Thread: Zoophilia to be banned in Germany Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024325
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
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?!?
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
Is it a step too far to compare people who seek gratification from animals with child abusers? I'm not sure that it is.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
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?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
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?
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
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 ]
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on
:
Castrate the buggers - after all, we already do it to the animals...
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
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?
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on
:
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!
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
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.)
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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?
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
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 ]
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Animals are much easier to understand than women
WTF indeed.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
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!
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
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.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
So it doesn't bother you that individuals can legally get their rocks off with beings who are incapable of consent?
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
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.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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...
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
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.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
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.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
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...
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
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..
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on
:
So animal necrophilia is OK?
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
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?
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
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).
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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 ]
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
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.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
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?
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
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.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
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.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
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.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
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.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
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.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
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?
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
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.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
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.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
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 ]
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
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.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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...
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
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.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
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.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
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.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
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.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
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?
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
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.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
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.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
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.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
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.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
To me the big question is "What does the animal think?"
That's the thing though - we clearly don't care what the animals think in almost every other situation. Nobody cares what the spider getting squished or the sheep getting slaughtered thinks about the matter.
If animals so clearly don't get a say when the decision is about killing them, I don't see why we should suddenly come over all Dr Dolittle when it's about anything else.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
How are you on greatest good for the greatest number then?
Not great. It's been used to justify great harm towards those who aren't in "the greatest number" too many times.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
I think some unpacking is in order.
I think (God help us) we are all of the opinion that sex with non human animals is not a good thing. Please don't anyone let me know if you disagree.
The remaining question is should it be illegal?
This is where Marvin's libertarian thinking says it is inconsistent to allow killing animals which does more than disturb them for a period of time while banning sex with animals.
I get the point.
I am not sure that banning sex with animals by making it a criminal offense is a good idea. First, how in the hell would it be enforced? Somehow, the idea of dog fucking in public just does not strike me as something that happens real often (aside from dogs fucking other dogs.) Second, we have enough prisoners in our jails who have done more dangerous crimes.
I guess that leaves the issue of cruelty to spiders. Personally, I tend to carry them outside as they are rather useful creatures. Except in summer that is.
In summer too many spiders interferes with my favorite evening pastime of a six pack and a bug zapper.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
How are you on greatest good for the greatest number then?
Not great. It's been used to justify great harm towards those who aren't in "the greatest number" too many times.
It would have to be an awfully great number before that would be an appropriate application though. For instance, if we could by constantly torturing one person make all other human suffering cease, while not Christian, it might be argued to be pretty ethical. Certainly it would HUGELY lower the amount of pain in the world.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
To me the big question is "What does the animal think?"
That's the thing though - we clearly don't care what the animals think in almost every other situation. Nobody cares what the spider getting squished or the sheep getting slaughtered thinks about the matter.
If animals so clearly don't get a say when the decision is about killing them, I don't see why we should suddenly come over all Dr Dolittle when it's about anything else.
So no one in history ever chose free range or organic rather than battery eggs or chickens. No one avoids Foie Gras or the cruel ways veal is reared. There is no legislation around which methods you may use to kill animals and no animal cruelty legislation at all.
The RSPCA is fifty years older than the NSPCC. And possibly you remember the outcry when a woman dropped a cat in a wheelie bin. To say that no one cares is ridiculous. To call it inconsistent has a point, but that's a whole different story.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
It would have to be an awfully great number before that would be an appropriate application though. For instance, if we could by constantly torturing one person make all other human suffering cease, while not Christian, it might be argued to be pretty ethical. Certainly it would HUGELY lower the amount of pain in the world.
If the person being tortured for the rest of their life volunteered for the job in the full knowledge of what it would entail, then OK. If not, then not.
I'm quite serious when I say "do what you want as long as you don't cause harm to anyone else". It doesn't matter why the harm is being caused.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
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?
That makes you an anarchist, not a libertine.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'm quite serious when I say "do what you want as long as you don't cause harm to anyone else". It doesn't matter why the harm is being caused.
I agree.
But I would apply this to animals too - as far as it is possible. I do eat meat, but I'm very careful to be sure it's reared and killed humanely. The same with eggs, milk, make up etc - I want the least possible suffering to animals and live and buy with that in mind.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
To say that no one cares is ridiculous. To call it inconsistent has a point, but that's a whole different story.
I did call it inconsistent.
And if a bunch of people wanted to kill me but someone else ran up, claimed to be full of concern for my welfare, but then proceeded to tell them that the best thing for me would be to be killed a slightly different way, I'd be dubious about whether that person genuinely had my best interests at heart...
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
How are you on greatest good for the greatest number then?
Not great. It's been used to justify great harm towards those who aren't in "the greatest number" too many times.
It would have to be an awfully great number before that would be an appropriate application though. For instance, if we could by constantly torturing one person make all other human suffering cease, while not Christian, it might be argued to be pretty ethical. Certainly it would HUGELY lower the amount of pain in the world.
I give you Those Who Walk Away from Omelas. For those who'd rather not wade through this very short story, Ursala K. LeGuin postulates a "perfect" society, perfect for everyone but one. No crime, no suffering, fulfilling work and relationships, and wonderful arts and celebrations. Except that to make this magical existence happen, an innocent child is forced to live in isolation, darkness, hunger, and without love or comfort. And part of the bargain is that everyone knows they owe their good fortune to the suffering of that child. So some people reject the bargain and walk away.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
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?
That makes you an anarchist, not a libertine.
Libertarian, dear boy. Though if you insist on using the full taxonomy of political labels I'm probably closest to the Minarchist school of thought.
An anarchist wouldn't even have the laws against harming people.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
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.
We can't anthropormorphise the question, asking if the animal were human, what would be acceptable. The fact is that the animal is not human and so the analogy is meaningless.
It really doesn't matter what the animal would prefer. I'm sure most animals would prefer to be left alone entirely and the human race to piss off back to their caves (except for cats who would miss sleeping on our radiators and having us serve them). But we don't care about their personal preferences - we're quite happy to use animals as domestic tools, pets, entertainment, food, experiments, and even just to stick them in a cage and gawk at them.
Animal welfare laws are not based on an animal's preferences, nor do they take into consideration their personal survival instincts, only their physical and emotional suffering, as far as we can observe it.
I don't know why this is, off the top of my head - if I was being cynical I could say that perhaps it's just because observing suffering is upsetting to the human observing it. And also because if a human can cause observable suffering to a helpless animal without guilt, its a bit of a litmus test for how he may treat helpless humans.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
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?
That makes you an anarchist, not a libertine.
Libertarian, dear boy. Though if you insist on using the full taxonomy of political labels I'm probably closest to the Minarchist school of thought.
An anarchist wouldn't even have the laws against harming people.
When it come to advocating the freedom to have sex with animals I'd say libertine is the right word. Minarchism is a new term to me though and a very interesting one.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
We can't anthropormorphise the question, asking if the animal were human, what would be acceptable. The fact is that the animal is not human and so the analogy is meaningless.
As is the concept of protecting the animal's "rights". Because if it's not human, it doesn't have any.
quote:
Animal welfare laws are not based on an animal's preferences, nor do they take into consideration their personal survival instincts, only their physical and emotional suffering, as far as we can observe it.
I don't know why this is, off the top of my head - if I was being cynical I could say that perhaps it's just because observing suffering is upsetting to the human observing it.
I agree about that last bit. People do it to make themselves feel better, not the animals.
quote:
And also because if a human can cause observable suffering to a helpless animal without guilt, its a bit of a litmus test for how he may treat helpless humans.
Maybe, but that's not a reason to ban it either. I mean, someone getting into a rage and destroying his screwdriver might be a litmus test in the same way, but nobody would say that should be illegal, would they?
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
When it come to advocating the freedom to have sex with animals I'd say libertine is the right word.
No, "libertine" would only apply if I wanted to do it myself, and I do hope that's not what you're suggesting.
But I do advocate the freedom to do an awful lot of things I don't personally approve of. That's because I don't think everybody in the whole country should be forced by law to follow my own personal morality.
I'm continually amazed at the amount of arrogance and narcissism people must have in order to genuinely believe that their personal morality should apply to everyone in the entire country. How "control freak" can you get?
Posted by Polly (# 1107) on
:
I feel ill now and am hoping our pet gerbil is not able to read this thread over my shoulder!!
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'm continually amazed at the amount of arrogance and narcissism people must have in order to genuinely believe that their personal morality should apply to everyone in the entire country. How "control freak" can you get?
Have you heard the things people say to get elected?
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
We don't see cows, sheep and chickens throwing themselves under the wheels of tractors. In fact we observe them trying to shun danger and flee from predators. So even if we avoid anthropomorphism there's still an argument to be made that at some base instinctual level animals would rather live than die. So even if we do our utmost to only buy free range foods the most we can say is that while we wouldn't harm an animal with our own bare hands we don't mind doing it by proxy.
Posted by Polly (# 1107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
We don't see cows, sheep and chickens throwing themselves under the wheels of tractors. In fact we observe them trying to shun danger and flee from predators. So even if we avoid anthropomorphism there's still an argument to be made that at some base instinctual level animals would rather live than die. So even if we do our utmost to only buy free range foods the most we can say is that while we wouldn't harm an animal with our own bare hands we don't mind doing it by proxy.
Apart from scripturally some animals were given by God for food. Nowhere in the Bible are we allowed to shag any beast!!
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
So even if we do our utmost to only buy free range foods the most we can say is that while we wouldn't harm an animal with our own bare hands we don't mind doing it by proxy.
Not true for me - I have killed chickens and skinned and butchered calves. I have caught, killed and cooked fish.
I do my utmost to buy free range food which has been killed humanely.
For me, there is no inconsistency there.
ETA - what is the difference between beastiality and zoophilia, and are they illegal in any country?
[ 28. November 2012, 17:10: Message edited by: Boogie ]
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
So even if we do our utmost to only buy free range foods the most we can say is that while we wouldn't harm an animal with our own bare hands we don't mind doing it by proxy.
Not true for me - I have killed chickens and skinned and butchered calves. I have caught, killed and cooked fish.
I do my utmost to buy free range food which has been killed humanely.
For me, there is no inconsistency there.
I'm still not understanding why there's no inconsistency between harming animals and not wanting to harm animals. Unless of course you don't count killing animals as harming them?
@poppy I don't see scripture as an authority so .... shrug.
[ 28. November 2012, 17:36: Message edited by: George Spigot ]
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
this is why I should never catch up on my hellish reading before my morning coffee and yoga. You all are seriously fucked up. I've just locked up the critters and had a talk with them about good touch/bad touch.
Furthermore: eww. quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
(Hostly editorial note to self: I have to read this stuff. Why am I encouraging them? Why?)
Dude!
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
[ETA - what is the difference between beastiality and zoophilia, and are they illegal in any country?
Wasn't one of them a U2 album? ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Of course it is harming them.
I always say 'I will eat anything so long as it lived a happy life and was killed quickly and humanely'
Animals are food, that's a fact. But the way animals live and die matters to me. No, I don't squish spiders, I put them outside.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
Today has been one of those working days when I haven't had much time to do any hosting 9-5, for which I am truly grateful.
Pass the brain bleach.
[ 28. November 2012, 17:46: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Of course it is harming them.
I always say 'I will eat anything so long as it lived a happy life and was killed quickly and humanely'
Animals are food, that's a fact. But the way animals live and die matters to me. No, I don't squish spiders, I put them outside.
Just to clarify because often intention doesn't show over the Internet I'm not "having a go" at you or criticising your life style choices. I'm not having an angry rant. I've just always been very perplexed by this and am trying to understand it.
For example you will go to the trouble of putting a spider outside but will also butcher or have butchered a larger mammal that has a larger brain and more potential for awareness.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
For example you will go to the trouble of putting a spider outside but will also butcher or have butchered a larger mammal that has a larger brain and more potential for awareness.
I would kill the spider too, if it were for food.
Anyway, this is a tangent. I think sex with animals is wrong - from all points of view. But I wouldn't legislate separately against it - animal welfare regulations already cover it, under cruelty imo.
Posted by Yam-pk (# 12791) on
:
Squirrels.... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
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?
Sex with animals. Is illegal in most countries including the UK - penatrative sex with an animal is illegal under the 2003 sexual offences act & usual interpretations of our animal welfare laws.
Research evidence is limited but growing - like all paraphilias this appears to be much commoner in males. A growing body of vetinary evidence suggest that the effects on animals include disturbed behaviour and various degrees of physical injury. Most common targets are dogs, followed by cats and horses.
In the same way physical cruelty to animals is known to be a indicator of higher risk of physical cruelty to people - the limited evidence we have shows a likelihood this behaviour maybe a marker of increased sexually inappropriate behaviour directed towards mute/vulnerable/powerless people.
(Yes, I have to know this for work & I have come across it in practice - hence having looked up the research.)
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
[...] A growing body [...]
And that's exactly where the problem stands. That, and where to stick it.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
I think this highlights the fundamental flaws in the idea that politics can be based on ideology or principles!
We have many people arguing that sex with animals is wrong because of moral principles, and it should be illegal, and further that we should take those principles further to ban other things that offend us.
We have others arguing from an ideologically Libertarian position of "if it does no harm then it should be legal" (a position I defended earlier today in another thread and with which I agree).
But it's where democracy wins outright over ideologies! In Germany the elected politicians have decided that whilst in the main most things ought to be legal unless it harms, sex with animals offends the citizens of the country to enough of a degree that it should be banned.
No political system based on a theoretical set of rules has the flexibility to handle these cases. It must be a democracy that allows some things and disallows others based on the notions of freedom on the one hand, and moral outrage on the other.
I like democracy. I also like getting a hamster and... no, no need to add to the Tory stereotypes that are already in common currency round these parts.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
And of course all those cows, pigs, sheep and chickens wouldn't exist if we hadn't domesticated, bred, fed and sheltered them. There would just be a few proto-species leading brief and worried lives in the wild.
None of these zoophiles are, presumably, dating grizzlies or crocs or warthogs (and of course the hedgehog can never....). I suspect it's mostly domestic pets - whom we've spent millennia turning into helpers, employees, guardians, comrades, toys, friends and children. So I suppose 'girlfriend' is on the continuum.
I suppose why the last one is transgressive - though the child thing can come close - is that it abolishes the distance we like to keep from the other animals. It not only does violence to nature of the animal, but it degrades the human.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
Marvin,
I wonder if you might provide your preferred definition of "harm".
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
End of my last post should have said "marker of increased risk of sexually inappropriate behaviour" rather than "marker of increased sexually inappropriate sexual behaviour"
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
But it's where democracy wins outright over ideologies! In Germany the elected politicians have decided that whilst in the main most things ought to be legal unless it harms, sex with animals offends the citizens of the country to enough of a degree that it should be banned.
And people think that's OK?
What happens when it's something you like that's suddenly massively offensive to everyone else? Christianity, say? Oh, but your preferences should always be defended in law, shouldn't they - it's those icky pervs over there that are beyond the pale. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Marvin,
I wonder if you might provide your preferred definition of "harm".
For a start, it doesn't apply to animals. Which makes it irrelevant to this thread.
Well, I guess if the animal was someone else's pet you could call it damage to property and thus harmful to the animal's owner.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Marvin,
I wonder if you might provide your preferred definition of "harm".
For a start, it doesn't apply to animals. Which makes it irrelevant to this thread.
Well, I guess if the animal was someone else's pet you could call it damage to property and thus harmful to the animal's owner.
Yes, but I need to know what you actually mean by words like "harm", "hurt" and "harmful" so that I can engage with your argument. What do you actually mean when you say, "harm" or "harmful"?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Yes, but I need to know what you actually mean by words like "harm", "hurt" and "harmful" so that I can engage with your argument. What do you actually mean when you say, "harm" or "harmful"?
Direct and intentional physical or mental damage (up to and including death) is the main one, but also theft (including destruction of or damage to property, which is where this thread could be involved), breach of contract and fraud.
If any given activity is not doing any of those things to a human being it shouldn't be illegal IMO. No matter how icky it is.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If any given activity is not doing any of those things to a human being it shouldn't be illegal IMO. No matter how icky it is.
You see no such thing as cruelty to animals?
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on
:
Chickens of the world, unite!
(When I was in university, I read Psychopathia Sexualis. Now it never amazes me what some people get up to)
Beastiality is covered quite comprehensively by laws against animal cruelty. Establishing a ban on it seems to be a big red flashing light saying Look at me! Look at me!
And it will not stop anyone. Chickens will still suffer.
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
For example you will go to the trouble of putting a spider outside but will also butcher or have butchered a larger mammal that has a larger brain and more potential for awareness.
Putting a spider outside has potential benefits to the person putting it out though. It's a bit easier than whacking it and then cleaning up the resulting stain left on the floor/wall, no rotting spider corpse forgotten until an ant trail forms to your bin (happened to a moth corpse in my bin the other day) and the spider can put itself to good use regulating the local flies and mosquitos outside.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Yes, but I need to know what you actually mean by words like "harm", "hurt" and "harmful" so that I can engage with your argument. What do you actually mean when you say, "harm" or "harmful"?
Direct and intentional physical or mental damage (up to and including death) is the main one, but also theft (including destruction of or damage to property, which is where this thread could be involved), breach of contract and fraud.
Presumably you would exclude physical and mental self-harm* from definition.
*intentional physical or mental damage
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Yes, but I need to know what you actually mean by words like "harm", "hurt" and "harmful" so that I can engage with your argument. What do you actually mean when you say, "harm" or "harmful"?
Direct and intentional physical or mental damage (up to and including death) is the main one, but also theft (including destruction of or damage to property, which is where this thread could be involved), breach of contract and fraud.
Presumably you would exclude physical and mental self-harm* from definition.
*intentional physical or mental damage
Police and mental health services intervene when somebody is reported to be attempting suicide, so it would seem that society has decided that self-harm is still harm that should be prevented.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
Also, I take it that the inclusion of mental damage in your definition of harm presupposes some form of objectively measurable notion of mental health to which said damage is caused?
Posted by Sleepwalker (# 15343) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Marvin,
I wonder if you might provide your preferred definition of "harm".
For a start, it doesn't apply to animals.
Why not? Humans consider the infliction of physical pain upon another as harmful under most circumstances; certainly if the receiver does not consent to it. If an animal can experience physical pain then by virtue of the way in which humans understand and apply the word 'harm', harm has been caused to an animal if we inflict physical pain upon it, particularly given the fact that we have no idea whatsoever as to whether the animal is consenting to it.
Posted by Sleepwalker (# 15343) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
ETA - what is the difference between beastiality and zoophilia, and are they illegal in any country?
Having looked up both in the same dictionary, the difference appears to be in the emotional feelings the human has towards the animal. Both words include sexual activity with an animal, but bestiality suggests a more aggressive, violent attitude while zoophilia suggests a 'loving' attachment.
Sexual interaction with animals is illegal in the UK and to be honest I thought it was in all western countries, but clearly not! No idea whether it is illegal anywhere else.
[ 28. November 2012, 20:01: Message edited by: Sleepwalker ]
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
ETA - what is the difference between beastiality and zoophilia, and are they illegal in any country?
Having looked up both in the same dictionary, the difference appears to be in the emotional feelings the human has towards the animal. Both words include sexual activity with an animal, but bestiality suggests a more aggressive, violent attitude while zoophilia suggests a 'loving' attachment.
I understand the difference to be like that between persistent theft and kleptomania. One is a behaviour, the other a psychological phenomenum. Alternatively, a kleptomaniac is a rich thief.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Legislation for people suffering questionable judgement seems like a fundamental misapplication of the tool.
On the contrary, if everyone had sound judgement, we wouldn't need the vast majority of legislation because everyone would do the right thing without being told.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
Beastiality and zoophilia mean the same thing, it is just an exercise in rebranding.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
Beastiality is covered quite comprehensively by laws against animal cruelty.
Depends on what country you're in.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
But it's where democracy wins outright over ideologies! In Germany the elected politicians have decided that whilst in the main most things ought to be legal unless it harms, sex with animals offends the citizens of the country to enough of a degree that it should be banned.
And people think that's OK?
What happens when it's something you like that's suddenly massively offensive to everyone else? Christianity, say? Oh, but your preferences should always be defended in law, shouldn't they - it's those icky pervs over there that are beyond the pale.
Well, given that we have a vote, I would have thought that through peaceful pressure and at the ballot box, us Christians could change minds, and return a Government that would not ban Christianity, or would overturn any laws that were introduced to do so.
So yes, most people do think that's okay. People die to gain it, defend it and preserve it, so I'm confortable with relying on Democracy rather than ideology.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
I just love how people hopscotch from "animals are food, they just are" to "they should not suffer". I mean, I agree, as a matter of squeamish sentimentality. And, well, unnecessary extra suffering is generally pointless - albeit potentially funny. Especially if it's humans. And, technically, humans meet all the rigorous definitions of food too.
Except, you know: icky. For some. I miss KenWritez.
Don't mind me; just rambling and laughing at the impressive display of religious "morals".
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Don't mind me; just rambling and laughing at the impressive display of religious "morals".
Fear not. Your spiritual aridity may yet disappear as you become more mature. Hanging around the Ship is a great start. Go you!
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
Chickens of the world, unite!
(When I was in university, I read Psychopathia Sexualis. Now it never amazes me what some people get up to)
Beastiality is covered quite comprehensively by laws against animal cruelty. Establishing a ban on it seems to be a big red flashing light saying Look at me! Look at me!
And it will not stop anyone. Chickens will still suffer.
The New South Wales Crimes Act:
79 Bestiality
Any person who commits an act of bestiality with any animal shall be liable to imprisonment for fourteen years.
I can't quickly find a definition in the Crimes Act of bestiality.
It's not just chickens which may suffer. There's the double limerick:
A habit obscene and unsavoury
Holds the Bishop of Wessex in slavery.
With maniacal howls
He deflowers young owls
Which he keeps in an underground aviary.
But the Prior of Dunstan St Just
While seized with insatiable lust
Raped the Bishop's young owls
Those delicate fowls
And a little green lizard, what bust.
You have to feel great sympathy for that lizard. The crudity of language in that last line is a fitting match for the brutal demise of the lizard.
On a more serious note, I recall reading of the sexual relationship between E M Forster and a bitch he owned. When she was on het, he would caress her enlarged vulva, and he said that she enjoyed it .
[ 29. November 2012, 06:24: Message edited by: Gee D ]
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
People tend to say things like that.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
I just love how people hopscotch from "animals are food, they just are" to "they should not suffer". I mean, I agree, as a matter of squeamish sentimentality. And, well, unnecessary extra suffering is generally pointless - albeit potentially funny. Especially if it's humans. And, technically, humans meet all the rigorous definitions of food too.
I'm not sure they do actually, evolution seems to have mostly decided that cannibalism is a bad idea, it spreads disease and so on. It happens, both in nature and in human communities, but very rarely. And in humans it is usually a ritual thing rather than for any kind of nourishment.
I don't think there is any contradiction between killing sentient beings and causing them pain for a bit of a laugh. I don't think that is sentimentality, actually.
quote:
Except, you know: icky. For some. I miss KenWritez.
Don't mind me; just rambling and laughing at the impressive display of religious "morals".
Anyone ever tell you that you are a prick? You complain when religious people have a fixed opinion and you complain when they try to think around an immediately uncomfortable idea such as this. Where do you get off exactly?
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
He secretly yeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaarns to be religious. It's just his coping mechanism.
Poor little lost soul.
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on
:
If the buggers had all been castrated you wouldn't be writing all this crap.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
People tend to say things like that.
It's a very unattractive line. The same as some use to justify their abuse of children.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Presumably you would exclude physical and mental self-harm* from definition.
Correct.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I wonder if you might provide your preferred definition of "harm".
For a start, it doesn't apply to animals.
Why not?
Fair question.
Here's why not: because if it applied to animals, it would have to apply in full. That would mean no harm to any animal whatsoever*, just as it does with harm to humans. So not only would it force all of us to become vegans, we'd also have to stop squishing spiders, poisoning rats, enslaving beasts of burden and imprisoning all sorts of creatures in our homes and zoos.
I don't see how anyone can say "don't harm animals" while condoning any of those things.
.
*= except in self defence, of course.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
Police and mental health services intervene when somebody is reported to be attempting suicide, so it would seem that society has decided that self-harm is still harm that should be prevented.
They aren't criminalised, though. Nobody who attempts self-harm gets a criminal record and time in prison.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Well, given that we have a vote, I would have thought that through peaceful pressure and at the ballot box, us Christians could change minds, and return a Government that would not ban Christianity, or would overturn any laws that were introduced to do so.
I simply cannot believe that you're OK with a system where people's basic rights are dependent on them maintaining enough majority goodwill to prevent government from taking them away.
It's hard not to conclude that anyone advocating such a system has never seriously considered the possibility that they might lose that goodwill one day.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Marvin the Martian: I'm quite serious when I say "do what you want as long as you don't cause harm to anyone else".
I can see the appeal of this idea. It has a kind of internal consistency that at least lets you win internet discussions.
The thing is: when I try to imagine a society in which everyone thinks like this, the image I get isn't pretty.
For example, democracy would be reduced to a bunch of people speaking only about how to prevent harm, and that's it. No ideas or vision about society, about what it should do or where it should go, because these questions always lead to someone having to do something he doesn't want.
I also really doubt if you could build up good systems of Education or Health Care with everyone thinking like this. (No, I'm not going to discuss with you how you could build up these
systems under Minarchism. This is Hell, and I don't wanna ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)
And I think there are people who are suffering, but where this can't really be pinpointed to a person doing harm to them. I don't see how Minarchism could provide anything to them.
So, if everyone would follow these ideas, it would lead to a visionless society (or more probably, one were the vision would be decided by the most powerful), less developed and with lesser services.
In the end, I think that such a society would make me less free, not more.
Oh, about bestiality: I believe that every government should have a herd of adolescent elephant bulls in musth on stand-by for these cases. When they look at a human they know immediately what it wants, you know.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
Police and mental health services intervene when somebody is reported to be attempting suicide, so it would seem that society has decided that self-harm is still harm that should be prevented.
They aren't criminalised, though. Nobody who attempts self-harm gets a criminal record and time in prison.
They used to, didn't they?
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Here's why not: because if it applied to animals, it would have to apply in full. That would mean no harm to any animal whatsoever*, just as it does with harm to humans. So not only would it force all of us to become vegans, we'd also have to stop squishing spiders, poisoning rats, enslaving beasts of burden and imprisoning all sorts of creatures in our homes and zoos.
Why should it? Because you say so? I don't accept your all-or-nothing version of animal rights and I don't accept that many other people hold your stupidly unreasoned view.
quote:
I don't see how anyone can say "don't harm animals" while condoning any of those things.
Because animals are not humans. That doesn't mean that they have no rights, but they don't have human rights. Why should the only choice be between using them as machines and giving them full human rights?
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
I just love how people hopscotch from "animals are food, they just are" to "they should not suffer". I mean, I agree, as a matter of squeamish sentimentality. And, well, unnecessary extra suffering is generally pointless - albeit potentially funny. Especially if it's humans. And, technically, humans meet all the rigorous definitions of food too.
Except, you know: icky. For some. I miss KenWritez.
Don't mind me; just rambling and laughing at the impressive display of religious "morals".
"If the juju had meant us not to eat people he wouldn't have made us of meat."
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Why should it? Because you say so? I don't accept your all-or-nothing version of animal rights and I don't accept that many other people hold your stupidly unreasoned view.
It doesn't have to, of course. But if you're saying "animals should be protected from harm except for the kinds of harm I want to cause", then you're being hypocritical.
quote:
Because animals are not humans. That doesn't mean that they have no rights, but they don't have human rights. Why should the only choice be between using them as machines and giving them full human rights?
Because anything else has the "if I want to hurt them it's OK, but if you want to hurt them it's not" problem to overcome.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
As a side "Hyuck hyuck", you may or may not be interested to know that the UK Channel Five is now controlled by the same bloke as controls a number of porn channels.
The relevance to this thread? Well, Five's children's output includes Peppa Pig.
Perhaps we shouldn't go there.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/nov/06/channel-5-richard-desmond-adult-executive
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
*Snort* *grunt*
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Marvin the Martian: Because anything else has the "if I want to hurt them it's OK, but if you want to hurt them it's not" problem to overcome.
The least worst solution for this would be to decide democratically on a middle ground, of what we can or cannot do to animals. Which is exactly what Germany is doing.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Suppose that someone shoots a white rhino in Africa. Does that harm me? Yes, it sure does. It reduces the biodiversity of the world I live in, and it damages a fragile ecosystem that is ultimately also connected with me.
Animals aren't fully humans, they aren't rocks either. They are somewhere in between. How we assert this 'in between' status depends on a lot of historic, cultural, economical, emotional... grounds and varies between different types of animals.
Different people will have different opinions on this. That's what democracy is for: it's a space where we can debate these different opinions and reach a consensus.
If your question is: "On what ground do we treat this animal differently than that animal?" then the answer is: democracy. It isn't perfect, but it is the best answer we have so far.
In fact, I'd be the first to acknowledge that democracy as we have it has it flaws. And in my opinion, animal rights could weigh much heavier than they do now (I'm a vegetarian). But what democracy does, is to give me the right to put this voice in the mix.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Perhaps we shouldn't go there.
Then why the blazes did you?
[ 29. November 2012, 12:23: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
I just love how people hopscotch from "animals are food, they just are" to "they should not suffer". I mean, I agree, as a matter of squeamish sentimentality. And, well, unnecessary extra suffering is generally pointless - albeit potentially funny. Especially if it's humans. And, technically, humans meet all the rigorous definitions of food too.
Except, you know: icky. For some. I miss KenWritez.
Don't mind me; just rambling and laughing at the impressive display of religious "morals".
I suppose that means that Christians should be vegetarians in order to meet your moral standards.
But, you see, we cannot. We have to eat Jesus on Sundays.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Because animals are not humans. That doesn't mean that they have no rights, but they don't have human rights. Why should the only choice be between using them as machines and giving them full human rights?
Exactly - and we don't have to be vegetarian to believe that humans should cause as little cruelty to animals as is possible, and that includes not destroying their habitat, even if it means we have to limit our own populations imo.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Well, given that we have a vote, I would have thought that through peaceful pressure and at the ballot box, us Christians could change minds, and return a Government that would not ban Christianity, or would overturn any laws that were introduced to do so.
I simply cannot believe that you're OK with a system where people's basic rights are dependent on them maintaining enough majority goodwill to prevent government from taking them away.
It's hard not to conclude that anyone advocating such a system has never seriously considered the possibility that they might lose that goodwill one day.
As opposed to an alternative system where a personas basic rights are dependant on a "democracy of the committed", who will tell me what rights I need because they know better than me. A committee made up of people like you perhaps?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Perhaps we shouldn't go there.
Then why the blazes did you?
I didn't. I merely pointed the direction one might go.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Perhaps we shouldn't go there.
Then why the blazes did you?
I didn't. I merely pointed the direction one might go.
Hey, look everybody! Here's the really appalling disgusting door that none of you had noticed! I DON'T want you to go through it, okay? I just absolutely had to point the door out to you, though, to make it crystal clear. I didn't want you to be in any doubt that I did NOT want you to walk through the door that none of you had spotted.
Here's the door, see? Everybody see it? Everybody followed the link (especially you Hellhosts, you have to)? Everybody know the door I'm talking about? You, up the back there, you've got a good clear view of the door?
Right. I want you ALL to completely ignore the door.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
Door? What door?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Exactly - and we don't have to be vegetarian to believe that humans should cause as little cruelty to animals as is possible, and that includes not destroying their habitat, even if it means we have to limit our own populations imo.
You don't have to be anything to justify your belief. Hell, you don't even have to justify acting on that belief, as long as it isn't hurting anyone.
What you do have to justify is forcing everyone else to live according to your beliefs, whether they agree or not. And that's a trickier proposition.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
As opposed to an alternative system where a personas basic rights are dependant on a "democracy of the committed", who will tell me what rights I need because they know better than me. A committee made up of people like you perhaps?
I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not telling you anything about what you can and can't do, barring that you can't cause harm to other people. Provided you don't hurt anyone else, pick a moral code and live by it to your heart's content. Just don't try to force anyone else to live by it if they don't want to.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Here's why not: because if it applied to animals, it would have to apply in full. That would mean no harm to any animal whatsoever*, just as it does with harm to humans. So not only would it force all of us to become vegans, we'd also have to stop squishing spiders, poisoning rats, enslaving beasts of burden and imprisoning all sorts of creatures in our homes and zoos.
I don't see how anyone can say "don't harm animals" while condoning any of those things.
I stopped posting on this thread because we were basically in agreement, I thought. But here's where you've totally lost me. Why can there be no line between do all the harm you like and do absolutely none? I suspect you will find it easy to believe that I want absolutely for my daughter to be unharmed, so take this example. For instance, when I thought my daughter was being waay way too casual about streets I scared her, and I mean I seriously scared her, because I was concerned that she might do herself serious harm. Did I do her no harm? Certainly in the short-term she was rather upset and shaken. Hopefully in the long-term she is not scarred, but I figured I was taking that risk rather than risk that she was so scarred by a car she was dead. Why do I tell you that? It's an example of how do no harm applied can end up more moderate. I don't do corporal punishment, but I wouldn't say it's always bad, so there's another example of how we draw lines between never harm and always harm. If we can do that with humans, why on earth can't we draw lines like that with spiders? Or would you say that disciplining a kid, either physically or not, is too much harm?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Door? What door?
I think someone's changed his meds.
The direction I pointed but suggested we not go is what might actually happen to Peppa Pig. Or not, of course.
Not following a link to an innocuous Grauniad article.
Nurse! He's out of bed again!
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Presumably you would exclude physical and mental self-harm* from definition.
Correct.
I take it that the inclusion of mental damage in your definition of harm presupposes some form of objectively measurable notion of mental health to which said damage is inflicted?
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
evolution seems to have mostly decided that cannibalism is a bad idea
The main risk being prions, which is focussed mainly on consumption of brains/spines - so largely avoidable if it comes to that. All handily overcome by using humans as feed for pets, oh ye of little imagination.
quote:
I don't think there is any contradiction between killing sentient beings and causing them pain for a bit of a laugh.
So you DO see eating meat as bad as torturing animals. Interesting. Makes me wonder why the fuck you aren't hanging back in a cocoon of smugness and Vegan Powers™.
quote:
Anyone ever tell you that you are a prick? You complain when religious people have a fixed opinion and you complain when they try to think around an immediately uncomfortable idea such as this. Where do you get off exactly?
I'm amused by people bumbling around justifications primarily based on "just cause". Because it's revealing about how they probably came to many of their other beliefs.
Although I suppose that Marv's cobra dance of philosophy has caused much of the morality parade to blunder off a cliff. Still, it would be nice to hear even one hand-wringer to summon something like, "I believe that how we treat defenseless entities says something about us".
[ 29. November 2012, 13:55: Message edited by: RooK ]
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
I suppose that means that Christians should be vegetarians in order to meet your moral standards.
MY moral standards? Hell, fisherman, if it weren't for prions and a well-enforced criminal code, I'd be torturing and eating humans as a hobby.
How others think they meet their own moral standards is what's funny. "The instruction manual is ambiguous!" is pure hilarity. Thinking that symbolically eating your dead-jew-on-a-stick cult leader somehow makes it OK to cause suffering is also pretty funny, I admit.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Why can there be no line between do all the harm you like and do absolutely none?
It's the principle of the thing, really. Obviously everybody does draw such a line in their own personal morality, but what right do any of us have to say that ours should be the line that prevails over all others in a legal sense?
quote:
If we can do that with humans, why on earth can't we draw lines like that with spiders? Or would you say that disciplining a kid, either physically or not, is too much harm?
I guess those who favour corporal punishment would say that it's not really harm, in the same way that slicing someone open isn't causing harm when a doctor does it to remove a dodgy appendix.
The fundamental difference from my perspective is when we talk about those cases, we're talking about whether to relax the legal prohibitions against harm - that is, to reduce the number of things that are banned rather than increasing that number. And that is a significant difference, especially when one is arguing that as few things as possible should be banned.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Presumably you would exclude physical and mental self-harm* from definition.
Correct.
I take it that the inclusion of mental damage in your definition of harm presupposes some form of objectively measurable notion of mental health to which said damage is inflicted?
It recognises that mental harm is a real thing.
So what, is this where you claim to be horribly mentally scarred by the idea that anyone would want to fuck their dog and thus that it should be banned on that basis? Sorry, no dice. Even if it was true and not some rhetorical device, it's not direct and intentional harm. After all, if you allow that sort of reasoning to affect the laws you create, then you're one step away from someone claiming that Christianity is mentally harmful to them and thus it should be banned.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:
I don't think there is any contradiction between killing sentient beings and causing them pain for a bit of a laugh.
So you DO see eating meat as bad as torturing animals. Interesting. Makes me wonder why the fuck you aren't hanging back in a cocoon of smugness and Vegan Powers™.
Typo on my part. I don't see a contradiction in killing animals and trying to stop random sadism/torture of them. Does that help.
quote:
I'm amused by people bumbling around justifications primarily based on "just cause". Because it's revealing about how they probably came to many of their other beliefs.
Hahahaha. Funny, yeah. Hilarious.
quote:
Although I suppose that Marv's cobra dance of philosophy has caused much of the morality parade to blunder off a cliff. Still, it would be nice to hear even one hand-wringer to summon something like, "I believe that how we treat defenseless entities says something about us".
I think it'd be nice if you fucked off and died. Still, I guess we can all live in hope, can't we.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Exactly - and we don't have to be vegetarian to believe that humans should cause as little cruelty to animals as is possible, and that includes not destroying their habitat, even if it means we have to limit our own populations imo.
You don't have to be anything to justify your belief. Hell, you don't even have to justify acting on that belief, as long as it isn't hurting anyone.
What you do have to justify is forcing everyone else to live according to your beliefs, whether they agree or not. And that's a trickier proposition.
I wouldn't force them - I would persuade them, as others have said, through democratic means.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What you do have to justify is forcing everyone else to live according to your beliefs, whether they agree or not. And that's a trickier proposition.
I wouldn't force them - I would persuade them, as others have said, through democratic means.
Yeah, "using democratic means" (i.e. creating laws that require those who disagree to abide by your own morality) is exactly what I have in mind when I say "force them".
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
But democracies operate in that way all the time...(?)
Posted by Otter (# 12020) on
:
I've seen several comments about not needing specific laws for bestiality, as it should be covered by existing anti-cruelty laws.
OTOH, on a horse-related website I read sometimes, I see a lot of complaints that existing anti-cruelty laws either aren't being enforced, or are inadequate for more "everyday" issues of neglect/abuse. Also that sentences imposed where convictions are actually made are insufficient.
Which leads me to believe that specific anti-bestiality laws are being enacted because the public believes that the punishments specified under existing anti-cruelty laws are insufficiently harsh, the laws aren't clear enough regarding their application to cases of bestiality, or some combination of the above. It also occurs to me that anti-cruelty laws are probably completely silent about putting bestiality offenders on sex-offenders lists (which is a whole 'nother can of worms!).
Could and should existing anti-cruelty laws be amended to clarify/expand on bestiality offenses and related punishments? That'd work fine for me, but IANAL. Or a politician trying to get/keep votes for the next election.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Matt Black: But democracies operate in that way all the time...(?)
Exactly.
In every society, there is always a question of power. Where does the power lie? Because it always seems to lie somewhere.
Marvin's proposal takes the power away from politicians, and turns them into toothless puppets. They aren't allowed to decide anything, because their decision would 'force their ideas on me'.
While I agree that politics are flawed, and we should be careful about politicians not having too much power, the idea of taking almost all power away from them also poses problems.
Because the power will go somewhere. In the case of politician there's still at least an illusion of control by the people, but when they lose their power, it will inevitably go to whoever is the strongest in society. Probably the one who has the most money.
Marvin will argue that his rule 'Do no harm' is a sufficient defence against this kind of power concentration, but I'm really not convinced. There are many ways in which a powerful person can control us without actively doing harm to us individually.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But democracies operate in that way all the time...(?)
But should they?
I think we can agree that there should be limits to the power of the state to impose on individuals. My personal preference is for that limit to exclude things that cannot be demonstrated as harmful to society.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I think it'd be nice if you fucked off and died.
But would you eat me? And how would my suffering matter?
[ 29. November 2012, 16:33: Message edited by: RooK ]
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But democracies operate in that way all the time...(?)
But should they?
I think we can agree that there should be limits to the power of the state to impose on individuals. My personal preference is for that limit to exclude things that cannot be demonstrated as harmful to society.
And that is where politics comes into it. People vary in what they consider harmful to society. This had led to some very nasty experiments in government, not all of which have been abandoned. Even in the UK and USA some acts that may not harm society are forbidden, while other practices which many think do harm society, are entirely legal. Representative democracy is our way to resolve this. It looks like as this group has achieved some notoriety in Germany, so the "something must be done" lobby has gained the upper hand there.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Marvin's proposal takes the power away from politicians,
Just one more benefit it provides to society
quote:
Because the power will go somewhere. In the case of politician there's still at least an illusion of control by the people, but when they lose their power, it will inevitably go to whoever is the strongest in society. Probably the one who has the most money.
Well, you have to bear in mind that "do no harm to people" doesn't in any way preclude things like labour unions or strikes. Denying someone the benefit of your work isn't harming them. And the police, who would only be there to prevent injuries, would have to support the strikers against any attempts to force them back to work.
Also consider that corporations aren't people.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Obviously everybody does draw such a line in their own personal morality, but what right do any of us have to say that ours should be the line that prevails over all others in a legal sense?
I would say that we draw lines legally. The doctor who cuts a patient open does do harm. Heck, the people who tore open the street outside my house did me mild harm. It's just that they did me (and everyone else) much more good by fixing the street.) There are laws about when they can do construction outside to govern what harm and good are done. Killing a cow does harm, but is likely to cause good. Torturing a cow does harm and is not likely to cause good. And I don't see how we can say that no harm is caused by torturing the cow, because pain is caused, clearly.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
MY moral standards? Hell, fisherman, if it weren't for prions and a well-enforced criminal code, I'd be torturing and eating humans as a hobby.
Not to mention it makes getting on with the neighbours sooo much more difficult. "Neighbour Rook, good to see you. What did you bring to the potluck? Rack of Neighbour Karl? Bad form, Rook. Yes, he was a bit of a nuisance, but he lived well withing the 'no eating these people' perimeter recommended by the council. There are reasons for these rules, dear boy."
And, of course, reciprocity.
"Hello everyone and welcome to the potluck! Yes, Helen, as I said to the council, we did need to kill Rook. Else there would have been no Borough for them to be council of. Of course we cooked him. No use wasting good meat, is there? Marinated him in sherry, so that should ameliorate the sulfur taste. Don't forget, Margret made her famous cherries jubilee, so everyone tuck in!"
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
It's not just chickens which may suffer. There's the double limerick:
A habit obscene and unsavoury
Holds the Bishop of Wessex in slavery.
With maniacal howls
He deflowers young owls
Which he keeps in an underground aviary.
But the Prior of Dunstan St Just
While seized with insatiable lust
Raped the Bishop's young owls
Those delicate fowls
And a little green lizard, what bust.
Ah, Gee D! Two of my old & golden favorites. Thank you.
WRT knowing what the dog wants, and how dogs are just easier to understand than women : what he's saying is that, essentially, he knew the bitch wanted it.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
As opposed to an alternative system where a personas basic rights are dependant on a "democracy of the committed", who will tell me what rights I need because they know better than me. A committee made up of people like you perhaps?
I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not telling you anything about what you can and can't do, barring that you can't cause harm to other people. Provided you don't hurt anyone else, pick a moral code and live by it to your heart's content. Just don't try to force anyone else to live by it if they don't want to.
But that's democracy for you. If your moral code seems fine to you, but not fine to the majority, then it's going to be legislated out of existence. Sorry, but that's the best way. It isn't a question of harm, just of being offensive.
You may not like it, but I am comforted by it, because I get to pick the people I want making those decisions.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
We don't see cows, sheep and chickens throwing themselves under the wheels of tractors. In fact we observe them trying to shun danger and flee from predators. So even if we avoid anthropomorphism there's still an argument to be made that at some base instinctual level animals would rather live than die. So even if we do our utmost to only buy free range foods the most we can say is that while we wouldn't harm an animal with our own bare hands we don't mind doing it by proxy.
Apart from scripturally some animals were given by God for food. Nowhere in the Bible are we allowed to shag any beast!!
No, it says it's an abomination...
...but maybe that's only relevant to the culture in which it was given and shouldn't be taken as having anything to do with today's more tolerant and diverse society.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
...but maybe that's only relevant to the culture in which it was given and shouldn't be taken as having anything to do with today's more tolerant and diverse society.
But most people are not tolerant towards people who have sex with animals!
It isn't a measure of diversity to have sex with animals!
I think this is one area, where the centuries have not distanced us too far from the Biblical view.
I believe we should reserve the labels tolerance and diversity for things that really deserve to be tolerated, and which enrich us by their diversity, lest we diminish their meanings and become less tolerant and less diverse.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I believe we should reserve the labels tolerance and diversity for things that really deserve to be tolerated, and which enrich us by their diversity, lest we diminish their meanings and become less tolerant and less diverse.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I believe we should reserve the labels tolerance and diversity for things that really deserve to be tolerated, and which enrich us by their diversity, lest we diminish their meanings and become less tolerant and less diverse.
Good point. I suppose while we may be unsure as to what harm it is to an animal to be compelled to be fucked by a human, it could reasonably be argued that this behaviour doesn't have a very humanizing effect on the person. Would one feel particularly comfortable with someone who has, and can justify having sex with animals? Or wish to their child or loved ones to have a lot to do with such a person?
One thing this does remind me a little of is the assumption of cruelty that lies behind the use of 'rape-racks' for impregnating bitches eg, to breed fighting dogs and puppy-mill dogs. This is where the bitch is attached to a structure she can't escape from to enable easier mating. Apart from the obvious reproductive aspects(!) is it an equal or lesser abuse, what the animal-shagger does?
Of course, if it was a choice between someone getting amorous with their dog, or going out to rape women or massacre innocents, it's the lesser of two evils. But it can't be one of the more edifying of human qualities!
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
It is unlikely to be that choice though. Rapists generally commit lesser offenses first. Likewise get used to coercive sex with animals - what do you think that teaches you ?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
But that's democracy for you. If your moral code seems fine to you, but not fine to the majority, then it's going to be legislated out of existence. Sorry, but that's the best way. It isn't a question of harm, just of being offensive.
You seriously think it's the best way? Ye Gods, what a horrible idea it is! So many atrocties have been committed in the name of what the majority think is right, so many people have been oppressed, and still that system has its defenders... ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:
You may not like it, but I am comforted by it, because I get to pick the people I want making those decisions.
HA ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
, that's only because you're in the majority mate. Ask a gay man from 30 or so years ago how it feels being in the minority of a society that thinks it's fine to ban anything the majority doesn't like. Ask Pastor Nadarkhani how it felt in that Iranian prison cell.
Do you really think that if, say, atheists were to gain the majority in the UK or US it would not only be their right, but the best possible course of action for them to utterly ban religion on the grounds that it offends them? Honestly, you're so fucking myopic about this it's almost embarassing.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
Nowhere in the Bible are we allowed to shag any beast!!
No, it says it's an abomination...
...but maybe that's only relevant to the culture in which it was given and shouldn't be taken as having anything to do with today's more tolerant and diverse society.
It's not relevant to anyone who isn't a Christian either way.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I believe we should reserve the labels tolerance and diversity for things that really deserve to be tolerated, and which enrich us by their diversity, lest we diminish their meanings and become less tolerant and less diverse.
How would that work then? How would allowing people to do whatever they want make us less tolerant or diverse?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Would one feel particularly comfortable with someone who has, and can justify having sex with animals? Or wish to their child or loved ones to have a lot to do with such a person?
There are a lot of people I wouldn't want any child of mine spending too much time with. People like fundamentalist Christians or line dancers. Doesn't mean I think those things should be made illegal.
What the fuck is going on with this "if I don't want to associate with it it shouldn't be legal for anybody" bullshit everyone's suddenly coming out with?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Would one feel particularly comfortable with someone who has, and can justify having sex with animals? Or wish to their child or loved ones to have a lot to do with such a person?
There are a lot of people I wouldn't want any child of mine spending too much time with. People like fundamentalist Christians or line dancers. Doesn't mean I think those things should be made illegal.
What the fuck is going on with this "if I don't want to associate with it it shouldn't be legal for anybody" bullshit everyone's suddenly coming out with?
As you may, or may not, have gathered Marvin, there are two debates here, entwined like a snakes honeymoon*. You are asking whether it is ever right to declare activities illegal, while many others are suggesting the activities that should be illegal.
If some should, then the first argument fails. YMMV.
*Yeah, deliberate. So what?
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
[QUOTE] Thinking that symbolically eating your dead-jew-on-a-stick cult leader somehow makes it OK to cause suffering is also pretty funny, I admit.
Formal complaint about you and your language arriving in the styx now. Racist and bigoted.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I vaguely recall, but can't dig up the reference, that dogs who have been subjected to this kind of abuse are basically not re-homable afterward. Their behavior around human beings is unreliable (no shit) and they usually get put down.
I'm sorry to say that I know of a case.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Racist and bigoted.
Aren't you cute. And relatively porous.
The racism claim is a slippery one, but I think you'll find that contextually it's somewhat apt. And, well, technically correct. Which isn't to say that you aren't allowed to find it offensive. I'm delighted that you do. Just, you know, I'm a bit surprised that you bother.
As for being a bigot, well, for that definition to work I'd have to belong to a group that I actually prefer.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
You are asking whether it is ever right to declare activities illegal, while many others are suggesting the activities that should be illegal.
If some should, then the first argument fails. YMMV.
My position is that the bare minimum of activities should be illegal, and then only to protect people from harm.
So you could say that I'm suggesting that it is never right to declare any activity that doesn't harm another person illegal. The only way to ban zoophilia under this philosophy is to decide that animals are people, and that inevitably leads to mandatory veganism and being overrun by rats and spiders.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
that's only because you're in the majority mate. Ask a gay man from 30 or so years ago how it feels being in the minority of a society that thinks it's fine to ban anything the majority doesn't like. Ask Pastor Nadarkhani how it felt in that Iranian prison cell.
I don't know if you have noticed, but the majority of people in the UK are not gay, and yet the democratic system has delivered many, many acts designed to protect homosexuals, from civil weddings to pension rights. All done from within a democracy where the majority has acted in the best interests of a minority, because it was the right thing to do.
In any case, the only system that is proven is democracy. The other ways have either failed during the experiment, or are so facile that nobody will give them a chance.
Oh, and Marvin you can shove your opinions where the sun doesn't shine because - frustrating as it must be - you are a political irrelevance in the actual world.
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I think it'd be nice if you fucked off and died.
But would you eat me? And how would my suffering matter?
No. I assume you taste of petrol.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
Democracy is great. At its best it gives voice to the will of the people. That would include Marvin.
Even democracy should have some restraints lest the will of the majority become opprobrious or dangerous to the minorities. I think you will see that in the fundamental documents of most democracies.
One more thing deano. OOT is generally amusing but not in the way you might intend.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What you do have to justify is forcing everyone else to live according to your beliefs, whether they agree or not. And that's a trickier proposition.
I wouldn't force them - I would persuade them, as others have said, through democratic means.
Yeah, "using democratic means" (i.e. creating laws that require those who disagree to abide by your own morality) is exactly what I have in mind when I say "force them".
I find it very hard to see how social reform of any kind would happen under a 'minarchist' system of government. For example, your recent outbursts of vitriol concerning the failure of the measure for the consecration of women bishops seem rather incongruous in the light of the extreme non-interventionism that you advocate here. After all, no-one was harmed by the failure of synod to pass that measure.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
One more thing deano. OOT is generally amusing but not in the way you might intend.
Sorry, you've lost me. What is OOT?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I don't know if you have noticed, but the majority of people in the UK are not gay, and yet the democratic system has delivered many, many acts designed to protect homosexuals, from civil weddings to pension rights. All done from within a democracy where the majority has acted in the best interests of a minority, because it was the right thing to do.
I don't know if you've noticed, but minority rights and freedoms being dependent on the majority thinking that granting them is "the right thing to do" isn't all that secure a foundation on which to build a society.
Your whole argument boils down to "the majority always knows what's right, and will always do it". Which is why you're being so embarrassingly myopic.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I find it very hard to see how social reform of any kind would happen under a 'minarchist' system of government.
By people getting together and deciding to do things, of course.
quote:
For example, your recent outbursts of vitriol concerning the failure of the measure for the consecration of women bishops seem rather incongruous in the light of the extreme non-interventionism that you advocate here. After all, no-one was harmed by the failure of synod to pass that measure.
Er, no-one was arrested or imprisoned either. Nor would they have been had the vote gone any other way.
You appear to be assuming that my political stance means I'd never presume to tell anyone I thought they were wrong, or care deeply about the reasons why. Of course I would do both of those, and of course I do. But I wouldn't, and don't, seek to use the law to force those who disagree with me to do what I want them to regardless of their wishes.
I care deeply about what people do. But after all the discussions are concluded and the persuasions have been attempted it's their life to lead and their decision to make. I have no right to take the freedom to make that decision away from them, other than in defence of another human being.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Presumably you would exclude physical and mental self-harm* from definition.
Correct.
I take it that the inclusion of mental damage in your definition of harm presupposes some form of objectively measurable notion of mental health to which said damage is inflicted?
It recognises that mental harm is a real thing.
So, you consider the mental health of human beings to be a real thing which should be protected from harm by law. I totally agree.
Now, can you tell me why you do not consider the mental health of animals to be a real thing which should be similarly protected by law?
Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on
:
Well, I think Marvin can answer better than me. In fact I think he already has, several times, on this thread alone. But maybe I can have a go too. Animals are not humans, animal rights are not human rights. It is not illegal to kill and eat animals, for example, but I don't think it is legal to kill and eat people in any jurisdiction in the world, so clearly we don't apply the same standards to animals as to humans.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I find it very hard to see how social reform of any kind would happen under a 'minarchist' system of government.
By people getting together and deciding to do things, of course.
quote:
For example, your recent outbursts of vitriol concerning the failure of the measure for the consecration of women bishops seem rather incongruous in the light of the extreme non-interventionism that you advocate here. After all, no-one was harmed by the failure of synod to pass that measure.
...I wouldn't, and don't, seek to use the law to force those who disagree with me to do what I want them to regardless of their wishes.
Really? You wouldn't consider using the law to make a group of people accept an institutional change which will cause no physical or mental harm to anyone?
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
Well, I think Marvin can answer better than me. In fact I think he already has, several times, on this thread alone. But maybe I can have a go too. Animals are not humans, animal rights are not human rights. It is not illegal to kill and eat animals, for example, but I don't think it is legal to kill and eat people in any jurisdiction in the world, so clearly we don't apply the same standards to animals as to humans.
I said similarly protected not identically protected. There's nothing particularly logical or axiomatic about the following statement: "An animal does not need legal protection from mental harm because it isn't a human being."
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Now, can you tell me why you do not consider the mental health of animals to be a real thing which should be similarly protected by law?
I already have. Many, many times. It's because they're not people.
quote:
Really? You wouldn't consider using the law to make a group of people accept an institutional change which will cause no physical or mental harm to anyone?
"As few laws as possible" means exactly that. I'm pretty sure I've been clear about that point at least a dozen times already on this thread.
It doesn't matter that forcing them to accept the change won't harm them. That's so not the point of what I've been saying I have to wonder if your reading age is technically high enough to be allowed out of primary school.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Now, can you tell me why you do not consider the mental health of animals to be a real thing which should be similarly protected by law?
I already have. Many, many times. It's because they're not people.
With respect, Marvin that's just an assertion disguised as an axiom. And it's not a very good one either. I'm asking you to tell me why the mental health of animals shouldn't be protected in a similar manner to that of human beings. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs legislates for the protection of non-human primates. Do you think this is wrong?
[ 30. November 2012, 15:46: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
I suppose that means that Christians should be vegetarians in order to meet your moral standards.
MY moral standards? Hell, fisherman, if it weren't for prions and a well-enforced criminal code, I'd be torturing and eating humans as a hobby.
How others think they meet their own moral standards is what's funny. "The instruction manual is ambiguous!" is pure hilarity. Thinking that symbolically eating your dead-jew-on-a-stick cult leader somehow makes it OK to cause suffering is also pretty funny, I admit.
Styx thread on the matter to one side, are you channelling Frankie Boyle by any chance?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
For the 'mental health' of animals to be protected, you'd have to start by demonstrating that animals actually have a mind to protect.
Not a brain, a mind.
I doubt Marvin thinks that they do. For myself... eh, it's a difficult one, for some of the smarter creatures.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
With respect, Marvin that's just an assertion disguised as an axiom.
Isn't everything, once you strip away the rhetoric?
quote:
I'm asking you to tell me why the mental health of animals shouldn't be protected in a similar manner to that of human beings.
For the same reason that their physical health shouldn't be protected in the same way as that of humans. Which is nothing more than "because they're not humans, and killing them provides for human needs or desires".
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
I had a thing for an elephant once, she will never forget me.
Fly Safe, Pyx_e
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
With respect, Marvin that's just an assertion disguised as an axiom.
Isn't everything, once you strip away the rhetoric?
quote:
I'm asking you to tell me why the mental health of animals shouldn't be protected in a similar manner to that of human beings.
For the same reason that their physical health shouldn't be protected in the same way as that of humans. Which is nothing more than "because they're not humans, and killing them provides for human needs or desires".
I not advocating the same protection, I'm advocating similar or comparable protection. You seem to saying that animals should have no protection from mental harm and consequently that there should be no legal impediment to having sex with them despite the mental harm it may cause them.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
You seem to saying that animals should have no protection from mental harm and consequently that there should be no legal impediment to having sex with them despite the mental harm it may cause them.
Yes.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
That's what I thought. Thanks.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Would one feel particularly comfortable with someone who has, and can justify having sex with animals? Or wish to their child or loved ones to have a lot to do with such a person?
There are a lot of people I wouldn't want any child of mine spending too much time with. People like fundamentalist Christians or line dancers. Doesn't mean I think those things should be made illegal.
What the fuck is going on with this "if I don't want to associate with it it shouldn't be legal for anybody" bullshit everyone's suddenly coming out with?
You really don't have a 'moderate' on your reaction guage, do you? Perhaps you could point out where I said that I expect anything I dislike to be made illegal?
You may consider it rather illiberal of me that I'd prefer the company of line-dancers and certainly some fundamentalist Christians to people who have sex with animals. But I think there are some fairly obvious and important differences between these things.
So, yes, I would prefer alternative company for a child, than a person whose idea of horse-riding involves fellating a stallion, or schtupping a German Shepherd. What choices you make, or preferences you have, for your loved ones is your business.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
You seem to saying that animals should have no protection from mental harm and consequently that there should be no legal impediment to having sex with them despite the mental harm it may cause them.
Yes.
Consequently, you also seem to be saying that there should be no legal recourse to prevent human beings from inflicting mental and physical harm on animals by torturing them and having sex with them.
Likewise, you also seem to be saying that there should be no legal recourse to prevent human beings from inflicting mental harm on themselves by torturing and having sex with animals.
Now, should there be any legal recourse to prevent human beings from simultaneously inflicting mental harm on themselves and upon animals by torturing and having sex with those animals in public?
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on
:
Will someone please castrate the perpetrators of this thread?
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
Will someone please castrate the perpetrators of this thread?
Obviously not. Time to get busy with those secaturs. (I do feel, if you're not prepared to do a job yourself, you shouldn't expect others to.)
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
My position is that the bare minimum of activities should be illegal, and then only to protect people from harm.
So you could say that I'm suggesting that it is never right to declare any activity that doesn't harm another person illegal. The only way to ban zoophilia under this philosophy is to decide that animals are people, and that inevitably leads to mandatory veganism and being overrun by rats and spiders.
Is the harm to the people who have sex with animals or is it harm to the societal fabric? I think the case is rather easy to be made that it provides general harm to society. And that is important, even in an hyper-individualized perspective. The general welfare of society fits within the concern about harm. I'm thinking about sexual exploitation, human trafficking and other activities that may appear to be willing activities. It is perhaps one thing if someone wants to sex up a household with a goat, and quite another if this is a second marriage with the human children from the first going back and forth between a human-human family and an human-ungulate family. Might there be harm to the child? The burden to prove there isn't would be difficult to collect, but so what. It would obviously be the responsibility of the goat or it's human spouse to provide the data.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I'll tell you what's going to harm the societal fabric. The path of carnage I create after having lost my mind as a result of having to read posts like that one.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
I think I got orfeo's goat!
baaaaaaaaaaa
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Yes, and I've trained him to defend himself against whackos like you by running you through with his horns.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Yes, and I've trained him to defend himself against whackos like you by running you through with his horns.
Whacking horns! Hee Hee! I like spiders on the vinegar stroke.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
Huh?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Nurse, he's out of bed again, and this time he's drunk some of the cleaning fluid.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Nurse, he's out of bed again, and this time he's drunk some of the cleaning fluid.
It was after closing time and he's probably home from the pub with a gutful of Old'n'Nasty inside him. If it's any consolation he'll wish it was cleaning fluid in the morning.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
I can think of a couple of societal reasons why zoophilia should be banned for humans.
- It's connected with zoonosis - humans catching diseases from animals. And we'd really prefer not to do that. Diseases linked to zoonosis are HIV/AIDS and avian and swine influenza epidemics.
- from digging around the psychological literature*, there are some reports of the various paraphilias being linked and linked to mental illness. Possibly the barriers that prevent bestiality / zoophilia also prevent rape, paedophilia and other paraphilias, but that's not a clear link.
RooK's comment made me wonder about non-religious reasons and if there were any. Most of the religious proscriptions are to keep the chosen people healthy, so I wondered if there were real health reasons for this one.
* I could find links but they're complicated. I'm not sure the alleyways of investigation that the Ship is leading me down currently are necessarily that helpful.
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
Will someone please castrate the perpetrators of this thread?
Obviously not. Time to get busy with those secaturs. (I do feel, if you're not prepared to do a job yourself, you shouldn't expect others to.)
Only H&As can do that dirty deed. If not, my blunt knife and bricks would already have been active. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
You really don't have a 'moderate' on your reaction guage, do you? Perhaps you could point out where I said that I expect anything I dislike to be made illegal?
Well, that's what this whole thread is about. But no, you didn't specifically say you want it to be illegal.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Now, should there be any legal recourse to prevent human beings from simultaneously inflicting mental harm on themselves and upon animals by torturing and having sex with those animals in public?
There's possibly a case to be made that doing it in public would cause direct mental harm to everyone else who was there. But otherwise, no.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I think the case is rather easy to be made that it provides general harm to society.
Then why don't you make it, rather than wittering on about goats having custody of children and other such bollocks?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
It's connected with zoonosis - humans catching diseases from animals. And we'd really prefer not to do that.
Who are you to say what anyone else would prefer to do or not? If people want to risk zoonosis that's their decision to make, not mine.
quote:
from digging around the psychological literature*, there are some reports of the various paraphilias being linked and linked to mental illness. Possibly the barriers that prevent bestiality / zoophilia also prevent rape, paedophilia and other paraphilias, but that's not a clear link.
Whether they're linked or not, suggesting that banning one activity will cut down instances of the other is a bit silly. Isn't it more likely that people will compensate for not being able to do the first activity by doing even more of the second?
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
No, the real and genuine risk with zoonosis is that if someone catches something from an animal the way bacteria and viruses work it can then become a human illness, like HIV/AIDS and some of the influenza viruses. So they're not just risking themselves but other people too.
[ 01. December 2012, 11:31: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
My position is that the bare minimum of activities should be illegal, and then only to protect people from harm.
So you could say that I'm suggesting that it is never right to declare any activity that doesn't harm another person illegal. The only way to ban zoophilia under this philosophy is to decide that animals are people, and that inevitably leads to mandatory veganism and being overrun by rats and spiders.
So in your mind there really is no difference between swatting a fly and bull-fighting, cock-fighting, badger-baiting, bear-baiting, throwing cats out of top storey windows and setting fire to horses and dogs etc? And therefore these things should be equally as legitimate as vacuuming up Boris the spider living in the corner of the room?
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
There is an identifiable risk of harm in a lot of human activities. That does not mean we outlaw them.
When a bridge over a tall chasm is built there is a calculable risk of one or more of the workers dying in an accident. Once the bridge is built there is a calculable risk that more than a few people in motor vehicles will die because of ice on the bridge and general idiot and drunk drivers. Yet we see bridges all over the damn place.
Martin's position is not that zoophilia is a good thing. His point is that as a general thing it is better for government to let society regulate itself on some issues.
So, the next time you go to the park and see someone making loving eyes at their dog, smack them upside the head and tell them that it was just a warning; if you see them fucking their dog you will unleash a can of whoopass on them.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Martin's position is not that zoophilia is a good thing. His point is that as a general thing it is better for government to let society regulate itself on some issues.
That appears to be your position, Tortuf. Marvin has stated his position very clearly that if human beings aren't harmed, 'it' - whatever 'it' is - shouldn't be illegal. Unless that's not what he meant?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
My position is that the bare minimum of activities should be illegal, and then only to protect people from harm.
So you could say that I'm suggesting that it is never right to declare any activity that doesn't harm another person illegal. The only way to ban zoophilia under this philosophy is to decide that animals are people, and that inevitably leads to mandatory veganism and being overrun by rats and spiders.
Nonsense.
Declaring that animals are people would be at the end of a very long continuum - with your 'anyone can do anything to animals' idea at the other end.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
Re: Anselima,
It is another way of saying the same thing. He has a test for when laws should be applied and when they should not be applied.
Look at smoking. I think there is general agreement that smoking is harmful to the smoker. There is now some agreement that smoking may be harmful to persons who are around smokers. There is even some agreement that smoking in restaurants is annoying as hell.
Yet, when governments talk about banning smoking in public places there is a huge debate on the issue. Why? Because maybe government does not need to stick its nose in every aspect of our lives.
Zoophilia is quite a lot yuckier than smoking (until you see sections of black lung anyway) but that does not mean it should be made illegal without giving some thought to the matter.
[ 01. December 2012, 12:41: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
My position is that the bare minimum of activities should be illegal, and then only to protect people from harm.
So you could say that I'm suggesting that it is never right to declare any activity that doesn't harm another person illegal. The only way to ban zoophilia under this philosophy is to decide that animals are people, and that inevitably leads to mandatory veganism and being overrun by rats and spiders.
Nonsense.
Declaring that animals are people would be at the end of a very long continuum - with your 'anyone can do anything to animals' idea at the other end.
The proposition on which Marvin's philosophy is based seems to be this: only humans have a legal right to be protected from mental and physical damage. My question is this: how did he come to this conclusion? He has given an opinion and fleshed out some of the implications of that opinion, but he hasn't given an argument as to why I should accept that 1) human beings have a right to legal protection from harm, 2) animals do not have a right to legal protection from harm. The hidden assertion is, ITSM, that human beings are somehow more worthy of protection than animals but he hasn't said why that should be the case.
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
I don't think it's appropriate to discuss bestiality as being on the same level as smoking.
One is yucky and arguably harmful to humans, while the other is restricted on the basis of the scientific fact it causes harm to other humans, even though some think it is not yucky on any level.
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
My position is that the bare minimum of activities should be illegal, and then only to protect people from harm.
So you could say that I'm suggesting that it is never right to declare any activity that doesn't harm another person illegal. The only way to ban zoophilia under this philosophy is to decide that animals are people, and that inevitably leads to mandatory veganism and being overrun by rats and spiders.
Nonsense.
Declaring that animals are people would be at the end of a very long continuum - with your 'anyone can do anything to animals' idea at the other end.
But the US has already gone way beyond there with extending that continuum - even corporations are people now.
[ 01. December 2012, 13:09: Message edited by: the giant cheeseburger ]
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Mars, the planet on which you can eff you goat and eat it too. Some of the nonsense in this thread is obviously merely argumentative satire as no reasonable person could so advocate such ridiculous idiocy whatever oxygen starved brainless planet they're from.
The analysis that this is only about individual rights entirely escapes the point about community, and society's rights and needs. There is harm done by certain things individuals want to do. The harm is to the larger society, and even if hyper-individualists keep saying they have the right to do whatever, they do not. And they never will. Like the illegality of polygamous marriage, recently decided in B.C. to be damaging and not contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada. Individualism and libertarianism have limits. Just as everything else does. The limits are enforced.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
One of the things that always frustrates me is conservative politicians cajoling votes by "getting hard on crime and criminals." As a result, we spend a goddam fortune on prisons that are filled over the brim with an admixture of genuine dangerous criminals and perpetrators of property crime.
So, outlaw zoophilia. Put those dog fuckers in prison so we can all pay to house them with the murderers, rapists, drug dealers and gang members.
Do you not see your attitude is just like the conservative politicians you so despise; just from the opposite end of the spectrum?
"I don't like it so throw their ass in jail."
Zoophilia is bad, even my computer underlines it in red. The question is how much of a danger to society as a whole is it vs. the cost of making it illegal.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
<snip>
Zoophilia is bad, even my computer underlines it in red*. The question is how much of a danger to society as a whole is it vs. the cost of making it illegal.
Point taken about "Tough on crime" being fulfilled by long prison sentences, which aren't effective.
Most posters on this thread are probably amazed that existing animal welfare laws don't, in some way, cover beastiality, zoophilia or whatever elseyou want to call it.
[tangent on a Purgatory thread]
It's a bit like that gravy train that was the Leveson enquiry into the British press. Almost all of the actions the press took that celebs, murder victimes and others objected to were and are either illegal under criminal law or actionable under civil law.
[/tangent on a Purgatory thread]
*I'll tell you how bad. I couldn't host this thread on my workplace PC.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Do you not see your attitude is just like the conservative politicians you so despise; just from the opposite end of the spectrum?
"I don't like it so throw their ass in jail."
Zoophilia is bad, even my computer underlines it in red. The question is how much of a danger to society as a whole is it vs. the cost of making it illegal.
I despise no one though suffer from levels of disagreement with radicals on all extreme ends of all political and social spectrums, at the rather uncomfortable lower intestinal level. A fart in all their directions.
But let me set aside some of this silliness for the balance of this post. I've only met one person in my rather lengthy career who had regular intercourse with animals, a teenager. The cows and the dog apparently survived. The chickens did not. The individual was psychiatrically hospitalized (no-one really knew what to do with him) and then the sexual behaviour towards people was additionally discovered during the hospitalisation. The law on the books allowed the choice to be made for hospital or legal charges. Perfectly sensible.
The problem with unrestrained arousal directed towards anything that can receive a penis (sexual behaviour with animals is exclusively a male thing it seems, not aware of anything other than the apocryphal Catherine the Great-horse story and some Greek myths) is that the lack of discrimination of what the individual finds arousing and lack of self control are the root problems in terms psychological adjustment. The additional problem is that, although often bravely argued, sexuality and sexual activity is not separable from relational and emotional aspects, even as people vainly try to say it is in word and behaviour. It is hard to have a mutual relationship with an animal. If someone can reference some objective data and psychiatric authority that demonstrates that there are psychologically sound animal fetishists who are well adjusted, I'd like to hear about it. Until then, they are considered psychologically disordered, or in some situations, extremely intoxicated.
Seeing as the practice is thankfully rare the concern about incarceration and fiscal costs to societies is rather moot. I found no prosecutions in 25 years in my province in Canada. We do however, want to encourage people who live in society, i.e., are not hermits living in extreme isolation, to abide by some minimal social rules of behaviour. And all societies have been willing and needful of engaging in some enforcement of that.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
The hidden assertion is, ITSM, that human beings are somehow more worthy of protection than animals but he hasn't said why that should be the case.
Because I am one.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
Is a human life of more value that the life of an animal?
If you can save only one, which are you going to pluck out of the way of the semi bearing down on them -- the little kid or his dog?
Species-ist as the answer may be, I suspect any legalities involved are going to support actions to save the kid, and not his canine companion.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Dunno, depends on the kid, yeah? I mean some of the little brats...
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
The hidden assertion is, ITSM, that human beings are somehow more worthy of protection than animals but he hasn't said why that should be the case.
Because I am one.
I'd suggest that we are more worthy of protection, from other species and ourselves, because we are created in God's image.
That doesn't mean animals are not worthy of some protection. We're charged with taking care of the earth after all.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
My cat used to kiss me on the lips, but it's all over now.
Fly Safe, Pyx_e
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
The hidden assertion is, ITSM, that human beings are somehow more worthy of protection than animals but he hasn't said why that should be the case.
Because I am one.
So, animals do not merit protection from torture and sexual abuse by human beings because you are a human being? Can you explain your reasoning there please Marv?
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
In point of fact, I have read studies (some 15-20 years ago, can't link to anything) which indicate that the tortue and abuse of animals is bad for the humans who do it. The acts lead to depression and other ills, IIRC.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
In point of fact, I have read studies (some 15-20 years ago, can't link to anything) which indicate that the tortue and abuse of animals is bad for the humans who do it. The acts lead to depression and other ills, IIRC.
According to this article "since the 1970"s, research has consistently reported childhood cruelty to animals as the first warning sign of later delinquency, violence, and criminal behavior. In fact, nearly all violent crime perpetrators have a history of animal cruelty in their profiles."
[Link sorted by host]
[ 01. December 2012, 17:22: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
In point of fact, I have read studies (some 15-20 years ago, can't link to anything) which indicate that the tortue and abuse of animals is bad for the humans who do it. The acts lead to depression and other ills, IIRC.
According to this article "since the 1970"s, research has consistently reported childhood cruelty to animals as the first warning sign of later delinquency, violence, and criminal behavior. In fact, nearly all violent crime perpetrators have a history of animal cruelty in their profiles."
That link you provide links only to Porridge's post which you quote. Did you intend that or have you something interesting for us?
Sioni Sais
Hellhost
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
Darn. I wanted to link this. Sorry.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-equation/201104/children-who-are-cruel-animals-when-worry
Could you sort it please?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Darn. I wanted to link this. Sorry.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-equation/201104/children-who-are-cruel-animals-when-worry
Could you sort it please?
Sorted. Now then, if we could prevent posting without using preview post, how much difference would it make? Thought so.
Sioni Sais
Hellhost
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
So, animals do not merit protection from torture and sexual abuse by human beings because you are a human being? Can you explain your reasoning there please Marv?
Certainly.
Bear in mind that I'm starting from the position that the absolute ideal would be no government at all - total freedom for everyone to do what they like.
Sadly, some people would use such total freedom to hurt others, possibly even to hurt me. That would be really bad. So there will have to be a bare minimum of laws in place to protect me from those people, and by extension protect everyone else from them (because you can't really have a law that said "no hurting Marvin" rather than "no hurting anyone").
Now, if we're sticking to the principle of having an absolute minimum of laws in order to protect people, do we need to include animals in that? Well, we can't just include them in a "don't hurt anything" law, because that would preclude eating beef and squishing spiders, and I want to be able to continue doing both of those things. We could have a separate "don't hurt animals excepting for reasons (a) (b) and (c)" law, but that would be an extra law that isn't necessary in order to protect people, thus a violation of the starting principle.
Essentially, you're coming at what I said from the wrong side. It's not "animals shouldn't be protected because I'm human", it's "humans should be protected because I'm human". The former implies removal of protections that would be there by default, the latter implies granting protections that wouldn't be there by default, because the default would be no law at all.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
But the effect of people abusing animals is that they are more likely to hurt humans.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
sexual behaviour with animals is exclusively a male thing it seems, not aware of anything other than the apocryphal Catherine the Great-horse story and some Greek myths
I think you are very wrong there.
I'm not going to post links for obvious reasons but if you google "beastiality movies" and click through any of the top few links I think you will be pushed to find a man anywhere in the clips.
So you need to think again I'm afraid.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
As I pointed out in my earlier post, gender split is similar to other paraphilias. Male dominated, but not exclusively male.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
But the effect of people abusing animals is that they are more likely to hurt humans.
Is that correlation or causation, though?
I'm sure that 100% of cannibals would be found to have also eaten animals. Does that mean eating animals leads to eating people?
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
Double blind randomised controlled trials aren't really possible in this area. There is probably a feedback loop.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
So, animals do not merit protection from torture and sexual abuse by human beings because you are a human being? Can you explain your reasoning there please Marv?
Certainly.
Essentially, you're coming at what I said from the wrong side. It's not "animals shouldn't be protected because I'm human", it's "humans should be protected because I'm human". The former implies removal of protections that would be there by default, the latter implies granting protections that wouldn't be there by default, because the default would be no law at all.
It sounds like you're just trying to re-word your position in order to disguise the implications to which you refer. I think the following extract from C S Lewis's essay on Vivisection exposes the faulty thinking behind Marvin's position: quote:
We may find it difficult to formulate a human right of tormenting beasts in terms which would not equally imply an angelic right of tormenting men. And we may feel that though objective superiority is rightly claimed for man, yet that very superiority ought partly to consist in not behaving like a vivisector: that we ought to prove ourselves better than the beasts precisely by the fact of acknowledging duties to them which they do not acknowledge to us.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
sexual behaviour with animals is exclusively a male thing it seems, not aware of anything other than the apocryphal Catherine the Great-horse story and some Greek myths
I think you are very wrong there.
I'm not going to post links for obvious reasons but if you google "beastiality movies" and click through any of the top few links I think you will be pushed to find a man anywhere in the clips.
So you need to think again I'm afraid.
I'm not even going to sully my home PC with that search term, but do you really think the movies depict reality?
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
But the effect of people abusing animals is that they are more likely to hurt humans.
Is that correlation or causation, though?
Marvin, the social system which you advocate on this thread would have no formal, legally binding provision whatsoever to ensure that the answer to that question remains theoretical and unnecessary. And for that reason, as they say on Dragon's Den, I'm out.
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
I think the following extract from C S Lewis's essay on Vivisection exposes the faulty thinking behind Marvin's position: quote:
We may find it difficult to formulate a human right of tormenting beasts in terms which would not equally imply an angelic right of tormenting men. And we may feel that though objective superiority is rightly claimed for man, yet that very superiority ought partly to consist in not behaving like a vivisector: that we ought to prove ourselves better than the beasts precisely by the fact of acknowledging duties to them which they do not acknowledge to us.
AIUI, Marvin would not not necessarily disagree with Lewis. However, he does not want to compel those who disagree to behave as though they did.
Does Lewis say what the thought should be done to those who do not agree with his view and who believe that vivisection is justified?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Re the movies-- the question is not who is in them, the question is for whose titillation they were made. I'm guessing an almost exclusively male audience.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
It sounds like you're just trying to re-word your position in order to disguise the implications to which you refer.
And I think you're trying to spin all this to make it look as though I'm advocating animal abuse. I am not. But that doesn't mean I think it should be illegal!
There's a fundamental difference in outlook between those who think only what is good and beneficial should be legal and those who think only what is directly and intentionally harmful should be illegal. The first group - into which a lot of you seem to fall - are starting from the position that nothing should be allowed unless it can be demonstrated to be good for us. The second group - into which I fall - say that nothing should be banned unless it can be demonstrated to be harmful to us.
Joanna is completely correct about my view of Lewis' quote about vivisection. I heartily agree about there being a moral obligation to look after animals. But morality is not the same as legality! The law exists to protect people, not to enforce morality! Why are you finding that position so hard to understand?
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
Are you saying that protecting people isn't a moral issue?
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on
:
Has anyone actually mentioned that bestiality is already illegal in England & Wales?
My mother used to remember her school class being taken to observe the local Magistrates' Court (this would have been the early 1940s) where one of the cases was a prosecution for the buggering of a duck.
I would still castrate the lot of them and have done with it...
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Are you saying that protecting people isn't a moral issue?
No, but that's not why laws to protect people would be needed. The need for such laws is purely pragmatic.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Are you saying that protecting people isn't a moral issue?
No, but that's not why laws to protect people would be needed. The need for such laws is purely pragmatic.
Isn't the codifaction of laws which protect people from harm evidence that some form of moral code is in fact in operation?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Isn't the codifaction of laws which protect people from harm evidence that some form of moral code is in fact in operation?
Well, if self-interest can be called a moral position then I suppose so. Third paragraph refers, assuming you count "Certainly" as a paragraph.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The law exists to protect people, not to enforce morality! Why are you finding that position so hard to understand?
I understand it. I just don't personally agree with it, but I think our different views about legal theory are fairly well established by now.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0