|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Zoophilia to be banned in Germany
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
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 ?
--------------------
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
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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 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.
--------------------
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:
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?
--------------------
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 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?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IntellectByProxy
Larger than you think
# 3185
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
www.zambiadiaries.blogspot.com
Posts: 3482 | From: The opposite | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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:
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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jonah the Whale
Ship's pet cetacean
# 1244
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2799 | From: Nether Regions | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
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."
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 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".
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
I had a thing for an elephant once, she will never forget me.
Fly Safe, Pyx_e
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
Will someone please castrate the perpetrators of this thread?
--------------------
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
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
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.)
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Yes, and I've trained him to defend himself against whackos like you by running you through with his horns.
--------------------
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
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
Huh?
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Nurse, he's out of bed again, and this time he's drunk some of the cleaning fluid.
--------------------
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
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.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
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)
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
