• Most bestiality is legal, declares Canada's Supreme Court
    128 replies, posted
legalize prostitution, and the odds of someone choosing a golden retriever over a strawberry blonde goes way down.
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;50486376]That was actually a thing?[/QUOTE] Is there evidence to suggest that loopholes existed before in the law that were actively exploited preventing justice? I guess I can't imagine how this subject would come up if not.
I really wish I had the mental capacity to participate in a debate. I really fucking do. If you can't accept "Bestiality is wrong because the animal can't consent." then there is nothing I can say to change your mind on this. Like I should've even have to explain why it's wrong in more detail than that. It's like trying to explain why murder is wrong to someone who thinks life is ultimately meaningless, you just can't fucking do it. I use morals for my judgements in day to day life. Sue me. I fucking despise it when someone takes advantage of someone, people or animals, without justifying it. That includes animals. I also have an Utilitarianism approach when it comes to law which is effectively "The needs of many, outweigh the needs of the few." If god came up to me and said that I could sacrifice myself to save 1,000,000 random people from dying, I would sacrifice myself. If a man was about to unjustly kill 1,000,000 people and I had a chance to kill that man, I would kill that man. I wouldn't care for that man's consent. If a single animal provided meat for 1,000 people, and 1,000 people needed that meat, I would kill that animal because humans need that meat to survive. I would not care for that animal's consent. Until we can officially say that each human on earth doesn't need meat to survive, we're still going to butcher our animals for food. Until we all agree to stop eating meat, we still need the meat to survive and it's justified to kill animals for meat. In the long run, we don't need meat to survive. As of now, we do. [QUOTE=archangel125;50487323]Summary of my argument right here. But did you really have to be so specific? :v:[/QUOTE] If this is really a summary of your argument, by your logic, It's fine to sexually assault a mentally retarded child if I'm very careful not to cause it physical harm. It won't feel any pain, It won't understand the concept of rape so no emotional pain!
[QUOTE=Firecat;50487660]Of course I'm going to biased through a moral standpoint, not exactly gonna just go welp lets fuck some dogs now because x is kinda wrong now so we should be able to do x wrong thing too. And I'm not saying we need to eat animals at all, I'm saying that eating them has been a very long tradition and was originally very much needed to further ourselves as a race, and trust me if people were all of a sudden not able to eat meat there would be issues in some areas. We are built on a society where one of our best sources of meals derives from meat. Bestiality is for sick people, I'd almost compare it to the level of being a pedophile if we did not take in victims at all. It's not needed, its weird, animals cant consent, etc. I don't get the point in trying to be technical and argue that it isn't that bad unless you just have fun playing facepunch lawyer.[/QUOTE] Then why get involved in such an argument in the first place, knowing that's what it was?
[QUOTE=archangel125;50487806]Then why get involved in such an argument in the first place, knowing that's what it was?[/QUOTE] I made the mistake thinking that there was more than just morals at play to bestiality. I mean there is, you easily can harm the animal but there are going to be some people that will start to say "Let the animal fuck you" or "Just have oral sex!" and that's not something you expect someone to say. Like there's never going to be a way to justify the ban of bestiality to those people without bringing in morals. People assume that laws are based on people getting hurt, physically or financially, when they could never be more wrong.
[QUOTE=Firecat;50487660]Of course I'm going to biased through a moral standpoint, not exactly gonna just go welp lets fuck some dogs now because x is kinda wrong now so we should be able to do x wrong thing too. And I'm not saying we need to eat animals at all, I'm saying that eating them has been a very long tradition and was originally very much needed to further ourselves as a race, and trust me if people were all of a sudden not able to eat meat there would be issues in some areas. We are built on a society where one of our best sources of meals derives from meat. Bestiality is for sick people, I'd almost compare it to the level of being a pedophile if we did not take in victims at all. It's not needed, its weird, animals cant consent, etc. I don't get the point in trying to be technical and argue that it isn't that bad unless you just have fun playing facepunch lawyer.[/QUOTE] See, you're literally too emotional to argue rationally. You're insulting me already just because I dare question your logic on the issue. No, i'm doing this because it's a genuinely interesting conversation and I feel like subjects like this that are grey as fuck, are worth discussing. You're saying it's black and white and even having the discussion is fucked up. Cool. I don't. Don't insult me or deride me with some shit just because I feel the need to question your logic because it doesn't hold up. Tradition isn't really a stronger argument than your argument from nature. Both are simply "scare" arguments used to deride and attack the opponent by displaying them as being against "nature" or "tradition". I think it's fucked up to have sex with animals, but you can't say it's unnatural because it's literally natural that animals do this shit, we are animals. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-reproductive_sexual_behavior_in_animals[/url] It's incredibly fucked up based on my own personal morals but I really can't see how you can say it's unnatural or use the variety of other weak arguments based on emotion that you've used. Feel free to insult me but it does nothing to actually show yourself why you're right.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50487838]See, you're literally too emotional to argue rationally. You're insulting me already just because I dare question your logic on the issue.[/QUOTE] Can I be incredibly realtalk right now? Everyone other post by I see by you is an incredibly hyperbolic statement about someone's emotional state or how they're debating, which in turn makes it sound like you're the one being emotional. I've had these thoughts for about months, and I just really have to say if you want to be the bigger man here, don't even acknowledge the minor insults.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50487881]Can I be incredibly realtalk right now? Everyone other post by I see by you is an incredibly hyperbolic statement about someone's emotional state, which in turn makes it sound like you're the one being emotional. I've had these thoughts for about months, and I just really have to say if you want to be the bigger man here, don't even acknowledge it.[/QUOTE] I'm not even slightly emotional though...? I full well admit that I can be given the topic or the posters involved, but that's hardly the case
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50487897]I'm not even slightly emotional though...? I full well admit that I can be given the topic or the posters involved, but that's hardly the case[/QUOTE] You probably aren't emotional but a lot of your aggressive posts come of as emotional.
From what I gather, the ruling is just saying "this law's writing is shit, try again." Nothing to be angry about.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50487904]You probably aren't emotional but a lot of your aggressive posts come of as emotional.[/QUOTE] So, i'm held to a different standard than other people or what? I've gotten a few of these types of posts from some FPer's in the last few months, and I've looked at my behaviour, and I've tried to see what I'm doing wrong. Yes I can argue like an emotional asshole, yes I can be aggressive, but those things are always in response to someone else doing the exact same thing, so I always wonder what am I doing that singles me out for these posts in these arguments? Is it because I do it in multiple arguments? I know I'm not a very good poster but I really feel singled out for being "worse" than many posters who do the exact same thing.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50487952]So, i'm held to a different standard than other people or what? I've gotten a few of these types of posts from some FPer's in the last few months, and I've looked at my behaviour, and I've tried to see what I'm doing wrong. Yes I can argue like an emotional asshole, yes I can be aggressive, but those things are always in response to someone else doing the exact same thing, so I always wonder what am I doing that singles me out for these posts in these arguments? Is it because I do it in multiple arguments? I know I'm not a very good poster but I really feel singled out for being "worse" than many posters who do the exact same thing.[/QUOTE] I probably should've did this in pms. The problem is that they're not going "I'm better than you", they're just being idiots. I would've ignored it if you didn't call the person out doing the exact same thing you're doing.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50487828]I made the mistake thinking that there was more than just morals at play to bestiality. I mean there is, you easily can harm the animal but there are going to be some people that will start to say "Let the animal fuck you" or "Just have oral sex!" and that's not something you expect someone to say. Like there's never going to be a way to justify the ban of bestiality to those people without bringing in morals. People assume that laws are based on people getting hurt, physically or financially, when they could never be more wrong.[/QUOTE] But that's the thing. Morals are entirely subjective. They vary from person to person, and furthermore, have no bearing on reality. They're just personal beliefs. I maintain that the role of a government in a diverse, democratic country is to represent the people, and that means absolutely no laws based on moral judgments are acceptable, only those with harm reduction and order in mind. Moral-based laws are best for theocracies like Saudi Arabia. Because in making moral judgment-based laws, a government espouses a certain ideological perspective, which it has no right to do. It is a servant of the people, not a master. This is the same reason I'm against capital punishment.
[QUOTE=archangel125;50487323] Summary of my argument right here. But did you really have to be so specific? :v:[/QUOTE] Specificity is important, there are other sexual things that you can do with animals that is definitely horrible for the animal. [editline]10th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50487952]So, i'm held to a different standard than other people or what? I've gotten a few of these types of posts from some FPer's in the last few months, and I've looked at my behaviour, and I've tried to see what I'm doing wrong. Yes I can argue like an emotional asshole, yes I can be aggressive, but those things are always in response to someone else doing the exact same thing, so I always wonder what am I doing that singles me out for these posts in these arguments? Is it because I do it in multiple arguments? I know I'm not a very good poster but I really feel singled out for being "worse" than many posters who do the exact same thing.[/QUOTE] I can't speak for others but when I said you were being over-emotional it was because you were hearing what you want to hear instead of hearing what was said, and then reacting to that extremely strongly. You aren't a bad poster, which is why people remark that when they see you acting that way. People who are truly awful posters just get "fuck off" or no response at all.
dogs certainly don't consent to having their balls chopped off
There's a principle in UK law of social utility, which essentially means that if an act is done regularly by lots of people and has some wider benefit (I.e. not simply selfish enjoyment) then it's grounds to be considered legal. I would argue that while eating meat, wearing animal products, and keeping animals as pets does have some social utility, having sex with them doesn't, even though it might be argued that there's a similar amount of cruelty involved - this logic means that while punching someone in the face is generally illegal, boxing matches aren't. We should absolutely try to reduce the amount of cruelty involved in utilising animals for our purposes (which, by the way, I consider justified), of course.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50487418]Because we need it to survive. Eating/drinking is part of surviving. Having sex with other animals isn't. [/QUOTE] Keeping mink isn't in any way useful for survival, though? I would generalize that to most mink farms, but let's say that's only the case in Denmark - then it shouldn't be allowed here, right?
[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50485908]are you kidding me[/QUOTE] what he said was completely accurate
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50487418]We're eating animals because nature says it's okay, and that we need that extra food if we're going to feed everyone.[/QUOTE] Using food to feed animals meant for slaughter is inefficient. It uses up more grain to feed a animal for long enough that it is ready to be eaten, than to use grain to feed the same number of people that animal would. IIRC the problem with world hunger is not production, but distribution.
[QUOTE=ASIC;50490077]Using food to feed animals meant for slaughter is inefficient. It uses up more grain to feed a animal for long enough that it is ready to be eaten, than to use grain to feed the same number of people that animal would. IIRC the problem with world hunger is not production, but distribution.[/QUOTE] It's more inefficient but until we figure out how to digest cellulose, there's parts of the world that are going to have to rely on meat because the soil is too poor to farm.
Nobody tell chloeblackscythe
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;50493511]Nobody tell chloeblackscythe[/QUOTE] I don't geddit.
[QUOTE=Exploders;50485857]Bad dragon is probably expensive in canada.[/QUOTE] Dogs are more expensive in the long run
I'm going to get a second shot over this because I just got over the sheer confusion of someone comparing bestiality to killing animals for food. [QUOTE=archangel125;50487471]Again, I'm not saying that the government should even consider banning meat, nor do I think that owning pets is wrong, personally.[/quote] Alright, so we established that - The Government shouldn't ban meat. - Owning a pet isn't wrong. [quote] I find bestiality disgusting, but I do not find it morally objectionable in certain cases for the reasons I have given above. [/quote] I'm really going to need elaboration on this. Tell me why bestiality should be legal, or illegal because I don't understand your stance on bestiality. [quote] 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. [/quote] So would it be fine to kill animals for meat if they're happy? Isn't that just a moral issue? I'm fine with killing animals for meat if they're not put in abusive conditions. [quote]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.[/quote] Here's my entire argument, dumbed down so anyone could understand it. Fucking a dog is wrong. 100%. No fucking exceptions. I don't care if it involves penetration or if it doesn't. Animals cannot consent, they are unable to consent due to their undeveloped brains. I don't care who initiated it. If you justify bestiality then you're justifying rape. The lack of consent = rape and by extension, animal abuse. Killing an animal humanely isn't wrong. It provides food and shelter, one of the two things that we need to survive. The greater good outweighs consent. One could argue that we don't specifically need leather, and we don't specifically need meat, but we're honestly going down a slippery slope on what we do need and what we don't need to function as humans; that's an entirely different argument together. Until we can officially prove that humans can survive without meat (everyone on this planet is strictly on a meat-free diet), then I will admit that we as a collective don't need to eat meat to survive. We should focus on real issue like world hunger instead of scoffing bestiality laws because slaughterhouses exist.
this is fucked up
Uh, quick question, but am i the only person genuinely disturbed that there are people in this thread, even in a "devils advocate" sense, trying to find ways to justify bestiality in relation to other things we do to animals. Because its creeping me out. [editline]11th June 2016[/editline] Like i get this is the moral debate club of the forum but do you REALLY need to try and find loopholes in laws and logic to make dog fucking not seem as bad as dog fucking. Not everything has to be a massive correlated moral super dilemma. Its really weird.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;50494980]Uh, quick question, but am i the only person genuinely disturbed that there are people in this thread, even in a "devils advocate" sense, trying to find ways to justify bestiality in relation to other things we do to animals. Because its creeping me out. [editline]11th June 2016[/editline] Like i get this is the moral debate club of the forum but do you REALLY need to try and find loopholes in laws and logic to make dog fucking not seem as bad as dog fucking. Not everything has to be a massive correlated moral super dilemma. Its really weird.[/QUOTE] I don't want to say anything about this because it would be detrimental to everyone involved. If you call a person here advocating bestiality a dogfucker, they'll just scream at you and say "Wow that means i'm right if you don't have an argument!" and self-assure themselves that fucking animals is fine and the person calling you out is just insecure.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;50494980]Like i get this is the moral debate club of the forum but do you REALLY need to try and find loopholes in laws and logic to make dog fucking not seem as bad as dog fucking. Not everything has to be a massive correlated moral super dilemma. Its really weird.[/QUOTE] Although to be honest, it makes sense for people to be Devil's Avocado on the internet, because the social repercussions of doing it with actual people are more far-flung and dangerous. So, at most, people who have seen you in that specific internet debate will think you're a creep and that's that. [editline]11th June 2016[/editline] Also, it's good to actually understand why things are as they be, instead of just taking things for granted.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;50494980]Uh, quick question, but am i the only person genuinely disturbed that there are people in this thread, even in a "devils advocate" sense, trying to find ways to justify bestiality in relation to other things we do to animals. Because its creeping me out. [editline]11th June 2016[/editline] Like i get this is the moral debate club of the forum but do you REALLY need to try and find loopholes in laws and logic to make dog fucking not seem as bad as dog fucking. Not everything has to be a massive correlated moral super dilemma. Its really weird.[/QUOTE] People have all sorts of arbitrary moral limits that would generate this statement. I don't think dog fucking or any animal for that matter is right. Questioning those limits by no means implies what you think it does. I don't want to see it made legal but arguing from "nature" or such is empty to me.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50494912] Here's my entire argument, dumbed down so anyone could understand it. Fucking a dog is wrong. 100%. No fucking exceptions. I don't care if it involves penetration or if it doesn't. Animals cannot consent, they are unable to consent due to their undeveloped brains. I don't care who initiated it. If you justify bestiality then you're justifying rape. The lack of consent = rape and by extension, animal abuse. Killing an animal humanely isn't wrong. It provides food and shelter, one of the two things that we need to survive. The greater good outweighs consent. One could argue that we don't specifically need leather, and we don't specifically need meat, but we're honestly going down a slippery slope on what we do need and what we don't need to function as humans; that's an entirely different argument together. Until we can officially prove that humans can survive without meat (everyone on this planet is strictly on a meat-free diet), then I will admit that we as a collective don't need to eat meat to survive. We should focus on real issue like world hunger instead of scoffing bestiality laws because slaughterhouses exist.[/QUOTE] Look. Right and wrong don't exist except in the minds of people. There's no magical universal truth, no platonic absolute out there that determines what is right and what is wrong. That is purely a moral choice - a personal choice. And since my argument has nothing to do with what is right and wrong, only what the role of government is in this case, and why a government should be logically consistent, your argument and mine don't even work with each other. I'm not debating ethics, I'm debating rationale. And here's [I]my[/I] entire argument summed up. It is absolutely retarded to suggest that [I]killing[/I] animals without their consent, humanely or otherwise, is okay in a post-industrial economy where food is plentiful, but that a person engaging in sexual activity with an animal, without harming them and with the animal as a demonstrably willing participant, is not. If you really want to pretend that that's advocating rape, then you're clearly too emotionally involved in the issue to disconnect and view it rationally, and you may as well give up on arguing my point until you're sure you can see it objectively. Again, this isn't about morality. I myself do not believe that bestiality is ever [I]right[/I], because, as I said in my post on the very first page on this thread, even when the animal is a willing participant and totally unharmed (see the example I made in that post, I'm not going to repeat it) it's still exploitative at the very least. By the same principle, I am also totally against the way that slaughterhouses in Western, post-industrial countries conduct business, and VERY much against the fact that the government looks the other way and fails to enforce its own laws, in the interests of profit. For the last time. As simply as I can put this, to make it easy to understand: [I]If a government in a democratic country is not consistent in the standards upheld and enforced by its laws, that government is failing to do its job properly as a representative and servant of the people because it is making laws based on moral ideologies - which not everyone agrees on - as opposed to making laws that are purely for the benefit of order and safety in a country. This is a slippery slope.[/I]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.