Most bestiality is legal, declares Canada's Supreme Court
128 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Lollipoopdeck;50485841]god damn it just buy a dog dildo you fucks[/QUOTE]
If the dog is doing the fucking I don't think that the animal is in any harm. The animal concern arises from destroying an animal's insides by sticking a human dick in them.
[editline]9th June 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;50486516]Not likely, because that's not going to cause harm for the dog.[/QUOTE]
Bestiality laws are sexist, I demand equality!
oh no this thread is about to get really bad
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;50485318]Well Canada, you voted in a guy who could be summed up as being a pinko, and now you get to live the nightmare of someone trying to suck your dog's pink.
[I]Hopefully your parliament doesn't go as retarded as the ones in Scandinavia, and you start having those weird parties that like pecking children.[/I][/QUOTE]
This time I must ask you to elaborate.
Also did you include Finland as a part of Scandinavia in that post?
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;50486715]This time I must ask you to elaborate.
Also did you include Finland as a part of Scandinavia in that post?[/QUOTE]
The guy's an idiot, what elaboration is necessary? He clearly doesn't even understand the basic concept behind the separation of the judicial and legislative branches of government. Some varieties of stupid are incurable because they are not interested in being educated.
I read the ruling and it's rare to see very well thought out ruling like this one by the Supreme Court.
Nice... real nice. But why stop there? How long until "most pedophilia is legal", Canada?
[I]Wow.[/I]
[editline]9th June 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;50485317]Injury to animals is the first problem with it, moral objections come second. So I guess this bill just kind of clears up that part of the deal?[/QUOTE]
That's pretty much what I mean. I don't see how the same logic couldn't be translated over to something as pedophilia.
[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;50486830]Nice... real nice. But why stop there? How long until "most pedophilia is legal", Canada?[/QUOTE]
Didn't read the article.
Good job.
Shitpost/10
[QUOTE=archangel125;50486843]Didn't read the article.
Good job.
Shitpost/10[/QUOTE]
[quote]Sex acts with animals are legal in Canada, so long as there is no penetration involved[/quote]
So, I get a dog, I just have him lick peanut butter off of my balls. That's now legal.
[quote]"Although bestiality was often subsumed in terms such as sodomy or buggery, penetration was the essence - 'the defining act' - of the offence," [/quote]
Ok, so that means that as long as I don't put my dick in it, no harm is done. [I]I'm good to go.[/I]
Now, by the same token, can you go ahead and explain me why wouldn't they translate this over to something like pedophilia?
- You're not penetrating the toddler.
- By removing penetration out of the sexual act, you're not "harming" it in any way, shape or form.
Care to explain?
[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;50486874]So, I get a dog, I just have him lick peanut butter off of my balls. That's now legal.
Ok, so that means that as long as I don't put my dick into it, no harm is done. [i]I'm good to go.[/i]
Now, by the same token, can you go ahead and explain me why wouldn't they translate this over to something like pedophilia?
- You're not penetrating the toddler.
- You're not "harming" it in any way.
Explain?[/QUOTE]
Did you completely miss the huge part of the article that talked about how the law was being struck down just so that a tighter law with less loopholes could be put in its place, or do you have a learning disability?
Also the part that said existing laws were in effect until the court deadline or until the government passed a new law to replace it, whichever came first.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;50485318]Well Canada, you voted in a guy who could be summed up as being a pinko, and now you get to live the nightmare of someone trying to suck your dog's pink.
Hopefully your parliament doesn't go as retarded as the ones in Scandinavia, and you start having those weird parties that like pecking children.[/QUOTE]
At least we have the temper and the intelligence to vote for a person who is not an orange fascist with a dead golden rat on his head.
[QUOTE=archangel125;50486888]Did you completely miss the huge part of the article that talked about how the law was being struck down just so that a tighter law with less loopholes could be put in its place, or do you have a learning disability?[/QUOTE]
I have, that doesn't really answer my question. The moral implications of this.
[editline]9th June 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;50485343]Imagine if being accused of pedophilia also required penetration.
That's how dumb this law is.
Hopefully the Parliament will change it now that's it's got attention.[/QUOTE]
I sure hope so, otherwise Canada will become like a second Thailand for most pedos.
[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;50486917]I have, that doesn't really answer my question. The moral implications of this.[/QUOTE]
What the hell do the moral implications of a law that has just been struck down regarding bestiality have to do with pedophilia, and why is Canada at fault for striking it down in favour of a more strict law? Just admit you didn't read the article until I called you out instead of digging yourself a deeper hole.
[QUOTE=DELL;50485428]Well for one thing you can't compare those two things and being accused of something requires nothing. Convicted/found guilty is what requires proof of it happening. [/QUOTE]
You're right that's what I meant.
[QUOTE=Paramud;50485656]People aren't charged for pedophilia, they're charged for molestation, rape, or possession of child pornography.[/QUOTE]
You're right that's what I meant.
[QUOTE=archangel125;50486202]And this is the problem with bestiality laws. If a government is to be consistent, such double standards cannot exist. Either all acts that are exploitative of animals are illegal, or they are legal. If you're not willing to do that, then hold exploitation of animals to be legal across the board, and draw the line at actual cruelty. What I'm seeing here instead are laws that are, quite frankly, entirely due to the knee-jerk reaction of disgust that society at large has to bestiality - and not whether or not it is harmful.[/QUOTE]
I really really really really really really really really really hate this logic.
[B]As of now[/B], eating other animals is part of surviving. We need to eat meat to survive as people, you can argue that this is for the greater good (See: Utilitarianism).
We don't need to fuck animals to survive. Sex acts animals shows that you're mentally ill, and that you need serious help. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the government for having a total ban on bestiality.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50487093]I really really really really really really really really really hate this logic.
[B]As of now[/B], eating other animals is part of surviving. We need to eat meat to survive as people, you can argue that this is for the greater good (See: Utilitarianism).
We don't need to fuck animals to survive. Sex acts animals shows that you're mentally ill, and that you need serious help. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the government for having a total ban on bestiality.[/QUOTE]
But that logic doesn't work at all either. We don't *need* to eat meat to survive, plenty of perfectly healthy people subsist entirely on a vegetarian diet. In fact, fruits and vegetables are produced in far greater quantities than meat, poultry or fish by FAR, they're cheaper than meat, and arguably better for you. All the necessary vitamins, minerals, proteins and other nutrients that we find in meat can also be found in fruits and vegetables, or dairy products.
We enjoy meat and tolerate animal cruelty because eating meat is pleasant - it's tasty stuff and I'd have a hard time enjoying food without it. But you couldn't possibly argue that it's necessary for survival - at least not for those of us living in post-industrial countries where there is plenty of food available.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50487093]I really really really really really really really really really hate this logic.
[B]As of now[/B], eating other animals is part of surviving. We need to eat meat to survive as people, you can argue that this is for the greater good (See: Utilitarianism).
We don't need to fuck animals to survive. Sex acts animals shows that you're mentally ill, and that you need serious help. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the government for having a total ban on bestiality.[/QUOTE]
What about animals for leather? Or mink (arguably a practice that currently results in more abuse)? And we hardly need to eat anywhere near as much as we do, and diets containing little to no meat is entirely possible for many people.
I'm of course being the devil's advocate here - people who want to fuck animals should seek help, but I haven't really found a really compelling, logical argument for a bestiality ban.
[QUOTE=archangel125;50487112]But that logic doesn't work at all either. We don't *need* to eat meat to survive, plenty of people subsist entirely on a vegetarian diet. In fact, fruits and vegetables are produced in far greater quantities than meat, poultry or fish by FAR, they're cheaper than meat, and arguably better for you.
We enjoy meat and tolerate animal cruelty because eating meat is pleasant - it's tasty stuff and I'd have a hard time enjoying food without it. But you couldn't possibly argue that it's necessary for survival.[/QUOTE]
Hence "as of now."
Right now, it's absolutely impossible to make civilized countries switch to non-meat products. We'll need a huge breakthrough in genetically modified organisms in order for that to happen.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50487176]Hence "as of now."
Right now, it's absolutely impossible to make civilized countries switch to non-meat products. We'll need a huge breakthrough in genetically modified organisms in order for that to happen.[/QUOTE]
But then you're arguing that that's society's problem, not a matter of human survival. Just like I had pointed out that a knee-jerk reaction of disgust to bestiality is society's problem, even though it's still a double standard. So there was nothing wrong with my logic. You'll notice this is a purely human problem. As anyone who's owned a dog can attest, animals will try to fuck anything.
To be clear, I'm pointing out that a government has no place making moral judgments, only keeping order and protecting individuals - and animals, if there are animal cruelty laws - from harm. But a government that both allows slaughterhouses like the ones in the US and Canada and simultaneously has laws against bestiality that are not specific to cases of actual abuse or cruelty is hypocritical.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;50487153]I'm of course being the devil's advocate here - people who want to fuck animals should seek help, but I haven't really found a really compelling, logical argument for a bestiality ban.[/QUOTE]
why fuck a horse when you could fuck a person? if you absolutely need to have sex ASAP there's ways that don't involve abusing animals or people and forcing them to have sex
[QUOTE=iamgoofball;50487195]why fuck a horse when you could fuck a person? if you absolutely need to have sex ASAP there's ways that don't involve abusing animals or people and forcing them to have sex[/QUOTE]
I'm willing to bet most people who engage in bestiality aren't doing it out of desperation, they're doing it out of preference.
[QUOTE=archangel125;50487187]But then you're arguing that that's society's problem, not a matter of human survival. Just like a knee-jerk reaction of disgust to bestiality is society's problem, even though it's still a double standard. So there was nothing wrong with my logic.[/QUOTE]
A societal problem is still a human survival problem. We're no longer animals that eat, fuck, sleep. We're more complicated than that. We have an economy, we have people making a living off of selling produce.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;50487153]What about animals for leather? Or mink (arguably a practice that currently results in more abuse)? And we hardly need to eat anywhere near as much as we do, and diets containing little to no meat is entirely possible for many people.
I'm of course being the devil's advocate here - people who want to fuck animals should seek help, but I haven't really found a really compelling, logical argument for a bestiality ban.[/QUOTE]
Reason for a bestaility ban: Animals cannot consent. Period. There are no exceptions. Ever.
In order to have consensual sex, [B]you must prove consent[/B]. There is absolutely no way to prove consent with an animal because animals do not have the intelligence to make a rational decision to say yes or no and animals do not have the intelligence to know the consequences of sex.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50487253]A societal problem is still a human survival problem. We're no longer animals that eat, fuck, sleep. We're more complicated than that. We have an economy, we have people making a living off of selling produce.
[/QUOTE]
Sure. So if you're making an argument purely from an economic perspective, then yeah, you could argue that mass animal cruelty for slaughterhouses is necessary for people to make a living. I agree only to an extent. Slaughterhouses are necessary - their practices of unnecessary cruelty to the animals they process are not. I agree that banning meat from being produced and sold would be an absolutely retarded move. But that does not change the fact that horrible, unnecessary animal abuses are considered acceptable by the government, while bestiality with an animal, even in cases when the animal is unharmed, and furthermore is a demonstrably willing participant, is not.
Is it, or is it not hypocrisy on the part of the government? It's a simple question.
[QUOTE=Paramud;50487207]I'm willing to bet most people who engage in bestiality aren't doing it out of desperation, they're doing it out of preference.[/QUOTE]
I would assume so as well. Whether it's abuse or not must really be about animal psychology (because physical abuse is illegal either way), and it raises the question: Why doesn't it harm the cow psychologically when you literally fist it during a pregnancy check, but touching its genitals in a sexual manner does? Is the cow able to determine whether it's sexual or not, and does it think it's completely okay when it's just about a pregnancy? Personally I think this veers into the territory of people projecting their feelings onto the animal.
[QUOTE=archangel125;50487187]To be clear, I'm pointing out that a government has no place making moral judgments, only keeping order and protecting individuals - and animals, if there are animal cruelty laws - from harm. But a government that both allows slaughterhouses like the ones in the US and Canada and simultaneously has laws against bestiality that are not specific to cases of actual abuse or cruelty is hypocritical.[/QUOTE]
Then you should be saying that animal cruelty laws have problems NOT "bestaility laws have problems."
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50487253]
Reason for a bestaility ban: Animals cannot consent. Period. There are no exceptions. Ever.
In order to have consensual sex, [B]you must prove consent[/B]. There is absolutely no way to prove consent with an animal because animals do not have the intelligence to make a rational decision to say yes or no and animals do not have the intelligence to know the consequences of sex.[/QUOTE]
Why do we do so many things without getting consent from the animals, then? Does the mink consent to being in a cage because it understands your luxury need for a mink pelt?
I actually don't see why putting peanut butter on your junk and having your dog lick it off is bad for the dog
I think it's fucking disgusting but disgust shouldn't drive laws.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50487291]Then you should be saying that animal cruelty laws have problems NOT "bestaility laws have problems."[/QUOTE]
But that's exactly what I'm saying. Bestiality laws are animal cruelty laws, and they're often hypocritical because of the government looking the other way in other cases of animal cruelty, for profit.
Okay, look at it from a different angle. You want to talk consent, right? Consent is a purely human concept, because only mature, mentally competent humans are capable of self-reflection, planning ahead, weighing issues in their minds and making rational decisions. Why, then, do we even apply the term 'consent' to non-human animals when they're legally property, and when practically everything we do to them, including in some cases keeping them caged up as pets, is both exploitative and non-consensual by the exact same definition? Western society has a hang-up about sex, I get it, but it's still a strange doublethink, isn't it?
The basis of my argument is this. We exploit and mistreat animals as a society, and without legal oversight. Why should any government suddenly take a moral (and extremely hypocritical) high ground when it enters sexual territory?
[editline]9th June 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=phygon;50487303]I actually don't see why putting peanut butter on your junk and having your dog lick it off is bad for the dog
[B]I think it's fucking disgusting but disgust shouldn't drive laws.[/B][/QUOTE]
Summary of my argument right here. But did you really have to be so specific? :v:
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;50487300]Why do we do so many things without getting consent from the animals, then? Does the mink consent to being in a cage because it understands your luxury need for a mink pelt?[/QUOTE]
Because we need it to survive. Eating/drinking is part of surviving. Having sex with other animals isn't.
[QUOTE=archangel125;50487323]But that's exactly what I'm saying. Bestiality laws are animal cruelty laws, and they're often hypocritical because of the government looking the other way in other cases of animal cruelty, for profit.
Okay, look at it from a different angle. You want to talk consent, right? Consent is a purely human concept, because only mature, mentally competent humans are capable of self-reflection, planning ahead, weighing issues in their minds and making rational decisions. Why, then, do we even apply the term 'consent' to non-human animals when they're legally property, and when practically everything we do to them, including in some cases keeping them caged up as pets, is both exploitative and non-consensual by the exact same definition? Western society has a hang-up about sex, I get it, but it's still a strange doublethink, isn't it?
The basis of my argument is this. We exploit and mistreat animals as a society, and without legal penalty. Why should any government suddenly take a moral (and extremely hypocritical) high ground when it enters sexual territory?[/QUOTE]
We're eating animals because nature says it's okay, and that we need that extra food if we're going to feed everyone.
Listen dude, I hate capitalism as much as any other person. I also hate it when the government endorses capitalism. But when you start arguing that our bestiality laws are dumb on the basis of "oh we eat other animals, hypocrites!" then i really can't take that argument seriously.
I can't argue here. I really can't.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50487418]Because we need it to survive. Eating/drinking is part of surviving. Having sex with other animals isn't.
We're eating animals because nature says it's okay, and that we need that extra food if we're going to feed everyone.
Listen dude, I hate capitalism as much as any other person. I also hate it when the government endorses capitalism. But when you start arguing that our bestiality laws are dumb on the basis of "oh we eat other animals, hypocrites!" then i really can't take that argument seriously.
I can't argue here. I really can't.[/QUOTE]
Again, I'm not saying that the government should even consider banning meat, nor do I think that owning pets is wrong, personally. I find bestiality disgusting, but I do not find it morally objectionable in certain cases for the reasons I have given above. If non-human animals are legally property, they're property. Many of the pets we keep seem perfectly happy as property, and people form bonds with their pets regardless. But we cannot suddenly apply standards of agency such as 'consent' to animals that we in literally all other cases apply only to humans and not be hypocrites. If this is an issue we can't find common ground on, let's agree to disagree. But you have not yet given me a reason more compelling for why one thing is okay and the other is not beyond "This one involves money and this one doesn't." And for the record, no, we don't need our current production rate of meat to feed everyone in the country, not if you get down to the brass tacks of it. Check out how much produce (fruits, vegetables, etc) gets wasted or spoils before people can buy it. Having worked in retail myself before, I can tell you it's beyond ridiculous.
And please, let's not make appeals to nature. There's nothing 'natural' about everything from clothing to cars to farming. That's a hell of a slippery slope.
[QUOTE=Firecat;50487538]Do you not understand the argument? Eating animals is natural as in there is a food chain, and we have ate them to survive and we still do, yes we might not be fair for everything to come down to us and the fact that we waste a lot is also bad, but that isn't the point. Having pets has been around for sooooooo long, originating for usefulness but has grown out towards having other things as pets just because they are cute and such. They are both natural and have helped us grow the human race originating back AGES. Why the fuck do we need to have sex with animals?[/QUOTE]
We don't need to
We don't even need to eat them in a modern context
There is no such thing as "Natural" it is literally just a scare word used to say "You're wrong, I'm right, and reality is on my side" in this context, there is no such thing as natural.
It's natural for some animals to fuck the corpses of other animals, necrophilia. That's literally [B]natural[/B] yet, from our perspective, that's a perversion of nature. You can't have it both ways. The way things are is nature, and if something happened, then it's natural because it couldn't have happened otherwise.
I get the arguments, but I don't think many of you are doing archangel the favour of looking at his argument through an unbiased lens.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.