|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted April 28, 2013 11:02 AM |
|
|
If the rape causes pain or a lot of stress for the animal such methods of rape shouldn't be legal.
If the butchering causes pain or a lot stress for the animal such methods of butchering shouldn't be legal.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 28, 2013 12:25 PM |
|
|
I can't fathom the logic behind the posts here.
Animals are no humans. No comparison is possible, because animals are treated with a view on purpose, which means they are killed for meat - and not after they lived a good life, but early (and even animal KIDS, piglets, calves, lambs) -, kept in captivity for entertainment (zoos, circuses, which is a very serious form of "rape"), are tortured, maimed and killed for military (sonar), medical (lab "rats") and in some countries still for cosmetical purposes. Sharks are caught, they cut their fins off, and then they throw them back into the ocean. Tons of animal owners mistreat them or train them painfully, and in some cases to become real killers. And don't let me start with the ritual islamic slaughtering (that is massively on the rise, because it's simpler for meat producers to slaughter ALL animals that way than only a small part!).
Animals are tortured in sports (horses). Also there are differentz classes of animals. Animals are eradicated, so they become extinct.
Animal protection is a nice idea, but also in practice it's not more than a joke. Mass production of animal-based food products is in many countries now BETTER than it was (the really abominable chicken farms are now forbidden in many countries), but that doesn't mean that the animals in question would have a nice life or wouldn't suffer.
All these things are done solely and exclusively to appease the general bad conscience of a society that has a good enough life to waste time with thoughts about how moral their actions against other species is.
The second thing is, that animals ARE NO HUMANS. You can rape a human by threatening to kill or maim her to force her to keep quiet and obedient AND the victim will suffer from the MEMORY of it, reliving the assault and the panic and the pain; there is long-time damage.
Animals are different, though. You can't just rape a sheep or dog or whatever animal it is, because the animal can't be threatened to be still, which means, you must somehow drug the animal or shackle it or whatever, because otherwise it will STRUGGLE, no matter what.
IF something like sex comes to pass, animals don't suffer long-time mental damage - that's obvious, when you look at handicapped animals: cats and dogs have no problem living on with 3 legs after an accident. They simply accept the handicap.
They also don't suffer from MORAL problems (my GOD, I've been raped!!!).
Add all this together, and the law is a really bad joke, because it accomplishes NOTHING, except criminalizing a behaviour of an extremely small minority of peoplethat does not actually hurt anyone (or anything): keep in mind that the law isn't punishing "ritual rape-killings of animals", but generally "sex with animals", while cruelty against animals continues unabaded worldwide and in big dimensions and is in fact even on the rise.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 28, 2013 12:57 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 13:07, 28 Apr 2013.
|
It's undeniable that the law (not the specific law in Germany necessarily, any law about cruelty) changes practically almost nothing but I still keep my position of not moving my finger or mouth against it. I have two reasons:
1- You can think of it as a potential beginning. Who knows what will technology bring in the future, maybe we wont be so dependent on animals, maybe, we'll be able to simulate food that tastes like them. Could you imagine being a vegan in the hunter/gatherer age?
2- I think it has symbolical value. It reminds us that we don't own this planet and what's in it by default. We may be the smartest species ever hence practically we can act like we own it but there is no reason to also act spoiled about it. These types of laws seem in a way equivalent of the ancient hunter behavior who respected the animal he killed and who kneel down beside the dying creature and prayed for his soul and apologized for the killing.
And JJ:
1- I have no idea if they get depressed about sexual intercourse but high mammals, including dogs do get depressed. They can't complain like us, sure, but their behavioral change indicates they are capable of depression. If you think of it, in the end, humans accept living with one leg too. Acceptance does not mean being apathetic about it.
2- What happened to the link of the study?
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted April 28, 2013 01:05 PM |
|
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 28, 2013 03:27 PM |
|
|
JJ, are you a vegetarian?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 28, 2013 03:34 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 15:34, 28 Apr 2013.
|
So just because animals aren't humans in a sense, they should get treated like nothing more than private property?
There needs to be a middle ground here.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
master_learn
Legendary Hero
walking to the library
|
|
posted April 28, 2013 05:16 PM |
|
|
mvass,there si still one thing I wonder about.
How many people do you expect in Germany would actually defend their right to have such relationship with animals?
BTW,if I understand the subject correctly,when numerous people demand their right to make sex with animals,that would mean:
1.A person should be able to make oral love with shark,piranha or snake and the government should provide the needed opportunities for him to exercise his right.
2.Another person would want to have sex with mosquitos,flies,birds or chikens(with the free healthcare if problem occur).
3.Why to bound ourselves with the easy animals and not try to practise bestiality with crocodiles,hyppos,whales?
After all,human rights should be supported anytime anywhere from their government,no matter what legal thing they want to achieve.
____________
"I heard the latest HD version disables playing Heroes. Please reconsider."-Salamandre
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 28, 2013 07:04 PM |
|
|
Wait, what says governments should provide opportunities to exercise rights? The right to have sex with animals doesn't have to be a positive right (rights that need to be provided by a government), it can just aswell be a negative right (neither government nor anybody else has the right to prevent you from having sex with an animal)
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
master_learn
Legendary Hero
walking to the library
|
|
posted April 28, 2013 07:09 PM |
|
|
Isn't the government support the proper way of exercising rights?
____________
"I heard the latest HD version disables playing Heroes. Please reconsider."-Salamandre
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted April 28, 2013 07:16 PM |
|
|
|
There are no rights which exist a priori. The government has nothing to recognize or ban if it's not recognized or banned by a substantially large part of the society beforehand.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 28, 2013 07:23 PM |
|
|
master_learn: It depends on what kind of rights you want government to support or protect (depending on if they're positive or negative rights).
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted April 28, 2013 09:29 PM |
|
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 28, 2013 09:36 PM |
|
|
@ Corr
Quote:
And in case you wonder: I'm NO vegetarian (used to be one in the past).
That quoted from my post on page 14. For exaplanation: I'been a vegetarian (not a vegan) for some time (a couple of years) end of the 80s and start of the 90s, but in the end I simply gave up, because at that time there were no vegetarian restaurants, you wouldn't get anything decent to eat on any party, and there was one or two books about vegetarian cuisine only, so I simply had enough of it after a few years.
I still eat no "children" or food that is prepared while still living. Except, I have to admit that there is an Italian restaurant in our vicinity where I've been known to order Vitello Tonato once in a while, after I made the serious error of giving in to my wife's telling me "to taste it already, because you'll really be missing something if you don't" (and right she was  )
I used to support Greenpeace.
So? What has that got do with everything?
Ask yourself a question: for example, with cancer (when you consider cancer a problem): where do you start with the problem: with the cancer 1 in 10 million gets or with the cancer that is most common?
Exactly.
Now keep in mind that before this cursed law has been brought n the table, the thing that actually WAS on the table, was the ritual islamic slaughter of cattle (without any kind of pain-killing methods). THAT ONE is clearly cruelty against animals, especially considering that meat producers now more and more start to slaughter cattle THAT WAY (because it's cheaper to make no difference, so that you don't have to sort the meat), however, they do not HAVE to mark them that way. So the muslims are watching for the meat packages with the mark, but chances are that those without a mark are so as well.
We lost that battle, since religious freedom trumped it: their religious "regulations" trump animal rights and cruelty and whatnot - which means, for me, all bets are off in that regard, which automatically means the law is crap.
@ artu
You have to google it yourself, because I'm not in the mood currently. It's a question of the "land" a cattle needs to feed off to grow until it gets slaughtered compared with what that same area of land would gain if used to grow vegetables or wheat or corn or rice and so on.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 28, 2013 11:36 PM |
|
|
master_learn:
It doesn't matter how many people want to practice bestiality. Even if no one wanted to, and it was only a hypothetical desire, it would still be a right.
The right to have sex with animals is more precisely described as the right to not have anyone interfere if you're having sex with an animal you own. Of course it doesn't mean that the government should provide you with anything, just like the the right to marry doesn't mean that the government should provide you with someone to marry.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted April 28, 2013 11:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If racist whites want to kill blacks, or Nazis want to kill Jews, forming subcultures won't help them, unless they form groups powerful enough to defend themselves. But then that could lead to violent conflict or potentially even civil war, which undermines the purpose of having laws in the first place.
I am going to assume this is poorly worded and that you did not mean that White Supremicists and Nazis can create sub cultures for protection in the survival sense. Correct?
Now, assuming that I'm right an you didn't want to give hate groups protection and in fact were talking about subcultures that would be protective against the nazis, then you really should have chosen a different culture. See, the Nazis were actually examples of when my "ideal" system broke down, because the nazis ruled under a dictatorship, which is always rule of the minority over the majority, no matter how many people actually agree with every single policy or supported the regime at the beginning (Exactly one person and viewpoint is represented in a dictatorship, which is always minority rule).
On the subject of hate groups that want to kill minorities, those have always been a minority. More people wanted them to be useful to them somehow (trade partners/ slaves) then to butcher them all from the very beginning. That desire to have more tools always beat out the desire for blood for the blood god *cough* which is why in a majority rule system it always follows/ followed the pattern of:
1. Initial conflict
2. The victor enslaves the loser
3. Slavery slowly loses popularity as the majority becomes less ignorant and realizes that slaves are human too.
4. Slavery is abolished because there is a majority that disapproves.
5. Initial resistance, sometimes violent, comes from the now-minority of slave owners. It ends eventually, and is a non-issue 1-3 generations later for the most part.
7. Subcultures of hate filled pissants stock around, but are a small minority and shoved to the side/ punished but most thoroughly outnumbered and out shouted.
And I believe that for a right to come about, it should follow a roughly similar pattern. I don't think problems should be created to fit the pattern of course, but if a right is going to come about and stick, then it should be accepted as the moral standard of the majority first and then become implemented second.
(And note the third step on that sequence is the decline of ignorance, so knowledge of the majority is somewhat important for social change)
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 28, 2013 11:53 PM |
|
|
@JJ
I assume you do not have sexual congress with animals. You are not a vegetarian by your own admission. Therefore you obviously draw a line of some sort between the two practices. Just wondering what the line is. Practicality? I don't think so. Maybe back in the day it was hard to be a vegetarian. But while I wouldn't say it's easy today, it's certainly possible because the lifestyle is more mainstream. So, what is it?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 29, 2013 12:06 AM |
|
|
gnomes:
No, I meant that if anti-Semites/white supremacists are the majority, Jews/blacks forming subcultures won't help them, as they'll still be killed. As for dictatorship being rule of the minority - what if the majority want a dictatorship? They were the largest party in the Reichstag for three consecutive elections. Or take white supremacists - support for them was high in the South, and they never needed to seize dictatorial powers.
Of course, it's not necessary for groups to kill minorities to perform injustices towards them. White supremacists would have rather seen the return of slavery rather than lynching black people whenever they made them angry. You're suggesting that slaves grin and bear it when they're slaves - it's what the majority wants, so they don't have rights. It is, again, a very cavalier attitude. What I'm suggesting would prevent the "victor enslaves the loser" stage, and so none of the rest would happen.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted April 29, 2013 01:17 AM |
|
|
|
Mvass, you have suggested exactly nothing this entire suggestion, other than I do not know the implications of what I believe. (I actually do, thanks for asking). Please, by all means explain what you are actually suggesting opposed to my ideals. Until then, consider that last post of mine to be an unchanged standpoint.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 29, 2013 01:36 AM |
|
|
What I am suggesting is objective moral standards based on whether someone/something is harmed and whether that someone/something has moral standing. Then, even if the majority disagrees, they are wrong, and if they act based on their incorrect beliefs, they are violating a being's rights.
I proposed a standard of rights earlier in this topic: If the kind of a being one is is one that is both capable of harming others and of agreeing not to harm, there is a reason to recognize it as having rights.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted April 29, 2013 02:21 AM |
|
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
