|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted April 26, 2013 01:02 AM |
|
|
Bestiality is no less an "alternative lifestyle" than homosexuality. Both are sexual fetishes that deviate from "normal" human sexuality.
Clicky
Quote:
The history of zoophilia (also known as bestiality) begins in the prehistoric era, where depictions of humans and animals in a sexual context appear infrequently in European rock art.[1] Bestiality remained a theme in mythology and folklore through the classical period and into the Middle Ages (e.g. the Greek myth of Leda and the Swan)[2] and several ancient authors purported to document it as a regular, accepted practice – albeit usually in "other" cultures.
Explicit legal prohibition of human sexual contact with animals is a legacy of the Abrahamic religions:[2] the Hebrew Bible imposes the death penalty on both the person and animal involved in an act of bestiality.[3] There are several examples known from medieval Europe of people and animals executed for committing bestiality. With the Age of Enlightenment, bestiality was subsumed with other sexual "crimes against nature" into civil sodomy laws, usually remaining a capital crime.
Bestiality remains illegal in most countries and condoned in none. Though religious and "crime against nature" arguments may still be used to justify this, today the central issue is the ability of non-human animals to give consent: it is argued that sex with animals is inherently abusive.[4] In common with many paraphilias, the internet has allowed the formation of a zoophile community that has begun to lobby for zoophilia or zoosexuality to be considered an alternative sexuality and for the legalisation of bestiality.[5]
____________
Revelation
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 26, 2013 01:04 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 01:07, 26 Apr 2013.
|
Quote:
Any person + any person becomes anyone + anyone + anyone +.... That becomes anyone + anyone + any species + any species. The decay and degradation of society until everything eventually collapses. Societies fall from within via moral decay. Rejoice liberals, you are the destroyers of worlds.
Ah finally, the only piece missing in your portrait of bigotry:
Prophecies of apocalypse.
Homosexuality is not a fetish btw, you can not arbitrarily change the meanings of words to fit your agenda.
Sexual fetishism, or erotic fetishism, is the sexual arousal a person receives from a physical object, or from a specific situation. The object or situation of interest is called the fetish; the person who has a fetish for that object/situation is a fetishist
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 26, 2013 01:33 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Any person + any person becomes anyone + anyone + anyone +.... That becomes anyone + anyone + any species + any species. The decay and degradation of society until everything eventually collapses. Societies fall from within via moral decay. Rejoice liberals, you are the destroyers of worlds.
Ah finally, the only piece missing in your portrait of bigotry:
Prophecies of apocalypse.
Anyone who calls me a bigot is quite simply put a liar so I hope you are not calling me a bigot. Sadly far leftists have little to offer in way of rational debate and tend to respond out of emotion rather than rational thought and thus often hurl insults at the opposing side rather than responding to the observations.
Quote:
Homosexuality is not a fetish btw, you can not arbitrarily change the meanings of words to fit your agenda.
Sexual fetishism, or erotic fetishism, is the sexual arousal a person receives from a physical object, or from a specific situation. The object or situation of interest is called the fetish; the person who has a fetish for that object/situation is a fetishist
Wherever you got the definition from, it is not accurate. The point of a fetish is that there is a sexual attraction that deviates from the norm. Heterosexuality is the norm for the human race.
No one is born with any sexual fetish. Point out the gene that makes anyone want to have sex in high heels, in handcuffs, in public, with animals, with children, with someone of their own gender, prefer blondes, prefer redheads, in groups, ect. There would have to be many thousands of such genes and they simply do not exist.
____________
Revelation
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 26, 2013 01:42 AM |
|
|
artu:
I have a response to the point about children, but it's best left for a later discussion. As for animals, the point is not that they can or can't harm us, but that they're not beings who both can harm us and agree not to. If a being can't harm you, or if it can harm you but can't agree not to, it's not in that category.
Also, if laws are inconsistent with each other, there are no clear principles for what the law should be.
Elodin:
No one is suggesting that people should be able to marry animals. Only persons can marry, and animals are not persons. Bestiality is not marriage.
Also, why would allowing bestiality lead to "moral decay"?
blizzardboy:
What's the difference in context between killing animals and having sex with them?
Certainly having animal rights and civil liberties for humans is correlated, but it's a huge leap to suggest that animal rights cause human rights. China's terrible human rights record is obviously not because it doesn't recognize animal rights. Yes, laws are part of what shapes culture - and laws against bestiality shape culture in a negative way, they lead people to consider animals to be somehow special and not just property.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 26, 2013 01:42 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Sadly far leftists have little to offer in way of rational debate and tend to respond out of emotion rather than rational thought and thus often hurl insults at the opposing side rather than responding to the observations.
That's right, Elodin. You were being rational when talking about destruction of worlds and I was the one being emotional by not taking it seriously. Right...
I got the definition from Wiki, here's the dictionary:
3.
Psychology . any object or nongenital part of the body that causes a habitual erotic response or fixation.
(number 1 and 2 are irrelevant, they refer to the religious meaning of the word)
And here's Britannica:
fetishism, in psychology, a form of sexual deviance involving erotic attachment to an inanimate object or an ordinarily asexual part of the human body.
The term fetishism was actually borrowed from anthropological writings in which “fetish” (also spelled fetich) referred to a charm thought to contain magical or spiritual powers. Its influence on psychiatric usage is indicated by Sigmund Freud’s reference, in his Three Contributions to the Theory of Sex, to the sexual object of the fetishist as being comparable to “the fetich in which the savage sees the embodiment of his god.
You are the only person I've ever met in my life who calls homosexuality a fetish (and we have the same word in Turkish).
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 26, 2013 01:54 AM |
|
|
Quote:
What's the difference in context between killing animals and having sex with them?
Food and cultural conditioning.
|
|
shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted April 26, 2013 03:18 AM |
|
Edited by shyranis at 03:28, 26 Apr 2013.
|
Quote:
Pretty much anything goes when marriage is redefined as any gender + any gender. Such a "secular" marriage will never be anything but a sham if it is not male-female, but there is no reason to exclude people with other sexual fetishes from redefining marriage their way too.
Any person + any person becomes anyone + anyone + anyone +.... That becomes anyone + anyone + any species + any species. The decay and degradation of society until everything eventually collapses. Societies fall from within via moral decay. Rejoice liberals, you are the destroyers of worlds.
If I may interject here, but this looks to me like a slippery slope fallacy and a serious case of reducio ad absurdum. Has society collapsed yet because the immoral practice of divorce been around for centuries? The Bible itself says Divorce is a sin far many more times then Homosexuality and remarrying is considered a form of adultery punishable by death.The same weight as homosexuality but with far more emphasis.
Has society collapsed because we no longer follow Jesus' commandments that disrespectful children must be put to death?
What's more, if you read what I previously wrote, Bestiality wouldn't be supported by a rational government as animals do not possess either sentience or the concept of consent.
And animal cannot love a human in the same terms, cannot abide by the terms of the social contract involved and most likely does not understand the concept of monogamy. Even moreso, since an animal does not understand the concept of consent to practice Bestiality is to be a rapist constantly in certain terms and at least the first few times in no uncertain terms. The love cannot be mutual.
I am opposed to Bestiality based on that reasoning, not just because it's icky 
Equal marriage however is a product of mutual, consenting adults. A true wonder even if I myself am disgusted by the acts of a pair of women or pair of men I am sure we are all mature enough to understand that they are not harming anybody at all with their own personal desires. They aren't thrusting themselves on anybody else to turn them gay.
MVASS:
Quote:
laws against bestiality shape culture in a negative way, they lead people to consider animals to be somehow special and not just property.
We'll have to disagree on this Mvass, and animal isn't mere property. It can be hurt or tortured by Bestiality. An inanimate object cannot have such things done which is why nobody is moving to ban... toys...
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted April 26, 2013 03:25 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Point out the gene that makes anyone want to have sex in high heels etc
According to your logic, it is up to you to prove such gene does not exist. We know very little about how our genetic legacy is coded still, and even less what causes people being out "norms".
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 26, 2013 03:37 AM |
|
|
Shyranis:
Quote:
We'll have to disagree on this Mvass, and animal isn't mere property. It can be hurt or tortured by Bestiality.
It can be (and is) tortured or hurt by factory farming, and yet a lot more people are opposed to bestiality than to factory farming. The key similarity between animals and inanimate objects - a similarity that neither of them shares with humans - is their inability to constrain themselves by non-aggression agreements. Neither inanimate objects nor animals can say, "I could harm you and you could harm me, or we could agree not to harm each other." It's true that unlike inanimate objects, animals can feel pain, but I don't see why that's relevant to determining whether they have rights.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 26, 2013 05:11 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Neither inanimate objects nor animals can say, "I could harm you and you could harm me, or we could agree not to harm each other."
Can they think it? (Animals, not inanimate objects.)
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 26, 2013 07:50 AM |
|
|
Who cares?
No one asks that when they are led to the slaughter. No one aks them either whether they want to sit in their cages all day and lay eggs, so close to each other that they can barely move. Or whether they want to be lab rats.
However, ask people whether there was a difference between a sadistic rapist pedophile serial killer and a sadistic rapist sheep serial killer.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 26, 2013 01:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No one asks that when they are led to the slaughter. No one aks them either whether they want to sit in their cages all day and lay eggs, so close to each other that they can barely move. Or whether they want to be lab rats.
Of course they don't! Isn't that the point?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 26, 2013 01:59 PM |
|
|
Themn I don't really understand your point.
If that IS the point, what's there to discuss?
|
|
shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted April 26, 2013 02:22 PM |
|
|
I've mentioned in other posts in other threads that I believe animals used for food should just be put down humanely. With as little pain as possible. Inflicting pain on a creature is sadism and to enjoy doing so to something real is a sign of a serious lack of empathy.
That being said, even the cruelties of our "normal" food system are nothing compared to some Chinese specialty meats I have seen. There is a Chinese belief that tortured meat is best, that you can taste the fear in the animals and it is delicious >_< My source: Chinese friends and family.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted April 26, 2013 02:23 PM |
|
|
Waiting for the alien invasion and them starting to use us as their sex slaves with their rectangular shlongs.
^^
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 26, 2013 02:38 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Themn I don't really understand your point.
If that IS the point, what's there to discuss?
O curse my lack of time! The need to post in one-to-two sentence increments makes it virtually impossible to get a cogent point across. <sigh>
The point is that human behavior is rarely internally consistent, at least on the surface. We make all kinds of choices that seem to make a sort of sense at the time the choice is being made, but then are hard pressed to defend those when asked to remove emotion and gut reaction from the equation. I don't see how this is any sort of revelation, as certain posters seem to think it should be. And besides, internal consistency of a position depends in large part on what the underlying premises of the position are.
Virtually any logical conclusion can be made to seem internally inconsistent just by changing (or oversimplifying) the underlying premises. For example, it has been claimed here that it is internally inconsistent to believe that it's OK to kill and eat animals on the one hand but not have sex with them on the other. I can see how that might be so. On the other hand, this conclusion relies on the premise that sex and killing are equal acts. That's not a factual premise; it's an emotional or philosophical one that's simply a matter of opinion, and one that apparently a number of people happen to disagree with (either consciously or subconsciously), since humans killing a lot of animals but don't generally believe it's kosher to have sex with them. It's also an argument that ignores the functional purpose behind killing animals with respect to having sex with them. So sure, we can point to a casual analysis of human behavior with respect to killing and having sex with animals and say it's internally inconsistent, but to do so is lazy because it willfully ignores the complexity of emotional decisions and it assumes that there is an ultimate and singular moral TRUTH when it comes to the underlying premise. In the end, whether or not human behavior/belief in this regard is internally inconsistent depends WHOLLY on the premises of the argument; if the premises are not agreed to or equivalent, of course people will arrive at different conclusions.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 26, 2013 04:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
That's not a factual premise; it's an emotional or philosophical one that's simply a matter of opinion, and one that apparently a number of people happen to disagree with (either consciously or subconsciously), since humans killing a lot of animals but don't generally believe it's kosher to have sex with them. It's also an argument that ignores the functional purpose behind killing animals with respect to having sex with them.
The first part is, however, not with regard to the animal, but with regard to the HUMAN. It is okay for a human to kill an animal - whether for food or other reasons (lab rats, furs or simply because they are in the way and any other reason) -, but not to have sex with them (because that's abnormal/pervert/sick/morally bad.
The aspect of cruelty against animals is just an excuse - lots of people who do HAVE sex with animals treat them very kind and special.
For the functional purpose - that is a special attribute of THINGS, not (sentient) BEINGS. And that's how it is: animals - when killed - ARE treated like things - food.
This whole nonsense about "cruelty against animals" is just one big hypocrisy when it comes from people who eat meat, wear furs and so on.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 26, 2013 04:55 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 17:27, 26 Apr 2013.
|
To self-quote, I'm still saying "one is not possible to give up without serious consequences as of now, the other is. You overtheorize and overestimate the laws necessity to be consistent. There are many laws that are inconsistent with each other, feasibility plays a serious part in law as well as theoretical consistency."
I haven't heard a convincing argument against that yet. Why is weed illegal and alcohol not, why is it ok for a model to rent her body but not a prostitute? Why is racism considered a hate crime but believing everybody who is not from your religion belongs to hell only because of that does not? Why is it illegal to walk with a speedo on the street but not on the beach?
You can say, "aha, I am also defending the legalization of weed or prostitution or nudity" etc etc. But the point is, in any country, if you put ALL the laws under the microscope you will find dozens of inconsistencies, mostly based on cultural heritage. That's just how the world is. There are times when you oppose these laws and inconsistencies and suggest innovation. Personally, laws that try to protect animals are not one of those situations for me. I admit it's a little bit subjective, but that's just the way it is.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 26, 2013 06:01 PM |
|
|
artu:
Laws against bestiality are feasible, but laws against raising animals for food aren't? Do I understand your position correctly? If so, while it seems a simple enough principle at first, upon further consideration "feasibility" is a strange criterion. Suppose people on average had a greater desire than they currently do (but still valued self-preservation highly). There would be more murder, no doubt. In such a world, would the case for laws against murder be weaker, since there would both be opposition to their existence and they'd be harder to enforce? Or take a more real-world example, rape in sub-Saharan Africa. There are more men willing to rape women in certain contexts there. Does that mean that laws against rape aren't as feasible, and therefore shouldn't exist?
It seems more plausible that if a law would based on a moral principle judged to be correct, it should exist and be enforced even if there is opposition to it - in fact, for some laws (such as those against murder) the existence of opposition to them means that it's even more important for them to exist.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 26, 2013 06:24 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 18:26, 26 Apr 2013.
|
|
But in this case, if you bring moralty into the equation, for most people cruelty against animals is immoral not the other way around. You are the first person I've met who say "these laws make people treat animals not as property" as if it is a bad thing which is another indication of what I defined as overtheorization. You always take real world situations, be it animal cruelty, burka, girlfriend having relitaions and treat them as we live in a world of abstractions only. When in fact we also live in a world of motivations and your absraction based rules cause real consequences. The problem with being totally dug in absractions is not being able to see that the results are not the results of your "philosophy." As I said, I am usually for innovation, not against it. But if someone brings in a law to protect animals or trys to keep an existing one active, I will not move my finger or mouth against it. For what, consistency, some absract rule that is not even applible in the first place? Forget it.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
