definition on that.
Sodomic is merely a description and you've not really made an argument for why it's immoral...
I have not made that argument and I will not. Ive just expressed my own feelings about the issue and my own views of what immoral or not. I wasnt about to declare it universally immoral
On June 17 2013 17:57 KwarK wrote: [quote] If we're not calling what animals do to other animals without human interference natural then what are we calling it?
Unnatural.
Does chimpanzee fucking a frog really make inerspecies sex natural?
Pretty much by definition, yes, yes it does.
I think you are taking that term to literally.
EDIT: If we agree that everything that happens in nature is natural than i agree with you. But why do we then even distinct those two terms, natural/unnatural? What would you say is unnatural then?
The atomic bomb, selective breeding, cities etc.
But hey, humans are part of nature too. How can we do anything that is unnatural?
You see my point here? You obviously CAN take the term too literally.
Exactly, humans are a part of nature and as such human behaviour is natural. Hence following your own statement, a human being having sex with an animal is natural. Such people, as an unaltered naturally appearing member of our race, have the urge to commit such acts. What can possibly be unnatural about that? I mean the fact that it appears to be evolutionairy or biologically retarded hardly makes it unnatural to me.
What is unnatural in my opinion is the interfering in natural processses with created means not inherent to a species. Such as genetic manipulation. Tools are an unnatural phenomenon as well as they do not naturally occur and require labour to create. This does not make the use of tools unnatural however as this is exibited as self occurring behaviour by several species without interferance.
Ok. I have clearly dug a hole for my self when i used the word natural.
If I had known a word that I could use to describe "evolutionairy or biologically retarded" I would have used that instead.
Bottom line of why I think bestiallity is wrong is it being sodomic and unmoral. And I really dont want to come into argument about what and when is something being sodomic cos there is obviously not a clear definition on that.
Sodomic is merely a description and you've not really made an argument for why it's immoral...
I have not made that argument and I will not. Ive just expressed my own feelings about the issue and my own views of what immoral or not. I wasnt about to declare it universally immoral
On June 17 2013 19:36 Nyovne wrote: And this is where it gets petty. Lets not.
I don't even have particularly strong viewpoints on the topic, but the whole thread is rife with people going "this is OBVIOUSLY wrong, this is immoral, do I even need to EXPLAIN why", but none of them really can explain why it's any of these things.
At least man up and just say that you find it disgusting, and that's pretty much the only basis that you want it to be illegal (i'm using a general 'you' here).
Meh, i hate saying this, but I guess you (mostly marvellosity and KwarK) are right. It is (imo) fucked up and disgusting, but that should not be the foundation of a law. I got it now, finally.
On June 17 2013 20:09 syno wrote: Meh, i hate saying this, but I guess you (mostly marvellosity and KwarK) are right. It is (imo) fucked up and disgusting, but that should not be the foundation of a law. I got it now, finally.
come on, that nature/natural shit is not even the issue. evolution was always forced upon nature. evolution was always forced upon people. from an evolutionary perspective, freedom never existed. laws don't change happenings, they only punish them or hide them. being legal to fuck a dog or being illegal to fuck a dog is inconsequential to the dude in his house/barn doing his dog. he doesn't care. he will fuck it, with or without the law. HE IS FREE.
- will this law help making bestiality less mainstream/more taboo?, ofc - will this law help sexually confused people through their sexually challenging years?, ofc i'll take those over freedom any day.
On June 17 2013 20:11 xM(Z wrote: come on, that nature/natural shit is not even the issue. evolution was always forced upon nature. evolution was always forced upon people. from an evolutionary perspective, freedom never existed. laws don't change happenings, they only punish them or hide them. being legal to fuck a dog or being illegal to fuck a dog is inconsequential to the dude in his house/barn doing his dog. he doesn't care. he will fuck it, with or without the law. HE IS FREE.
- will this law help making bestiality less mainstream/more taboo?, ofc - will this law help sexually confused people through their sexually challenging years?, ofc i'll take those over freedom any day.
Bestiality is already extremely taboo (just read this thread...) and couldn't be further from mainstream. I'm also struggling massively to see how this will help sexually confused people. Do you have any basis for saying any of these things, especially with "ofc"?
edit: I somehow think I'm being trolled, re-reading the "I'll take these over freedom any day". Huh :/
On June 17 2013 20:09 syno wrote: Meh, i hate saying this, but I guess you (mostly marvellosity and KwarK) are right. It is (imo) fucked up and disgusting, but that should not be the foundation of a law. I got it now, finally.
O.o The rare sight in nature (^_^) of the species known as "human" altering their viewpoint after vigorous discourse.
edit: I'm also not going to be sticking my junk in any animal in my lifetime, just so we're clear ;p
On June 17 2013 20:11 xM(Z wrote: come on, that nature/natural shit is not even the issue. evolution was always forced upon nature. evolution was always forced upon people. from an evolutionary perspective, freedom never existed. laws don't change happenings, they only punish them or hide them. being legal to fuck a dog or being illegal to fuck a dog is inconsequential to the dude in his house/barn doing his dog. he doesn't care. he will fuck it, with or without the law. HE IS FREE.
- will this law help making bestiality less mainstream/more taboo?, ofc - will this law help sexually confused people through their sexually challenging years?, ofc i'll take those over freedom any day.
Bestiality is already extremely taboo (just read this thread...) and couldn't be further from mainstream. I'm also struggling massively to see how this will help sexually confused people. Do you have any basis for saying any of these things, especially with "ofc"?
edit: I somehow think I'm being trolled, re-reading the "I'll take these over freedom any day". Huh :/
there is no trolling. ppl in this thread said that teenagers were paying farmers to let them fuck their donkeys or w/e and it's not like they were all zoophiles or into bestiality. they did it because they didn't give a fuck and the social context allowed them to do it.
you don't just give freedom to a 5yr old. at best, it's safe to assume that he doesn't know what to do with it.
I have to admit something. When I first read this thread, I was sure the argument would be drawn mainly between the ethical line, namely on the primacy of human need (which is also the justification for meat eating). How surprised am I that the topic is more massive and more colorful than I had known. I have never encountered something whose breadth and depth was more complicated that I initially thought. And to encounter something like this in a gaming site is a bonus. Thank you to those who thoughtfully contributed and argued on this thread.
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.
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.
On June 17 2013 19:36 Nyovne wrote: And this is where it gets petty. Lets not.
At least man up and just say that you find it disgusting, and that's pretty much the only basis that you want it to be illegal (i'm using a general 'you' here).
Well that is my point. I find it disgusting, unmoral, unnatural, disturbing and sodomic and that is the only reason why I agree it should be illegal. I wasnt even hiding that.
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.
Agreed with the first part, not so much with the second. What we can't see is an alternative that would let us have that much meat as readily available all the time. I'd go on with this but it's off topic, so yeah... Edit : or could just shut up and let Kwark speak. He does that way better than me.
The poll is really... odd. Is it actually accurate? I have a few more questions if you don't mind. Can you please be honest in answering them? Can they also be added to the OP? For the second poll [Reasons for (possibly) having sex with animals], could you please specify the details in your post, like in what country if it is tradition,
Poll: Having sex with animals
I have never had and will never do it (50)
72%
I have done it and I see no problem doing it again (12)
17%
I have never done it but I might/will (6)
9%
I have done it but I will not do it again (1)
1%
69 total votes
Your vote: Having sex with animals
(Vote): I have never had and will never do it (Vote): I have never done it but I might/will (Vote): I have done it but I will not do it again (Vote): I have done it and I see no problem doing it again
Poll: Reasons for (possibly) having sex with animals
I (may) have a thing for animals (11)
42%
Curiosity (5)
19%
No chance to do it with humans (2) (5)
19%
I was forced into doing it (losing a bet, etc.) (4)
15%
Tradition / local practice / belief (1)
4%
Other reasons (please specify) (0)
0%
26 total votes
Your vote: Reasons for (possibly) having sex with animals
(Vote): Curiosity (Vote): Tradition / local practice / belief (Vote): I was forced into doing it (losing a bet, etc.) (Vote): No chance to do it with humans (2) (Vote): I (may) have a thing for animals (Vote): Other reasons (please specify)
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.
What about banning animal murders ? Meat industry seems much more cruel to me (and I am pretty sure it affect 10000% more animals) that having sex with an animal ....
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.
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.
This may be true for England, but is it true for the rest of the world? Also, it would be wise for you to provide some sources for your claims.
On June 17 2013 20:09 syno wrote: Meh, i hate saying this, but I guess you (mostly marvellosity and KwarK) are right. It is (imo) fucked up and disgusting, but that should not be the foundation of a law. I got it now, finally.
Agreed.
Oh please... All of morality and by extension all of law are built upon human emotions.
I'm getting sick of people talking about "logic" in this thread. Logic is nothing. Logic is simply how you rationalize the emotions you already have.
I could come up with a hundred reasons to kill off hundreds of people from a purely pragmatic point of view, which is what most people mean when they say "logic." And yet no one would support it, because it is emotionally repugnant, pure and simple. Humans are feeling creatures, that's how we understand and relate to existence. That's how we decide actions, come up with principles, judge others, decide laws, vote, everything.
On June 17 2013 20:09 syno wrote: Meh, i hate saying this, but I guess you (mostly marvellosity and KwarK) are right. It is (imo) fucked up and disgusting, but that should not be the foundation of a law. I got it now, finally.
Agreed.
Oh please... All of morality and by extension all of law are built upon human emotions.
I'm getting sick of people talking about "logic" in this thread. Logic is nothing. Logic is simply how you rationalize the emotions you already have.
I could come up with a hundred reasons to kill off hundreds of people from a purely pragmatic point of view, which is what most people mean when they say "logic." And yet no one would support it, because it is emotionally repugnant, pure and simple. Humans are feeling creatures, that's how we understand and relate to existence. That's how we decide actions, come up with principles, judge others, decide laws, vote, everything.
It's because most people who are using the 'logic' type argument are also coming from the grounding of not harming other individuals.
While obviously the thought of murdering someone horrifies me, other than that it's illegal because society and civilisation would collapse if everyone murdered, raped, burgled, defrauded, assaulted each other.
I'm not sure the same can be said of being bummed by your dog in the living room when no-one else would ever find out about it
On June 17 2013 20:09 syno wrote: Meh, i hate saying this, but I guess you (mostly marvellosity and KwarK) are right. It is (imo) fucked up and disgusting, but that should not be the foundation of a law. I got it now, finally.
Agreed.
Oh please... All of morality and by extension all of law are built upon human emotions.
I'm getting sick of people talking about "logic" in this thread. Logic is nothing. Logic is simply how you rationalize the emotions you already have.
I could come up with a hundred reasons to kill off hundreds of people from a purely pragmatic point of view, which is what most people mean when they say "logic." And yet no one would support it, because it is emotionally repugnant, pure and simple. Humans are feeling creatures, that's how we understand and relate to existence. That's how we decide actions, come up with principles, judge others, decide laws, vote, everything.
Um, I don't get how you concluded that logic is useless, especially when creating laws. Logic is arguably the most important thing for humans to fall back on when trying to create a better society. Will there always be emotion involved in our decisions? Sure. People generally can't remain entirely detached and objective when thinking about issues that affect them. But the way to make the right decisions more often than not is the approach the issue logically, and as I said earlier, by using evidence appropriately to support your hypothesis.
I often run into people who try to argue that logic is somehow a bad/useless thing, and it baffles me (this includes my mom lol). There is such a thing as a person who becomes overconfident in their own 'logic,' but that's their fault, not logic's.
Usually, apparent failings of logic are actually failing to apply logic correctly.
On June 17 2013 20:09 syno wrote: Meh, i hate saying this, but I guess you (mostly marvellosity and KwarK) are right. It is (imo) fucked up and disgusting, but that should not be the foundation of a law. I got it now, finally.
Agreed.
Oh please... All of morality and by extension all of law are built upon human emotions.
I'm getting sick of people talking about "logic" in this thread. Logic is nothing. Logic is simply how you rationalize the emotions you already have.
I could come up with a hundred reasons to kill off hundreds of people from a purely pragmatic point of view, which is what most people mean when they say "logic." And yet no one would support it, because it is emotionally repugnant, pure and simple. Humans are feeling creatures, that's how we understand and relate to existence. That's how we decide actions, come up with principles, judge others, decide laws, vote, everything.
Logic works under a premise. You can't argue over which premise to choose with logic. However, once a premise is chosen (e.g.: freedom must be protected, animals shouldn't be harmed, ... , whatever you want), logic can be used to argue, and if 2 people reach different conclusions under the same premise, one of them is obviously wrong.
By the way, to have the same premise, the people who argue should at least use the same definition for the words they use.
On June 17 2013 20:09 syno wrote: Meh, i hate saying this, but I guess you (mostly marvellosity and KwarK) are right. It is (imo) fucked up and disgusting, but that should not be the foundation of a law. I got it now, finally.
Agreed.
Oh please... All of morality and by extension all of law are built upon human emotions.
I'm getting sick of people talking about "logic" in this thread. Logic is nothing. Logic is simply how you rationalize the emotions you already have.
I could come up with a hundred reasons to kill off hundreds of people from a purely pragmatic point of view, which is what most people mean when they say "logic." And yet no one would support it, because it is emotionally repugnant, pure and simple. Humans are feeling creatures, that's how we understand and relate to existence. That's how we decide actions, come up with principles, judge others, decide laws, vote, everything.
Um, I don't get how you concluded that logic is useless, especially when creating laws. Logic is arguably the most important thing for humans to fall back on when trying to create a better society. Will there always be emotion involved in our decisions? Sure. People generally can't remain entirely detached and objective when thinking about issues that affect them. But the way to make the right decisions more often than not is the approach the issue logically, and as I said earlier, by using evidence appropriately to support your hypothesis.
I often run into people who try to argue that logic is somehow a bad/useless thing, and it baffles me (this includes my mom lol). There is such a thing as a person who becomes overconfident in their own 'logic,' but that's their fault, not logic's.
Usually, apparent failings of logic are actually failing to apply logic correctly.
Our course isn't decided by logic. It can't be decided by logic, actually. Logic is not normative. We must decide what we want emotionally, first. You can apply logic to decide on the best way to achieve your goals, but it is asinine for anyone to say that "our laws should not be based on emotion."
I agree that people often misuse the term "logic", which actually describes a rigorous methology of deriving conclusions from base assumptions.
What i don't agree with is that laws should be based on emotions. It is very much possible to argue morality in a rational way. If you don't agree with this, then there is basically no point to any discussion. If you can't argue something rationally, you can just shout at each other for infinite amounts of time without any result because any point of view is equally valid in that situation.
Rational discussion allows one position to be superior to another, since a rational argument can actually be shown to be invalid, whereas an emotional one can not.
Of course you still always need some basic assumptions, but it is a lot easier to agree on base assumptions like "hurting people is bad", and then derive a rational conclusion from that than it is to agree on a complete system of morality. This also allows judging parts of a morality system individually.
I would prefer to masturbate then to fuck a animal!
I'm a animal person but i eat meat and fish, maybe someday i can leave the meat eating to others.. but right now i don't have that kind of will power..
But fucking animals is just gross, barbaric and stupid.. it's just fucking a hole.. to fuck a hole i rather fuck a toy hole(pussy) or a plastic girl then a fucking donkey ass.. OMG!
It is very much possible to argue morality in a rational way.
No, it is absolutely not possible.
I can't speak for you but I find morality to be very logical. I feel like this divide is similar to a religious / not religious divide, meaning we can't make any progress on it in this thread.
Yes, it is. You agree on some basic assumptions, like "hurting people is bad", "People should be allowed to do what they like unless it conflicts with the first assumption", or whatever set you can agree on. From there on, you can very much argue rationally.
Of course you need to take that step of agreeing on assumptions, but that should be surprisingly easy. And now you have a fixpoint which allows you to argue rationally.
It is very much possible to argue morality in a rational way.
No, it is absolutely not possible.
I can't speak for you but I find morality to be very logical. I feel like this divide is similar to a religious / not religious divide, meaning we can't make any progress on it in this thread.
Morality comes from evolved emotions, particularly empathy. I feel this to be so self-evident that if you deny it, you are correct that no progress could be made.
It is very much possible to argue morality in a rational way.
No, it is absolutely not possible.
I can't speak for you but I find morality to be very logical. I feel like this divide is similar to a religious / not religious divide, meaning we can't make any progress on it in this thread.
Morality comes from evolved emotions, particularly empathy. I feel this to be so self-evident that if you deny it, you are correct that no progress could be made.
There is a great deal of logic behind actions that suggest empathy, even though empathy isn't purely logical.. Creating a society where we help each other may seem like we are giving in to our emotions, but at the same time it creates a society which is better for each of us, so it seems rather logical to me.
On June 18 2013 00:48 Simberto wrote: Yes, it is. You agree on some basic assumptions, like "hurting people is bad", "People should be allowed to do what they like unless it conflicts with the first assumption", or whatever set you can agree on. From there on, you can very much argue rationally.
Of course you need to take that step of agreeing on assumptions, but that should be surprisingly easy. And now you have a fixpoint which allows you to argue rationally.
Sure. But then you have to admit that all of our assumptions are decided emotionally, and therefore that any conclusions we rationally reach are still based upon emotional assumptions, and are therefore fundamentally emotional decisions themselves.
It is very much possible to argue morality in a rational way.
No, it is absolutely not possible.
I can't speak for you but I find morality to be very logical. I feel like this divide is similar to a religious / not religious divide, meaning we can't make any progress on it in this thread.
Morality comes from evolved emotions, particularly empathy. I feel this to be so self-evident that if you deny it, you are correct that no progress could be made.
As far as I'm concerned, I want laws to be made to prevent me coming to harm (including any situation where I chose a different walk of life I could be subjected to harm). So I want my property safe, I want my body/person to be safe, I don't want to be defrauded, or whatever.
If someone's getting bummed by a dog then I don't care, because it doesn't cause any harm to me.
Similarly, it's why I think drugs should be decriminalised/legalised, because someone having a joint at home or popping a few pills while out clubbing isn't harmful in itself either. (of course, people can do bad things on drugs, but then you punish those actions, with suitable due given to their current state of mind/body)
There's nothing wrong with using emotion to help us set up our hypotheses, and then analyzing these hypotheses logically and objectively after having time to 'cool off.' This is a way to use logic to create better laws without having to ignore your emotions, which is basically impossible.
On June 18 2013 00:53 micronesia wrote: There's nothing wrong with using emotion to help us set up our hypotheses, and then analyzing these hypotheses logically and objectively after having time to 'cool off.' This is a way to use logic to create better laws without having to ignore your emotions, which is basically impossible.
I never said there was anything wrong with it. I just said people need to accept that all their morality and suggested laws are ultimately based on emotion. All the people arguing against emotional decisions in this and the abortion thread are making fools of themselves imo.
You are still succumbing to a fallacy, unfortunately. You think the "good" is an objective criteria, when it is also emotion. But whatever.
It is very much possible to argue morality in a rational way.
No, it is absolutely not possible.
I can't speak for you but I find morality to be very logical. I feel like this divide is similar to a religious / not religious divide, meaning we can't make any progress on it in this thread.
Morality comes from evolved emotions, particularly empathy. I feel this to be so self-evident that if you deny it, you are correct that no progress could be made.
As far as I'm concerned, I want laws to be made to prevent me coming to harm (including any situation where I chose a different walk of life I could be subjected to harm). So I want my property safe, I want my body/person to be safe, I don't want to be defrauded, or whatever.
If someone's getting bummed by a dog then I don't care, because it doesn't cause any harm to me.
Similarly, it's why I think drugs should be decriminalised/legalised, because someone having a joint at home or popping a few pills while out clubbing isn't harmful in itself either. (of course, people can do bad things on drugs, but then you punish those actions, with suitable due given to their current state of mind/body)
Well, most people care whether or not others are being killed or harmed, not just themselves.
It is very much possible to argue morality in a rational way.
No, it is absolutely not possible.
I can't speak for you but I find morality to be very logical. I feel like this divide is similar to a religious / not religious divide, meaning we can't make any progress on it in this thread.
Morality comes from evolved emotions, particularly empathy. I feel this to be so self-evident that if you deny it, you are correct that no progress could be made.
As far as I'm concerned, I want laws to be made to prevent me coming to harm (including any situation where I chose a different walk of life I could be subjected to harm). So I want my property safe, I want my body/person to be safe, I don't want to be defrauded, or whatever.
If someone's getting bummed by a dog then I don't care, because it doesn't cause any harm to me.
Similarly, it's why I think drugs should be decriminalised/legalised, because someone having a joint at home or popping a few pills while out clubbing isn't harmful in itself either. (of course, people can do bad things on drugs, but then you punish those actions, with suitable due given to their current state of mind/body)
Well, most people care whether or not others are being killed or harmed, not just themselves.
Eh... cmon man. If someone else is being killed legally, then I am at risk of being killed legally. Hence I support laws against killing.
edit: to take an obvious example, the US segregation/discrimination issue against Blacks in the 50s/60s... I would/do support full equality, because potentially I could be that human being and I wouldn't want to be discriminated against for the colour of my skin. I support full equality for sexuality/sex/creed whatever because I expect to be treated equally on the same basis.
It is very much possible to argue morality in a rational way.
No, it is absolutely not possible.
I can't speak for you but I find morality to be very logical. I feel like this divide is similar to a religious / not religious divide, meaning we can't make any progress on it in this thread.
Morality comes from evolved emotions, particularly empathy. I feel this to be so self-evident that if you deny it, you are correct that no progress could be made.
As far as I'm concerned, I want laws to be made to prevent me coming to harm (including any situation where I chose a different walk of life I could be subjected to harm). So I want my property safe, I want my body/person to be safe, I don't want to be defrauded, or whatever.
If someone's getting bummed by a dog then I don't care, because it doesn't cause any harm to me.
Similarly, it's why I think drugs should be decriminalised/legalised, because someone having a joint at home or popping a few pills while out clubbing isn't harmful in itself either. (of course, people can do bad things on drugs, but then you punish those actions, with suitable due given to their current state of mind/body)
Well, most people care whether or not others are being killed or harmed, not just themselves.
Eh... cmon man. If someone else is being killed legally, then I am at risk of being killed legally. Hence I support laws against killing.
Yeah but.... even if there was a law that guaranteed I would never be killed or harmed in any way but the people around me would, I'd oppose it on purely moral grounds. I wouldn't oppose it simply because I felt threatened. I think or at least hope that most people are this way.
It is very much possible to argue morality in a rational way.
No, it is absolutely not possible.
I can't speak for you but I find morality to be very logical. I feel like this divide is similar to a religious / not religious divide, meaning we can't make any progress on it in this thread.
Morality comes from evolved emotions, particularly empathy. I feel this to be so self-evident that if you deny it, you are correct that no progress could be made.
As far as I'm concerned, I want laws to be made to prevent me coming to harm (including any situation where I chose a different walk of life I could be subjected to harm). So I want my property safe, I want my body/person to be safe, I don't want to be defrauded, or whatever.
If someone's getting bummed by a dog then I don't care, because it doesn't cause any harm to me.
Similarly, it's why I think drugs should be decriminalised/legalised, because someone having a joint at home or popping a few pills while out clubbing isn't harmful in itself either. (of course, people can do bad things on drugs, but then you punish those actions, with suitable due given to their current state of mind/body)
Well, most people care whether or not others are being killed or harmed, not just themselves.
Eh... cmon man. If someone else is being killed legally, then I am at risk of being killed legally. Hence I support laws against killing.
Yeah but.... even if there was a law that guaranteed I would never be killed or harmed in any way but the people around me would, I'd oppose it on purely moral grounds. I wouldn't oppose it simply because I felt threatened. I think or at least hope that most people are this way.
you're just not understanding what i'm saying at all, lol
It is very much possible to argue morality in a rational way.
No, it is absolutely not possible.
I can't speak for you but I find morality to be very logical. I feel like this divide is similar to a religious / not religious divide, meaning we can't make any progress on it in this thread.
Morality comes from evolved emotions, particularly empathy. I feel this to be so self-evident that if you deny it, you are correct that no progress could be made.
As far as I'm concerned, I want laws to be made to prevent me coming to harm (including any situation where I chose a different walk of life I could be subjected to harm). So I want my property safe, I want my body/person to be safe, I don't want to be defrauded, or whatever.
If someone's getting bummed by a dog then I don't care, because it doesn't cause any harm to me.
Similarly, it's why I think drugs should be decriminalised/legalised, because someone having a joint at home or popping a few pills while out clubbing isn't harmful in itself either. (of course, people can do bad things on drugs, but then you punish those actions, with suitable due given to their current state of mind/body)
Well, most people care whether or not others are being killed or harmed, not just themselves.
Eh... cmon man. If someone else is being killed legally, then I am at risk of being killed legally. Hence I support laws against killing.
Yeah but.... even if there was a law that guaranteed I would never be killed or harmed in any way but the people around me would, I'd oppose it on purely moral grounds. I wouldn't oppose it simply because I felt threatened. I think or at least hope that most people are this way.
you're just not understanding what i'm saying at all, lol
I understand that you want to set self-preservation as the foundation for all morality. Unfortunately it won't work.
No, I want laws to be based on prevention of harm to others, because I am one of those others.
edit: that's awfully vague, because that sounds like I want states to interfere in shit, which I don't, I want the state to leave me the fuck alone as much as possible ^^
On June 18 2013 00:53 micronesia wrote: There's nothing wrong with using emotion to help us set up our hypotheses, and then analyzing these hypotheses logically and objectively after having time to 'cool off.' This is a way to use logic to create better laws without having to ignore your emotions, which is basically impossible.
I never said there was anything wrong with it. I just said people need to accept that all their morality and suggested laws are ultimately based on emotion.
This is too strong of a statement. To say that all morality and suggested laws are ultimately based on emotion is going too far. As I said, they can't be completely detached, either.
You are still succumbing to a fallacy, unfortunately. You think the "good" is an objective criteria, when it is also emotion. But whatever.
Who said anything about 'good'? We don't propose laws, and then say "is this law GOOD or BAD"? I believe you accused me of a fallacy with a strawman.
On June 18 2013 01:13 marvellosity wrote: No, I want laws to be based on prevention of harm to others, because I am one of those others.
I want laws to be based on prevention of harm to others, because I feel bad when others get harmed.
On June 18 2013 00:53 micronesia wrote: There's nothing wrong with using emotion to help us set up our hypotheses, and then analyzing these hypotheses logically and objectively after having time to 'cool off.' This is a way to use logic to create better laws without having to ignore your emotions, which is basically impossible.
When you say things like "better laws," you are implicitly making a normative judgment which is based on emotion. That is what I meant when I said "the good." People think they can judge morality based upon it's effects. They don't realize that judging those effects as either desirable or undesirable is itself morality and emotion.
On June 18 2013 00:53 micronesia wrote: There's nothing wrong with using emotion to help us set up our hypotheses, and then analyzing these hypotheses logically and objectively after having time to 'cool off.' This is a way to use logic to create better laws without having to ignore your emotions, which is basically impossible.
When you say things like "better laws," you are implicitly making a normative judgment which is based on emotion. That is what I meant when I said "the good." People think they can judge morality based upon it's effects. They don't realize that judging those effects as either desirable or undesirable is itself morality and emotion.
Better laws mean laws that accomplish our objectives. I already admitted our objectives are often proposed as part of a moral/emotional process. However, deciding which proposed objectives are best for the country/whatever is more an exercise in logic than anything else. That's not to say legislative bodies don't often throw logic out the window and have knee-jerk emotional reactions, unfortunately.
Laws often follow the evolution of morals within a society. Someone like Durkheim, one of the first french sociologue, considered law as a good way to approach social fact and study them. I see this law on bestiality as a desire coming from sweden to show that animal life is more important than what we used to believe, and thus that animals should be taken care of. It's a shifting that is happening right now all over Europe actually (and even over the world).
For exemple, in macroeconomic models on sustainable development, we used to only consider "consumption" as the important variable - and asking if there is a possibility of a sustainable development was basically asking if it is possible to keep consumption from going down despite using all our natural ressources. Now, new models add other variables such as the environment in itself, the biodiversity, considering that having animals alive is important for humanity happiness beyond what those natural ressources could give to humanity economically. We care for animals and they have value beyond their usage by humanity, and thus it is perfectly logic to vote law after law so that this fact is present within our own insitutions.
On June 18 2013 01:24 WhiteDog wrote: Laws often follow the evolution of morals within a society. Someone like Durkheim, one of the first french sociologue, considered law as a good way to approach social fact and study them. I see this law on bestiality as a desire coming from sweden to show that animal life is more important than what we used to believe, and thus that animals should be taken care of. It's a shifting that is happening right now all over Europe actually (and even over the world).
For exemple, in macroeconomic models on sustainable development, we used to only consider "consumption" as the important variable - and asking if there is a possibility of a sustainable development was basically asking if it is possible to keep consumption from going down despite using all our natural ressources. Now, new models add other variables such as the environment in itself, the biodiversity, considering that having animals alive is important for humanity happiness beyond what those natural ressources could give to humanity economically. We care for animals and they have value beyond their usage by humanity, and thus it is perfectly logic to vote law after law so that this fact is present within our own insitutions.
But what about the hypocrisy of wanting to treat animals better, but being legally okay with killing them?
So long as I stab the animal with a knife instead of a penis it's okay?
On June 18 2013 01:24 WhiteDog wrote: Laws often follow the evolution of morals within a society. Someone like Durkheim, one of the first french sociologue, considered law as a good way to approach social fact and study them. I see this law on bestiality as a desire coming from sweden to show that animal life is more important than what we used to believe, and thus that animals should be taken care of. It's a shifting that is happening right now all over Europe actually (and even over the world).
For exemple, in macroeconomic models on sustainable development, we used to only consider "consumption" as the important variable - and asking if there is a possibility of a sustainable development is asking if it is possible to keep consumption from going down despite using all our natural ressources. Now, new models add other variables such as the environment in itself, the biodiversity, considering that having animals alive is important for humanity happiness beyond what those natural ressources could give to humanity economically. We care for animals and they have value beyond their usage by humanity, and thus it is perfectly logic to vote law after law so that this fact is present within our own insitutions.
Good points. Although I would argue it is better to reduce our own reproduction than to try and make our excessive population sustainable. I wouldn't want to live in a world without steak anyway.
On June 18 2013 01:13 marvellosity wrote: No, I want laws to be based on prevention of harm to others, because I am one of those others.
I want laws to be based on prevention of harm to others, because I feel bad when others get harmed.
So why do you care if a dog bums a girl and no-one gets hurt?
I don't care. Never said I did.
haha ok so where do you stand on this law?
Harm is my criteria for banning anything. Harm to humans, in particular. With regard to animals, some harm is allowed, but unnecessary cruelty should be banned. Such things are of course vague and difficult to pin down, but I still have a general idea about what they mean to me personally.
In short, I oppose making this illegal, except in cases where beastiality is highly likely to cause harm to an animal. I'm not an expert on animal vaginas, fortunately.
On June 18 2013 01:13 marvellosity wrote: No, I want laws to be based on prevention of harm to others, because I am one of those others.
I want laws to be based on prevention of harm to others, because I feel bad when others get harmed.
So why do you care if a dog bums a girl and no-one gets hurt?
I don't care. Never said I did.
haha ok so where do you stand on this law?
Harm is my criteria for banning anything. Harm to humans, in particular. With regard to animals, some harm is allowed, but unnecessary cruelty should be banned. Such things are of course vague and difficult to pin down, but I still have a general idea about what they mean to me personally.
In short, I oppose making this illegal, except in cases where beastiality is highly likely to cause harm to an animal. I'm not an expert on animal vaginas, fortunately.
Fair dinkum, seems we mostly agree anyways, just a slightly different personal philosophy on lawmaking (which probably boils down to the same thing in the end as well)
On June 17 2013 20:09 syno wrote: Meh, i hate saying this, but I guess you (mostly marvellosity and KwarK) are right. It is (imo) fucked up and disgusting, but that should not be the foundation of a law. I got it now, finally.
Agreed.
Oh please... All of morality and by extension all of law are built upon human emotions.
I'm getting sick of people talking about "logic" in this thread. Logic is nothing. Logic is simply how you rationalize the emotions you already have.
I could come up with a hundred reasons to kill off hundreds of people from a purely pragmatic point of view, which is what most people mean when they say "logic." And yet no one would support it, because it is emotionally repugnant, pure and simple. Humans are feeling creatures, that's how we understand and relate to existence. That's how we decide actions, come up with principles, judge others, decide laws, vote, everything.
Um, I don't get how you concluded that logic is useless, especially when creating laws. Logic is arguably the most important thing for humans to fall back on when trying to create a better society. Will there always be emotion involved in our decisions? Sure. People generally can't remain entirely detached and objective when thinking about issues that affect them. But the way to make the right decisions more often than not is the approach the issue logically, and as I said earlier, by using evidence appropriately to support your hypothesis.
I often run into people who try to argue that logic is somehow a bad/useless thing, and it baffles me (this includes my mom lol). There is such a thing as a person who becomes overconfident in their own 'logic,' but that's their fault, not logic's.
Usually, apparent failings of logic are actually failing to apply logic correctly.
Our course isn't decided by logic. It can't be decided by logic, actually. Logic is not normative. We must decide what we want emotionally, first. You can apply logic to decide on the best way to achieve your goals, but it is asinine for anyone to say that "our laws should not be based on emotion."
Despite your username, you actually have a very good point, I say stronger than what Kwark and the others have so far. Also Veltro is raising very good points as well regarding logic working under a premise.
Just to summarize and refine your points, and I think this should end the debate, there is a simple and elegant solution to this whole "if we eat animals, why not fuck them" argument. Answer = culture. And on a lesser not, yes datcirclejerk, emotions.
In most human culture sex has been a greater taboo than murder. This is universal. There are harsh penalties in killing someone, but there are unspeakable penalties in having undesirable (adulterous, bestial, sodomous) sexual relationship. This is even reflected in myths, the most significant of which is found in the Genesis: "Eating of Apple" vs. Death of Abel. Moreover on the emotion vs. logic point, datcirclejerk I think understands it perfectly. Not everything can be argued in logical terms, that is, in terms of the logical formula that would process all the advantage/disadvantage scenario in every situation. If this is the case, we would be living in a world like I-Robot, where the robots have decided for us what is good and bad FOR US. I-Robot is actually conservative, the perfect expression of this "logical" state would be robot determining one's value according to his or her potential and actual contributions to society, and factoring it with other variables such as available resources, etc... I bet if this happens we can be sure majority of the population will be wiped out. We do not want this, at least this kind of perfect logic. Which is also the case with bestiality. It may be right or wrong or whatever, but humanity has simply decided until now that it is disgusting, regardless of the fact that we eat the very animals we profess to not harm by fucking. It does not follow. We as a human race simply decided so. There may be a few rebels here and there who want their cock in a dogs vagina or their pussy filled with horse cock, but they are the taboo, the unnatural.
On June 17 2013 20:09 syno wrote: Meh, i hate saying this, but I guess you (mostly marvellosity and KwarK) are right. It is (imo) fucked up and disgusting, but that should not be the foundation of a law. I got it now, finally.
Agreed.
Oh please... All of morality and by extension all of law are built upon human emotions.
I'm getting sick of people talking about "logic" in this thread. Logic is nothing. Logic is simply how you rationalize the emotions you already have.
I could come up with a hundred reasons to kill off hundreds of people from a purely pragmatic point of view, which is what most people mean when they say "logic." And yet no one would support it, because it is emotionally repugnant, pure and simple. Humans are feeling creatures, that's how we understand and relate to existence. That's how we decide actions, come up with principles, judge others, decide laws, vote, everything.
Um, I don't get how you concluded that logic is useless, especially when creating laws. Logic is arguably the most important thing for humans to fall back on when trying to create a better society. Will there always be emotion involved in our decisions? Sure. People generally can't remain entirely detached and objective when thinking about issues that affect them. But the way to make the right decisions more often than not is the approach the issue logically, and as I said earlier, by using evidence appropriately to support your hypothesis.
I often run into people who try to argue that logic is somehow a bad/useless thing, and it baffles me (this includes my mom lol). There is such a thing as a person who becomes overconfident in their own 'logic,' but that's their fault, not logic's.
Usually, apparent failings of logic are actually failing to apply logic correctly.
Our course isn't decided by logic. It can't be decided by logic, actually. Logic is not normative. We must decide what we want emotionally, first. You can apply logic to decide on the best way to achieve your goals, but it is asinine for anyone to say that "our laws should not be based on emotion."
Despite your username, you actually have a very good point, I say stronger than what Kwark and the others have so far. Also Veltro is raising very good points as well regarding logic working under a premise.
Just to summarize and refine your points, and I think this should end the debate, there is a simple and elegant solution to this whole "if we eat animals, why not fuck them" argument. Answer = culture. And on a lesser not, yes datcirclejerk, emotions.
In most human culture sex has been a greater taboo than murder. This is universal. There are harsh penalties in killing someone, but there are unspeakable penalties in having undesirable (adulterous, bestial, sodomous) sexual relationship. This is even reflected in myths, the most significant of which is found in the Genesis: "Eating of Apple" vs. Death of Abel. Moreover on the emotion vs. logic point, datcirclejerk I think understands it perfectly. Not everything can be argued in logical terms, that is, in terms of the logical formula that would process all the advantage/disadvantage scenario in every situation. If this is the case, we would be living in a world like I-Robot, where the robots have decided for us what is good and bad FOR US. I-Robot is actually conservative, the perfect expression of this "logical" state would be robot determining one's value according to his or her potential and actual contributions to society, and factoring it with other variables such as available resources, etc... I bet if this happens we can be sure majority of the population will be wiped out. We do not want this, at least this kind of perfect logic. Which is also the case with bestiality. It may be right or wrong or whatever, but humanity has simply decided until now that it is disgusting, regardless of the fact that we eat the very animals we profess to not harm by fucking. It does not follow. We as a human race simply decided so. There may be a few rebels here and there who want their cock in a dogs vagina or their pussy filled with horse cock, but they are the taboo, the unnatural.
On June 17 2013 20:09 syno wrote: Meh, i hate saying this, but I guess you (mostly marvellosity and KwarK) are right. It is (imo) fucked up and disgusting, but that should not be the foundation of a law. I got it now, finally.
Agreed.
Oh please... All of morality and by extension all of law are built upon human emotions.
I'm getting sick of people talking about "logic" in this thread. Logic is nothing. Logic is simply how you rationalize the emotions you already have.
I could come up with a hundred reasons to kill off hundreds of people from a purely pragmatic point of view, which is what most people mean when they say "logic." And yet no one would support it, because it is emotionally repugnant, pure and simple. Humans are feeling creatures, that's how we understand and relate to existence. That's how we decide actions, come up with principles, judge others, decide laws, vote, everything.
Um, I don't get how you concluded that logic is useless, especially when creating laws. Logic is arguably the most important thing for humans to fall back on when trying to create a better society. Will there always be emotion involved in our decisions? Sure. People generally can't remain entirely detached and objective when thinking about issues that affect them. But the way to make the right decisions more often than not is the approach the issue logically, and as I said earlier, by using evidence appropriately to support your hypothesis.
I often run into people who try to argue that logic is somehow a bad/useless thing, and it baffles me (this includes my mom lol). There is such a thing as a person who becomes overconfident in their own 'logic,' but that's their fault, not logic's.
Usually, apparent failings of logic are actually failing to apply logic correctly.
Our course isn't decided by logic. It can't be decided by logic, actually. Logic is not normative. We must decide what we want emotionally, first. You can apply logic to decide on the best way to achieve your goals, but it is asinine for anyone to say that "our laws should not be based on emotion."
Despite your username, you actually have a very good point, I say stronger than what Kwark and the others have so far. Also Veltro is raising very good points as well regarding logic working under a premise.
Just to summarize and refine your points, and I think this should end the debate, there is a simple and elegant solution to this whole "if we eat animals, why not fuck them" argument. Answer = culture. And on a lesser not, yes datcirclejerk, emotions.
In most human culture sex has been a greater taboo than murder. This is universal. There are harsh penalties in killing someone, but there are unspeakable penalties in having undesirable (adulterous, bestial, sodomous) sexual relationship. This is even reflected in myths, the most significant of which is found in the Genesis: "Eating of Apple" vs. Death of Abel. Moreover on the emotion vs. logic point, datcirclejerk I think understands it perfectly. Not everything can be argued in logical terms, that is, in terms of the logical formula that would process all the advantage/disadvantage scenario in every situation. If this is the case, we would be living in a world like I-Robot, where the robots have decided for us what is good and bad FOR US. I-Robot is actually conservative, the perfect expression of this "logical" state would be robot determining one's value according to his or her potential and actual contributions to society, and factoring it with other variables such as available resources, etc... I bet if this happens we can be sure majority of the population will be wiped out. We do not want this, at least this kind of perfect logic. Which is also the case with bestiality. It may be right or wrong or whatever, but humanity has simply decided until now that it is disgusting, regardless of the fact that we eat the very animals we profess to not harm by fucking. It does not follow. We as a human race simply decided so. There may be a few rebels here and there who want their cock in a dogs vagina or their pussy filled with horse cock, but they are the taboo, the unnatural.
So we just ban what society thinks is taboo?
Unless you have a good argument for not banning it, that's generally what societies do.
On June 17 2013 20:09 syno wrote: Meh, i hate saying this, but I guess you (mostly marvellosity and KwarK) are right. It is (imo) fucked up and disgusting, but that should not be the foundation of a law. I got it now, finally.
Agreed.
Oh please... All of morality and by extension all of law are built upon human emotions.
I'm getting sick of people talking about "logic" in this thread. Logic is nothing. Logic is simply how you rationalize the emotions you already have.
I could come up with a hundred reasons to kill off hundreds of people from a purely pragmatic point of view, which is what most people mean when they say "logic." And yet no one would support it, because it is emotionally repugnant, pure and simple. Humans are feeling creatures, that's how we understand and relate to existence. That's how we decide actions, come up with principles, judge others, decide laws, vote, everything.
Um, I don't get how you concluded that logic is useless, especially when creating laws. Logic is arguably the most important thing for humans to fall back on when trying to create a better society. Will there always be emotion involved in our decisions? Sure. People generally can't remain entirely detached and objective when thinking about issues that affect them. But the way to make the right decisions more often than not is the approach the issue logically, and as I said earlier, by using evidence appropriately to support your hypothesis.
I often run into people who try to argue that logic is somehow a bad/useless thing, and it baffles me (this includes my mom lol). There is such a thing as a person who becomes overconfident in their own 'logic,' but that's their fault, not logic's.
Usually, apparent failings of logic are actually failing to apply logic correctly.
Our course isn't decided by logic. It can't be decided by logic, actually. Logic is not normative. We must decide what we want emotionally, first. You can apply logic to decide on the best way to achieve your goals, but it is asinine for anyone to say that "our laws should not be based on emotion."
Despite your username, you actually have a very good point, I say stronger than what Kwark and the others have so far. Also Veltro is raising very good points as well regarding logic working under a premise.
Just to summarize and refine your points, and I think this should end the debate, there is a simple and elegant solution to this whole "if we eat animals, why not fuck them" argument. Answer = culture. And on a lesser not, yes datcirclejerk, emotions.
In most human culture sex has been a greater taboo than murder. This is universal. There are harsh penalties in killing someone, but there are unspeakable penalties in having undesirable (adulterous, bestial, sodomous) sexual relationship. This is even reflected in myths, the most significant of which is found in the Genesis: "Eating of Apple" vs. Death of Abel. Moreover on the emotion vs. logic point, datcirclejerk I think understands it perfectly. Not everything can be argued in logical terms, that is, in terms of the logical formula that would process all the advantage/disadvantage scenario in every situation. If this is the case, we would be living in a world like I-Robot, where the robots have decided for us what is good and bad FOR US. I-Robot is actually conservative, the perfect expression of this "logical" state would be robot determining one's value according to his or her potential and actual contributions to society, and factoring it with other variables such as available resources, etc... I bet if this happens we can be sure majority of the population will be wiped out. We do not want this, at least this kind of perfect logic. Which is also the case with bestiality. It may be right or wrong or whatever, but humanity has simply decided until now that it is disgusting, regardless of the fact that we eat the very animals we profess to not harm by fucking. It does not follow. We as a human race simply decided so. There may be a few rebels here and there who want their cock in a dogs vagina or their pussy filled with horse cock, but they are the taboo, the unnatural.
So we just ban what society thinks is taboo?
Unless you have a good argument for not banning it, that's generally what societies do.
yes, the very good argument is that if it's not hurting you, let people do what they like.
On June 18 2013 01:24 WhiteDog wrote: Laws often follow the evolution of morals within a society. Someone like Durkheim, one of the first french sociologue, considered law as a good way to approach social fact and study them. I see this law on bestiality as a desire coming from sweden to show that animal life is more important than what we used to believe, and thus that animals should be taken care of. It's a shifting that is happening right now all over Europe actually (and even over the world).
For exemple, in macroeconomic models on sustainable development, we used to only consider "consumption" as the important variable - and asking if there is a possibility of a sustainable development was basically asking if it is possible to keep consumption from going down despite using all our natural ressources. Now, new models add other variables such as the environment in itself, the biodiversity, considering that having animals alive is important for humanity happiness beyond what those natural ressources could give to humanity economically. We care for animals and they have value beyond their usage by humanity, and thus it is perfectly logic to vote law after law so that this fact is present within our own insitutions.
But what about the hypocrisy of wanting to treat animals better, but being legally okay with killing them?
So long as I stab the animal with a knife instead of a penis it's okay?
I'm not sure it's legal to willingly kill an animal in Sweden, nor in France. Aside for food of course.
Does bestiality causes some inherent damage to society?, no?, then it shouldn't be banned. Period.
Animal cruelty laws make sense because we've grown to care for animals and in some ways see them as part of our social construct. But as far as I can imagine having sex with animal doesn't necessarily hurts it. If it does, then that person should be punished for animal cruelty. But if the act of beastiality itself doesn't cause any damage so why should it be banned?, because some people find it morally wrong?
If that's the criteria for making a law then just about everything should be banned.
emotions are exteriorisations/theoretical manifestations of pre-existing biological-chemical-electrical mechanisms. animals have those mechanisms too but perhaps less(?) evolved.
On June 17 2013 17:42 Nyovne wrote: I've at the very least seen dogs, cats, rabits and a horse jump on and ride other creatures. Please explain this with it being unnatural.
Lol, ok, didn't know about that. But still, if you wanna compare rape between humans and animals 1 on 1, that's just silly. That's like saying lions are murders and they deserve to die, or atleast like 20 years in jail. And hyenas are robbers, they should be in jail aswell. Are ants that invade termite mounds and eat their children guilty of war crimes?
The difference is, we have a big brain, we are far more intelligent than any other animal. We don't just have to follow our instinct. We should know what's good and what's bad.
And our big brains have decided that industrialised food production, with all its animal abuse, is good.
Speak for yourself. Many of us are aware that it's not good to cause suffering on a massive scale. We just don't see an alternative that works on a large scale so we are stuck with it for now.
Do they not have vegetables in your country? Not only do we have an alternative to eating meat, it was in fact the default system used for most of the history of human civilisation due to the inferior energy efficiency of meat and the tendency for a population to grow until it has exhausted its food supply. Regular access to meat is a very, very modern luxury which has come about due to industrialised meat production. It's not that we lack an alternative, meat eating is not the default position, we embraced animal abuse in order to gain the luxury of meat.
Do they have manners in yours?
But yeah, it's a luxury and I could probably go without meat if I put some thought into it. So yes, I am putting my own convenience above the rights of the animals. But the fact that I (or a large majority of society) is doing it, doesn't make it automatically right.
I'm just amazed that you present regular meat eating, something which has for thousands of years been a luxury that only the elites were able to enjoy, as something without an alternative. It wasn't until the rationing of the second world war that meat became a part of the regular diet of people in England, this isn't a necessary thing with no reasonable alternative, this is a recent luxury we have embraced.
Eating meat was the default before eating vegetables was. We were a hunter gatherer society well before we were an agricultural society. Planting food was not the means of surviving for humanity and pre-humanity at all. Humans have eaten only meat for significantly longer than we have eaten only vegetables. While we can stomach both, humans have eaten meat as a necessity for much longer than we have as a luxury.
On June 17 2013 20:09 syno wrote: Meh, i hate saying this, but I guess you (mostly marvellosity and KwarK) are right. It is (imo) fucked up and disgusting, but that should not be the foundation of a law. I got it now, finally.
Agreed.
Oh please... All of morality and by extension all of law are built upon human emotions.
I'm getting sick of people talking about "logic" in this thread. Logic is nothing. Logic is simply how you rationalize the emotions you already have.
I could come up with a hundred reasons to kill off hundreds of people from a purely pragmatic point of view, which is what most people mean when they say "logic." And yet no one would support it, because it is emotionally repugnant, pure and simple. Humans are feeling creatures, that's how we understand and relate to existence. That's how we decide actions, come up with principles, judge others, decide laws, vote, everything.
Um, I don't get how you concluded that logic is useless, especially when creating laws. Logic is arguably the most important thing for humans to fall back on when trying to create a better society. Will there always be emotion involved in our decisions? Sure. People generally can't remain entirely detached and objective when thinking about issues that affect them. But the way to make the right decisions more often than not is the approach the issue logically, and as I said earlier, by using evidence appropriately to support your hypothesis.
I often run into people who try to argue that logic is somehow a bad/useless thing, and it baffles me (this includes my mom lol). There is such a thing as a person who becomes overconfident in their own 'logic,' but that's their fault, not logic's.
Usually, apparent failings of logic are actually failing to apply logic correctly.
Our course isn't decided by logic. It can't be decided by logic, actually. Logic is not normative. We must decide what we want emotionally, first. You can apply logic to decide on the best way to achieve your goals, but it is asinine for anyone to say that "our laws should not be based on emotion."
Despite your username, you actually have a very good point, I say stronger than what Kwark and the others have so far. Also Veltro is raising very good points as well regarding logic working under a premise.
Just to summarize and refine your points, and I think this should end the debate, there is a simple and elegant solution to this whole "if we eat animals, why not fuck them" argument. Answer = culture. And on a lesser not, yes datcirclejerk, emotions.
In most human culture sex has been a greater taboo than murder. This is universal. There are harsh penalties in killing someone, but there are unspeakable penalties in having undesirable (adulterous, bestial, sodomous) sexual relationship. This is even reflected in myths, the most significant of which is found in the Genesis: "Eating of Apple" vs. Death of Abel. Moreover on the emotion vs. logic point, datcirclejerk I think understands it perfectly. Not everything can be argued in logical terms, that is, in terms of the logical formula that would process all the advantage/disadvantage scenario in every situation. If this is the case, we would be living in a world like I-Robot, where the robots have decided for us what is good and bad FOR US. I-Robot is actually conservative, the perfect expression of this "logical" state would be robot determining one's value according to his or her potential and actual contributions to society, and factoring it with other variables such as available resources, etc... I bet if this happens we can be sure majority of the population will be wiped out. We do not want this, at least this kind of perfect logic. Which is also the case with bestiality. It may be right or wrong or whatever, but humanity has simply decided until now that it is disgusting, regardless of the fact that we eat the very animals we profess to not harm by fucking. It does not follow. We as a human race simply decided so. There may be a few rebels here and there who want their cock in a dogs vagina or their pussy filled with horse cock, but they are the taboo, the unnatural.
So we just ban what society thinks is taboo?
Unless you have a good argument for not banning it, that's generally what societies do.
yes, the very good argument is that if it's not hurting you, let people do what they like.
Well the argument is that they're hurting the animals and causing a small amount of emotional harm (disgust) across the rest of the population.
Docvoc, what does the "gatherer" part of hunter gatherer mean ? They ate meat if they were lucky enough to find/kill some, else it was vegetables, much easier to come accross and "hunt". And I think eating meat as necessity is fine, the problem lies in the fact that our way of eating it now is indirectly causing great harm to animals.
On June 17 2013 20:09 syno wrote: Meh, i hate saying this, but I guess you (mostly marvellosity and KwarK) are right. It is (imo) fucked up and disgusting, but that should not be the foundation of a law. I got it now, finally.
Agreed.
Oh please... All of morality and by extension all of law are built upon human emotions.
I'm getting sick of people talking about "logic" in this thread. Logic is nothing. Logic is simply how you rationalize the emotions you already have.
I could come up with a hundred reasons to kill off hundreds of people from a purely pragmatic point of view, which is what most people mean when they say "logic." And yet no one would support it, because it is emotionally repugnant, pure and simple. Humans are feeling creatures, that's how we understand and relate to existence. That's how we decide actions, come up with principles, judge others, decide laws, vote, everything.
Um, I don't get how you concluded that logic is useless, especially when creating laws. Logic is arguably the most important thing for humans to fall back on when trying to create a better society. Will there always be emotion involved in our decisions? Sure. People generally can't remain entirely detached and objective when thinking about issues that affect them. But the way to make the right decisions more often than not is the approach the issue logically, and as I said earlier, by using evidence appropriately to support your hypothesis.
I often run into people who try to argue that logic is somehow a bad/useless thing, and it baffles me (this includes my mom lol). There is such a thing as a person who becomes overconfident in their own 'logic,' but that's their fault, not logic's.
Usually, apparent failings of logic are actually failing to apply logic correctly.
Our course isn't decided by logic. It can't be decided by logic, actually. Logic is not normative. We must decide what we want emotionally, first. You can apply logic to decide on the best way to achieve your goals, but it is asinine for anyone to say that "our laws should not be based on emotion."
Despite your username, you actually have a very good point, I say stronger than what Kwark and the others have so far. Also Veltro is raising very good points as well regarding logic working under a premise.
Just to summarize and refine your points, and I think this should end the debate, there is a simple and elegant solution to this whole "if we eat animals, why not fuck them" argument. Answer = culture. And on a lesser not, yes datcirclejerk, emotions.
In most human culture sex has been a greater taboo than murder. This is universal. There are harsh penalties in killing someone, but there are unspeakable penalties in having undesirable (adulterous, bestial, sodomous) sexual relationship. This is even reflected in myths, the most significant of which is found in the Genesis: "Eating of Apple" vs. Death of Abel. Moreover on the emotion vs. logic point, datcirclejerk I think understands it perfectly. Not everything can be argued in logical terms, that is, in terms of the logical formula that would process all the advantage/disadvantage scenario in every situation. If this is the case, we would be living in a world like I-Robot, where the robots have decided for us what is good and bad FOR US. I-Robot is actually conservative, the perfect expression of this "logical" state would be robot determining one's value according to his or her potential and actual contributions to society, and factoring it with other variables such as available resources, etc... I bet if this happens we can be sure majority of the population will be wiped out. We do not want this, at least this kind of perfect logic. Which is also the case with bestiality. It may be right or wrong or whatever, but humanity has simply decided until now that it is disgusting, regardless of the fact that we eat the very animals we profess to not harm by fucking. It does not follow. We as a human race simply decided so. There may be a few rebels here and there who want their cock in a dogs vagina or their pussy filled with horse cock, but they are the taboo, the unnatural.
So we just ban what society thinks is taboo?
Unless you have a good argument for not banning it, that's generally what societies do.
yes, the very good argument is that if it's not hurting you, let people do what they like.
Well the argument is that they're hurting the animals and causing a small amount of emotional harm (disgust) across the rest of the population.
I suggest you read the rest of the thread for a rather extensive rebuttal <3
On June 17 2013 20:09 syno wrote: Meh, i hate saying this, but I guess you (mostly marvellosity and KwarK) are right. It is (imo) fucked up and disgusting, but that should not be the foundation of a law. I got it now, finally.
Agreed.
Oh please... All of morality and by extension all of law are built upon human emotions.
I'm getting sick of people talking about "logic" in this thread. Logic is nothing. Logic is simply how you rationalize the emotions you already have.
I could come up with a hundred reasons to kill off hundreds of people from a purely pragmatic point of view, which is what most people mean when they say "logic." And yet no one would support it, because it is emotionally repugnant, pure and simple. Humans are feeling creatures, that's how we understand and relate to existence. That's how we decide actions, come up with principles, judge others, decide laws, vote, everything.
Um, I don't get how you concluded that logic is useless, especially when creating laws. Logic is arguably the most important thing for humans to fall back on when trying to create a better society. Will there always be emotion involved in our decisions? Sure. People generally can't remain entirely detached and objective when thinking about issues that affect them. But the way to make the right decisions more often than not is the approach the issue logically, and as I said earlier, by using evidence appropriately to support your hypothesis.
I often run into people who try to argue that logic is somehow a bad/useless thing, and it baffles me (this includes my mom lol). There is such a thing as a person who becomes overconfident in their own 'logic,' but that's their fault, not logic's.
Usually, apparent failings of logic are actually failing to apply logic correctly.
Our course isn't decided by logic. It can't be decided by logic, actually. Logic is not normative. We must decide what we want emotionally, first. You can apply logic to decide on the best way to achieve your goals, but it is asinine for anyone to say that "our laws should not be based on emotion."
Despite your username, you actually have a very good point, I say stronger than what Kwark and the others have so far. Also Veltro is raising very good points as well regarding logic working under a premise.
Just to summarize and refine your points, and I think this should end the debate, there is a simple and elegant solution to this whole "if we eat animals, why not fuck them" argument. Answer = culture. And on a lesser not, yes datcirclejerk, emotions.
In most human culture sex has been a greater taboo than murder. This is universal. There are harsh penalties in killing someone, but there are unspeakable penalties in having undesirable (adulterous, bestial, sodomous) sexual relationship. This is even reflected in myths, the most significant of which is found in the Genesis: "Eating of Apple" vs. Death of Abel. Moreover on the emotion vs. logic point, datcirclejerk I think understands it perfectly. Not everything can be argued in logical terms, that is, in terms of the logical formula that would process all the advantage/disadvantage scenario in every situation. If this is the case, we would be living in a world like I-Robot, where the robots have decided for us what is good and bad FOR US. I-Robot is actually conservative, the perfect expression of this "logical" state would be robot determining one's value according to his or her potential and actual contributions to society, and factoring it with other variables such as available resources, etc... I bet if this happens we can be sure majority of the population will be wiped out. We do not want this, at least this kind of perfect logic. Which is also the case with bestiality. It may be right or wrong or whatever, but humanity has simply decided until now that it is disgusting, regardless of the fact that we eat the very animals we profess to not harm by fucking. It does not follow. We as a human race simply decided so. There may be a few rebels here and there who want their cock in a dogs vagina or their pussy filled with horse cock, but they are the taboo, the unnatural.
So we just ban what society thinks is taboo?
Unless you have a good argument for not banning it, that's generally what societies do.
He's arguing that since the "human race" has decided zoophelia is taboo, it should be okay to ban it. I have a problem with that logic because it leads to being able to ban anything considered taboo (like homosexuality, for instance, something that is also currently defined as taboo by a good deal of Americans)
The reason a law pops up matters a damn lot because that argument could be used to pass other laws. The US is suffering from the Patriot act right now because of laws passed 12 years ago based on gut emotional "oh it makes sense" logic. If it's okay to pass a law simply because the act being banned is considered taboo, what happens 20 years from now when a conservative wave sweeps the youth and suddenly something we consider normal *now* is considered taboo?
I think bestiality is a complete and utterly disgusting thing. But I've met many people who think the same about lesbians. And much like I would not want to ban lesbians just because some people dislike it, I'm not supportive of banning bestiality just because I don't like it.
And that's just my personal opinion on the matter, philosophically, I dislike societies that are okay with killing something they find psychologically sentient enough to care about being fucked.
If you think animals are just like people and we shouldn't rape them--then you should treat them like people and not kill them.
And, if you want for there to be the arbitrary ban on raping animals because they can't consent, then should we punish animal on animal rape? Should we punish a dog for raping another dog if it's obvious the victim did not consent?
Do you see why we need the reason and logic of the law to be present in order to know what the law is actually doing.
On June 17 2013 20:09 syno wrote: Meh, i hate saying this, but I guess you (mostly marvellosity and KwarK) are right. It is (imo) fucked up and disgusting, but that should not be the foundation of a law. I got it now, finally.
Agreed.
Oh please... All of morality and by extension all of law are built upon human emotions.
I'm getting sick of people talking about "logic" in this thread. Logic is nothing. Logic is simply how you rationalize the emotions you already have.
I could come up with a hundred reasons to kill off hundreds of people from a purely pragmatic point of view, which is what most people mean when they say "logic." And yet no one would support it, because it is emotionally repugnant, pure and simple. Humans are feeling creatures, that's how we understand and relate to existence. That's how we decide actions, come up with principles, judge others, decide laws, vote, everything.
Um, I don't get how you concluded that logic is useless, especially when creating laws. Logic is arguably the most important thing for humans to fall back on when trying to create a better society. Will there always be emotion involved in our decisions? Sure. People generally can't remain entirely detached and objective when thinking about issues that affect them. But the way to make the right decisions more often than not is the approach the issue logically, and as I said earlier, by using evidence appropriately to support your hypothesis.
I often run into people who try to argue that logic is somehow a bad/useless thing, and it baffles me (this includes my mom lol). There is such a thing as a person who becomes overconfident in their own 'logic,' but that's their fault, not logic's.
Usually, apparent failings of logic are actually failing to apply logic correctly.
Our course isn't decided by logic. It can't be decided by logic, actually. Logic is not normative. We must decide what we want emotionally, first. You can apply logic to decide on the best way to achieve your goals, but it is asinine for anyone to say that "our laws should not be based on emotion."
Despite your username, you actually have a very good point, I say stronger than what Kwark and the others have so far. Also Veltro is raising very good points as well regarding logic working under a premise.
Just to summarize and refine your points, and I think this should end the debate, there is a simple and elegant solution to this whole "if we eat animals, why not fuck them" argument. Answer = culture. And on a lesser not, yes datcirclejerk, emotions.
In most human culture sex has been a greater taboo than murder. This is universal. There are harsh penalties in killing someone, but there are unspeakable penalties in having undesirable (adulterous, bestial, sodomous) sexual relationship. This is even reflected in myths, the most significant of which is found in the Genesis: "Eating of Apple" vs. Death of Abel. Moreover on the emotion vs. logic point, datcirclejerk I think understands it perfectly. Not everything can be argued in logical terms, that is, in terms of the logical formula that would process all the advantage/disadvantage scenario in every situation. If this is the case, we would be living in a world like I-Robot, where the robots have decided for us what is good and bad FOR US. I-Robot is actually conservative, the perfect expression of this "logical" state would be robot determining one's value according to his or her potential and actual contributions to society, and factoring it with other variables such as available resources, etc... I bet if this happens we can be sure majority of the population will be wiped out. We do not want this, at least this kind of perfect logic. Which is also the case with bestiality. It may be right or wrong or whatever, but humanity has simply decided until now that it is disgusting, regardless of the fact that we eat the very animals we profess to not harm by fucking. It does not follow. We as a human race simply decided so. There may be a few rebels here and there who want their cock in a dogs vagina or their pussy filled with horse cock, but they are the taboo, the unnatural.
So we just ban what society thinks is taboo?
Redundant! Taboo by definition is something that is banned! And this is the natural tendency of human society - [in older times] premarital sex, active powerful women in society (at least in some cultures), fucking pre "legal aged" people, and [recent modern times] discrimination, irrationality, animistic worship etc. You see the variables changed and will continue to change, but what remains constant? The human variable, culture. So when humans at a given period decide what is taboo and what is not, it simply follows that society and individuals are expected to behave accordingly.
On June 17 2013 20:09 syno wrote: Meh, i hate saying this, but I guess you (mostly marvellosity and KwarK) are right. It is (imo) fucked up and disgusting, but that should not be the foundation of a law. I got it now, finally.
Agreed.
Oh please... All of morality and by extension all of law are built upon human emotions.
I'm getting sick of people talking about "logic" in this thread. Logic is nothing. Logic is simply how you rationalize the emotions you already have.
I could come up with a hundred reasons to kill off hundreds of people from a purely pragmatic point of view, which is what most people mean when they say "logic." And yet no one would support it, because it is emotionally repugnant, pure and simple. Humans are feeling creatures, that's how we understand and relate to existence. That's how we decide actions, come up with principles, judge others, decide laws, vote, everything.
Um, I don't get how you concluded that logic is useless, especially when creating laws. Logic is arguably the most important thing for humans to fall back on when trying to create a better society. Will there always be emotion involved in our decisions? Sure. People generally can't remain entirely detached and objective when thinking about issues that affect them. But the way to make the right decisions more often than not is the approach the issue logically, and as I said earlier, by using evidence appropriately to support your hypothesis.
I often run into people who try to argue that logic is somehow a bad/useless thing, and it baffles me (this includes my mom lol). There is such a thing as a person who becomes overconfident in their own 'logic,' but that's their fault, not logic's.
Usually, apparent failings of logic are actually failing to apply logic correctly.
Our course isn't decided by logic. It can't be decided by logic, actually. Logic is not normative. We must decide what we want emotionally, first. You can apply logic to decide on the best way to achieve your goals, but it is asinine for anyone to say that "our laws should not be based on emotion."
Despite your username, you actually have a very good point, I say stronger than what Kwark and the others have so far. Also Veltro is raising very good points as well regarding logic working under a premise.
Just to summarize and refine your points, and I think this should end the debate, there is a simple and elegant solution to this whole "if we eat animals, why not fuck them" argument. Answer = culture. And on a lesser not, yes datcirclejerk, emotions.
In most human culture sex has been a greater taboo than murder. This is universal. There are harsh penalties in killing someone, but there are unspeakable penalties in having undesirable (adulterous, bestial, sodomous) sexual relationship. This is even reflected in myths, the most significant of which is found in the Genesis: "Eating of Apple" vs. Death of Abel. Moreover on the emotion vs. logic point, datcirclejerk I think understands it perfectly. Not everything can be argued in logical terms, that is, in terms of the logical formula that would process all the advantage/disadvantage scenario in every situation. If this is the case, we would be living in a world like I-Robot, where the robots have decided for us what is good and bad FOR US. I-Robot is actually conservative, the perfect expression of this "logical" state would be robot determining one's value according to his or her potential and actual contributions to society, and factoring it with other variables such as available resources, etc... I bet if this happens we can be sure majority of the population will be wiped out. We do not want this, at least this kind of perfect logic. Which is also the case with bestiality. It may be right or wrong or whatever, but humanity has simply decided until now that it is disgusting, regardless of the fact that we eat the very animals we profess to not harm by fucking. It does not follow. We as a human race simply decided so. There may be a few rebels here and there who want their cock in a dogs vagina or their pussy filled with horse cock, but they are the taboo, the unnatural.
So we just ban what society thinks is taboo?
Unless you have a good argument for not banning it, that's generally what societies do.
yes, the very good argument is that if it's not hurting you, let people do what they like.
Well the argument is that they're hurting the animals and causing a small amount of emotional harm (disgust) across the rest of the population.
This actually presents an extremely difficult question, namely, how to justify or quantify psychological harm. The problem is that psychological harm is entirely subjective and individualized.
We all accept that the psychological harm of a person being raped is justified and real, and therefore punishable. But suppose I were to claim that seeing a mustache causes me psychological distress and harm. I cannot simply demand that everyone in society shave their facial hair. Somewhere we have to draw a line between psychological harm that we accept and that we don't. I would say that the psychological harm that comes from knowing that people are having sex with animals falls on the side that we should reject, because it is largely a culturally conditioned reaction.
On June 17 2013 20:09 syno wrote: Meh, i hate saying this, but I guess you (mostly marvellosity and KwarK) are right. It is (imo) fucked up and disgusting, but that should not be the foundation of a law. I got it now, finally.
Agreed.
Oh please... All of morality and by extension all of law are built upon human emotions.
I'm getting sick of people talking about "logic" in this thread. Logic is nothing. Logic is simply how you rationalize the emotions you already have.
I could come up with a hundred reasons to kill off hundreds of people from a purely pragmatic point of view, which is what most people mean when they say "logic." And yet no one would support it, because it is emotionally repugnant, pure and simple. Humans are feeling creatures, that's how we understand and relate to existence. That's how we decide actions, come up with principles, judge others, decide laws, vote, everything.
Um, I don't get how you concluded that logic is useless, especially when creating laws. Logic is arguably the most important thing for humans to fall back on when trying to create a better society. Will there always be emotion involved in our decisions? Sure. People generally can't remain entirely detached and objective when thinking about issues that affect them. But the way to make the right decisions more often than not is the approach the issue logically, and as I said earlier, by using evidence appropriately to support your hypothesis.
I often run into people who try to argue that logic is somehow a bad/useless thing, and it baffles me (this includes my mom lol). There is such a thing as a person who becomes overconfident in their own 'logic,' but that's their fault, not logic's.
Usually, apparent failings of logic are actually failing to apply logic correctly.
Our course isn't decided by logic. It can't be decided by logic, actually. Logic is not normative. We must decide what we want emotionally, first. You can apply logic to decide on the best way to achieve your goals, but it is asinine for anyone to say that "our laws should not be based on emotion."
Despite your username, you actually have a very good point, I say stronger than what Kwark and the others have so far. Also Veltro is raising very good points as well regarding logic working under a premise.
Just to summarize and refine your points, and I think this should end the debate, there is a simple and elegant solution to this whole "if we eat animals, why not fuck them" argument. Answer = culture. And on a lesser not, yes datcirclejerk, emotions.
In most human culture sex has been a greater taboo than murder. This is universal. There are harsh penalties in killing someone, but there are unspeakable penalties in having undesirable (adulterous, bestial, sodomous) sexual relationship. This is even reflected in myths, the most significant of which is found in the Genesis: "Eating of Apple" vs. Death of Abel. Moreover on the emotion vs. logic point, datcirclejerk I think understands it perfectly. Not everything can be argued in logical terms, that is, in terms of the logical formula that would process all the advantage/disadvantage scenario in every situation. If this is the case, we would be living in a world like I-Robot, where the robots have decided for us what is good and bad FOR US. I-Robot is actually conservative, the perfect expression of this "logical" state would be robot determining one's value according to his or her potential and actual contributions to society, and factoring it with other variables such as available resources, etc... I bet if this happens we can be sure majority of the population will be wiped out. We do not want this, at least this kind of perfect logic. Which is also the case with bestiality. It may be right or wrong or whatever, but humanity has simply decided until now that it is disgusting, regardless of the fact that we eat the very animals we profess to not harm by fucking. It does not follow. We as a human race simply decided so. There may be a few rebels here and there who want their cock in a dogs vagina or their pussy filled with horse cock, but they are the taboo, the unnatural.
So we just ban what society thinks is taboo?
Unless you have a good argument for not banning it, that's generally what societies do.
yes, the very good argument is that if it's not hurting you, let people do what they like.
"Harm" or "hurt" are extremely perilous and empty concepts. In my "culture" argument, the simple fact is that humanity long decided that it wants some things taboo and others not. Something has to happen, I don't know what, but wake me up when the day arrives that the majority would not only profess to want to fuck their pets and other animals but actually already do it. Then we can talk about taboo again. For now, this is it. No logic of if ok to murder, then ok to fuck. Just humans deciding what is and what is not.
On June 17 2013 20:10 Nyovne wrote: [quote] Agreed.
Oh please... All of morality and by extension all of law are built upon human emotions.
I'm getting sick of people talking about "logic" in this thread. Logic is nothing. Logic is simply how you rationalize the emotions you already have.
I could come up with a hundred reasons to kill off hundreds of people from a purely pragmatic point of view, which is what most people mean when they say "logic." And yet no one would support it, because it is emotionally repugnant, pure and simple. Humans are feeling creatures, that's how we understand and relate to existence. That's how we decide actions, come up with principles, judge others, decide laws, vote, everything.
Um, I don't get how you concluded that logic is useless, especially when creating laws. Logic is arguably the most important thing for humans to fall back on when trying to create a better society. Will there always be emotion involved in our decisions? Sure. People generally can't remain entirely detached and objective when thinking about issues that affect them. But the way to make the right decisions more often than not is the approach the issue logically, and as I said earlier, by using evidence appropriately to support your hypothesis.
I often run into people who try to argue that logic is somehow a bad/useless thing, and it baffles me (this includes my mom lol). There is such a thing as a person who becomes overconfident in their own 'logic,' but that's their fault, not logic's.
Usually, apparent failings of logic are actually failing to apply logic correctly.
Our course isn't decided by logic. It can't be decided by logic, actually. Logic is not normative. We must decide what we want emotionally, first. You can apply logic to decide on the best way to achieve your goals, but it is asinine for anyone to say that "our laws should not be based on emotion."
Despite your username, you actually have a very good point, I say stronger than what Kwark and the others have so far. Also Veltro is raising very good points as well regarding logic working under a premise.
Just to summarize and refine your points, and I think this should end the debate, there is a simple and elegant solution to this whole "if we eat animals, why not fuck them" argument. Answer = culture. And on a lesser not, yes datcirclejerk, emotions.
In most human culture sex has been a greater taboo than murder. This is universal. There are harsh penalties in killing someone, but there are unspeakable penalties in having undesirable (adulterous, bestial, sodomous) sexual relationship. This is even reflected in myths, the most significant of which is found in the Genesis: "Eating of Apple" vs. Death of Abel. Moreover on the emotion vs. logic point, datcirclejerk I think understands it perfectly. Not everything can be argued in logical terms, that is, in terms of the logical formula that would process all the advantage/disadvantage scenario in every situation. If this is the case, we would be living in a world like I-Robot, where the robots have decided for us what is good and bad FOR US. I-Robot is actually conservative, the perfect expression of this "logical" state would be robot determining one's value according to his or her potential and actual contributions to society, and factoring it with other variables such as available resources, etc... I bet if this happens we can be sure majority of the population will be wiped out. We do not want this, at least this kind of perfect logic. Which is also the case with bestiality. It may be right or wrong or whatever, but humanity has simply decided until now that it is disgusting, regardless of the fact that we eat the very animals we profess to not harm by fucking. It does not follow. We as a human race simply decided so. There may be a few rebels here and there who want their cock in a dogs vagina or their pussy filled with horse cock, but they are the taboo, the unnatural.
So we just ban what society thinks is taboo?
Unless you have a good argument for not banning it, that's generally what societies do.
yes, the very good argument is that if it's not hurting you, let people do what they like.
Well the argument is that they're hurting the animals and causing a small amount of emotional harm (disgust) across the rest of the population.
I suggest you read the rest of the thread for a rather extensive rebuttal <3
There's no real facts here so it's just a bunch of different people saying they value different things differently for different reasons.
On June 18 2013 00:28 datcirclejerk wrote: [quote] Oh please... All of morality and by extension all of law are built upon human emotions.
I'm getting sick of people talking about "logic" in this thread. Logic is nothing. Logic is simply how you rationalize the emotions you already have.
I could come up with a hundred reasons to kill off hundreds of people from a purely pragmatic point of view, which is what most people mean when they say "logic." And yet no one would support it, because it is emotionally repugnant, pure and simple. Humans are feeling creatures, that's how we understand and relate to existence. That's how we decide actions, come up with principles, judge others, decide laws, vote, everything.
Um, I don't get how you concluded that logic is useless, especially when creating laws. Logic is arguably the most important thing for humans to fall back on when trying to create a better society. Will there always be emotion involved in our decisions? Sure. People generally can't remain entirely detached and objective when thinking about issues that affect them. But the way to make the right decisions more often than not is the approach the issue logically, and as I said earlier, by using evidence appropriately to support your hypothesis.
I often run into people who try to argue that logic is somehow a bad/useless thing, and it baffles me (this includes my mom lol). There is such a thing as a person who becomes overconfident in their own 'logic,' but that's their fault, not logic's.
Usually, apparent failings of logic are actually failing to apply logic correctly.
Our course isn't decided by logic. It can't be decided by logic, actually. Logic is not normative. We must decide what we want emotionally, first. You can apply logic to decide on the best way to achieve your goals, but it is asinine for anyone to say that "our laws should not be based on emotion."
Despite your username, you actually have a very good point, I say stronger than what Kwark and the others have so far. Also Veltro is raising very good points as well regarding logic working under a premise.
Just to summarize and refine your points, and I think this should end the debate, there is a simple and elegant solution to this whole "if we eat animals, why not fuck them" argument. Answer = culture. And on a lesser not, yes datcirclejerk, emotions.
In most human culture sex has been a greater taboo than murder. This is universal. There are harsh penalties in killing someone, but there are unspeakable penalties in having undesirable (adulterous, bestial, sodomous) sexual relationship. This is even reflected in myths, the most significant of which is found in the Genesis: "Eating of Apple" vs. Death of Abel. Moreover on the emotion vs. logic point, datcirclejerk I think understands it perfectly. Not everything can be argued in logical terms, that is, in terms of the logical formula that would process all the advantage/disadvantage scenario in every situation. If this is the case, we would be living in a world like I-Robot, where the robots have decided for us what is good and bad FOR US. I-Robot is actually conservative, the perfect expression of this "logical" state would be robot determining one's value according to his or her potential and actual contributions to society, and factoring it with other variables such as available resources, etc... I bet if this happens we can be sure majority of the population will be wiped out. We do not want this, at least this kind of perfect logic. Which is also the case with bestiality. It may be right or wrong or whatever, but humanity has simply decided until now that it is disgusting, regardless of the fact that we eat the very animals we profess to not harm by fucking. It does not follow. We as a human race simply decided so. There may be a few rebels here and there who want their cock in a dogs vagina or their pussy filled with horse cock, but they are the taboo, the unnatural.
So we just ban what society thinks is taboo?
Unless you have a good argument for not banning it, that's generally what societies do.
yes, the very good argument is that if it's not hurting you, let people do what they like.
Well the argument is that they're hurting the animals and causing a small amount of emotional harm (disgust) across the rest of the population.
I suggest you read the rest of the thread for a rather extensive rebuttal <3
There's no real facts here so it's just a bunch of different people saying they value different things differently for different reasons.
The fact is that if we simply ban things that disgusts some group of people out in the world we'd end up banning absolutely everything.
On June 18 2013 00:33 micronesia wrote: [quote] Um, I don't get how you concluded that logic is useless, especially when creating laws. Logic is arguably the most important thing for humans to fall back on when trying to create a better society. Will there always be emotion involved in our decisions? Sure. People generally can't remain entirely detached and objective when thinking about issues that affect them. But the way to make the right decisions more often than not is the approach the issue logically, and as I said earlier, by using evidence appropriately to support your hypothesis.
I often run into people who try to argue that logic is somehow a bad/useless thing, and it baffles me (this includes my mom lol). There is such a thing as a person who becomes overconfident in their own 'logic,' but that's their fault, not logic's.
Usually, apparent failings of logic are actually failing to apply logic correctly.
Our course isn't decided by logic. It can't be decided by logic, actually. Logic is not normative. We must decide what we want emotionally, first. You can apply logic to decide on the best way to achieve your goals, but it is asinine for anyone to say that "our laws should not be based on emotion."
Despite your username, you actually have a very good point, I say stronger than what Kwark and the others have so far. Also Veltro is raising very good points as well regarding logic working under a premise.
Just to summarize and refine your points, and I think this should end the debate, there is a simple and elegant solution to this whole "if we eat animals, why not fuck them" argument. Answer = culture. And on a lesser not, yes datcirclejerk, emotions.
In most human culture sex has been a greater taboo than murder. This is universal. There are harsh penalties in killing someone, but there are unspeakable penalties in having undesirable (adulterous, bestial, sodomous) sexual relationship. This is even reflected in myths, the most significant of which is found in the Genesis: "Eating of Apple" vs. Death of Abel. Moreover on the emotion vs. logic point, datcirclejerk I think understands it perfectly. Not everything can be argued in logical terms, that is, in terms of the logical formula that would process all the advantage/disadvantage scenario in every situation. If this is the case, we would be living in a world like I-Robot, where the robots have decided for us what is good and bad FOR US. I-Robot is actually conservative, the perfect expression of this "logical" state would be robot determining one's value according to his or her potential and actual contributions to society, and factoring it with other variables such as available resources, etc... I bet if this happens we can be sure majority of the population will be wiped out. We do not want this, at least this kind of perfect logic. Which is also the case with bestiality. It may be right or wrong or whatever, but humanity has simply decided until now that it is disgusting, regardless of the fact that we eat the very animals we profess to not harm by fucking. It does not follow. We as a human race simply decided so. There may be a few rebels here and there who want their cock in a dogs vagina or their pussy filled with horse cock, but they are the taboo, the unnatural.
So we just ban what society thinks is taboo?
Unless you have a good argument for not banning it, that's generally what societies do.
yes, the very good argument is that if it's not hurting you, let people do what they like.
Well the argument is that they're hurting the animals and causing a small amount of emotional harm (disgust) across the rest of the population.
I suggest you read the rest of the thread for a rather extensive rebuttal <3
There's no real facts here so it's just a bunch of different people saying they value different things differently for different reasons.
The fact is that if we simply ban things that disgusts some group of people out in the world we'd end up banning absolutely everything.
No, we can differentiate. Lots of things are banned because they disgust people. Yet not everything that disgusts people is banned.
For example, you may want to ban a business in your neighborhood because it smells really bad.
On June 18 2013 00:41 datcirclejerk wrote: [quote] Our course isn't decided by logic. It can't be decided by logic, actually. Logic is not normative. We must decide what we want emotionally, first. You can apply logic to decide on the best way to achieve your goals, but it is asinine for anyone to say that "our laws should not be based on emotion."
Despite your username, you actually have a very good point, I say stronger than what Kwark and the others have so far. Also Veltro is raising very good points as well regarding logic working under a premise.
Just to summarize and refine your points, and I think this should end the debate, there is a simple and elegant solution to this whole "if we eat animals, why not fuck them" argument. Answer = culture. And on a lesser not, yes datcirclejerk, emotions.
In most human culture sex has been a greater taboo than murder. This is universal. There are harsh penalties in killing someone, but there are unspeakable penalties in having undesirable (adulterous, bestial, sodomous) sexual relationship. This is even reflected in myths, the most significant of which is found in the Genesis: "Eating of Apple" vs. Death of Abel. Moreover on the emotion vs. logic point, datcirclejerk I think understands it perfectly. Not everything can be argued in logical terms, that is, in terms of the logical formula that would process all the advantage/disadvantage scenario in every situation. If this is the case, we would be living in a world like I-Robot, where the robots have decided for us what is good and bad FOR US. I-Robot is actually conservative, the perfect expression of this "logical" state would be robot determining one's value according to his or her potential and actual contributions to society, and factoring it with other variables such as available resources, etc... I bet if this happens we can be sure majority of the population will be wiped out. We do not want this, at least this kind of perfect logic. Which is also the case with bestiality. It may be right or wrong or whatever, but humanity has simply decided until now that it is disgusting, regardless of the fact that we eat the very animals we profess to not harm by fucking. It does not follow. We as a human race simply decided so. There may be a few rebels here and there who want their cock in a dogs vagina or their pussy filled with horse cock, but they are the taboo, the unnatural.
So we just ban what society thinks is taboo?
Unless you have a good argument for not banning it, that's generally what societies do.
yes, the very good argument is that if it's not hurting you, let people do what they like.
Well the argument is that they're hurting the animals and causing a small amount of emotional harm (disgust) across the rest of the population.
I suggest you read the rest of the thread for a rather extensive rebuttal <3
There's no real facts here so it's just a bunch of different people saying they value different things differently for different reasons.
The fact is that if we simply ban things that disgusts some group of people out in the world we'd end up banning absolutely everything.
No, we can differentiate. Lots of things are banned because they disgust people. Yet not everything that disgusts people is banned.
For example, you may want to ban a business in your neighborhood because it smells really bad.
Actually, in the US, the city council has strict social guidelines in order to maintain a geographic identity in order to maintain a certain level of immigration and emigration within city limits. You follow noise pollution, trash pollution, and traffic pollution laws as well as maintain safety and health regulation laws within a city.
Trash laws are such so that they not only maintain good health but it also happens that keeping trash clean for health also keeps it clean for smell.
However, what you're specifically pointing out is city council witch hunts where, through enough voting, a business is revoked the licenses it was given due to social pressure. I have rarely seen this follow through since, at least in America, you can't ban a supermarket for selling things that are smelly so long as they keep up with health code laws.
I'm assuming that business owners have similar enough rights outside of America to be able to have a store selling fish without fear that people who dislike fish could run them out of town.
I figure it will be better to argue from question than statement in here.
A lot of you seem to support a ban on bestiality on the basis that it is, or that you personally find it, or that the majority of society finds it, to be repulsive. If you consider this a meaningful argument, can you explain the following:
Should we at present legislate other forms of unnatural or abhorrent sexual behavior? I would guess that the popular opinion of eating each other's feces is about the same as on having intercourse with a dog. The example isn't the important part, I'm sure you can fill in something suitably repulsive to a sufficient portion of the populace.
If you do not support the argument from repulsiveness, then I assume you are working from an animal welfare perspective. In this case, please decide if it should be legal to raise livestock, kill them off for slaughter as per regulation, make a brief break to have sex with the dead animal, then proceed to process the animal into meat.
If you want to ban bestiality, but animal welfare and icky are non-factors, I cannot really imagine why, but do please explain your reasoning. Do note that argument from I can't explain it, I just know it's wrong is how homosexuality was banned, and apparently, people didn't just know it was wrong to keep slaves in the past.
On June 17 2013 21:25 AUFKLARUNG wrote: The poll is really... odd. Is it actually accurate? I have a few more questions if you don't mind. Can you please be honest in answering them? Can they also be added to the OP? For the second poll [Reasons for (possibly) having sex with animals], could you please specify the details in your post, like in what country if it is tradition,
Poll: Having sex with animals
I have never had and will never do it (50)
72%
I have done it and I see no problem doing it again (12)
17%
I have never done it but I might/will (6)
9%
I have done it but I will not do it again (1)
1%
69 total votes
Your vote: Having sex with animals
(Vote): I have never had and will never do it (Vote): I have never done it but I might/will (Vote): I have done it but I will not do it again (Vote): I have done it and I see no problem doing it again
Poll: Reasons for (possibly) having sex with animals
I (may) have a thing for animals (11)
42%
Curiosity (5)
19%
No chance to do it with humans (2) (5)
19%
I was forced into doing it (losing a bet, etc.) (4)
15%
Tradition / local practice / belief (1)
4%
Other reasons (please specify) (0)
0%
26 total votes
Your vote: Reasons for (possibly) having sex with animals
(Vote): Curiosity (Vote): Tradition / local practice / belief (Vote): I was forced into doing it (losing a bet, etc.) (Vote): No chance to do it with humans (2) (Vote): I (may) have a thing for animals (Vote): Other reasons (please specify)
On June 18 2013 01:41 either I or wrote: [quote] Despite your username, you actually have a very good point, I say stronger than what Kwark and the others have so far. Also Veltro is raising very good points as well regarding logic working under a premise.
Just to summarize and refine your points, and I think this should end the debate, there is a simple and elegant solution to this whole "if we eat animals, why not fuck them" argument. Answer = culture. And on a lesser not, yes datcirclejerk, emotions.
In most human culture sex has been a greater taboo than murder. This is universal. There are harsh penalties in killing someone, but there are unspeakable penalties in having undesirable (adulterous, bestial, sodomous) sexual relationship. This is even reflected in myths, the most significant of which is found in the Genesis: "Eating of Apple" vs. Death of Abel. Moreover on the emotion vs. logic point, datcirclejerk I think understands it perfectly. Not everything can be argued in logical terms, that is, in terms of the logical formula that would process all the advantage/disadvantage scenario in every situation. If this is the case, we would be living in a world like I-Robot, where the robots have decided for us what is good and bad FOR US. I-Robot is actually conservative, the perfect expression of this "logical" state would be robot determining one's value according to his or her potential and actual contributions to society, and factoring it with other variables such as available resources, etc... I bet if this happens we can be sure majority of the population will be wiped out. We do not want this, at least this kind of perfect logic. Which is also the case with bestiality. It may be right or wrong or whatever, but humanity has simply decided until now that it is disgusting, regardless of the fact that we eat the very animals we profess to not harm by fucking. It does not follow. We as a human race simply decided so. There may be a few rebels here and there who want their cock in a dogs vagina or their pussy filled with horse cock, but they are the taboo, the unnatural.
So we just ban what society thinks is taboo?
Unless you have a good argument for not banning it, that's generally what societies do.
yes, the very good argument is that if it's not hurting you, let people do what they like.
Well the argument is that they're hurting the animals and causing a small amount of emotional harm (disgust) across the rest of the population.
I suggest you read the rest of the thread for a rather extensive rebuttal <3
There's no real facts here so it's just a bunch of different people saying they value different things differently for different reasons.
The fact is that if we simply ban things that disgusts some group of people out in the world we'd end up banning absolutely everything.
No, we can differentiate. Lots of things are banned because they disgust people. Yet not everything that disgusts people is banned.
For example, you may want to ban a business in your neighborhood because it smells really bad.
Actually, in the US, the city council has strict social guidelines in order to maintain a geographic identity in order to maintain a certain level of immigration and emigration within city limits. You follow noise pollution, trash pollution, and traffic pollution laws as well as maintain safety and health regulation laws within a city.
Trash laws are such so that they not only maintain good health but it also happens that keeping trash clean for health also keeps it clean for smell.
However, what you're specifically pointing out is city council witch hunts where, through enough voting, a business is revoked the licenses it was given due to social pressure. I have rarely seen this follow through since, at least in America, you can't ban a supermarket for selling things that are smelly so long as they keep up with health code laws.
I'm assuming that business owners have similar enough rights outside of America to be able to have a store selling fish without fear that people who dislike fish could run them out of town.
I'm not pointing out city council witch hunts. I'm refuting the slippery slope argument that banning one thing that annoys or disgusts will result in all annoying and disgusting things being banned.
On June 17 2013 17:42 Nyovne wrote: I've at the very least seen dogs, cats, rabits and a horse jump on and ride other creatures. Please explain this with it being unnatural.
Lol, ok, didn't know about that. But still, if you wanna compare rape between humans and animals 1 on 1, that's just silly. That's like saying lions are murders and they deserve to die, or atleast like 20 years in jail. And hyenas are robbers, they should be in jail aswell. Are ants that invade termite mounds and eat their children guilty of war crimes?
The difference is, we have a big brain, we are far more intelligent than any other animal. We don't just have to follow our instinct. We should know what's good and what's bad.
And our big brains have decided that industrialised food production, with all its animal abuse, is good.
Speak for yourself. Many of us are aware that it's not good to cause suffering on a massive scale. We just don't see an alternative that works on a large scale so we are stuck with it for now.
Do they not have vegetables in your country? Not only do we have an alternative to eating meat, it was in fact the default system used for most of the history of human civilisation due to the inferior energy efficiency of meat and the tendency for a population to grow until it has exhausted its food supply. Regular access to meat is a very, very modern luxury which has come about due to industrialised meat production. It's not that we lack an alternative, meat eating is not the default position, we embraced animal abuse in order to gain the luxury of meat.
Do they have manners in yours?
But yeah, it's a luxury and I could probably go without meat if I put some thought into it. So yes, I am putting my own convenience above the rights of the animals. But the fact that I (or a large majority of society) is doing it, doesn't make it automatically right.
I'm just amazed that you present regular meat eating, something which has for thousands of years been a luxury that only the elites were able to enjoy, as something without an alternative. It wasn't until the rationing of the second world war that meat became a part of the regular diet of people in England, this isn't a necessary thing with no reasonable alternative, this is a recent luxury we have embraced.
I didn't say there wasn't a reasonable alternative, I said it required some amount of work to implement. Either way, whether it's easy or not is not central to my point. Which is that many people who do eat meat are concerned about how it's produced and may even disagree with some of the practices.
I suspect the people who say that animals have no rights whatsoever and as long as there's some benefit to humans everything's fair game are a tiny minority.
So, just because we are ignoring animal rights on one issue, doesn't mean that people think they don't exist. It just means that we are being inconsistent. Ignoring them on all issues would be more consistent but by most people's standards worse too.
On June 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.
On June 17 2013 17:42 Nyovne wrote: I've at the very least seen dogs, cats, rabits and a horse jump on and ride other creatures. Please explain this with it being unnatural.
Lol, ok, didn't know about that. But still, if you wanna compare rape between humans and animals 1 on 1, that's just silly. That's like saying lions are murders and they deserve to die, or atleast like 20 years in jail. And hyenas are robbers, they should be in jail aswell. Are ants that invade termite mounds and eat their children guilty of war crimes?
The difference is, we have a big brain, we are far more intelligent than any other animal. We don't just have to follow our instinct. We should know what's good and what's bad.
And our big brains have decided that industrialised food production, with all its animal abuse, is good.
Speak for yourself. Many of us are aware that it's not good to cause suffering on a massive scale. We just don't see an alternative that works on a large scale so we are stuck with it for now.
Do they not have vegetables in your country? Not only do we have an alternative to eating meat, it was in fact the default system used for most of the history of human civilisation due to the inferior energy efficiency of meat and the tendency for a population to grow until it has exhausted its food supply. Regular access to meat is a very, very modern luxury which has come about due to industrialised meat production. It's not that we lack an alternative, meat eating is not the default position, we embraced animal abuse in order to gain the luxury of meat.
Do they have manners in yours?
But yeah, it's a luxury and I could probably go without meat if I put some thought into it. So yes, I am putting my own convenience above the rights of the animals. But the fact that I (or a large majority of society) is doing it, doesn't make it automatically right.
I'm just amazed that you present regular meat eating, something which has for thousands of years been a luxury that only the elites were able to enjoy, as something without an alternative. It wasn't until the rationing of the second world war that meat became a part of the regular diet of people in England, this isn't a necessary thing with no reasonable alternative, this is a recent luxury we have embraced.
Eating meat was the default before eating vegetables was. We were a hunter gatherer society well before we were an agricultural society. Planting food was not the means of surviving for humanity and pre-humanity at all. Humans have eaten only meat for significantly longer than we have eaten only vegetables. While we can stomach both, humans have eaten meat as a necessity for much longer than we have as a luxury.
Pre-civilisation, sure. Once we settled down though we very quickly bred to the point that grazing land was turned to cereal production and remained that way until industrial food production, refrigeration, excessive wealth and globalisation.
On June 14 2013 18:26 NukeD wrote: Kwark I would say that is no way for a mod to behave really. That was really imature. The other guy wasnt offensive at all but even if he was you went overboard.
He accused me of being fine with raping a girl because I said that animals are outranked by people.
No, he didn't.
On June 14 2013 17:38 KwarK wrote: I strongly disagree with this change, if no animal is being harmed then who gives a fuck, people outrank animals anyway and the law has no place in the bedroom.
On June 14 2013 18:00 KwarK wrote: Take gay sex. It's not fine because it's two consenting adults, it's fine because no-one is getting harmed because they're two consenting adults. The fact that consenting adults are involved doesn't necessarily make something fine, rather it is the lack of harm that makes it fine and the consent is relevant because it indicates a lack of harm.
He accused you of being fine with rape where no physical harm is caused because you said whether harm is being caused is the determining factor in whether something should be legal.
Then you replied with this:
On June 14 2013 18:05 KwarK wrote: Sorry, clearly you're confused by your colossal amount of idiocy... Hopefully that clears up my point for you so you can avoid making such incredibly, obscenely stupid straw men arguments in future.
A completely unwarranted personal attack. It wasn't a straw man argument, he directly responded to the monumentally ill-conceived argument you made.
This thread turned out really interesting. At thirst i though this was a nobrainer. That almost all people would say bestialiy was plain out unjustifiable and wrong. Just as people would argue against pedophilia for instance.
I guess it's due to a different degree of taboo, and also with the interesting aspect of our different views on what an animal is. Many arguments here are more complex than they at first make out to be. Like the rape-murder parallel between humans and animals. It is not only about logical solutions as someone pointed out. Laws are not. Because society doesn't work like that. A lot of things about us humans are very illogical. (not justifying anything, just saying that we don't function by pure logic). I, for instance, love animals and overall feel that the human race are arrogant fucks viewing ourselves so much better than animals. But i still eat lots of meat (not human;). And this, I would argue, is how most people are.Not very logical.
Someone (I think KwarK) said he had seen the same arguments from some 50 years ago in anti-gay-movement that reminded him of arguments here. And that could be seen as an example of how this has to do with our values as a society. Some people view animals and humans as equal, some people might kill endangered animals for fun. Most people agree that being gay is not wrong at all. Most people agree that there is something wrong with bestiality. this is not really so hard to understand. If someone made this comparison: Bestiality=Pedophilia=Homo they would be seen as very stupid (rightfully). And it has to do with our values and our morality. To not talk about the possible moral obligations of humans is weird.
I think this law is pretty damn straight forward. Bestiality is by our society viewed as morally wrong. And thats how a democracy as Sweden works.
But then, we can still (and maybe should) continue to discuss the subject.
On June 18 2013 01:49 Thieving Magpie wrote: [quote]
So we just ban what society thinks is taboo?
Unless you have a good argument for not banning it, that's generally what societies do.
yes, the very good argument is that if it's not hurting you, let people do what they like.
Well the argument is that they're hurting the animals and causing a small amount of emotional harm (disgust) across the rest of the population.
I suggest you read the rest of the thread for a rather extensive rebuttal <3
There's no real facts here so it's just a bunch of different people saying they value different things differently for different reasons.
The fact is that if we simply ban things that disgusts some group of people out in the world we'd end up banning absolutely everything.
No, we can differentiate. Lots of things are banned because they disgust people. Yet not everything that disgusts people is banned.
For example, you may want to ban a business in your neighborhood because it smells really bad.
Actually, in the US, the city council has strict social guidelines in order to maintain a geographic identity in order to maintain a certain level of immigration and emigration within city limits. You follow noise pollution, trash pollution, and traffic pollution laws as well as maintain safety and health regulation laws within a city.
Trash laws are such so that they not only maintain good health but it also happens that keeping trash clean for health also keeps it clean for smell.
However, what you're specifically pointing out is city council witch hunts where, through enough voting, a business is revoked the licenses it was given due to social pressure. I have rarely seen this follow through since, at least in America, you can't ban a supermarket for selling things that are smelly so long as they keep up with health code laws.
I'm assuming that business owners have similar enough rights outside of America to be able to have a store selling fish without fear that people who dislike fish could run them out of town.
I'm not pointing out city council witch hunts. I'm refuting the slippery slope argument that banning one thing that annoys or disgusts will result in all annoying and disgusting things being banned.
It depends purely on how or why the thing gets banned.
For example.
Arizona decided to increase its anti-immigrant policy several years ago.
Since they enacted law on emotion instead of logic, the first victim of the new laws was german immigrant business owner.
They then had to go back and "fix" the law because it turned out following it to the letter hurt people they wanted to protect instead of hurting people they wanted to chase away.
That is the problem with laws being enacted because they "make sense."
When you follow through with the language written a lot of things end up getting caught up in the paperwork.
I would love for there to be a law against bestiality on a personal level, but what language and what reasoning should be given that doesn't show either inconsistency, or a possible precedent to be abused at a later time.
I know I severely dislike it. But I also severely dislike hipsters. Republican politicians severely dislike women's rights + Show Spoiler +
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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 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 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 +
@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 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"
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)
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.
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 +
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 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.
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.
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 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 +
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 +
. 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 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 +
. 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 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 +
. 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.
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?
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.
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?
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 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 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.
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.
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.
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:
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 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!
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.
... 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.
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....
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 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 .
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).
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 23:24 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 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.
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 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 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...
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 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 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 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.
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
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 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 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 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
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 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 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 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 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
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 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 +
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.
On June 19 2013 01:29 Cynry wrote: @Reason : Oh yeah seems I totally was the one offended for nothing here, understood your post completely the wrong way. My bad !
I'm guilty of exactly the same thing on page 46 so unless I want to be a massive hypocrite, no problem!
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 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 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 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
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!
Being that this kind of sidebar is discussing very sensitive issues that can derail threads, could it be possible to move this discussion to PM's instead?
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 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 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 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
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.
I think the difference is merely that I chose to laugh at the ridiculous component of it, without making any sort of value judgement to what it was referring to. It was the serious -> ridiculous I was chuckling at, wasn't reading any message into it ^_^
A horse doesn't care if you have sex with it, he might even enjoy himself, it's not cruelty. Rather, I think that bestiality is an assault on the dignity of animals. I think you could say the same thing about zoos and circus animals too, and to a lesser extent about pets, testing animals and farm animals. In all those cases the animal performs a function for which it is exploited.
Given that we are perfectly okay with all those other things I fail to see why bestiality should be singled out as different. This is just moral panic, and I honestly wonder about the motives of the politicians that initiated this debate. Who were the people that went out of their way to complain about the minuscule number of incidents of bestiality which don't already fall under the scope of actual animal abuse and decided that this was a dangerous loophole and that legislative time should be spent on rectifying this?
On June 19 2013 01:47 Grumbels wrote: A horse doesn't care if you have sex with it, he might even enjoy himself, it's not cruelty. Rather, I think that bestiality is an assault on the dignity of animals. I think you could say the same thing about zoos and circus animals too, and to a lesser extent about pets, testing animals and farm animals. In all those cases the animal performs a function for which it is exploited.
Given that we are perfectly okay with all those other things I fail to see why bestiality should be singled out as different. This is just moral panic, and I honestly wonder about the motives of the politicians that initiated this debate. Who were the people that went out of their way to complain about the minuscule number of incidents of bestiality which don't already fall under the scope of actual animal abuse and decided that this was a dangerous loophole and that legislative time should be spent on rectifying this?
I don't think you can say that a horse doesn't care if you have sex with it. It probably does care in some way, good or bad.
I also don't see that the common argument, that we are "okey" with other cruelties that are more common and arguably worse would speak for bestality to be okey in any way.
I do agree though that it's a very weird debate to have today, given the much more seious problems facing us in almost the same field. Unfortunately it is our Minister of Agriculture, Eskil Erlandsson who initiated this debate in our parliament and who don't seem to speak a single word of wisdom in any important matter. (my opinion) And i have no idea about his motives. But he awkwardly mostly gives the impression that he trying to defend, or at least problematize bestiality (probably at the expense of tackling bigger problems)
On June 19 2013 01:47 Grumbels wrote: A horse doesn't care if you have sex with it, he might even enjoy himself, it's not cruelty. Rather, I think that bestiality is an assault on the dignity of animals. I think you could say the same thing about zoos and circus animals too, and to a lesser extent about pets, testing animals and farm animals. In all those cases the animal performs a function for which it is exploited.
Given that we are perfectly okay with all those other things I fail to see why bestiality should be singled out as different. This is just moral panic, and I honestly wonder about the motives of the politicians that initiated this debate. Who were the people that went out of their way to complain about the minuscule number of incidents of bestiality which don't already fall under the scope of actual animal abuse and decided that this was a dangerous loophole and that legislative time should be spent on rectifying this?
I don't think you can say that a horse doesn't care if you have sex with it. It probably does care in some way, good or bad.
I also don't see that the common argument, that we are "okey" with other cruelties that are more common and arguably worse would speak for bestality to be okey in any way.
I do agree though that it's a very weird debate to have today, given the much more seious problems facing us in almost the same field. Unfortunately it is our Minister of Agriculture, Eskil Erlandsson who initiated this debate in our parliament and who don't seem to speak a single word of wisdom in any important matter. (my opinion) And i have no idea about his motives. But he awkwardly mostly gives the impression that he trying to defend, or at least problematize bestiality (probably at the expense of tackling bigger problems)
That makes sense.
Politicians do it all the time, appease one aspect of a problem to show you care without tackling the other aspects of the problem because you're most likely bought out.
Kind of like how american conservatives want to be pro-life, but won't increase welfare to single mothers who end up with a kid due to lack of abortion as an option. So long as they say no to abortion they can say that they care about children without actually having to help out children.
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)
