|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Zoophilia to be banned in Germany
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
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".
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
People tend to say things like that.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
He secretly yeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaarns to be religious. It's just his coping mechanism.
Poor little lost soul.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
If the buggers had all been castrated you wouldn't be writing all this crap.
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Presumably you would exclude physical and mental self-harm* from definition.
Correct.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the 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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
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?
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
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."
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
*Snort* *grunt*
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
Door? What door?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 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.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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".
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
But democracies operate in that way all the time...(?)
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Otter
Shipmate
# 12020
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data", YMMV, limited-time offer, IANAL, no purchase required, and the state of CA has found this substance to cause cancer in laboratory aminals
Posts: 1429 | From: Chicago, IL 'burbs | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Marvin's proposal takes the power away from politicians,
Just one more benefit it provides to society ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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!"
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
