Avatar
Active topics
Unread | New posts
Your bookmarks
Your friends' posts
Your posts | Quotes
Welcome, CommonCrawl [Bot]!

It is currently 30th October, 2014, 8:55 am


Forum rules


Welcome to the Intellectual Discussion subforum.

This forum is the place for intellectual discussions, such as philosophical or scientific debates. There are some guidelines that apply specifically to posts in this forum, of which you will be expected to have made yourself aware before participating. They are as follows:

  • Intellectually stimulating topics only. If you can't have a deep discussion about something, it does not belong here.
  • If you're going to post, have something to say. When you make a new thread, write the initial post in a way that provides an introduction to the topic and invites further discussion. You could tell us how you feel and why, but always aim for constructive responses that further a discussion about the ideas involved, rather than a simple list of people's views. (Instead of asking "Are you a vegetarian?", discuss some of the arguments involved.) This guideline likewise applies for responses to topics.
  • Write using good English. That means full sentences with proper capitalisation, punctuation, spelling and grammar. No one is perfect, though; this is not an invitation to criticise others for minor mistakes.
  • Be nice. This is a forum for rational discourse, not flame wars. No one is always right. Be respectful of other people's views and accept that we are all entitled to our own.

These guidelines will be enforced by the moderators based on their best judgement, and anyone who does not take them seriously will lose the privilege of posting here. Spammers will be banned from the entire forum.



 Page 3 of 5 [ 85 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
Unread postPosted: 16th November, 2011, 3:25 am 
Banned
Offline
Joined: 24th August, 2011, 10:21 am
Posts: 474
Location: Hell
Hayling wrote:
homophile wrote:
Hayling wrote:
I think relationships should remain between intelligent forms of life.. So yes, I agree with peta 100%.

So I'm guessing you wouldn't mind if a human was to get involved with an alien.


If some alien came around, and was conscious and could consent then no I don't really care. I wouldn't personally do it (maybe), but it isn't my place to judge what someone else wants.

Exactly.

  
 
Unread postPosted: 16th November, 2011, 3:29 am 
Member
Offline
Joined: 31st July, 2010, 12:26 am
Posts: 953
Location: Chattanooga, TN
homophile wrote:
Hayling wrote:
homophile wrote:
Hayling wrote:
I think relationships should remain between intelligent forms of life.. So yes, I agree with peta 100%.

So I'm guessing you wouldn't mind if a human was to get involved with an alien.


If some alien came around, and was conscious and could consent then no I don't really care. I wouldn't personally do it (maybe), but it isn't my place to judge what someone else wants.

Exactly.


It IS however my place to protect those who cant protect themselves. I.E.; animals. Animals CANT consent. I say "it isn't my place to judge what someone else wants" but that only applies to the human in the relationship, the animal isn't intelligent enough to agree or disagree.

  
 
Unread postPosted: 16th November, 2011, 3:36 am 
Member
Offline
Joined: 5th April, 2011, 4:25 pm
Posts: 277
Location: NYC
Why can't an animal be intelligent? Just because we can't communicate with them doesn't make them not intelligent. A monkey can learn sign language. That to me shows intelligence. A whale can cross the ocean and always make it back to their breeding place. A dolphin is considered to be the human of the ocean. They communicate with each other, plan things out and execute. Pilgrims to america thought Native Americans were savages. Wild people that were not intelligent. History has clearly proved them wrong. A lack of communication should not get in the way when determining intelligence.


EDIT: I did not see this word before I responded.
Hayling wrote:
It IS however my place to protect those who cant protect themselves. I.E.; animals. Animals CANT consent. I say "it isn't my place to judge what someone else wants"but that only applies to the human in the relationship, the animal isn't intelligent enough to agree or disagree.

  
 
Unread postPosted: 16th November, 2011, 3:53 am 
Banned
Offline
Joined: 24th August, 2011, 10:21 am
Posts: 474
Location: Hell
Hayling wrote:
homophile wrote:
Hayling wrote:
homophile wrote:
Hayling wrote:
I think relationships should remain between intelligent forms of life.. So yes, I agree with peta 100%.

So I'm guessing you wouldn't mind if a human was to get involved with an alien.


If some alien came around, and was conscious and could consent then no I don't really care. I wouldn't personally do it (maybe), but it isn't my place to judge what someone else wants.

Exactly.


It IS however my place to protect those who cant protect themselves. I.E.; animals. Animals CANT consent. I say "it isn't my place to judge what someone else wants" but that only applies to the human in the relationship, the animal isn't intelligent enough to agree or disagree.

Is that so? Given that animals can't give consent to anything, all farm animals & pets ought to be released back into the wild. Farm animals are used as slave labour & your pet parrot never consented to be your property. I also don't think any animal wants to be eaten but we take advantage of the fact that they can't beg for their lives & we kill them anyways.

  
 
Unread postPosted: 16th November, 2011, 4:23 am 
Legal Beagle
Offline
Joined: 13th May, 2010, 9:04 am
Posts: 1705
Location: Christchurch, NZ
Country: Canada (ca)
Egregious wrote:
Aerius wrote:
That's fair logic - I disagree, but so long as that's the premise then you can avoid any question of rights whatsoever; whatever we dole out is just a privilege.

Why do you disagree?

Well, I disagree because I would premise rights on a utilitarian basis, with the utility of any creature being magnified by their level of self-awareness; that is, the more self-aware, the more utility one is able to experience. Therefore, animals will have less value than humans, but they will still have value.

  
 
Unread postPosted: 16th November, 2011, 4:46 am 
Member
Offline
Joined: 31st July, 2010, 12:26 am
Posts: 953
Location: Chattanooga, TN
homophile wrote:
Hayling wrote:
homophile wrote:
Hayling wrote:
homophile wrote:
Hayling wrote:
I think relationships should remain between intelligent forms of life.. So yes, I agree with peta 100%.

So I'm guessing you wouldn't mind if a human was to get involved with an alien.


If some alien came around, and was conscious and could consent then no I don't really care. I wouldn't personally do it (maybe), but it isn't my place to judge what someone else wants.

Exactly.


It IS however my place to protect those who cant protect themselves. I.E.; animals. Animals CANT consent. I say "it isn't my place to judge what someone else wants" but that only applies to the human in the relationship, the animal isn't intelligent enough to agree or disagree.

Is that so? Given that animals can't give consent to anything, all farm animals & pets ought to be released back into the wild. Farm animals are used as slave labour & your pet parrot never consented to be your property. I also don't think any animal wants to be eaten but we take advantage of the fact that they can't beg for their lives & we kill them anyways.


Killing something and forcing it to have sex with you are very different things. And all of my pets (my birds included) chose to stay here. They are allowed to come and go as they please, and they do. Sometimes they stay gone for weeks at a time. I don't think any pet would stay if it didn't want to be there.

  
 
Unread postPosted: 16th November, 2011, 4:49 am 
Legal Beagle
Offline
Joined: 13th May, 2010, 9:04 am
Posts: 1705
Location: Christchurch, NZ
Country: Canada (ca)
Hayling wrote:
homophile wrote:
Hayling wrote:
homophile wrote:
Hayling wrote:
homophile wrote:
Hayling wrote:
I think relationships should remain between intelligent forms of life.. So yes, I agree with peta 100%.

So I'm guessing you wouldn't mind if a human was to get involved with an alien.


If some alien came around, and was conscious and could consent then no I don't really care. I wouldn't personally do it (maybe), but it isn't my place to judge what someone else wants.

Exactly.


It IS however my place to protect those who cant protect themselves. I.E.; animals. Animals CANT consent. I say "it isn't my place to judge what someone else wants" but that only applies to the human in the relationship, the animal isn't intelligent enough to agree or disagree.

Is that so? Given that animals can't give consent to anything, all farm animals & pets ought to be released back into the wild. Farm animals are used as slave labour & your pet parrot never consented to be your property. I also don't think any animal wants to be eaten but we take advantage of the fact that they can't beg for their lives & we kill them anyways.


Killing something and forcing it to have sex with you are very different things. And all of my pets (my birds included) chose to stay here. They are allowed to come and go as they please, and they do. Sometimes they stay gone for weeks at a time. I don't think any pet would stay if it didn't want to be there.

Sorry Jake, explain how rape is worse than murder? I don't disagree that keeping pets is substantially less egregious, but at the very least you should object to zoos.

  
 
Unread postPosted: 16th November, 2011, 4:57 am 
The Librarian
Offline
Joined: 29th June, 2010, 2:08 pm
Posts: 832
Country: United Kingdom (gb)
Hayling wrote:
homophile wrote:
Hayling wrote:
homophile wrote:
Hayling wrote:
homophile wrote:
Hayling wrote:
I think relationships should remain between intelligent forms of life.. So yes, I agree with peta 100%.

So I'm guessing you wouldn't mind if a human was to get involved with an alien.


If some alien came around, and was conscious and could consent then no I don't really care. I wouldn't personally do it (maybe), but it isn't my place to judge what someone else wants.

Exactly.


It IS however my place to protect those who cant protect themselves. I.E.; animals. Animals CANT consent. I say "it isn't my place to judge what someone else wants" but that only applies to the human in the relationship, the animal isn't intelligent enough to agree or disagree.

Is that so? Given that animals can't give consent to anything, all farm animals & pets ought to be released back into the wild. Farm animals are used as slave labour & your pet parrot never consented to be your property. I also don't think any animal wants to be eaten but we take advantage of the fact that they can't beg for their lives & we kill them anyways.


Killing something and forcing it to have sex with you are very different things. And all of my pets (my birds included) chose to stay here. They are allowed to come and go as they please, and they do. Sometimes they stay gone for weeks at a time. I don't think any pet would stay if it didn't want to be there.


I just thought I'd point out that the allusions you make to choice are fallacious. There is no choice. The pets you keep are domesticated animals. Over the course of hundreds of years such animals have been bred and trained to rely on humans to provide them with their basic requirements. Your pets "chose" to stay with you not because they actually have a choice, but because they have been trained - carefully - through positive reinforcement to stay with you because you provide them the means to survival, means they cannot replicate themselves.

Unless you are going to claim that you do not feed your pets, or provide them with "creature comforts", which I'm pretty sure is not the case.

---

Anyway... sex with animals. One reason the taboo of having sex with animals exists is, quite clearly, because we as a species feel that there is a great divide between us and other animals. That is an attitude that has prevailed over a long period of time, but there is a chance that that attitude may change in the future. Bestiality is not as uncommon as some of us wish to think it is as well; it's estimated that 1 in 10 men have had sexual interactions with animals at one point or another.

Some people compare the act of bestiality - and the abhorrence it inspires in most people - to the same motivations that generated similar sentiments towards interracial and gay marriage. The truth is that any moral and ethical judgement that is reached about bestiality is merely based on emotional drive, which is also true of gay and interracial marriage. This thread hasn't altered my perspective; most of you start out with an emotionally fuelled "bestiality is wrong" and attempt to justify your position from there. Clearly this is not enough to condemn the act.

Also objectification is a point of interest as well. If I, as a person who does not find animals sexual attractive, were to have a session with my terrier I would be casting the animal as a sex toy and nothing more. That may appear fine in some books, however if I were to do that with people I would be termed mentally unhealthy and, if it became a recurrent habit, I would be mediated and treated for it... perhaps even incarcerated for my troubles. Animals are not objects and treating them as objects would be pernicious.

Then of course there is the welfare of the animal. Is the act of sex harmful to the animal, or is it the process involved in procuring said sex that is the judgement factor? We can see in the practice of the law that in most developed countries bestiality is only punishable when an animal is clearly harmed in the process. There are countless examples of cases that have been dismissed or diminished based purely on the fact that the animal has not been harmed. Certainly we cannot argue that the act itself is harmful... because it isn't. Whilst not explicitly stated there is a clear distinction between having sex with an animal and raping an animal. The same principle is practised - maybe shockingly to some - with children.

In reality it is a subjective judgement. Lots of people are repulsed by bestiality and so they should not be having sex with animals, or subjecting themselves to others having sex with animals. I, as a person who does not find animals sexually attractive and regards the act as distasteful, should not be having sex with animals. If others, as people who do find animals sexually attractive, do not objectify the animal as a sex toy and do not find the act distasteful, wish to have sex with animals as a mutual exchange then that is something they can chose to do.

Reasonably, however, there is no specific judgement I can come to that specifies why the act of having sex with animals is wrong.


Last edited by indelibleStain on 16th November, 2011, 5:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
  
 
Unread postPosted: 16th November, 2011, 5:38 am 
billable hours
Offline
Joined: 15th March, 2010, 3:00 am
Posts: 10257
Location: New Mexico
Country: United States (us)
Aerius wrote:
Egregious wrote:
Aerius wrote:
That's fair logic - I disagree, but so long as that's the premise then you can avoid any question of rights whatsoever; whatever we dole out is just a privilege.

Why do you disagree?

Well, I disagree because I would premise rights on a utilitarian basis, with the utility of any creature being magnified by their level of self-awareness; that is, the more self-aware, the more utility one is able to experience. Therefore, animals will have less value than humans, but they will still have value.

I hoped you had seen a flaw in my reasoning. You know, I don't think you'll ever find success in the area of animal rights by foisting up grandiose moral claims like that. Not to brag, but my argument is much more pragmatic.

  
 
Unread postPosted: 16th November, 2011, 5:41 am 
Member
Offline
Joined: 31st July, 2010, 12:26 am
Posts: 953
Location: Chattanooga, TN
indelibleStain wrote:
Hayling wrote:
homophile wrote:
Hayling wrote:
homophile wrote:
Hayling wrote:
homophile wrote:
Hayling wrote:
I think relationships should remain between intelligent forms of life.. So yes, I agree with peta 100%.

So I'm guessing you wouldn't mind if a human was to get involved with an alien.


If some alien came around, and was conscious and could consent then no I don't really care. I wouldn't personally do it (maybe), but it isn't my place to judge what someone else wants.

Exactly.


It IS however my place to protect those who cant protect themselves. I.E.; animals. Animals CANT consent. I say "it isn't my place to judge what someone else wants" but that only applies to the human in the relationship, the animal isn't intelligent enough to agree or disagree.

Is that so? Given that animals can't give consent to anything, all farm animals & pets ought to be released back into the wild. Farm animals are used as slave labour & your pet parrot never consented to be your property. I also don't think any animal wants to be eaten but we take advantage of the fact that they can't beg for their lives & we kill them anyways.


Killing something and forcing it to have sex with you are very different things. And all of my pets (my birds included) chose to stay here. They are allowed to come and go as they please, and they do. Sometimes they stay gone for weeks at a time. I don't think any pet would stay if it didn't want to be there.


I just thought I'd point out that the allusions you make to choice are fallacious. There is no choice. The pets you keep are domesticated animals. Over the course of hundreds of years such animals have been bred and trained to rely on humans to provide them with their basic requirements. Your pets "chose" to stay with you not because they actually have a choice, but because they have been trained - carefully - through positive reinforcement to stay with you because you provide them the means to survival, means they cannot replicated themselves.

Unless you are going to claim that you do not feed your pets, or provide them with "creature comforts", which I'm pretty sure is not the case.


Yes, you are right, its not the case. But regardless of how this relationship was created, what it is based off of, or what it actually means, it is still for the benefit of the animal one way or the other. Delusions of a romantic relationship with an animal, however, aren't healthy for the animal at all.

  
 
Unread postPosted: 16th November, 2011, 5:45 am 
Legal Beagle
Offline
Joined: 13th May, 2010, 9:04 am
Posts: 1705
Location: Christchurch, NZ
Country: Canada (ca)
Egregious wrote:
Aerius wrote:
Egregious wrote:
Aerius wrote:
That's fair logic - I disagree, but so long as that's the premise then you can avoid any question of rights whatsoever; whatever we dole out is just a privilege.

Why do you disagree?

Well, I disagree because I would premise rights on a utilitarian basis, with the utility of any creature being magnified by their level of self-awareness; that is, the more self-aware, the more utility one is able to experience. Therefore, animals will have less value than humans, but they will still have value.

I hoped you had seen a flaw in my reasoning. You know, I don't think you'll ever find success in the area of animal rights by foisting up grandiose moral claims like that. Not to brag, but my argument is much more pragmatic.

I'd hardly agree - if you're utilitarian, it's very hard to justify giving animals no rights whatsoever, because it is universally accepted that they can feel emotion; therefore, my argument is the only pragmatic one open to me. Pragmatism is absolutely fine, and I see how it influences our laws on the subject; in fact, I'm not too unhappy with our laws around it because I think that pragmatism works fairly well here given circumstances. I mean only that from a moral standpoint, that will always be the approach I take; whether we choose to create a legal entitlement as to rights seems to be a different question.

  
 
Unread postPosted: 16th November, 2011, 5:47 am 
The Librarian
Offline
Joined: 29th June, 2010, 2:08 pm
Posts: 832
Country: United Kingdom (gb)
Aerius wrote:
Egregious wrote:
Aerius wrote:
Egregious wrote:
Aerius wrote:
That's fair logic - I disagree, but so long as that's the premise then you can avoid any question of rights whatsoever; whatever we dole out is just a privilege.

Why do you disagree?

Well, I disagree because I would premise rights on a utilitarian basis, with the utility of any creature being magnified by their level of self-awareness; that is, the more self-aware, the more utility one is able to experience. Therefore, animals will have less value than humans, but they will still have value.

I hoped you had seen a flaw in my reasoning. You know, I don't think you'll ever find success in the area of animal rights by foisting up grandiose moral claims like that. Not to brag, but my argument is much more pragmatic.

I'd hardly agree - if you're utilitarian, it's very hard to justify giving animals no rights whatsoever, because it is universally accepted that they can feel emotion; therefore, my argument is the only pragmatic one open to me. Pragmatism is absolutely fine, and I see how it influences our laws on the subject; in fact, I'm not too unhappy with our laws around it because I think that pragmatism works fairly well here given circumstances. I mean only that from a moral standpoint, that will always be the approach I take; whether we choose to create a legal entitlement as to rights seems to be a different question.


No. It really isn't. That a horrific claim to make. There is no scientific consensus on whether or not animals can feel emotions. There are specific species of animal that we believe can feel emotions, and can express rudimentary emotions, but beyond that it is most certainly not "universally accepted that they can feel emotions".

  
 
Unread postPosted: 16th November, 2011, 6:00 am 
Legal Beagle
Offline
Joined: 13th May, 2010, 9:04 am
Posts: 1705
Location: Christchurch, NZ
Country: Canada (ca)
Well, we clearly disagree on the body of evidence and I don't have time to find it at present - suffice to say that I would find it very amusing if no other animal on this earth had managed to develop emotions, and yet they all acted like they had.

  
 
Unread postPosted: 16th November, 2011, 6:12 am 
billable hours
Offline
Joined: 15th March, 2010, 3:00 am
Posts: 10257
Location: New Mexico
Country: United States (us)
Aerius wrote:
Egregious wrote:
Aerius wrote:
Egregious wrote:
Aerius wrote:
That's fair logic - I disagree, but so long as that's the premise then you can avoid any question of rights whatsoever; whatever we dole out is just a privilege.

Why do you disagree?

Well, I disagree because I would premise rights on a utilitarian basis, with the utility of any creature being magnified by their level of self-awareness; that is, the more self-aware, the more utility one is able to experience. Therefore, animals will have less value than humans, but they will still have value.

I hoped you had seen a flaw in my reasoning. You know, I don't think you'll ever find success in the area of animal rights by foisting up grandiose moral claims like that. Not to brag, but my argument is much more pragmatic.

I'd hardly agree - if you're utilitarian, it's very hard to justify giving animals no rights whatsoever, because it is universally accepted that they can feel emotion; therefore, my argument is the only pragmatic one open to me. Pragmatism is absolutely fine, and I see how it influences our laws on the subject; in fact, I'm not too unhappy with our laws around it because I think that pragmatism works fairly well here given circumstances. I mean only that from a moral standpoint, that will always be the approach I take; whether we choose to create a legal entitlement as to rights seems to be a different question.

What I don't understand is why an animal's emotions matter.

  
 
Unread postPosted: 16th November, 2011, 6:25 am 
The Librarian
Offline
Joined: 29th June, 2010, 2:08 pm
Posts: 832
Country: United Kingdom (gb)
Aerius wrote:
Well, we clearly disagree on the body of evidence and I don't have time to find it at present - suffice to say that I would find it very amusing if no other animal on this earth had managed to develop emotions, and yet they all acted like they had.


indelibleStain wrote:
There are specific species of animal that we believe can feel emotions, and can express rudimentary emotions, but beyond that it is most certainly not "universally accepted that they can feel emotions".


I don't mind you making wild and baseless assertions. I do mind you misrepresenting what I say.

Also flippantly dismissing me like that is not going to change the fact that there is a central and content rich website on the Internet that serves as a very good resource for such information.

To paraphrase the topic: there is agreement that most (just so you can't misrepresent my comments again) animals can respond to pain and something akin to fear as they are required for survival. Regardless of this the assertion that ALL (or even most) animals are aware of pain or fear - or any other emotion - has NEVER been demonstrated outside of baseless philosophising that is not inclusive of any scientific method.

Dogs are an interesting species, but again there is no consistent proof of emotion. Corvids are also interesting, as are dolphins. Mammals in general seem to - at the very least - have the capacity for emotion.

But again, I will reiterate: there is NO consensus in the scientific community regarding emotions in animals. I NEVER said they couldn't, or don't, feel emotion (you merely twisted that out of what I said). I was merely pointing out how utterly fallacious your claim was. And it is, regardless of your protest ;)

  
 
Unread postPosted: 16th November, 2011, 6:37 am 
Member
Offline
Joined: 30th September, 2011, 10:53 am
Posts: 88
Just thought I'd rub this in:

Leviticus: 20:15 - And if man should lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.

Leviticus: 18:23 - Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith.

Case closed xD

  
 
Unread postPosted: 16th November, 2011, 10:10 am 
Member
Offline
Joined: 13th December, 2010, 5:43 am
Posts: 236
Location: Brisbane, Australia
I'm a beast. ;)

  
 
Unread postPosted: 16th November, 2011, 10:50 am 
Smitten Kitten
Offline
Joined: 3rd November, 2010, 2:32 pm
Posts: 1422
Location: Great Britain
Country: United Kingdom (gb)
Image

As others have already said, animals cannot consent to sex with a human, therefore it is rape.
No, I do not think 'zoosexuals' should be included with the LGBTQ grouping. No, I do not think 'zoosexuals' should have 'equal rights' in that respect.

There is a massive difference between being gay and having an interspecies sexual relationship. I don't know why on earth anyone would think they should be grouped together.

  
 
Unread postPosted: 16th November, 2011, 11:11 am 
Indecently Princesque
Offline
Joined: 24th April, 2010, 2:45 pm
Posts: 5521
Location: Balamb Gardens
Country: Australia (au)
Humans have double standards on a lot of things, so why is so surprising that we would be against such acts. People always conform to the hegemony of society, even if they don't particularly agree. It will only be through great gestures of disdain, and various proactive movements with the support of the masses which can turn over these idea, so that the values of society might change.

Benji wrote:
Eric Carr wrote:
Anyway animals can't talk, plus they're dumb compared to humans [who aren't high or drunk ;)]

I know some fairly unintellectual humans that swear off drugs and alcohol, I also know a lawyer and a doctor that snort cocaine among other drugs. Said people maintain some thoroughly insightful and entertaining conversations while high. Your statement is invalid, please take your leave.

Oh Benji! :heart:

Sam_The Smurf wrote:
I hope we arent being compared to sheep shaggers here? :facepalm2:
What do you have against Quincy?

  
 
Unread postPosted: 16th November, 2011, 6:32 pm 
The Librarian
Offline
Joined: 29th June, 2010, 2:08 pm
Posts: 832
Country: United Kingdom (gb)
bootle wrote:
As others have already said, animals cannot consent to sex with a human, therefore it is rape.
No, I do not think 'zoosexuals' should be included with the LGBTQ grouping. No, I do not think 'zoosexuals' should have 'equal rights' in that respect.

There is a massive difference between being gay and having an interspecies sexual relationship. I don't know why on earth anyone would think they should be grouped together.


Ignoring your pretentious gif (seriously... posts like the above should be deleted on site, Tom) let me tackle the precedent you set.

Realistically comparing sexual relations between humans, and sexual relations between humans and animals is a difficult and ambiguous affair. I didn't do it to any great degree, merely to demonstrate that the reasons for our abhorrence towards bestiality is purely emotional and that any justification is invariably an after thought (which is true of the stigma towards gay and interracial relations as well).

Firstly the act of rape is ambiguous in humanity. In the UK there are many high profile cases of men who have sexual intercourse with a significant other without explicit permission, such as in the morning (sleep sex) or after parties (drunk sex). In the late 90s these cases often resulted in men ending up on the Sex Offender Register, however in the early 2000s High Court rulings started to favour the man over the woman. The law in most western countries now maintains that explicit consent is not required for sexual intercourse to be consensual in nature. For example, a woman who participates in the intercourse but claims no consent was given may be challenged on the grounds of the participation and, in a lot of cases today, that challenge could easily be accepted by the court.

With that in mind the same is true of laws surrounding bestiality. In many states in the US, the UK and a number of European countries bestiality only carries jail terms and "high level" punishment when the animal is shown to have been harmed. If the animal is not harmed by the act then why should the person be jailed or receive "high level" punishment? I think that's a very important point to consider, and one that no one seems to be willing to deal with. Yes, in cases where animals are harmed through sexual intercourse the perpetrator should certainly be punished. However you cannot successfully argue that the mere act of sexual intercourse with an animal is harmful as any justification for that perspective relies on aspersions that cannot be proven. Using a regress argument would easily dismiss any point you make.

The ONLY thing you can say with any qualification is that you dislike bestiality because animals aren't humans... and that's as far as you can go. In reality it has nothing to do with "protecting" animals. I would at this point go so far as to say that the protests against bestiality - the act of sexual relations with an animal - are fundamentally the same as the protests against gay relations... because they actually are. And we all know what decisions society came to about gay relations ;)

  
 
 Page 3 of 5 [ 85 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Time zone: America/New_York [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  


Terms of use | Privacy policy

phpBB skin developed by: phpBB Headquarters
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group