Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: Germany moving to ban bestiality
Thread: Germany moving to ban bestiality This thread is 16 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 · «PREV / NEXT»
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted December 02, 2012 10:09 AM

Quote:
@JJ:
For instance (And this is a very short, very sweet and to the point tie in), this law about bestiality most likely stems from some pet owners or "Animal rights" advocates or some such that are disgusted or horrified that people use animals to attain sexual pleasure, feeling that people have an empathic connection to animals that are "Part of the family" and that any pain or (in extreme cases) torturous behaviors that people enact in getting a sexual high is immoral and should be illegal. It could also be justified rationally, as sexual deviance with an animal that can't or won't fight against it could very well lead to forced sexual deviance or a feeling that a greater range of this kind of deviance is allowed, leading to a rise in rapes and molestation (Which society says is bad, correct?).


No, not correct, sorry.
1) This law stems, as I've said, from the fact that the bigger fish (religiously motivated cruelty against animals) couldn't be handled, so to appease the animal protectors, an easier target was picked.
Of course there ARE those who criy immoral - but since when is people crying "immoral" a reason within Western 21st century society to come forth with a law?
2) Your rational justification is also wrong. Look where you want, but we follow the rule that it's better to sacrifice an animal than a human - obvious, when you look at lab animals (experiments are necessary for society's greater good, and sacrificing animals is better than sacrificing humans, although you MIGHT argue that it was better to sacrifice capital offenders than innocent animals for these things, which isn't done, however, especially since there are not nearly as many available as would be needed).
You could argue the excat opposite therefore, that it's better when dangerous deviants (as opposed to harmless whackos) torture and kill animals than humans. Case in point - there are lots of Vampire stories (and a Vampire is somewhat comparable with a serial killer), where the Vampires try to get through by killing animals (animal bllod is always tasting horridly, but works, so we suffer with the poor Vampires that heroically struggle not to kill humans, but just feed their need with animals).

A last point, beside everything that has been said, is the practicality of a law with a view on enforcement. How would that work? Animals can't speak or sue - so how is such a "crime" supposed to come to light? Neighbours going to the police, telling about unspeakable rituals the old lady next door seems to perform with her cats or dogs? Strange noises from the farmyard in the dark? Police starts an investigation, taking all animals to CSI labs where they are checked for alien DNA? All that paid for with the money of the taxpayer and keeping the law enforcement from dealing with real crime?

We must stop to demand a law for every BS and stop criminalizing everything. Instead we should simply make a law that force every producer to have a detailed description of ingredients and production process of things. (A warning on cigarettes about health risks is fine, but I suppose a list of the ingredients put into them would do a lot of good as well, for example).

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
xerox
xerox


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
posted December 02, 2012 01:04 PM

Quote:
We must stop to demand a law for every BS and stop criminalizing everything.


Fine by me as long as the absence of legislation doesn't physically or psychically hurt any sentient, feeling individual.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
gnomes2169
gnomes2169


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
posted December 02, 2012 06:49 PM

@JJ: I don't care if my justification was wrong, that wasn't my point. My point was that my discussion with Mvass is still relevant to the topic, which you in no way disproved. Therefore, I shall continue to discuss it. [Fez* moment] Good day to you, sir! {/Fez moment]

*Just in case someone doesn't know about Fez from That 70's show, he's a foreign exchange student and that is his catch phrase.
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted December 03, 2012 12:47 AM

gnomes:
Quote:
As I do not like playing devils advocate and hate the whole philosophical, "What makes killing bad" thing, I must admit that I will concede the point. Very nicely done sir, you have won this part of our discussion. *Le bow*
Thanks. People like to think that OSM discussions never change people's minds, but this is one example to the contrary.

Why is one's right to life (more specifically, one's right to not be killed) an "emotional ideal"? Consider the following argument: when it is said that something has value, what that means is that someone values it (in philosophical jargon, "value is agent-relative"). Any individual can only value something while he is alive. Thus, in order to value anything (unless they value their own death), he has to value his own life first. Being killed would negate all of the values the individual holds, thus it is rational for the individual to defend himself. Thus, the right to not be killed.

Quote:
So my question is, if it arrives at the same conclusion but uses a different reasoning or method, does an emotionally based law have any less validity or "Rightness" then a rationally based one?
If a law can be justified rationally (by someone holding reasonable prior beliefs), it doesn't matter whether it was initially justified rationally. If a meteor with the inscription "ENACT X AS LAW" falls from the sky, people decide to enact X as law, and X is a law that can be justified rationally, it doesn't matter. The problem is that many laws that don't have a rational origin are bad.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
angelito
angelito


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
posted December 03, 2012 10:08 AM

Quote:
But there's even more to it than that. Suppose society adopted the "rational" rule that killing people is equally bad in all circumstances. What wold the consequences of that rule be? People would feel that they couldn't morally defend themselves by killing someone who was trying to kill them. The beneficiaries of that rule would be those who kill innocent people, because they care less about that to begin with. So there's more killing. Then, if you look at the consequences of treating self-defense and murder equally, you realize that you end up with more killing, which is bad...
Couldn't it be the other way around aswell?
See it from the point of a "bad" guy:
He knows, the good people won't kill anybody anymore, not even in self defense. That means, most likely, they even won't have any guns anymore. So there is no need to carry a gun himself. Therefore, no "automatically" gunshots during a burglary by the house owner nore by the burglar will happen.
Conclusion: With your mentioned "law", the killing rate will decrease.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Corribus
Corribus

Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted December 03, 2012 03:15 PM

People will defend themselves anyway, regardless of what the rules are.  Nobody's going to stand there and get murdered just because there's a law that says you can't kill in self defense.  Especially in Texas.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted December 03, 2012 07:55 PM

angelito:
I was talking about people who want to murder, not people who have other goals and end up murdering someone at some point in the process. But even in your case, it doesn't work out the way you described it. If you want to burglarize people's houses, it's still a good idea to have a gun. You can point it at the homeowner and make them sit still so they don't call the police - or kill them so they won't be any trouble.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted December 04, 2012 02:08 AM

Quote:
People will defend themselves anyway, regardless of what the rules are.  Nobody's going to stand there and get murdered just because there's a law that says you can't kill in self defense.  Especially in Texas.


Indeed.  One can't expect a Texan to obey irrational laws some liberal wrote when it could mean the Texan losing his life! In Texas when a baby is born and the doctor slaps his little behind the baby slaps back!
____________
Revelation

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
angelito
angelito


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
posted December 04, 2012 11:16 AM

Even if it now tends to get slightly off topic:


This may count for the USA mvass, but probably for NO other modern western country. Just read the statistics. Just check out how many dead people you have in Canada, Germany, Norway refering to burglary, where most of the home owners don't have a gun.

The same wrong logic you have with death sentence ("Death sentence discourages from killing others because you will lose your own life aswell"). Just check out the statistics of the USA refering to murders in comparison to other western countries without death sentence.

America will learn...sooner or later...


____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Seraphim
Seraphim


Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
posted December 04, 2012 10:46 PM

This thread is amusing. Half of the posters have arbitrary emotional bonds with animals and especially with dogs. I mean really, if you really think dogs have comparable emotions to human beings and such, why the hell do you keep them in your house? Give them doggie style areas where Mr.Doggie can rule all for him/her self.

You know in what regard balkans surpasses every european city? At least in the parts I have been, there is less and much less dog poo on the streets. European streets are sometimes full of snow.

I find it amusing how priviliedeged dog owners are.
In that regard, cigarette users are punished for not being able to smoke in no public places but I can see dogs entering public places. Just why should dog owners get so much liberty? Not to mention that animal "Rights" garbage does not help other animals.

____________
"Science is not fun without cyanide"

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
OhforfSake
OhforfSake


Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
posted December 04, 2012 11:09 PM

Why are emotions important, apart from us who say so? I see no reason a feeling should be of more importance than any information.
____________
Living time backwards

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted December 05, 2012 03:23 AM
Edited by artu at 03:24, 05 Dec 2012.

Quote:
Why are emotions important, apart from us who say so? I see no reason a feeling should be of more importance than any information.


on a greater scale why is anything important then? why are any laws important when the universe is actually a chaotic explosion that will freeze in the end. the music of Bach, the plays of Shakespeare, the philosophy of Platon... any achivment based on emotions or rationality will be swalllowed by time and leave this universe without a trace. it's like Lord Keynes said: in the long run we are all dead. so in the short run we are trying to constitute a happier place to live in and to do that emotions should be taken care of too.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
OhforfSake
OhforfSake


Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
posted December 05, 2012 03:33 AM

That's only the current understanding of the world based on the limited data available from a limited species observing a limited amount of the entire cosmos.

Obviously *YOU* define what's important to you. That's why it makes no sense to claim animals aren't important, if they happen to lack a certain broad band of emotions. After all, I'm certain when lacking any given access to information, said information would seem less important.

As an example, I don't imagine anyone of us miss senses we don't have, simply because we don't have them or have had them.

In other words, I don't see how one can argument someone is of less value, when value is subjective to the given person in question.
____________
Living time backwards

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted December 05, 2012 03:38 AM

i havent claimed animals unimportant, i thought your  rhetorical question was doing that. any way i hate to type on iPad, so later...

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
OhforfSake
OhforfSake


Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
posted December 05, 2012 03:42 AM

No. Sorry for the misunderstand. It was to emphasize it's nonsense to claim anyone unimportant.
____________
Living time backwards

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
gnomes2169
gnomes2169


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
posted December 05, 2012 10:06 AM

Quote:
In that regard, cigarette users are punished for not being able to smoke in no public places but I can see dogs entering public places. Just why should dog owners get so much liberty?

Maybe because dogs don't cause cancer? The absolutely massive list of health deficits public smoking makes is a hazard to everyone around the smoker. Meanwhile, a dog is a threat to people that are allergic to them, people that threaten them and people that threaten their masters. The later two are very easily avoided, don't attempt to attack someone who owns a dog or their pet and you're good. The first one affects a very small part of the population and it can be avoided by the person not touching or coming within shedding range of what causes their allergic reaction. And before you get all, "But X#/% of dogs attack people each year" on me, almost all of those happen in someone's house/ lawn and those dogs are rarely, if ever, allowed to interact with society because they are overly aggressive.

Also, I have seen no one that says that animals feel emotions exactly like humans in this thread, just that there are people that say that animals can feel varying degrees of emotions, a very solid and hard to contest fact. I actually believe that cats are more emotionally mature than dogs, but that's just me.


Back to Mvass
Quote:
Why is one's right to life (more specifically, one's right to not be killed) an "emotional ideal"?

Because the simple truth is that people do not want to die. Wants and desires are both emotionally driven responses to things you like or that make you happy, or that lead you to value something more than something else. They are not the necessities of life (So I am not talking about instinctual "I need to eat or I'll die" drives), but something that humans (and certain animals) value over something else (The "I have multiple kinds of food at my disposal, and I want to eat the chicken because it tastes good" kind of thing). As humans do not want to die, they view it as a right to defend their persons from death. This same response comes in cases of rape and slavery, no one wants to be raped or enslaved, at least no normal person does (and in the case of rape, wanting it sort of negates the whole concept...).

Because humans are also able to feel empathy, they can recognize this desire in other people and thus there is a general rule that you do not kill another person in normal interaction or unless forced to under extreme circumstances. Therefore the concept of having the "Right" to live boils down to a simple emotional concept. I'll explain why your (complicatedly rational) explanation doesn't work as an absolute trump below.

Quote:
Consider the following argument: when it is said that something has value, what that means is that someone values it (in philosophical jargon, "value is agent-relative"). Any individual can only value something while he is alive. Thus, in order to value anything (unless they value their own death), he has to value his own life first. Being killed would negate all of the values the individual holds, thus it is rational for the individual to defend himself. Thus, the right to not be killed.

While a good argument and obviously well thought out, there are two points that can make quite a hole or two in it.

One: Who or what grants you the right to hold a value? If you want to explain this perfectly rationally (as you seem intent on doing), then every single contingency must have a rational explanation. So how does one justify a value rationally?

Two: What is a value but desiring one thing over an alternative, or wanting something more than a different thing. Perhaps holding something in esteem if you value it but cannot possess it yourself? When you are confronted by something you value, your body produces chemicals (dopamine, etc) that are associated with the creation of the emotions of joy, amusement, peace, contentment, etc. Conversely, when things an individual values are threatened, the emotions of rage, fear, sorrow, disappointment, etc are generated. These negative emotions are a "Punishment" for not obtaining or striving towards the things we prefer and value, while the positive emotions are a "Reward" for fulfilling our desire for what we want.

Scientifically (and as far as I can tell this is the closest you can get to the rational explanation) you can claim that these reactions are merely caused by chemical reactions to certain events or objects. The thing is, we humans have already ascribed the chemical reactions as "Emotional reactions." As these chemicals and their reactions are assumed to be the basis of our values, desires, etc and they are the physical agents behind our emotions, and since (according to your definition) our values are what create our rights, the emotions that create those values are the building blocks and basis of our rights. So the argument that you gave is just a middle step in the explanation (maybe something you would give to a computer or robot to help these emotionless objects understand why rights exist), stating that there are values that carry more importance than others and that these commonly held values shape society. Your argument still requires that there is enough emotion for values to exist, which is where an argument that emotions can be negated from the equation falls apart.

Counter point?
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JoonasTo
JoonasTo


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
posted December 05, 2012 11:29 AM


____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted December 05, 2012 01:11 PM

Gnomes, the rational/emotional discussion is irrelevant, since a law CAN be based on human emotion - no problem. Rationality comes into play, when you look at the WHOLE BODY of the law that must make RATIONAL sense and follow some principles (for example that everyone is equal before the law). Laws can be emotional like hell, but as a body IT must be rational and follow lines of reason. There must not be inner contradictions, and if there are some, they must be solved.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted December 05, 2012 11:31 PM

gnomes:
Quote:
Who or what grants you the right to hold a value?
No one. You don't need to have that right granted to you in order to do it (it isn't even really a right, any more that thinking is a right). It is a fact about the world (and particularly about you) that you are capable of assigning values, and do so.
Quote:
how does one justify a value rationally?
Because a value that is correct to hold is conducive to your well-being and flourishing as a human being.
Quote:
When you are confronted by something you value, your body produces chemicals
I don't see how bringing chemicals into this is relevant. We're talking about things (emotions, ethics, etc) on a conceptual level, not a physical one. The chemical reactions you describe are the physical basis of our thoughts/emotions/etc, but they're not their basis on a conceptual level. On the physical level, you can indeed say (for example) "There's a lot of dopamine in my bloodstream, which is why I feel happy." But that sort of thing is irrelevant to what we're talking about - on the level that we're discussing, the correct thing to say would be "I got a good grade on a test, which is why I feel happy." The physical description is true but irrelevant, because we're talking about concepts.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Nidhgrin
Nidhgrin


Honorable
Famous Hero
baking cookies from stardust
posted December 11, 2012 10:38 PM
Edited by Nidhgrin at 22:40, 11 Dec 2012.

We are born with a basic feeling of right and wrong, and our personal set of ethics is further moulded by our upbringing, cultural background and education.
Some people have high ethical standards, other people hold virtually none at all (psychopaths for instance).

Even though some values seem to be universal, such as the fact that children should be protected from harm, elderly people should be treated with respect... in irrational situations like war, even those "universal" values are sometimes discarded.
People can even be made to believe that on a subset of people (or animals) certain otherwise undisputed values do not apply.

Since they are culturally and personally defined, there is no point in trying to rationalize ethical values.
In fact, I have the impression that the human ratio is strongly over estimated in this thread.
In my opinion the ratio is only a thin layer of varnish on top of the vast subconscious mind.

Though we can use our mind to think, reason and philosophise, most of our (waking) time we react on subconscious drivers.
It's a fact that we even rationalize many of these actions afterwards, which means they are not preceded by a conscious thinking process.
I am yet to meet a person who has no irrational traits, and most people I know base their actions more on feeling than on logic.
Think about belief (religion, superstition, ufo's), emotions, primary needs (tiredness, hunger, ...), they're all common sources of irrational behaviour.

In all humility, and biologically speaking, whether you call us chordata, vertebrates or just mammals, we are an animal among all animals.
The amount of animals with a conscious mind, who use logic, language and tools is rather limited.
Then again there are animals who are capable of flying, use echo location, swim in the deepest trenches of the ocean... while we need tools to do that.

Does our superior mind give us the right to decide about the fate of other living beings?
It certainly gives us the power, but with great power comes great responsability.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 16 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 · «PREV / NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.8024 seconds