|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Zoophilia to be banned in Germany
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
1. Shagging animals is currently legal in Germany.
2. According to this report, a community of zoophiles exist in Germany who state that "Central to the beliefs of zoophiles is that we don't do anything that the animal doesn't want. We do not treat them cruelly. An animal is quite capable of showing precisely what it wants and does not want. When I look at my dog I know immediately what it wants. Animals are much easier to understand than women"
3. WTF?!?
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
Is it a step too far to compare people who seek gratification from animals with child abusers? I'm not sure that it is.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I think it would be costly and time consuming for them to make a new law. Surely all sex with animals would come under existing cruelty to animal laws?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
long ranger: When I look at my dog I know immediately what it wants.
I wonder if they have a Help Line for people who have been rejected by their dogs?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
When I had (in the non-biblical sense) a pet dog, I could tell when she was ill, wanted food, or wanted to go out. Call me uncaring, but I never thought she was asking for a shag.
Would a dog who is attempting to hump my leg really want me to go all adam-and-eve on it? Seems unlikely to me.
[ 28. November 2012, 08:00: Message edited by: the long ranger ]
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
Castrate the buggers - after all, we already do it to the animals...
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Is it a step too far to compare people who seek gratification from animals with child abusers? I'm not sure that it is.
I disagree. Animals and children aren't comparable in that way, and we as a society and as a species clearly care far less about hurting animals than hurting children.
I mean, we don't eat children do we? If you think animal abusers should be treated the same way as child abusers then surely you have to also think that animal eaters should be treated the same way as child eaters. And if not, why not?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
What Marvin said. They are not comparable.
This does not mean the practice is alright. Apart from being really fucking weird, an animal is incapable of giving consent.
Before a vegan comes down here to point out the irony of my statement, let me preempt you by saying that I see it. I'm off now to cook a chicken that was killed that I might have lunch, and have it more deliciously.
[ 28. November 2012, 08:47: Message edited by: Dark Knight ]
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wesley J
Silly Shipmate
# 6075
|
Posted
Zoophilia? What about the numerous supporters of zoos? Are they going to arrest them as well? I think entire families will end up in prison, or shall we say - this being Germany - in camps!
Have they learnt nothing from The War? This is outrageous!
--------------------
Be it as it may: Wesley J will stay. --- Euthanasia, that sounds good. An alpine neutral neighbourhood. Then back to Britain, all dressed in wood. Things were gonna get worse. (John Cooper Clarke)
Posts: 7354 | From: The Isles of Silly | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wesley J
I think entire families will end up in prison, or shall we say - this being Germany - in camps!
What a pathetic, insulting and puerile comment.
Obviously someone still stuck in 1950s war film syndrome. How sad.
(Please reply by telling me you were only joking, and I should get a sense of humour! To which I will reply: I didn't find it funny. Grow up.)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by some German nutterAn animal is quite capable of showing precisely what it wants and does not want.
The mind boggles.
Given how rare it is for people to want to have sex with animals, my guess would be that it is also very rare to find an animal that wants to have sex with humans.
So how do they hook up with the small percentage of consenting animals? Personals websites? Or do they just deem consent from the ones that don't struggle QUITE so much while being held down and sexually interefered with?
Dear God. People can convince themselves of all sorts of extraordinary things, can't they?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wesley J:
Zoophilia? What about the numerous supporters of zoos? Are they going to arrest them as well? I think entire families will end up in prison, or shall we say - this being Germany - in camps!
Have they learnt nothing from The War? This is outrageous!
Godwin's law achieved in only 8 posts, good work.
Minus points for confusing supporters of zoology with supporters of bestiality.
[ 28. November 2012, 09:31: Message edited by: the giant cheeseburger ]
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
According to this report, a community of zoophiles exist in Germany who state that "...When I look at my dog I know immediately what it wants."
And strangely enough it's always exactly what the guy himself wants. What an amazing coincidence!
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
This does not mean the practice is alright. Apart from being really fucking weird, an animal is incapable of giving consent.
Yes, but is that a relevant consideration? "Consent" is an important sexual concept when we're talking about all-human relationships because the lack of it causes harm to the person being violated, and we don't like people causing harm to other people. It's that harm that's the reason for the laws, not the consent itself. But if we don't really care about causing harm to animals, why should be care about whether they consent to sex or not?
Laws exist to protect victims, not to prevent people from doing things we think are weird. Not even if we think they're really fucking weird. If there's no victim then there shouldn't be a crime. And I'm not convinced that animals can or should be considered legitimate victims in that sense.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
So it doesn't bother you that individuals can legally get their rocks off with beings who are incapable of consent?
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
Dunno, maybe it is just my screamishness - in the sense that humans are influencing how and why beings mate for their own purposes all the time. Why not breed dogs with large vaginas for pleasuring men who can't relate to human beings?
Other than it is fucking sick, of course.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If there's no victim then there shouldn't be a crime. And I'm not convinced that animals can or should be considered legitimate victims in that sense.
Hmm. There's a whole theory of animal welfare laws to unpack here...
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
So it doesn't bother you that individuals can legally get their rocks off with beings who are incapable of consent?
Not particularly, no.
Don't get me wrong, I think they're really fucking weird and creepy. But they're not hurting anybody and they're not forcing me to have anything to do with them, so live and let live I say.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If there's no victim then there shouldn't be a crime. And I'm not convinced that animals can or should be considered legitimate victims in that sense.
Hmm. There's a whole theory of animal welfare laws to unpack here...
Animal welfare laws are ridiculous, not least because they only seem to apply to the cute fluffy animals. When was the last time someone was arrested for swatting a fly or stepping on a spider? Where are the animal rights nuts when gardeners are putting down slug pellets? But kick one cute little puppy and they'll try to string you up. Hypocrites.
If eating a sheep shouldn't be a crime, then neither should fucking one.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If eating a sheep shouldn't be a crime, then neither should fucking one.
Except there's a massive difference between doing stuff to dead meat and doing stuff to a living, breathing creature. The former is victimless, but the latter has a living victim.
And yes, we killed that living, breathing creature so we could eat it. But the point is about not causing ongoing suffering, and if the death was painless (or as near as darn it) then that's fine.
Animal welfare laws are not about preventing the deaths of other species, but about protecting their welfare while they are alive. In that sense, the painless killing of a spider by instantaneous crushing is perfectly okay, while causing pain to a dog without killing it is against the law. I think (though I may be wrong) you'd be perfectly within your rights under the law to crush the dog to death in the same way as the spider - as long as you do it quickly and painlessly. And clean up after yourself.
Of course you're right that it's hypocritical though in that the law doesn't care if you torture a spider. Perhaps it should...
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
And yes, we killed that living, breathing creature so we could eat it. But the point is about not causing ongoing suffering, and if the death was painless (or as near as darn it) then that's fine.
This assumes that said animal is not actually permanently gagging for it.
I can't believe I just typed that..
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
So animal necrophilia is OK?
Posts: 3690 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
The fact that we treat some animals with less than fulsome compassion does not mean that we should allow humans to have sex with animals. The assertion that it does not hurt the animal is a less than well thought out argument.
Female dogs have periods when they are ready for sex. The same applies for other animals. A female animal of one species is not generally going to be alarmed by a male animal of the same species copulating when her she is in heat.
A thing that separates humans from other animals is that we engage in a lot of non-reproductive sex. This is not the norm among other species.
A female animal of non human species is not instinctively ready for a human to have sex with her. It is not an inbuilt expectation and having sex with humans would have to be a trained behavior.
Then, there is always non vaginal sex with animals of both genders. Show me where that is instinctive behavior.
It is just plain bullshit to say the animal is not harmed. They are not built for sex with humans and there has to be a fair amount of fright and discomfort in the experience.
More to the point, that some bad things happen to animals therefore we have no business preventing other bad things with animals is not logical, or useful.
While we humans could exist as vegetarians, our progenitors ate meat. Our world exists with many and varied food chains of one kind of animal eating other kinds of animals. We are part of a food chain.
Would you argue that because we kill cattle for meat that it means it is OK to kill them slowly and painfully?
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Female dogs have periods when they are ready for sex. The same applies for other animals. A female animal of one species is not generally going to be alarmed by a male animal of the same species copulating when her she is in heat.
So what about my point from above where the dog/animal had been specifically bred for sex with humans?
And what about the issue that animals of different species are routinely mated (mate?) to produce offspring with particular characteristics. Mules being one. Does it matter that a) humans already do this with beings of different species and b) it routinely happens in natural settings (though for the moment I can't think of a non-botanical example).
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
And what about the issue that animals of different species are routinely mated (mate?) to produce offspring with particular characteristics.
There's nothing very 'routine' about it. The number of species that can be successfully crossbred is pretty small.
(Hostly editorial note to self: I have to read this stuff. Why am I encouraging them? Why?)
[ 28. November 2012, 12:13: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
And what about the issue that animals of different species are routinely mated (mate?) to produce offspring with particular characteristics.
There's nothing very 'routine' about it. The number of species that be successfully crossbred is pretty small.
I'd think the production of mules can be described as routine. And horses/donkeys do not even have the same number of chromosomes.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
When I look at my dog I know immediately what it wants. Animals are much easier to understand than women"
Anthropomorphizing to the nth degree, no?
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
I don't know if you have noticed, but mules are generally incapable of reproduction.
In any event, human reproduction with other species can only result in cheesy horror movies. It is just bad all around.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
I don't know if you have noticed, but mules are generally incapable of reproduction.
Eh? Mules are the progeny of the mating of horse and donkey - which shows that interspecies breeding is routine, thus interspecies sex must be initiated by humans for some purposes.
Thus, perhaps, the simple argument that to have sex with a dog is wrong because the human is not also a dog seems to be disproven by practices with other animals.
But I'd be interested to hear whether there is a reason why mating other species together is ok but humans mating other species is not.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Animal welfare laws are not about preventing the deaths of other species, but about protecting their welfare while they are alive. In that sense, the painless killing of a spider by instantaneous crushing is perfectly okay, while causing pain to a dog without killing it is against the law.
I'm operating under the assumption that most creatures would consider it worse to kill them than to cause them a bit of pain. I certainly know which I'd prefer.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'm operating under the assumption that most creatures would consider it worse to kill them than to cause them a bit of pain. I certainly know which I'd prefer.
I kinda think that having sex with an animal is more of a moral danger than killing them. I'm not sure I can put into words the for-whys.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
The assertion that it does not hurt the animal is a less than well thought out argument.
Fortunately, it's also not one I've been using.
I realise it hurts them. I'm just asking why that's important.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I'd think the production of mules can be described as routine.
And I'd think it can't. 30-30, your serve.
Also, major reading comprehensional fail about mules being unable to reproduce. 30-40.
Why the fuck are we talking about this anyway? Does anyone think these crazy German animal-lovers are doing it in the hope of creating interesting babies? Of course they're bloody well not. If an animal showed up preggers, they'd bloody well freak.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I kinda think that having sex with an animal is more of a moral danger than killing them. I'm not sure I can put into words the for-whys.
A moral danger for whom?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I kinda think that having sex with an animal is more of a moral danger than killing them. I'm not sure I can put into words the for-whys.
A moral danger for whom?
The human. I don't think it is possible to be a moral dog.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I realise it hurts them. I'm just asking why that's important.
I am hoping you are asking that solely for the purpose of being controversial.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
A moral danger for whom?
The human. I don't think it is possible to be a moral dog.
OK, so the only person who it's a moral danger towards is the person doing it.
Does this mean you're arguing that the state should be legislating to prevent people from putting themselves into moral danger? Even though they're not hurting anyone else or putting anyone else in danger, be it moral or actual?
Ha. You might as well pass a law that says everyone must go to church on Sunday, on the grounds that not going is a "moral danger".
[ 28. November 2012, 12:47: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And I'd think it can't. 30-30, your serve.
What, you think mules happen by accident?
quote:
Also, major reading comprehensional fail about mules being unable to reproduce. 30-40.
I didn't think that mules could reproduce was at all relevant. The point is that humans tolerate inter-species sex. So there is no blanket moral problem with different species mating.
quote:
Why the fuck are we talking about this anyway? Does anyone think these crazy German animal-lovers are doing it in the hope of creating interesting babies? Of course they're bloody well not. If an animal showed up preggers, they'd bloody well freak.
Well because we're clearly screamish about inter species sex. I was thinking around the subject.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I realise it hurts them. I'm just asking why that's important.
I am hoping you are asking that solely for the purpose of being controversial.
I'm not sure that he is. I tried to come up with an answer and it was a little difficult.
I *want* to say that it's to do with us not liking it when people cause hurt, and then qualifying to say we don't like it when people cause hurt *without good reason*.
But then we get into things like hunting animals for sport...
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Does this mean you're arguing that the state should be legislating to prevent people from putting themselves into moral danger? Even though they're not hurting anyone else or putting anyone else in danger, be it moral or actual?
No, the state should be legislating because it is fucking sick and should not be encouraged.
quote:
Ha. You might as well pass a law that says everyone must go to church on Sunday, on the grounds that not going is a "moral danger".
At no point did I suggest that the state can or should promote morals.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
I am hoping you are asking that solely for the purpose of being controversial.
Partly. But also because this cuts to the heart of why we have laws at all. As a libertarian who believes we should be free to do whatever we want, regardless of how squicky anyone else thinks it is and with the sole proviso that we aren't allowed to cause anyone else - that is, any other person - harm, this case is a real test for me.
Yes, a test. Because jee-hosophat, I find these perverts as squicky as all hell. Ick, ick ick, ick. But is the fact that they creep me the fuck out enough to justify legislation banning them from doing what they want to do? I cannot in good conscience say that it is. Are they hurting anyone else? No they are not. So I cannot agree with criminalising them.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
No, the state should be legislating because it is fucking sick and should not be encouraged.
...
At no point did I suggest that the state can or should promote morals.
Dude, you just fucking did.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Marvin, maybe you should consider taking up as a hobby the torturing of iguanas. They aren't warm and fuzzy after all. Or human. And it might be quite a rush.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
Why on earth would I want to do that?
Why is it so hard to understand that just because I think something shouldn't be illegal doesn't mean I think it's good?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
Actually this really does raise a fascinating point. If you are against bestiality on the grounds that it harms the animal then as others have pointed out how do you square that with killing animals for food, the long suffering caused by factory farming etc.
edit to "Actually" from "Afghani" by Sioni Sais, Hellhost. Predictive text gone wild. Thanks George Spigot
[ 28. November 2012, 17:41: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
I am hoping you are asking that solely for the purpose of being controversial.
Partly. But also because this cuts to the heart of why we have laws at all. As a libertarian who believes we should be free to do whatever we want, regardless of how squicky anyone else thinks it is and with the sole proviso that we aren't allowed to cause anyone else - that is, any other person - harm, this case is a real test for me.
Yes, a test. Because jee-hosophat, I find these perverts as squicky as all hell. Ick, ick ick, ick. But is the fact that they creep me the fuck out enough to justify legislation banning them from doing what they want to do? I cannot in good conscience say that it is. Are they hurting anyone else? No they are not. So I cannot agree with criminalising them.
To me the big question is "What does the animal think?" I'm told that behavioural characteristics of animals that are the recipients of bestiality are a close match for those who've otherwise been abused - and I don't think there's an animal that will mate with a human in the wild (a human's leg being another story). If both those are true, I'm quite happy to declare bestiality "Cruelty to animals" and ban it on those grounds.
Of course I might be happier to jump at this than I would if it wasn't so squicky.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
I am hoping you are asking that solely for the purpose of being controversial.
Partly. But also because this cuts to the heart of why we have laws at all. As a libertarian who believes we should be free to do whatever we want, regardless of how squicky anyone else thinks it is and with the sole proviso that we aren't allowed to cause anyone else - that is, any other person - harm, this case is a real test for me.
How are you on greatest good for the greatest number then? Because meat eating is probably excusable on the grounds of improving many people's lives, if it is. But bestiality causes considerable harm to the animals involved, one may think and does not improve the lives of very many.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Why on earth would I want to do that?
Why is it so hard to understand that just because I think something shouldn't be illegal doesn't mean I think it's good?
Indeed. It will probably come as no surprise to anyone that I think that the Catholic Church is a bad thing. This doesn't mean I think it should be illegal.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
I'm kind of with Marv on this myself.
Legislation for people suffering questionable judgement seems like a fundamental misapplication of the tool. People who think animals desire human congress probably mostly need therapy. And perhaps a comprehensive evaluation to see what other cognitive quirks they have that might be an issue of public safety.
Personally, I do see value in minimizing suffering of innocents, so tend to agree with principles of humane treatment of animals. Unfortunately, I also find animals delicious, which leads me to thank Temple Grandin for working to ease my wuss conscience. But I think that falls into the category of stuff I'd prefer to convince others of, rather than legislating for.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
