|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted November 28, 2012 07:40 PM |
|
|
And how the butterfly does an animal give "consent"?
It's rape no matter what.
"Natural need" as in that we are partly predators that have relied on killing animals and eating them in the past. We have never needed to rape other animals to survive.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 28, 2012 08:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Law as an optimal ideal is not just a contract, it is also a manifestation, a declaration of society's identity, of how it sees itself as a concept.
So if a society wants an identity of "Christian purity", it would be ideal for it to have laws for stoning homosexuals?
No, because the New Testament (the authoritative source of Christian doctrine) does not teach one to stone homosexuals and the Jews only stoned homosexuals who lived in Israel. All Israelites vowed to follow the Law and so a person who lied in his vows and who engaged in homosexual sex really only had himself to blame. Now, back on topic.
I see no possible objection to human-animal sex apart from a moral argument. And then, whose morality are we to go by? If the objection is that animals can't give consent, I'd say that is an invalid objection based on:
1) Animals being property.
2) Some animals are quite capable of indicating their consent or non-consent. Some gorillas have been taught rudimentary sign language for example. Animals are quite capable of biting, clawing, ect.
So "does society have a right to make laws based solely on morality" is the question.
____________
Revelation
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 28, 2012 08:21 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 20:24, 28 Nov 2012.
|
Quote:
Tell that to the cook who got raped by an orangutan.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJYxttwgBs8
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 28, 2012 08:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Well as a species of higher intelligence and power I believe we have obligations to take care of lower ones, that involves not abusing our position of power for our sexual pleasure.
That is even if the animal in question "wants it" (I need to use citation marks or I eww myself out).
Interesting. What is your basis for saying that consensual human-animal sex is abuse?
Are you a vegetarian? Which is more harmful to an animal, killing and eating it or having consensual sex with it?
____________
Revelation
|
|
Vindicator
Supreme Hero
Right Back Extraordinaire
|
|
posted November 28, 2012 08:35 PM |
|
|
Guys, this debate is pointless because we have no way of telling what the animal feels. We don't know if it's giving consent or not, if it likes it or not, what it thinks is worse... We don't know any of that, can't determine it, so this discussion is a long what if argument.
____________
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 28, 2012 09:11 PM |
|
|
so you dont think that I would physically hurt a kitten if I penetrated it?
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted November 28, 2012 09:24 PM |
|
|
Of course the animal isn't giving consent. How could it?
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 28, 2012 09:30 PM |
|
|
People are just falling for politics here.
A law like the one in question would "hurt" only a thousand whackos without clout. No one cares a dime if those few "perverts" are robbed of their favorite pet, while animal protectors may make a big fuss about another big victory.
Meanwhile, though, the real cruelties against animals, done by the food producing industry are left as they are. There is ritual slaughtery for Jews and Muslims - but you cannot make laws to forbid that, since too many people are involved and may make a fuss. Religious freedom and all that.
Now, seriously: if you are allowed to slit the throat of an animal without anesthetics, letting it bleed out - what's wrong with a little rape?
Or certain livestock holding - again, food industry having a lot of interest. Strciter laws may raise prices - eggs, poultry, meat - and let's face it, compared to vegetables, meat is ridiculously cheap, considering that 2 generations ago it was considered normal and healthy to eat meat only on weekends.
So this is just a mock fight, banging the hammer of the law down on those without lobby, clout or economic backing.
I mean - this is just an example, don't take it religiously - the Bible is being pretty thorough in their banning of sexual "abberant" behaviour. Consider what the effect was if they just forbid, err, foot fetishism.
Right, it would be silly - clearly a political decision hurting no one except a few whackos.
Same is true here.
In my opinion, EATING animals on one hand and demanding protection for them on the other is a rather bigotted point of view - we are OH SO civilized, right? Nothing beats a medium steak, but woe to everyone being mean to the ox, before slaughtering it.
So. Forbid mass animal breeding and slaughtering - THEN we can talk about animal proptection against cruelty.
Until then I'd be QUITE happy if all rapists would go for animals instead of humans.
DISCLAIMER: I LOVE certain cats, and I LOVE certain dogs. In fact I love a lot of animals: dolphins, bears, eagles, big cats, monkeys, you name them.
However, I also eat meat. Am I better than someone who rapes my meat?
I doubt that.
Would I have a problem with someone screwing their dog? I couldn't care less.
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted November 28, 2012 11:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And how the butterfly does an animal give "consent"?
It's rape no matter what.
Lets rename sex with the word rape then because nothing in the animal kindgdom is done with "Consent".
Oh and all domesticated animals are genetically castrated versions of their formerselves. When you buy one, you buy it as a slave.
How about that?
I see two problems here:
1: People are trying to mix human related terms with animals or are equating animals with humans. Like rape, empathy,rights and so on.
2:The line between human society and animal kingdom.
Quote:
"Natural need" as in that we are partly predators that have relied on killing animals and eating them in the past. We have never needed to rape other animals to survive.
And what makes you think that personal desires are not related to survival?
If I feel better for doing something, that might increase my survival rate.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted November 28, 2012 11:20 PM |
|
|
I don't know yet if you are just trying to be provocative, or never had any animal so you don't know what you're talking about, or simply became completely desensitized. Domestic animals are not slaves, in majority of situations adopting one saves him from certain death and pain. Then, dog and cats have an unique personality, you may believe or not. They share our every day life and they are mindful spectators of our happiness or our distress. They are capable of extreme loyalty and certainly they love their owner if he treat them well. Even if we have to feed ourselves, killing meat must be done in the quickest the the less painful way, otherwise is pure cruelty. Nonetheless, torturing or raping a domestic animal just for the pleasure of your basic instincts is not only immoral but it is the witness of our decadence on all purposes.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted November 28, 2012 11:39 PM |
|
Edited by Seraphim at 23:50, 28 Nov 2012.
|
Quote:
Domestic animals are not slaves, in majority of situations adopting one saves him from certain death and pain.
Majority? The thing you claim to save them from is their real life and natural habitats.
When you take a dog, a cat or whatever to live with you, it has to live in surroundings it is forced to live. We humans keep animals for pleasure, for joy and for labor,also my response was towards Xerox.
Quote:
Then, dog and cats have an unique personality,
Personality? Well, I dont perceive any personality in dogs or cats, just their need for hunger or need to mark territory.
Quote:
they are mindful spectators of our happiness or our distress.
Mindful? Are you serious?
Quote:
They are capable of extreme loyalty and certainly they love their owner if he treat them well.
You do know why dogs stick to their "owners" right? Not because of love or compassion or cakes but because there are "Free" meals from the owner. The dog "Protects" the "owner" in return from the free food.
Quote:
Nonetheless, torturing or raping a domestic animal just for the pleasure of your basic instincts is not only immoral but it is the witness of our decadence on all purposes.
People should do whatever they want to do with their desiers in their homes. I would not mind at all if my "neighbour" likes to have sex with dogs.
Whats wrong with that? Doggie gets food, owner gets pleasure.
Thats how it goes, right?
@all
It is truly annoying and disgusting to always hear the same reasoning over and over again.
People in europe just love to patronize domestic animals, as if they were equals to humans.
Ironically, other animals dont get to see the benefits of such action.
"Sadistic" pleasure? If bestiality is sadistic, so is keeping an animal inside a house
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 29, 2012 12:09 AM |
|
|
smithey:
If someone wants to hurt their own wealth/health and no one else's, why should the state stop them? DUI is an offense because the drunk driver may hurt others. If you own a road and there's no one else on it, you can drive drunk on it to your heart's content. The same goes for suicidal people and drug users - why shouldn't people be allowed to hurt themselves, as long as they don't harm others? An environment in which drug users are running around is perfectly safe. The problem is if they try to hurt others - but that's already illegal. Actions that are harmful to others - murder, theft, etc - are already illegal, so if anyone (drug user or not) commits such an action, there is a legal case against them.
As for slavery, you're only looking at what it did, and not at the opportunity cost. Yes, slaves did a lot, but they could've done much more if they weren't enslaved. And as far as education goes, more educated people leads to higher productivity, which leads to a better life for everyone.
Quote:
Animals are living beings, humans are living beings, creating a society that treats all living beings with certain respect (animals or humans) as opposed to with bloodlust is beneficial for the society...
Suppose there are two potential societies, Society A and Society B. Society B contains all the members of Society A and more. Also assume that rules that are optimal for the well-being of Society B are worse for Society A than rules that are optimal for Society A by itself. Those who are members of Society B but not Society A would not act differently regardless of which set of rules the members of Society A would choose. Why, then, should the members of Society A care about Society B?
artu:
Why should I compromise on this (or any) issue? If those who support animal rights are wrong (as I believe they are), I should oppose them. When currently existing law deviates from ideal law, that's bad and I should oppose it.
Adrius:
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I don't approve of bestiality. I am opposed to bestiality. However, I support it being legal. There's a difference. There are many things that should be disapproved of but still legal: recreational drug use, gambling, etc. Of course animals being tortured is bad! I'm not arguing that it's not.
"Basic morals", by the way, are what's used to justify oppressing women in Saudi Arabia and what used to be the justification for banning interracial marriage (and are still responsible for a large number of bad laws). Basic emotional gut reactions are not a good basis for policy.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 29, 2012 12:15 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Lets rename sex with the word rape then because nothing in the animal kindgdom is done with "Consent".
Quote:
The line between human society and animal kingdom.
You're being hypocritical. You say there's a line between humans and animals, yet you suggest to rename sex to rape because that's what animals do. Why should we degrade ourselves to their level of behaviour?
And my cats are certainly not slaves. They can escape any time they want.
JJ: I'm in support of a ritual slaugther marking which would make it easier for muslims and jews to identify halal/kosher food and for secular people to avoid buying those products.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted November 29, 2012 12:21 AM |
|
|
Quote:
You're being hypocritical.
I was being sarcastic...
Quote:
And my cats are certainly not slaves. They can escape any time they want.
Well, they were slaves when you bought them- took them. Now they know there is food in your house, and they come back.
Well, they dont posses the capacity to understand that they were in fact bought-abducted.
____________
"Science is not fun without cyanide"
|
|
Vindicator
Supreme Hero
Right Back Extraordinaire
|
|
posted November 29, 2012 12:37 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Well, they dont posses the capacity to understand that they were in fact bought-abducted.
Right, so that point is irrelevant. If they don't understand they were "abducted" then it doesn't matter.
____________
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 29, 2012 12:52 AM |
|
|
so adopted children are slaves too?
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted November 29, 2012 11:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
so adopted children are slaves too?
Actually, everyone on this planet is a slave to nature and biological laws.
To answer your question, yes they are. They never asked for their life condition-life situation but that is another subject and your question is off limits in this thread.
But then again, I find it amusing because you consistently ignore everything what has been said before.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 30, 2012 12:08 AM |
|
|
So you make a distinction between slaves to nature and slaves to humans?
The adopted children question was highly relevant as I'm sure you'll notice.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted November 30, 2012 12:35 AM |
|
|
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted November 30, 2012 01:25 AM |
|
|
I couldn't have said it better myself Elvin. Some people are just strange.
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
