• Most bestiality is legal, declares Canada's Supreme Court
    128 replies, posted
[QUOTE=archangel125;50495311]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 [B](in countries not struck by famine, or for purposes such as luxury mink pelt jackets - meat is in many places, Denmark for example, not essential for survival, so by ROFLBURGER's logic it should be illegal in those parts) [/B]without their consent, humanely or otherwise, is okay, 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][/QUOTE] I basically agree if you add the part in bold.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;50495604]I basically agree if you add the part in bold.[/QUOTE] Yeah, lemme edit my post. That's basically what I meant.
eating animals bred for meat is totally equivalent morally to fucking dogs, right guys???
Jeeze, just shell out for a Bad-Dragon toy. It's less expensive and you don't need to be abusing animals to get your fill. You want a red rocket? Well stop being a fucking casual and get a werewolf dick. [editline]medium firmness[/editline] Big ol' werewolf wang.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;50495604]I basically agree if you add the part in bold.[/QUOTE] And I somewhat agree, but with that statement on its own. I think that meat consumption should be heavily discouraged, but not illegal, in countries where it is absolutely 100% possible and efficient to survive on plant based products alone. [QUOTE=archangel125;50495311]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.[/quote] I could also argue that you're coming from a moral standpoint. You're awfully caring about the rights of animals that like you said, can't consent to being killed. I could argue from a rational standpoint. I could argue that animals were made to kill, provided by mother nature for us humans to thrive. I could also argue that you're going down a slippery slope, saying that humans shouldn't kill insects because after all, they don't consent to death either. What should we do about the genocide of insects that humans partake in every day? What's rational and what isn't rational is subjective in the context of complex issues. Just like morals. [quote]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.[/quote] To me, It's rape. Rape is sex without consent. If you have sex with an animal, then that's rape. If you're advocating bestiality with the logic of "it doesn't harm them, it's okay", then you're advocating rape. There is nothing emotional about that logic. [quote]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.[/quote] What's your opinion on plant based agriculture? What's your opinion on the fact that plant based agriculture ruins local ecosystems with it's huge land consumption, harmful pesticides, and unnatural water irrigation? Where exactly do you draw the line when it comes to killing animals vs sustaining human existence? As for that law part, they're following their own laws. The law isn't "You cannot harm or kill an animal;", its more complicated than that. I think you're taking this anti-government stuff a little too far. [quote] 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][/QUOTE] Slippery slope to what? Do you genuinely think that there will be new laws in place because of this? Again, since we're talking about slippery slopes, could I argue that criminalizing meat consumption is a slippery slope to banning other things, like keeping pets? Hell, if you think than banning guns is controversial, wait until the nation talks about banning meat.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;50485318] 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] What?
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50495909]And I somewhat agree, but with that statement on its own. I think that meat consumption should be heavily discouraged, but not illegal, in countries where it is absolutely 100% possible and efficient to survive on plant based products alone. I could also argue that you're coming from a moral standpoint. You're awfully caring about the rights of animals that like you said, can't consent to being killed.[/QUOTE] I think you're kinda missing the point. He's not being "awfully caring", he's saying that if you truly care about an animal's well-being, surely you should be consistent? This is about hypocrisy, not whether rape is wrong or eating meat is wrong. And can you explain why meat consumption shouldn't be illegal in those countries? [QUOTE]To me, It's rape. Rape is sex without consent. If you have sex with an animal, then that's rape. If you're advocating bestiality with the logic of "it doesn't harm them, it's okay", then you're advocating rape. There is nothing emotional about that logic.[/QUOTE] [I]"To me, it's murder. Murder is killing someone without their consent. If you kill an animal that's murder. If you're advocating killing animals with the logic "it doesn't harm them, it's okay", then you're advocating murder. There's nothing emotional about that logic." [/I] Can you see how that doesn't [I]really[/I] work out? You can't pick one and not the other. There are other nuances, but this is really the basic inconsistency - you apply your logic to bestiality, but you don't apply it to killing animals.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50495909] To me, It's rape. Rape is sex without consent. If you have sex with an animal, then that's rape. If you're advocating bestiality with the logic of "it doesn't harm them, it's okay", then you're advocating rape. There is nothing emotional about that logic. [/QUOTE] If a dog mounts a girl, is that rape? Just curious to your line of thought.
[QUOTE=Firecat;50487538]Do you not understand the argument? Eating animals is [B]natural [/B]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] [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 [B]because nature says it's okay[/B], 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] "Natural" and "unnatural" don't really mean anything because it's a completely arbitrary term. To some, living in cities is unnatural. On other hand everything we do as animals in this world is how nature made it be. "It's 100% wrong, no need to argue this" is the most retarded non-argument I've seen. The debate is entirely about "why is it wrong", so just saying "it is" is going back to square one. You could oppose anything with that. "Homosexuality is wrong, there's no need to argue this. It's unnatural. Why do you need to fuck guys?" "Having tattoos is wrong, there's no need to argue this. It's unnatural. Why do you need to inject ink into your skin?" It throws rationality out of the window.
[QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;50495955]If a dog mounts a girl, is that rape? Just curious to your line of thought.[/QUOTE] Are we talking by accient (ie dog dryinghumping its owner due to excitement) or a woman getting naked and willingly letting the dog have intercourse with her? [QUOTE=Talishmar;50495957]"It's 100% wrong, no need to argue this" is the most retarded non-argument I've seen. The debate is entirely about "why is it wrong", so just saying "it is" is going back to square one. You could oppose anything with that. "Homosexuality is wrong, there's no need to argue this. It's unnatural. Why do you need to fuck guys?" "Having tattoos is wrong, there's no need to argue this. It's unnatural. Why do you need to inject ink into your skin?" It throws rationality out of the window.[/QUOTE] But really what I'm trying to get at is why are we debating "why is bestiality wrong?" what point is there to arguing the whys of it being wrong? The why part obviously differs from person to person. I'm just arguing because I'm worried if people actually and genuinely believe that there is absolutely nothing wrong with bestiality. But I'm also really confused with your comparisons. Saying "Bestiality is wrong, end of discussion." is nothing like "Homosexuality is wrong, end of discussion." or "Tattoos are wrong, end of discussion." One of them severely damages someone in the process.
This is disgusting I'm moving to Brazil
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50496020] But really what I'm trying to get at is why are we debating "why is bestiality wrong?" what point is there to arguing the whys of it being wrong? The why part obviously differs from person to person. I'm just arguing because I'm worried if people actually and genuinely believe that there is absolutely nothing wrong with bestiality. But I'm also really confused with your comparisons. Saying "Bestiality is wrong, end of discussion." is nothing like "Homosexuality is wrong, end of discussion." or "Tattoos are wrong, end of discussion." One of them severely damages someone in the process.[/QUOTE] If you believe it's wrong, you should explain why. Some people obviously like it, so if we want to punish them for it we need to determine if we're justified in doing so. All three examples are common in that they do not present an argument. They're simply moral assertions. Now "bestiality severly damages someone" on the other hand is an argument that we can have a productive debate about. I can imagine situations where bestiality does cause physical and/or emotional harm, but also situations in which it does not. Therefore wouldn't it be logical that bestiality is punishable by the extent of that harm, as per animal cruelty laws?
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50496020]But really what I'm trying to get at is why are we debating "why is bestiality wrong?" what point is there to arguing the whys of it being wrong? The why part obviously differs from person to person. I'm just arguing because I'm worried if people actually and genuinely believe that there is absolutely nothing wrong with bestiality. But I'm also really confused with your comparisons. Saying "Bestiality is wrong, end of discussion." is nothing like "Homosexuality is wrong, end of discussion." or "Tattoos are wrong, end of discussion." One of them severely damages someone in the process.[/QUOTE] It's kinda hard debating with you, when you actually don't qualify how nonconsensual sex with an animal is worse/different than killing it (or locking it in a very small cage, taking its pups away etc.), especially as you focus purely on the aspect of consent (which is universal to everything we do to animals, and thus can't be the only factor). Whether bestiality is victimless or not really hasn't been a necessary part of the arguments we've been posing. Let's put up a parallel argument: It is assumed that children can't consent (and I think we're all in agreement here). Still, it is not illegal to have their hair cut, but having sex with them is - with good reason. Statuary rape has a lasting effect on children's psychological health, while getting their cut hasn't. So good so far. Now, if we assume a similar situation with animals; they can't consent, and therefore you can't have sex with them. Still, we do things to them that we wouldn't do to children; take away their pups, put them in small cages, and we kill them - often, in modern society, without it being required for our survival. Why are those things legal when it comes to animals, but not when it comes to children? Either you have to conclude that: A) Those things (or some of them) differ from sex in some major way (which is what we've been discussing, and what you have yet to properly answer) B) The initial assumption that sex with animals requires consent to be "okay" is wrong C) Those actions do not differ from sex with animals in some major way, and therefore they should be treated the same way D) Something I have yet to think of
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;50496208]It's kinda hard debating with you, when you actually don't qualify how nonconsensual sex with an animal is worse/different than killing it (or locking it in a very small cage, taking its pups away etc.), especially as you focus purely on the aspect of consent (which is universal to everything we do to animals, and thus can't be the only factor). Whether bestiality is victimless or not really hasn't been a necessary part of the arguments we've been posing. Let's put up a parallel argument: It is assumed that children can't consent (and I think we're all in agreement here). Still, it is not illegal to have their hair cut, but having sex with them is - with good reason. Statuary rape has a lasting effect on children's psychological health, while getting their cut hasn't. So good so far. Now, if we assume a similar situation with animals; they can't consent, and therefore you can't have sex with them. Still, we do things to them that we wouldn't do to children; take away their pups, put them in small cages, and we kill them - often, in modern society, without it being required for our survival. Why are those things legal when it comes to animals, but not when it comes to children? Either you have to conclude that: A) Those things (or some of them) differ from sex in some major way (which is what we've been discussing, and what you have yet to properly answer) B) The initial assumption that sex with animals requires consent to be "okay" is wrong C) Those actions do not differ from sex with animals in some major way, and therefore they should be treated the same way D) Something I have yet to think of[/QUOTE] The double standard, while in a grey area, exists for a reason. We accept torturous things to animals when they serve a purpose, but we don't accept torturing animals. Probably because that correlates with psychopathic disregard for the distress of living beings. Even with purpose, there's a constant conflict. There's a lot of push to cut down on suffering of animals that are going to be killed anyway, and opposition to industries that are too cruel. I don't support bestiality when it means hurting an animal for pleasure. When that's not the case and it's done safely I don't see justification to oppose it. After all a lot of animals enjoy non-reproductive sexual acts.
[QUOTE=Talishmar;50496275]The double standard, while in a grey area, exists for a reason. We accept torturous things to animals when they serve a purpose, but we don't accept torturing animals. Probably because that correlates with psychopathic disregard for the distress of living beings. Even with purpose, there's a constant conflict. There's a lot of push to cut down on suffering of animals that are going to be killed anyway, and opposition to industries that are too cruel. I don't support bestiality when it means hurting an animal for pleasure. When that's not the case and it's done safely I don't see justification to oppose it. After all a lot of animals enjoy non-reproductive sexual acts.[/QUOTE] See, this already feels more like a response. Personally I believe, as you yourself suggested, that bestiality should be punished within the already existing animal cruelty laws. The only events in which you're gonna notice a case of bestiality is: A) If the animal is visibly distressed or physically harmed B) If the perpetrator is caught in the act or shares it online or whatever In A it could easily be covered the same as animal cruelty of any other kind, and in B I simply have to ask - where's the harm? Unless B is actually also a case of A, the animal in case B would appear to be unharmed and indistinguishable from any other non-affected animal, in which case I don't see why anyone should be punished. I'm not an expert in animal psychology, but the assumption that consent is super important to an animal specifically in the case of sex seems unlikely, or at least unsupported, to me. If someone can prove that assumption, I'd be right on the ban bestiality boat with everyone else. Edit: With that said, I'm not distressed by the fact that bestiality is banned in most places. It's vile, and I'd prefer if people didn't engage in it. I do not believe that that is sufficient to ban it explicitly, however - and that principle carries over to legislation in general (or rather it's the other way around).
[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] holy shit i can't believe this is a real post it can't be even a fucking cursory read of the article makes it abundantly clear that this is a legal issue regarding ambiguous definitions of a set of crimes, which often need to be explicitly laid out in code. these judges acted conservatively (in line with their duties) to read the letter of the law and that's what they did. Specifically pointing out the defining characteristics as written in law - sodomy, buggery. The dissenting opinion shows the opposite end of the philosophical legal spectrum, in that the "idea" and the "concept" behind the law (ere, its purpose instead of its letter) is to prevent sexual harm to animals. this is in no way an admission that bestiality is moral in any capacity, only that bestiality as it is in Canadian law is defined as requiring penetration. the court highlights this so that the legislature may fix it. do people not understand the functioning of the courts? are you fuckin for real dude? if you are, you're not embarrassing Canada; you're embarrassing the United States.
[QUOTE=Talishmar;50496095]If you believe it's wrong, you should explain why. Some people obviously like it, so if we want to punish them for it we need to determine if we're justified in doing so. All three examples are common in that they do not present an argument. They're simply moral assertions. Now "bestiality severly damages someone" on the other hand is an argument that we can have a productive debate about. I can imagine situations where bestiality does cause physical and/or emotional harm, but also situations in which it does not. Therefore wouldn't it be logical that bestiality is punishable by the extent of that harm, as per animal cruelty laws?[/QUOTE] I already explained why bestiality is wrong without saying "Because it is", so I hope you're not chastising me for that. I've made it abundantly clear that in bestiality, you're taking advantage of an animal. See my post below because it talks about "extent of harm" [QUOTE=GoDong-DK;50496208]It's kinda hard debating with you, when you actually don't qualify how nonconsensual sex with an animal is worse/different than killing it (or locking it in a very small cage, taking its pups away etc.), especially as you focus purely on the aspect of consent (which is universal to everything we do to animals, and thus can't be the only factor). Whether bestiality is victimless or not really hasn't been a necessary part of the arguments we've been posing. Let's put up a parallel argument: It is assumed that children can't consent (and I think we're all in agreement here). Still, it is not illegal to have their hair cut, but having sex with them is - with good reason. Statuary rape has a lasting effect on children's psychological health, while getting their cut hasn't. So good so far. Now, if we assume a similar situation with animals; they can't consent, and therefore you can't have sex with them. Still, we do things to them that we wouldn't do to children; take away their pups, put them in small cages, and we kill them - often, in modern society, without it being required for our survival. Why are those things legal when it comes to animals, but not when it comes to children? Either you have to conclude that: A) Those things (or some of them) differ from sex in some major way (which is what we've been discussing, and what you have yet to properly answer) B) The initial assumption that sex with animals requires consent to be "okay" is wrong C) Those actions do not differ from sex with animals in some major way, and therefore they should be treated the same way D) Something I have yet to think of[/QUOTE] It's morally accepted to cut a child's hair, because the benefits of cutting a child's hair outweigh the harm of cutting a child's hair. And I agree, it's morally unacceptable to kill a pet without good reason. And I agree, it's morally questionable to take cubs away from their parents as a way to sell them. So I'm going to pick D) It's a purely a moral issue. And there's nothing wrong with morals dictating laws. Think of this situation. A man sees an unconscious woman at party. It's clear that she passed out from alcohol consumption. The man sexually assaults her, but does not cause any physical harm to her. When the woman wakes up, she does not know that she was drugged but assumed that she passed out from drunkenness safely. The man later feels guilty, and turns himself into police along with infallible proof that he did in fact sexually assault a woman while she was unconscious. The police have yet to identify the woman. There was no physical damage because the attacker was careful. There was no emotional/psychological damage because the victim did not know what happened. Is that still sexual assault by your definition and should that be punished by the law?
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50497573]And there's nothing wrong with morals dictating laws.[/QUOTE] I hate to nitpick arguments, but yes there is. Laws are meant to be unbiased and separate from emotion. Morals are inherently biased and based on emotional response.
[QUOTE=Paramud;50497779]I hate to nitpick arguments, but yes there is. Laws are meant to be unbiased and separate from emotion. Morals are inherently biased and based on emotional response.[/QUOTE] I'm gonna try not to participate in this argument too much, but THIS. If your laws don't have any logical standing, then they shouldn't be laws to begin with.
Snippity snippy snippity snip
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50497573]It's morally accepted to cut a child's hair, because the benefits of cutting a child's hair outweigh the harm of cutting a child's hair. And I agree, it's morally unacceptable to kill a pet without good reason. And I agree, it's morally questionable to take cubs away from their parents as a way to sell them. [/QUOTE] When you write "pet" I get this queer feeling that you think other morals dictate farm animals and animals like mink - is that the case, and if so, why? As a total side note, you don't have to "agree" - those are simply things we do to animals (without consent) that we don't do to humans. The moral value of the actions aren't really important to the argument, but it is assumed that they're similar to bestiality. [quote] So I'm going to pick D) It's a purely a moral issue. And there's nothing wrong with morals dictating laws. [/quote] "Nothing wrong"? Why do you think homosexuality has been such a contentious issue when it really shouldn't? I can tell you with a 100% certainty that it isn't because of health concerns about HIV transmitting slightly easier during anal sex. If we allow legislation simply based on moral standards held by the majority, we end up with a lot of terrible, oppressive legislation - ever heard of Saudi Arabia? [quote] Think of this situation. A man sees an unconscious woman at party. It's clear that she passed out from alcohol consumption. The man sexually assaults her, but does not cause any physical harm to her. When the woman wakes up, she does not know that she was drugged but assumed that she passed out from drunkenness safely. The man later feels guilty, and turns himself into police along with infallible proof that he did in fact sexually assault a woman while she was unconscious. The police have yet to identify the woman. There was no physical damage because the attacker was careful. There was no emotional/psychological damage because the victim did not know what happened. Is that still sexual assault by your definition and should that be punished by the law?[/quote] (I'm gonna assume this is a response to my other post) It is still, obviously, sexual assault, because the woman couldn't consent. Allow me to break it down. X) [I]If[/I] animals do not share the human concept of consent (which I find likely), there is no such thing as non-consensual sex, because the concept of consent doesn't apply in the first place - therefore there is no harm done. Y) [I]If[/I] the animal does have a concept of consent, but we violate it anyway all the time, there's no non-hypocritical reason it shouldn't follow the already established laws - [I]unless[/I] Z) Animals do have a concept of consent, and its impact differs substantially in specifically the case of intercourse With humans, we [I]know[/I] that people have a concept of consent, and that it can affect a person deeply if it is violated. Therefore even if there's "no harm done", it is non-consensual sex, which is rape per definition. Maybe you could argue that your specific scenario example looks like X, but frankly I disagree, because the concept of consent doesn't disappear even if you're unconscious. An animal would, under assumption X, not care about being told afterwards (if such a thing were even possible), but the woman would still feel violated if she became aware of it. Thus case X and your scenario differ, and should be consistent with each other. Assumption Y is simply what we've been discussing most of the thread - law should be consistent, and if animals can't consent to one thing causing them distress, they shouldn't be able to consent to a different thing causing them distress. Z is simply the edge case that would justify banning specifically bestiality while allowing other non-consensual practices that aren't in the animal's interest either.
[QUOTE=ecapsbuS;50498008]Firstly I want to say that I have no sexual attraction to any animal whatsoever, but that shouldn't matter at all. This thread just goes to show how close-minded most of the FP is. You have to be a little objective and not let your personal preferences tell you what is "fucked up" and what is not. You know why they hate LGBT community in Middle East, etc.? Because they envision what it feels like to have non-heterosexual sex and it repulses them. They let their personal preference bigot them. Say an alien race came down to Earth. They have hot chicks and one of them wants to fuck you. For all intents and purposes you are less advanced being for them, just like animals are to us. Can you see a problem with this if you are willing to do it? So what in the fuck is wrong with sucking the dick of your dog if your dog is actually asking for it? As long as you are sure that none of you is going to catch a disease or something, objectively it is just same as sucking the dick of your husband. Get over yourselves. Ideal government is not supposed to get into personal matters of it's people, as long as those matters don't harm anyone. I can only salute the Canada for moving forward.[/QUOTE] There's an important difference between a sapient alien race and a non-sapient animal, and that's the ability to clearly convey in legally understandable terms the fact that they consent to the act. [editline]oh hamburgers[/editline] Though I do agree that many of the posts in this thread have been knee-jerk emotional reactions.
Snippity snippy snippity snip
[QUOTE=Paramud;50497779]I hate to nitpick arguments, but yes there is. Laws are meant to be unbiased and separate from emotion. Morals are inherently biased and based on emotional response.[/QUOTE] I don't disagree with that at all and can totally sympathize with that notion, but aren't laws for murder/rape/theft just as much based on morals? I mean, you could argue that they have some logic behind those morals and laws, but if so, I feel like the same could be easily said about the notion that raping an animal/locking up an animal/taking away a mother's cubs/whatever is wrong.
Snippity snippy snippity snip
[QUOTE=Skerion;50498092]I don't disagree with that at all and can totally sympathize with that notion, but aren't laws for murder/rape/theft just as much based on morals? I mean, you could argue that they have some logic behind those morals and laws, but if so, I feel like the same could be easily said about the notion that raping an animal/locking up an animal/taking away a mother's cubs/whatever is wrong.[/QUOTE] Laws criminalizing murder, rape, and theft all have perfectly sound logical reasons justifying them, free from any form of moral basis. I would argue that any law based entirely on morals, that can't be otherwise justified with a logical approach, is a bad law. As well, I would say that if law is based on morals, but can be justified logically, it's simply a good law enacted for a bad reason.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;50498016]When you write "pet" I get this queer feeling that you think other morals dictate farm animals and animals like mink - is that the case, and if so, why?[/quote] I wrote pet because I thought you were referring to the act of selling baby animals to people as pets, and putting down pets because of kill shelters. [quote] As a total side note, you don't have to "agree" - those are simply things we do to animals (without consent) that we don't do to humans. The moral value of the actions aren't really important to the argument, but it is assumed that they're similar to bestiality. "Nothing wrong"? Why do you think homosexuality has been such a contentious issue when it really shouldn't? I can tell you with a 100% certainty that it isn't because of health concerns about HIV transmitting slightly easier during anal sex. If we allow legislation simply based on moral standards held by the majority, we end up with a lot of terrible, oppressive legislation - ever heard of Saudi Arabia? [/quote] Homosexuality is completely different from bestiality. Homosexuality involves two consenting males, while bestiality involves one human and one unconsenting animal. [quote]It is still, obviously, sexual assault, because the woman couldn't consent. Allow me to break it down. X) [I]If[/I] animals do not share the human concept of consent (which I find likely), there is no such thing as non-consensual sex, because the concept of consent doesn't apply in the first place - therefore there is no harm done. Y) [I]If[/I] the animal does have a concept of consent, but we violate it anyway all the time, there's no non-hypocritical reason it shouldn't follow the already established laws - [I]unless[/I] Z) Animals do have a concept of consent, and its impact differs substantially in specifically the case of intercourse With humans, we [I]know[/I] that people have a concept of consent, and that it can affect a person deeply if it is violated. Therefore even if there's "no harm done", it is non-consensual sex, which is rape per definition. Maybe you could argue that your specific scenario example looks like X, but frankly I disagree, because the concept of consent doesn't disappear even if you're unconscious. An animal would, under assumption X, not care about being told afterwards (if such a thing were even possible), but the woman would still feel violated if she became aware of it. Thus case X and your scenario differ, and should be consistent with each other. Assumption Y is simply what we've been discussing most of the thread - law should be consistent, and if animals can't consent to one thing causing them distress, they shouldn't be able to consent to a different thing causing them distress. Z is simply the edge case that would justify banning specifically bestiality while allowing other non-consensual practices that aren't in the animal's interest either.[/QUOTE] Situation X. I could not disagree more. Animals are unable to consent. Shoutout to my friend who said there is no way in hell anyone can convince people here that animals can't give consent. Situation Y. We violate it for the greater good. If an animal provides 1 meal each for 1000 people, then it would be fair to kill that animal. Violating consent for the pleasure of 1 person isn't fair. Situation Z. Same point as situation X. [editline]45[/editline] Like I really pray that there is someone on FP who is smarter than me that can argue my points better than I can, because I'm done arguing. We're all talking to walls. There is absolutely no way in hell that I'm the only one who is (well was) willing to debate this issue.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50498130]I wrote pet because I thought you were referring to the act of selling baby animals to people as pets, and putting down pets because of kill shelters.[/QUOTE] It was more general than that, but fair enough. [quote] Homosexuality is completely different from bestiality. Homosexuality involves two consenting males, while bestiality involves one human and one unconsenting animal. [/quote] I'm well aware of that, thank you. That has nothing to do with the fact that you said: [QUOTE]And there's nothing wrong with morals dictating laws.[/QUOTE] Homosexuality has been outlawed exactly because some people think that's it's totally a-okay when morals, be it from old scripture or current ones, simply dictate the law. Laws should be challenged to see where the real basis lies, and changed if necessary. Edit: There's literally an article in SH right now about a Dutch woman being arrested for being raped, because she committed something immoral - adultery. If that doesn't show that morals dictating laws can be a very bad idea, I don't know that does. [quote] Situation X. I could not disagree more. Animals are unable to consent. Shoutout to my friend who said there is no way in hell anyone can convince people here that animals can't give consent. [/quote] If there is no concept of consent, the concept of non-consensual sex is -per definition- meaningless. You haven't provided any sources that show that animals have concepts of consent, and to what extent they do have them. Maybe an elephant or a chimpanzee understand consent much the same way humans do, while a goldfish or a cow do not? Who knows? If there isn't any basis for really claiming one or the other, please do allow me the big, cursive [I]"If"[/I] in front of the hypothetical situation that I made up myself. [quote] Situation Y. We violate it for the greater good. If an animal provides 1 meal each for 1000 people, then it would be fair to kill that animal. Violating consent for the pleasure of 1 person isn't fair.[/quote] Do you know how many mink pelts go towards one luxury jacket for one person (which isn't even a necessity)? Should we stop eating pigeons and other small animals, as they can really only go toward feeding one person? And what is the basis for this arbitrary limit? [quote] Situation Z. Same point as situation X.[/quote] This just confuses me - maybe you misunderstood me? Z implies that an animal's concept of consent differs [I]specifically[/I] in the case of sex, meaning that sex isn't okay while, say, killing them is. [quote] Like I really pray that there is someone on FP who is smarter than me that can argue my points better than I can, because I'm done arguing. We're all talking to walls. There is absolutely no way in hell that I'm the only one who is (well was) willing to debate this issue.[/quote] It's fair enough if you don't want to argue - but to be clear I'm not trying to be hostile here, or even just dismissive.
I'm mostly tired of arguing because I'm just repeating the same points over and over again, and arguing the same thing with different people. Terrible feeling when you're the only one arguing for one side.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50498527]I'm mostly tired of arguing because I'm just repeating the same points over and over again, and arguing the same thing with different people. Terrible feeling when you're the only one arguing for one side.[/QUOTE] In Internet discussions, people often fail to critically re-evalue their points as the discussion goes on or to change their stance in any meaningful way. This goes both ways.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.