|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted April 26, 2013 07:13 PM |
|
|
If it is as you say and most people think cruelty to animals is wrong, then why don't most people support laws against killing animals? If they were consistent, veganism would be compulsory. But most people don't think killing animals is wrong, so they don't actually think cruelty to animals is wrong.
And of course I see the results of rules. The repeal of laws against bestiality would lead to more people practicing it - and there's nothing wrong with that. Letting women wear burqas in public means that those who want to wear them can wear them. My girlfriend being able to have sex with other people means we can enjoy more things without losing anything we value. Those are all consequences I think about - and all of those are good consequences.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 26, 2013 07:24 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 19:25, 26 Apr 2013.
|
|
On all those subjects I wrote my view with giving my reasons. The reason I brought it up here is because I see a pattern in your approach to things. People wearing burkas is not just people wearing burkas, it happens in a sociological context and background which should be examined as well, no matter what your opinion is. But you dont do that, instead you stick to a one dimensional stance of consistency principle, and as I mentioned that is non existent if you examine any countries laws as a whole anyway.
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted April 26, 2013 07:32 PM |
|
|
People need to eat (to survive). People don't need to torture animals to survive, we can even outlaw it to prevent some people from causing unneccessary suffering.
____________
"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
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 26, 2013 07:57 PM |
|
|
artu:
Just because current laws aren't consistent doesn’t mean that the law shouldn't be. If there are no principles for deciding what should or shouldn't be a law, then you could have any law - or no laws at all.
minion:
In the first world, at least, one could survive on non-animal products. It would be more expensive, inconvenient, and one would have to forgo some things one enjoys, but it's not very difficult. Instead, animal rights advocates who don't also advocate for compulsory veganism are in the strange position of saying, "It's not okay to force animals to fight, to have sex with them, or kill them painfully, but it's okay to keep them fenced in, breed them with whatever member of their species you want, and kill them as long as it's not too painful." If you replace "animals" with "humans" in that sentence, you would get someone whose morality would be described as strange (at least).
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted April 26, 2013 08:43 PM |
|
|
Why would one replace that sentence with humans, we do not eat humans. That logic fails. Btw force-feeding is animal cruelty, I don't support it.
____________
"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
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 26, 2013 08:46 PM |
|
|
|
I never said there shouldn't be any principles, I said you were one-dimensional about the way they should be handled.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 26, 2013 08:46 PM |
|
|
minion:
We don't kill and eat humans, because they have rights - fundamentally, self-ownership. If animals also have self-ownership, then keeping them fenced in, breeding them, etc, is also violating their rights.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 26, 2013 08:49 PM |
|
|
|
Yes, but that difference had been talked about. You are not convinced those differences really count and some people are. You made your point, it is not a very sophisticated one, WE GOT IT. Rest will be running in circles...
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 26, 2013 08:54 PM |
|
|
You still never responded to my point about feasibility.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 26, 2013 08:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
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"?
Oh, I'm sure some of the freaks that have sex with animals would say they have a special relationship with the animals. The argument has been used that because the Greeks allowed men to have sex with boys that there is a precedence in some cultures to accept homosexuality on an equal basis with heterosexuality. Using that same logic, bestiality should be just as acceptable and those folks should have the same moral standing in society and the "equal rights" to celebrate their relationship in marriage.
Animals will have sex outside of their species so human-animal sex is no more unnatural the man-man or woman-woman sex.
These issues boil down to a simple question. Whose morality do we go by? Because most laws ARE moral in nature (excluding things like petty traffic laws.) People can say "Oh, you can't impose your morality on X" all they want but somebody's morality will always be imposed on society on a number of issues. Obviously what the public thinks does not matter in these issues, as politicians try to sculpt the public into the image they want.
Bestiality is degrading to both human kind and animals. It is unnatural and revolting. The acceptance of bestiality as "an alternative lifestyle" would certainly be moral degradation. If the supreme court rules gay marriage to be the law of the land shortly thereafter polygamy will follow an bestiality will be next. Human dignity has been drug through the mud for a number of years now.
____________
Revelation
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 26, 2013 09:01 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 21:29, 26 Apr 2013.
|
Quote:
You still never responded to my point about feasibility.
I did, your examples were all cases in which feasibility versus actual harm, which this case is not. Actually the answer to that is right there in bb's comment on the difference between inconsistency and incompatibility but you don't really read. You are like a conservative, the only difference is your tradition is a kind of liberalism.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted April 26, 2013 09:04 PM |
|
|
Morality is dead. Every tiny group of people feel the need to affirm its existence by requiring their "out of norms" specificities be considered as normal. Today the asexual movement in France asks to be considered as valid sexual orientation. I have no idea why people insist so much on putting on public places their intimate things and moreover they would want others to agree or acknowledge. Is not like they are discriminated or anything, it is just scurrilous.
Asexuals want to...
Do something for the others and stop constantly asking the others to take care of you, at every fart you drop.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 26, 2013 09:12 PM |
|
|
artu:
If animals have rights, then keeping them fenced in, breeding them however we want, and killing them is clearly a violation of their rights - it's a case of actual harm. And if you think there's a difference in context, what relevant feature of the context makes it different?
Elodin:
Many things were considered "unnatural and revolting" in the past that are seen as perfectly fine now - for example, women being equal to men. Revulsion isn't a particularly good argument (in fact, it's not an argument at all) because people can be revolted by many things that aren't actually harmful. For example, I know that you think homosexual acts between consenting adults should be legal in private. However, there are many people who think male homosexuality is revolting and should be illegal. Is these people's revulsion an argument for banning male homosexuality?
And even if bestiality is degrading to humans, there are many other things that are degrading to humans that aren't illegal (for example, being addicted to cigarettes, or being an alcoholic). Should they be illegal too?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 26, 2013 09:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
People need to eat (to survive). People don't need to torture animals to survive, we can even outlaw it to prevent some people from causing unneccessary suffering.
We don't need to eat MEAT to survive. It's just ... tasty? Which would make it a pleasure. Like sex?
So forget that line of thought - you know the numbers as well: cattle is expensive; you need pastures for them. Pastures that would give 7 times more food if used as farmland.
Considering how many people are starving livestock breeding is not only murder of animals, it's murder of humans as well, because it's sacrificing foodspace for the luxury of indulgence.
And in the process, animals are tortured, not because they are killed, but because part of them is bred and kept under scandalous conditions.
Outlawing sex with animals as a very special example of SUPPOSED cruelty to animals (as I said, this rare breed of animal lovers treats the object of their desire WAY better than is the standard for animals) has been just an excuse in Germany for another lost battle. It's completely ridiculous as a law, because you cannot even enforce that law (how is that supposed to work)? And you know where "lapdogs" have their name from, I surmise? That's cruelty with animals as well?
Anyways - I can't stand people who like their steak bloody and talk about painless killing of their meat and the poor creatures not suffering. If I could make a law, I would make one forcing everyone to kill the first sample of each species they want tzo eat themselves. Personally.
I guess we had a lot of vegetarians in that case...
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 26, 2013 09:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Morality is dead. Every tiny group of people feel the need to affirm its existence by requiring their "out of norms" specificities be considered as normal. Today the asexual movement in France asks to be considered as valid sexual orientation. I have no idea why people insist so much on putting on public places their intimate things and moreover they would want others to agree or acknowledge. Is not like they are discriminated or anything, it is just scurrilous.
Asexuals want to...
Do something for the others and stop constantly asking the others to take care of you, at every fart you drop.
Sal, it's just like people don't want to be ashamed anymore for being different. Everyone else has no problem either - if the weather is fine, you see people running around who are obviously in love, arm in arm, kissing each other - perfectly normal and fine. But there are those who have no sexual desire. They can have sex, but it's not ... fulfilling for them. They have a right not to be called "frigid". They just want to be accepted the way they are without being called abnormal.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 26, 2013 09:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
artu:
If animals have rights, then keeping them fenced in, breeding them however we want, and killing them is clearly a violation of their rights - it's a case of actual harm. And if you think there's a difference in context, what relevant feature of the context makes it different?
Again, I am growing tired of repeating myself. Please, don't ask the same things over and over again. Banning cruelty on animals does not necessarily mean they have the same rights as humans. Tourists does not have the same rights as citizens, in some countries ex-convicts cant vote, there are many more examples I cant think of right now. Having rights or having privileges may have levels not necessarily surpassing humans rights. Unless you think it's a human's natural right to torture an animal, the act itself is what's at stake.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 26, 2013 09:34 PM |
|
|
artu:Quote:
Banning cruelty on animals does not necessarily mean they have the same rights as humans.
You aren't repeating yourself - this is the first time you've said this. This discussion is making progress, even if it may not seem like it to you.
Okay, how do you determine what rights animals have?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted April 26, 2013 09:34 PM |
|
|
@JJ. I was just responding to the fact that why is killing different than beating an animal. The other is required if you want to eat (food is eaten) but animal abuse gives us no benefit. Indirectly it harms people, because we are empathetic towards animals (some are)
This was a bit off topic, in a way that it didn't relate to sex. And like you said, a lot of people love their animals and want the best for them. And that kind of sex is pretty ok with me (in contrats to mvass idea of them as objects that one can use and toss away)
____________
"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
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted April 26, 2013 09:35 PM |
|
|
@JJ; what's wrong in calling someone frigid. It strictly has no pejorative meaning, it means lack of desire and aversion about sexual intercourse. In what naming someone asexual is more correct than frigid? Or it is again about political correctness, which asks to never call a cat a cat?
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 26, 2013 09:40 PM |
|
|
minion:
Animal abuse for the goal of abuse - that is, to see the animal suffer - indeed gives us no benefit. But sometimes abuse is a side effect of something that does give humans a benefit, for example, sexual pleasure or cheaper food production techniques. Abuse as a goal is obviously bad, but abuse as a side effect is more questionable.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
