Germans want weed legalized, bestiality banned, according to a new government poll
201 replies, posted
[QUOTE=_jesterk;36639933]What the actual fuck is going on in this thread.[/QUOTE]
crazy bestiality supporters.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36639942]crazy bestiality supporters.[/QUOTE]
See, you won't even give anyone a chance to present an argument. You just dismiss them as "crazy bestiality supporters".
[QUOTE=Disgruntled;36639967]See, you won't even give anyone a chance to present an argument. You just dismiss them as "crazy bestiality supporters".[/QUOTE]
He's decently accurate from what I've read so far.
[QUOTE=_jesterk;36639983]He's decently accurate from what I've read so far.[/QUOTE]
How so?
[QUOTE=Disgruntled;36639999]How so?[/QUOTE]
Because it's [B][I]ICKY[/I][/B]
[QUOTE=Disgruntled;36639999]How so?[/QUOTE]
[quote]Umm, if someone wants to do something and no one is harmed, why prevent them from doing so? Life is short, and you force people to not enjoy themselves in a harmless act for moral reasons? It doesn't affect you or anyone you know, and the animals aren't harmed by it, why is it bad? Smoking marijuana is (almost constantly) a victimless crime, so is beastiality. The only people that are at risk are the people involved, and it's their choice what to do with their body.[/quote]
I'm gonna go to a klan meeting but it's cool because nobody gets harmed.
[QUOTE=_jesterk;36640036]I'm gonna go to a klan meeting but it's cool because nobody gets harmed.[/QUOTE]
I support your right to do that, I don't support your right to lynch a black guy though because he would get harmed.
[QUOTE=zakedodead;36640029]Because it's [B][I]ICKY[/I][/B][/QUOTE]
Or because it can cause distress and/or harm to the animal?
[QUOTE=_jesterk;36640036]I'm gonna go to a klan meeting but it's cool because nobody gets harmed.[/QUOTE]
That's a shit argument. You immediately compare zoophiliacs to a god damn racist organization, and the whole argument isn't even logically based. It's entirely centered around "I don't like it, therefore illegal".
[QUOTE=wizu;36632053]When zoophilia is banned it will only be a matter of time and MLP:FiM will stop being aired.
Muahaha![/QUOTE]
please stop posting
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36640065]Or because it can cause distress and/or harm to the animal
[/QUOTE]
That would be covered under animal abuse laws.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36640065]Or because it can cause distress and/or harm to the animal?[/QUOTE]
So do a lot of other things humans do to them. Don't see you moving to have those things made illegal, though.
[QUOTE=zakedodead;36640087]That would be covered under animal abuse laws.[/QUOTE]
Well it clearly isn't if people can do it.
[editline]5th July 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Disgruntled;36640092]So do a lot of other things humans do to them. Don't see you moving to have those things made illegal, though.[/QUOTE]
Erm no, most things that harm animals are counted as abuse so no not really. Only things that are allowed is killing for food or for research as far as I know. Since I don't like hunting for sport either I don't count that as an argument for.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36640129]Well it clearly isn't if people can do it.[/QUOTE]
So, you're saying that all acts of zoophilia are abuse?
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36640129]Well it clearly isn't if people can do it.
[editline]5th July 2012[/editline]
Erm no, most things that harm animals are counted as abuse so no not really. Only things that are allowed is killing for food or for research as far as I know. Since I don't like hunting for sport either I don't count that as an argument for.[/QUOTE]
Because there is no mental harm involved, yes there's the argument that animals can't consent but the only reason consent is required among humans is because humans have a lot of societal pressure against sex (and pregnancy/stds). But with an animal there is no mental harm and if there is any physical harm it would fall under animal abuse.
[QUOTE=Disgruntled;36640170]So, you're saying that all acts of zoophilia are abuse?[/QUOTE]
No just forcing sex on an animal, if you bend over for your dog then whatever, but forcing your dick into it is sexual abuse.
[editline]5th July 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=zakedodead;36640180]Because there is no mental harm involved, yes there's the argument that animals can't consent but the only reason consent is required among humans is because humans have a lot of societal pressure against sex (and pregnancy/stds). But with an animal there is no mental harm and if there is any physical harm it would fall under animal abuse.[/QUOTE]
Proof that there's not mental harm?
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36640129]Well it clearly isn't if people can do it.[/QUOTE]
Why do you think it causes distress and harm to an animal?
If it's because they cannot consent, then you must apply this same reasoning to keeping pets. They cannot consent to being kept as pets, so surely we must stop doing that as well. And no teaching them tricks either.
If it is because you think animals will physically be harmed by it, then there are laws against that type of abuse regardless of beastiality laws. Besides, farmers frequently stick their entire arm up their horses and cows asses to check up on them. I really don't think they'd care about a penis.
[editline]5th July 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36640183]Proof that there's not mental harm?[/QUOTE]
Why would there be mental harm? Unless you're using physical force and restraining them, I don't see why? It's usually not very hard to see whether an animal is content with a situation or in distress. Most animals will also react to it if they don't like something. Similarly, dogs sometimes hump everything, including humans. How could that cause mental harm when they themselves are doing it?
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;36640205] Besides, farmers frequently stick their entire arm up their horses and cows asses to check up on them. I really don't think they'd care about a penis.[/QUOTE]
Well obviously you've never seen my penis.
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;36640205]Why do you think it causes distress and harm to an animal?
If it's because they cannot consent, then you must apply this same reasoning to keeping pets. They cannot consent to being kept as pets, so surely we must stop doing that as well. And no teaching them tricks either.
If it is because you think animals will physically be harmed by it, then there are laws against that type of abuse regardless of beastiality laws. Besides, farmers frequently stick their entire arm up their horses and cows asses to check up on them. I really don't think they'd care about a penis.[/QUOTE]
Well the first point can be attributed to children so you can throw that out the window.
I'm fairly sure aniamls do care about having an arm shoved up their ass, however that is to protect their health not because some lonely farmer got bored. If someone did just enjoy shoving their arm up animals asses then that should be counted as abuse.
[editline]5th July 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;36640205]
Why would there be mental harm? Unless you're using physical force and restraining them, I don't see why? It's usually not very hard to see whether an animal is content with a situation or in distress. Most animals will also react to it if they don't like something. Similarly, dogs sometimes hump everything, including humans. How could that cause mental harm when they themselves are doing it?[/QUOTE]
Bullshit otherwise most dog abuse cases would result in owners getting their arms bitten off, you can train an animal not to fight back.
This is... An odd thread.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36640260]Well the first point can be attributed to children so you can throw that out the window.[/QUOTE]
No, it does if you think that consent is the [I]only[/I] issue, and I contend that it isn't. For example, pets cannot consent to being killed, and it does indeed cause harm for them. But pets also cannot consent to being someones pet, which doesn't always cause harm. This shows that consent isn't the end-all issue. The same goes for children, since we put them in schools without their consent, and it doesn't harm them. All I was saying is that if you were going to argue against it using only consent as a basis, you'd have to be consistent with that basis.
[QUOTE]I'm fairly sure aniamls do care about having an arm shoved up their ass, however that is to protect their health not because some lonely farmer got bored. If someone did just enjoy shoving their arm up animals asses then that should be counted as abuse.[/QUOTE]
I really don't think they care. I can't say I know for sure, I just saw a video once where a farmer did this, and the animals looked completely unphased. Let's say they do care about arms, why would they care about dicks unless they're as large as zakedodead's?
[B]EDIT:[/B] I'm honestly not entirely sure what to think about what you're saying here. Basically you're saying that you think they [I]are[/I] harmed by it, and from what you've said before, perhaps even mentally harmed by the action. So you're saying that when farmers are protecting their livestock, they essentially rape because it is necessary for them to do so? If you think it would be harmful for them if someone did it for one reason, why would it not be harmful for another? And if it is harmful when it is used to check up on them, shouldn't they use another method?
[QUOTE]Bullshit otherwise most dog abuse cases would result in owners getting their arms bitten off, you can train an animal not to fight back.[/QUOTE]
Which would involve actual abuse like unreasonable punishments. Which would be covered by laws that are unrelated to beastiality..
[QUOTE=Disgruntled;36640074]That's a shit argument. You immediately compare zoophiliacs to a god damn racist organization, and the whole argument isn't even logically based. It's entirely centered around "I don't like it, therefore illegal".[/QUOTE]
I'm not comparing it to that. I was pointing out that that argument was in turn shitty because you could do something that 99% of the population considers fucked up and which should be illegal, yet it's apparently fine to do it because nobody gets harmed by it.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;36628960]Uh... why did Germany decriminalize bestiality anyway?[/QUOTE]
Technically, it's a very gray area. Speaking in terms of consent, etc. But coming to that conclusion requires a lot of thought about things most normal people would rather not think about.
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;36640376]No, it does if you think that consent is the [I]only[/I] issue, and I contend that it isn't. For example, pets cannot consent to being killed, and it does indeed cause harm for them. But pets also cannot consent to being someones oet, which doesn't always cause harm. This shows that consent isn't the end-all issue. The same goes for children, since we put them in schools without their consent, and it doesn't harm them. All I was saying is that if you were going to argue against it using only consent as a basis, you'd have to be consistent with that basis.
I really don't think they care. I can't say I know for sure, I just saw a video once where a farmer did this, and the animals looked completely unphased. Let's say they do care about arms, why would they care about dicks unless they're as large as zakedodead's?
Which would involve actual abuse like unreasonable punishments. Which would be covered by laws that are unrelated to beastiality..[/QUOTE]
I'm fairly sure killing your pet for fun is illegal, you're only allowed to kill an animal if it is for a reasonable purpose so the first point us fairly null.
Second point... well I'm not going to ask
And third, well it clearly isn't since apparently sex with an animal is fine.
[QUOTE=_jesterk;36640398]I'm not comparing it to that. I was pointing out that that argument was in turn shitty because you could do something that 99% of the population considers fucked up and which should be illegal, yet it's apparently fine to do it because nobody gets harmed by it.[/QUOTE]
So, you're saying your argument is, "IT'S [I][B]ICKY[/B][/I]"?
No, I was saying that his argument was shitty.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36640445]I'm fairly sure killing your pet for fun is illegal, you're only allowed to kill an animal if it is for a reasonable purpose so the first point us fairly null.[/QUOTE]
Frankly, I don't know how to feel about this. I can see that illegalizing all killing of animals would be an unfeasible thing to do. But I do think it would be the most logical course of action. Thing is, I think what we need to be focusing on is whether or not harm is done to the animal. Not [I]why[/I] something is done to them. I'm sure an animal doesn't give a single fuck about [I]why[/I] it was killed.
If we can agree that killing animals harms them, then we should in principle also agree that it is bad and that it should thus be illegal in all cases. Eating meat isn't absolutely necessary, so we could avoid all this killing. In principle. I don't think it could work, but it still seems like a double standard to me when you say that you can kill animals sometimes, but you can't do something sexual to it.
[QUOTE]And third, well it clearly isn't since apparently sex with an animal is fine.[/QUOTE]
I don't know what you're saying here. What I'm saying is that it would be possible to have laws that make [I]actual abuse[/I] illegal, while not illegalizing all sexual activity with animals. Do you tink that [I]all sexual activity[/I] with animals is abuse? What is it about sex, in your eyes, that makes it such a dangerous weapon against animals?
[editline]5th July 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=_jesterk;36640530]No, I was saying that his argument was shitty.[/QUOTE]
You've basically reached the point where you're arguing against freedom of speech when the speech supports something that [I]"99% of the population considers fucked up"[/I], even when nobody is harmed.
Harm really should be the issue here, not what the population thinks is icky. [I](or "fucked up", feel free to use any knee-jerk vocabulary you can think of.)[/I]
I don't think that either?
I don't see how I'm arguing against freedom of speech. That seems pretty knee-jerk if we want to get into that.
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;36640556]Frankly, I don't know how to feel about this. I can see that illegalizing all killing of animals would be an unfeasible thing to do. But I do think it would be the most logical course of action. Thing is, I think what we need to be focusing on is whether or not harm is done to the animal. Not [I]why[/I] something is done to them. I'm sure an animal doesn't give a single fuck about [I]why[/I] it was killed.
If we can agree that killing animals harms them, then we should in principle also agree that it is bad and that it should thus be illegal in all cases. Eating meat isn't absolutely necessary, so we could avoid all this killing. In principle. I don't think it could work, but it still seems like a double standard to me when you say that you can kill animals sometimes, but you can't do something sexual to it.
[/QUOTE]
Let me put it this way. If having sex with an animal would save a persons life, then I'd accept it, same as how if an animal is killed and is used to save lives through research or feeding people then I see it as fine. However since sex with an animal is purely recreational I cannot say I agree with it at all and is, from what I can see, animal abuse.
[QUOTE=_jesterk;36640636]I don't think that either?
I don't see how I'm arguing against freedom of speech. That seems pretty knee-jerk if we want to get into that.[/QUOTE]
But weren't you implying that a klan meeting, even where no actual harm is involved, should be illegal, based on the fact that 99% of the population considers it fucked up?
"I'm gonna go to a klan meeting but it's cool because n[B]obody gets harmed.[/B]"
"because you could do something that [B]99% of the population considers fucked up[/B] and which [B]should be illegal[/B], yet it's apparently fine to do it because [B]nobody gets harmed by it.[/B] "
Seems to me that you're arguing that a meeting, even one with no harm involved, should be illegal because of how you feel about the meeting. Seems pretty anti-freedom to me?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.