[QUOTE=Rubs10;32998303]You're avoiding the question.[/QUOTE]
If you can force a child to do those things and still give it the right not to be raped why can't the same be done with animals.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32998309]A tin can isn't alive so no you actually can't.[/QUOTE]
So? It can't give it's consent so you are not allowed to have sex with a tin can.
[QUOTE=commander204;32998323]So? It can't give it's consent so you are not allowed to have sex with a tin can.[/QUOTE]
It's not alive, it doesn't have any feelings, animals do.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32998321]If you can force a child to do those things and still give it the right not to be raped why can't the same be done with animals.[/QUOTE]
Children don't have fully developed minds, your argument is completely different and doesn't apply to this debate.
Answer the question.
[QUOTE=Rubs10;32998372]Children don't have fully developed minds, your argument is completely different and doesn't apply to this debate.
Answer the question.[/QUOTE]
It does apply to the debate, the idea is that you can't show things inside an animal because it can't consent to you doing it, thus should be seen as abuse, much like how a child can't properly consent.
And no I will not argue on your terms.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32998356]It's not alive, it doesn't have any feelings, animals do.[/QUOTE]
That was not the point. And the fact that you have to point out something else so that my imaginary situation would indeed fail just proves that your abstract theory is wrong.
[QUOTE=commander204;32998408]That was not the point. And the fact that you have to point out something else so that my imaginary situation would indeed fail just proves that your abstract theory is wrong.[/QUOTE]
No
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32998356]It's not alive, it doesn't have any feelings, animals do.[/QUOTE]
Ah, now you're actually saying it has to do with feelings, so not just consent.
So what if you avoid these feelings issues? If you avoid causing physical harm and avoid constricting the animal or putting it in a situation where it will put up a fight (non-consent), then those feelings are not involved.
Then the comparison is quite apt. Shouldn't you be allowed to have sex with an animal when no harm is involved, just like you are allowed to have sex with a tin can when no harm is involved?
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;32998444]Ah, now you're actually saying it has to do with feelings, so not just consent.
So what if you avoid these feelings things? If you avoid causing physical harm and avoid constricting the animal or putting it in a situation where it will put up a fight (non-consent), then those feelings are not involved.
Then the comparison is quite apt. Shouldn't you be allowed to have sex with an animal when no harm is involved, just like you are allowed to have sex with a tin can when no harm is involved?[/QUOTE]
Sticking something that isn't supposed to go into an animal, into an animal is god damn abuse. Letting an animal fuck you is another matter that I care little for as it offers no possible harm to the animal.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32998464]Sticking something that isn't supposed to go into an animal, into an animal is god damn abuse. Letting an animal fuck you is another matter that I care little for as it offers no possible harm to the animal.[/QUOTE]
And who are you telling others what is 'supposed' to go into an animal?
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32998404]It does apply to the debate, the idea is that you can't show things inside an animal because it can't consent to you doing it, thus should be seen as abuse, much like how a child can't properly consent.
And no I will not argue on your terms.[/QUOTE]
I honestly don't know enough about children development and psychology to talk about them.
Anyway, using your logic, if we were to prevent people from having sex with them because it violates their consent, that would also entail all of what I stated previously.
You're probably just making an arbitrary exception though and I apologize, but now you're making yourself look foolish.
There's nothing bad about conceding, it's one of the things a lot of people can't do, so you'd only look more mature.
[QUOTE=commander204;32998500]And who are you telling others what is 'supposed' to go into an animal?[/QUOTE]
Are we really going to start arguing on the "who are you to say" terms
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32998525]Are we really going to start arguing on the "who are you to say" terms[/QUOTE]
Yes, because I find it rather interesting with how much conviction you try to save Animals from 5% of the population even after somebody proved you wrong.
[QUOTE=Rubs10;32998523]I honestly don't know enough about children development and psychology to talk about them.
Anyway, using your logic, if we were to prevent people from having sex with them because it violates their consent, that would also entail all of what I stated previously.
You're probably just making an arbitrary exception though and I apologize, but now you're making yourself look foolish.[/QUOTE]
If you're arguing on hypothetical logic then yes it probably is arbitrary, however from a realistic point of view, it is far better to just keep sex with animals illegal to prevent abuse and loopholes.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32998605]If you're arguing on hypothetical logic then yes it probably is arbitrary, however from a realistic point of view, it is far better to just keep sex with animals illegal to prevent abuse and loopholes.[/QUOTE]
Using your logic we should prevent everything because everything is subject to abuse and loopholes.
You're probably just making an arbitrary exception though and I apologize again, but now you're making yourself look even more foolish.
If beastiality were legalized, it can be regulated and abuse can be more easily found and prevented.
[QUOTE=Rubs10;32998649]Using your logic we should prevent everything because everything is subject to abuse and loopholes.
You're probably just making an arbitrary exception though and I apologize again, but now you're making yourself look even more foolish.
If beastiality were legalized, it can be regulated and abuse can be easily found and prevented.[/QUOTE]
No people would just use it's legality as a loop hole. it would be like allowing sex with minors as long as you don't hurt them, it would get massively abused.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32998684]No people would just use it's legality as a loop hole. it would be like allowing sex with minors as long as you don't hurt them, it would get massively abused.[/QUOTE]
Baseless claim.
[QUOTE=Rubs10;32998707]Baseless claim.[/QUOTE]
So was your claim that it can be regulated and that it would be easily found.
[QUOTE]Sticking something that isn't supposed to go into an animal, into an animal is god damn abuse. [/QUOTE]
From first page:
[QUOTE=Pepin;32980559]
Many of the arguments being made here fall under a fallacy. To quote an article (I suggest reading all of it).
"[B]Appeal to Beauty[/B]...
Another objection to a sexual act is the fact that its thought may be disturbing. Some people may find it disgusting that two people can consent to things which they find abominable. Although it is true that there may be no suffering exchanging in such a sexual act, they detest it on the grounds that it is grosteque -- at least, it is grosteque to them. The fallacy of this objection can quite clearly be seen: an action being ugly does not mean that it is immoral, just as an action being beautiful does not mean it is moral. If someone were to make the appeal that they detested a particular action because it was disgusting, it would best for them to imagine if someone wanted to limit them in their favorite action because it was thought to be disgusting.
Suffering is suffering and misery is misery. Whether it is surrounded by the veil of beauty or the sheet of wretchedness, it is still contaminated with the same fact that such an action is painful, full of the things that make up the negative parts of life. Similarly, happiness is happiness and pleasure is pleasure. Whether with the label of "beautiful" or "ugly," such actions still exist to lift our hearts and to put new meaning into our lives. On no appeal to beauty can any action be condemned, otherwise we would find that we are censoring the pages in the book of humanity, depriving ourselves and others of the pleasure and happiness that can ease worries and pains.
[B]Appeal to Obscurity[/B]...
Similar to the Appeal to Beauty, the Appeal to Obscurity is based not on contaminating an action with the title of "ugly" or "harmful to the eye," but rather, it makes the claim that such an action is obscure, odd, misplaced, and therefore should not be committed, in public or in private. This Appeal, though, just like the Appeal to Beauty, is flawed on the same grounds: whether or not an individual's actions are obscure and incomprehensible, or easily understood and simple, it has no grounds on determining whether or not such an action is ethical or unethical.
[url]http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/taboos.htm#Society[/url]
"
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Letting an animal fuck you is another matter that I care little for as it offers no possible harm to the animal.[/QUOTE]
So you think it's okay when no harm is involved? But you're being inconsistent now. You say people shouldn't be allowed to have sex with animals because they CAN do it in a way that harms them. But I don't see how that isn't possible if you have the animal start? There's always possible harm.
If a guy fucks his dog, he can choose to hurt it. If a dog fucks a guy, he can choose to hurt it. If a dog walks past a guy, he can choose to hurt it. The circumstances doesn't really matter, people can always hurt others, and [I]that[/I] is what should be illegal, which it is.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32998605]If you're arguing on hypothetical logic then yes it probably is arbitrary, however from a realistic point of view, it is far better to just keep sex with animals illegal to prevent abuse and loopholes.[/QUOTE]
Same logic can be applied to guns, knives, cars and so on. It's better to just keep them all illegal to prevent abuse and loopholes. People who are going to abuse animals are going to do so whether it is illegal or not, making it legal to have sex with them, but keeping actual abuse illegal wouldn't make people suddenly abuse them. Besides, the actions of a few violent individuals should not govern what we allow for everyone.
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;32998739]
Same logic can be applied to guns, knives, cars and so on. It's better to just keep them all illegal to prevent abuse and loopholes. People who are going to abuse animals are going to do so whether it is illegal or not, making it legal to have sex with them, but keeping actual abuse illegal wouldn't make people suddenly abuse them. Besides, the actions of a few violent individuals should not govern what we allow for everyone.[/QUOTE]
no it would just make it easier to abuse them without consequence.
Well on the grounds of me freezing to death in my ice cold room i give up on the argument.
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;32998739]So you think it's okay when no harm is involved? But you're being inconsistent now. You say people shouldn't be allowed to have sex with animals because they CAN do it in a way that harms them. But I don't see how that isn't possible if you have the animal start? There's always possible harm.
If a guy fucks his dog, he can choose to hurt it. If a dog fucks a guy, he can choose to hurt it. If a dog walks past a guy, he can choose to hurt it. The circumstances doesn't really matter, people can always hurt others, and [I]that[/I] is what should be illegal, which it is.[/QUOTE]
No, you aren't understanding the argument and it was pretty clear, so you likely didn't read it or didn't comprehend it. The entire summation comes from nowhere. What I'm saying has nothing to do with harm. An argument that revolves around harm makes no sense, as the logic would dictate that it would be perfectly fine to drug your child if the drug didn't cause any harm. It would also dictate that rape or any other action would be justifiable if it caused no harm. Rape doesn't at all imply harm, it is just that rapists typically harm their victims. Would a rapist who used a drug that caused no harm to knock the person out and during the rape caused no injuries be justified? By your logic yes, because there was no harm done. You likely don't actually believe this, but it is common for there the be a logical gap where people don't apply the same logic they are using to similar cases.
The issue is with rape in not harm, but rather force. It is what defines rape, sex by force that one party does not wish to take part in. It isn't the act of sex that is immoral, it is the force involved. Because of this, there needs to be a way to distinguish force from knowledgeable agreements. The best way is by considering an entity's ability to make and understand contracts. The example of children is pretty good as they clearly do not understand these principals, and this makes it clear as to why talking a 6 year old into a sexual engagement. The 6 year old might do everything willingly, the 6 year old might even offer the proposition, but there is obviously lack in disconnect in understanding. If children do not own their bodies, they cannot own their actions. The principal extends to animals in that they might do things willingly, they might even seem to suggest it, but it is no different than a child who cannot use words. By default, if an entity is no capable of expressing consent in a way that can be interpreted by all, that entity should not be subjected to any forceful activity that would require consent excluding homesteading matters.
I don't mean harm as in [I]just[/I] physical injury. But what do you mean I didn't understand the argument? What argument? When I quoted your earlier post, it had nothing to do with what you are quoting now. Me quoting your link was a reply to:
[quote]Sticking something that isn't supposed to go into an animal, into an animal is god damn abuse.[/quote]
and only that.
And yes, force, it causes harm because the individual does not want to participate. Not necessarily physical harm, but harm nonetheless. But that is different when it comes to animals. Do animals suffer from the same feelings that a human does when they get raped [I](when no physical violence is involved)[/I]?
It [I]is[/I] about harm. It is also about force, but force is only a part of it. Forcing people into sex is bad because it harms them. We already force children and animals into many things, but in those cases force is not a problem.
This derailed a bit, I guess.
@Topic
The sexual taboos don´t apply to me anymore.
I can openly talk with (nearly) anyone about sex etc. .
I find these kind of taboos a bit strange.
Why can´t people talk about something that is part of mostly everybody´s life.
(With "everybody´s" I mean adults)
When my grammer sucks again, I am sorry.
[QUOTE=Pepin;33010539]The issue is with rape in not harm, but rather force.[/QUOTE]
If it is about force and force alone, then what about caging a pet? training a pet to do tricks? How about moving an animal? Putting a pet on a leash? What about killing animals? They're all forced, but apperantly not as bad as sex? If it is only about them not being able to decide it for themselves, then it should apply to those as well.
[QUOTE]It is what defines rape, sex by force that one party does not wish to take part in.[/QUOTE]
But animals will clearly show it if they do not wish to take part in it. It's also quite clear when physical harm is being done. Besides, I think large animals like cows and horses will just not give a shit. Farmers regularly stick their whole arm up the arsehole of their horses and they don't mind. Why does it suddenly become a new matter when it's a dick?
[QUOTE]It isn't the act of sex that is immoral, it is the force involved. Because of this, there needs to be a way to distinguish force from knowledgeable agreements.[/QUOTE]
So again, all those other examples of force being applied when sex is not involved? I don't see any knowledgeable agreements coming from the animals in those cases. Riding horses or keeping a dog as a pet? When did they agree to that?
[QUOTE]The best way is by considering an entity's ability to make and understand contracts.[/QUOTE]
Again, all the other examples, there's apperantly no need to understand contracts when it comes to those. Why is it you think that sex needs a carefully thought through contract before it can be done? This is what I mean when I bring up the point that people seem to find sex much worse than anything else. Apperantly sex requires some ultimate level of understanding and comprehension like no other concept.
[QUOTE]The example of children is pretty good as they clearly do not understand [B]these principals[/B], and this makes it clear as to why talking a 6 year old into a sexual engagement.[/QUOTE]
Dang, it's gonna get derailed to pedophilia now, but anyways...
What principals? [I](Serious question; are you talking about the principals of making a decision, or some principals that has to do with sex? If the latter is the case, what are those principals?)[/I]
The way I see it, putting a six year old into a sexual situation is bad because it fucks them up. I imagine though that in cases where real force is involved, it is precisely because of that force that it is harmful. But in cases where the 6 year old does it willingly, it is a whole myriad of other issues that makes it a bad thing.
[QUOTE]The 6 year old might do everything willingly, the 6 year old might even offer the proposition, but there is obviously lack in disconnect in understanding.[/QUOTE]
What understanding? Understanding sex or understanding decision-making?
[QUOTE]If children do not own their bodies, they cannot own their actions. The principal extends to animals in that they might do things willingly, they might even seem to suggest it, but it is no different than a child who cannot use words.[/QUOTE]
And I disagree here: When it comes to children, there's a whole load of societal, cultural and psychological bullshit going on. That holds true whether they are being forced or not. Animals are simply not concerned with those issues, so there's no reason to apply the same logic to them.
Like earlier mentioned, if it all comes down to consent and consent alone, ignoring the concept of harm, then it should also be highly immoral to have sex with a tin can, because they cannot do [I]anything,[/I] thus they cannot consent. [I](The thing is, you can't cause harm to a tin can, that's why it's silly.)[/I]
[QUOTE]By default, if an entity is no capable of expressing consent in a way that can be interpreted by all, that entity should not be subjected to any forceful activity that would require consent[/QUOTE]
Tin can.
What do you mean with an activity [I]that would require consent[/I]? Sex is one of such activities. Could you provide examples of others? And why is sex one of those activities when many other things are not? [I](Spoiler: "I think the reason why these sexual taboos are there, is because we put sex on a pedestal.")[/I]
[QUOTE]excluding homesteading matters.[/QUOTE]
Why? I thought this was all about force, not about whether it causes harm or not? It seems that you're implying that homesteading matters are excluded because they are necessary? But didn't you say exactly that
[quote]It isn't the act of sex that is immoral, it is the force involved.[/quote]
So that would mean when it comes to homesteading matters, even if it is necessary, there's still force involved, which according to you is the issue. ?
[QUOTE=Silikone;32976985]In the western culture, anything related to sex is more or less considered a taboo in the public.[/QUOTE]
where do you live?
The Vatican?
as disgusting as i find it, i can't really say that there are any logical arguments against bestiality.
when you're killing something and eating it's flesh, it pretty much just gets more humane from there on. unless you design some sort of animal torturing device that keeps them alive and in extreme agony for years or something.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;33019062]as disgusting as i find it, i can't really say that there are any logical arguments against bestiality.
when you're killing something and eating it's flesh, it pretty much just gets more humane from there on. unless you design some sort of animal torturing device that keeps them alive and in extreme agony for years or something.[/QUOTE]Bestiality with cats is not good. With bigger animals I don't know. If we can keep them imprisoned and harvest their resources, i don't see a logical argument against fucking them too. I doubt a cow will be mentally scarred from your tiny cock.
[QUOTE=Pepin;33010539]An argument that revolves around harm makes no sense, as the logic would dictate that it would be perfectly fine to drug your child if the drug didn't cause any harm. [/QUOTE]
I actually sorta agreed with a lot of your first post in this thread, but I'm getting really tired of this repeated use of pedophilia as some end-all analogy. "Well that's like child molestation, so it's wrong". I'm sorry, I'm not advocating child molestation, but you can't just appeal to people's disgust of some act to win an argument.
To actually address the question you posed, no, it would not be immoral to have sex with a child, or anything else for that matter, if it causes no harm. To think otherwise is complete insanity. How can something be wrong without it doing harm!?
Tell me of a drug that causes no harm, especially to a child?
And if it caused no harm, I doubt it would be illegal.
What's with all the weird sex threads?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
